rigorousintuition.ca

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

New laws required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills

DrEvil » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:39 pm wrote:[b]

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills

Wait. What? The queen authorizes military strikes? Really?

Damn. That's a non-trivial find!

Is this news going to create street protests in the UK?

Wait. What? The queen authorizes military strikes? Really?

Long time Bilderberg reporter Daniel Estulin ( he was on the case slightly after Jim Tucker) has often spoken of the inner circle, who the likes of the Bilderbergers, along with all govnt ministers, corporate heads et cetera are answerable to?

Could this be evidence of such existence?

If it were, talk about hidden in plain sight.

My, My, 3 posts, 181 views. Busy huh?

slimmouse » Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:45 pm wrote:

Wait. What? The queen authorizes military strikes? Really?

Long time Bilderberg reporter Daniel Estulin ( he was on the case slightly after Jim Tucker) has often spoken of the inner circle, who the likes of the Bilderbergers, along with all govnt ministers, corporate heads et cetera are answerable to?

Could this be evidence of such existence?

I really don't understand English politics at all. Although I get a kick out of watching the House of Commons:



I always figured the royals being billionaires had the same sort of influence billionaires have here (although anymore the billionaires' lawyers and proxies actually write the legislation), but that their actual governmental power was limited to vestigial and mostly ceremonial roles. Maybe I was just believing the cover fairy tale.