View Single Post
Old July 11th, 2018, 08:22 PM   #3919
scoundrel
Super Moderator
 
scoundrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,238
Thanks: 162,399
Thanked 278,496 Times in 26,183 Posts
scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+scoundrel 1000000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinceprince View Post
The civil war was not a choice between 'the People's authority' or 'God's' it was about a 'Catholic God's' or 'Puritans God's'.

The King's executioners were later tried and executed for treason and Cromwell was dug up and head stuck on a spike outside Westminster as a warning to others.

In 1660, Charles II was restored to the throne and continued, as his father had done, trying to rule without Parliament. (as did Cromwell)
Sir Thomas Fairfax knew Cromwell rather well and didn't like him very much, but fell out with Charles II and his more extreme supporters over the exhumation of Cromwell, for fairly obvious reasons. As I remember it, some of those who signed the death warrant went into exile. including 3 who went to America. Quite a few others were imprisoned - not all were executed. But without a doubt King Charles II had a serious sense of humour failure, not usual in his generally laid back ruling style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinceprince View Post
The thing that kept stopped Kings power was the fear of being politically or militarily replaced like James ll The Dutch Invasion of 1688 permanently established a 'constitutional monarchy', which is a 'king-controlled-by-parliament'. It was the turning point in England's government not the civil war. The king remained influential, but Parliament made the laws.
The experience of exile made King Charles II more pragmatic and cautious than his father. He used to openly comment that he did not want to go on his travels again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinceprince View Post
Legally the referendum is non-binding because that's what the legislation said it was unlike the AV referendum. The Supreme Court fully upheld this.
If you think politicians lied by failing to mention this, then well, join the long queue.
On the one hand there is the letter of the law. On the other hand there is political reality. If you hold a referendum on membership of the EU and the Leave side wins, you ignore and slight the Leave vote at your peril. You will not do that and nothing happens. It is at the best a spring for widespread civil disobedience - and that is the best case scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinceprince View Post
As any lawyer/policeman/taxman will tell you 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. It's all just political argument.
It was not, in the notorious phrase of Kenneth Clarke MP, a glorified opinion poll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinceprince View Post
Democracy and the 'will of the people' didn't end immediately after one advisory referendum it continues and changes.
In other words, the referendum didn't mean shit and we can ignore it and do as we please. If you think that will fly, you might be in for a very nasty surprise. People are not going to react well to being treated with contempt by their "betters"; no indeed.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
scoundrel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: