Parliament votes for the supremacy of Parliament.

[EFLImpudence]

Part 1. 1 (1) seems pretty fundamental.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/56/enacted/data.xht?view=snippet&wrap=true

 

[Notch7]

r do you not understand the definition of a 'monarchy' and it's relationship to the people whom it rules?

Do tell us how this 'relationship' affects people.

I mean other than those suffering paranoia (ie you)

Do you lie awake at night worrying that the queens security guards will come knocking

 

[Notch7]

rt 1. 1 (1) seems pretty fundamental

Yes it says we are citizens.

And this BBC article concurs:

So while we are legally "subjects" because there isn't a single piece of paper that says otherwise, the sweep of history essentially finds that we are citizens, albeit in constitutionally different ways to other nations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm

Ellal is getting all hot and bothered over semantics

 

[ellal]

You seem to be veering towards being a conpiracy theorist.

Any sensible person can follow the logic why its important for a state to register every birth.

I note you didn't answer those very simple questions...

Check out the small print regarding your passport/driving licence etc...

You are not entitled to such documents - you are simply 'allowed' them by the state under whatever rules the state deems appropriate at any given time...

If you wish to view the facts as being a 'conspiracy theory' then that is up to you

 

[ellal]

So while we are legally "subjects" because there isn't a single piece of paper that says otherwise, the sweep of history essentially finds that we are citizens, albeit in constitutionally different ways to other nations

Thank you for confirming that legally we are subjects, not citizens...

That's all I was claiming all along

And whilst that difference may not appear to be significant to those who believe they have 'constitutional' rights in this country, then should they find themselves in conflict with the state they may find that they are gravely mistaken in their assumptions!

 

[EFLImpudence]

Yes it says we are citizens.
And this BBC article concurs:
So while we are legally "subjects" because there isn't a single piece of paper that says otherwise, the sweep of history essentially finds that we are citizens, albeit in constitutionally different ways to other nations
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm

Ellal is getting all hot and bothered over semantics

Possibly, but the document seems to think it important to point out right at the beginning that all citizens are subjects and therefore subject is paramount.

A citizen is just someone who lives in the country. You cannot be a citizen without being a subject of the monarch.

There must be a reason for this.

 

[JohnD]

I have already given you the answer

No, you have not shown us the written definition of a British Subject.

I don't believe you can.

 

[Notch7]

Possibly, but the document seems to think it important to point out right at the beginning that all citizens are subjects and therefore subject is paramount.

A citizen is just someone who lives in the country. You cannot be a citizen without being a subject of the monarch.

There must be a reason for this.

Historical.

Saying a citizen is not just somebody who lives in the country trivialises thst status, a citizen is somebody who is afforded all the rights and protections of the country.

 

[Notch7]

Thank you for confirming that legally we are subjects, not citizens...

That's all I was claiming all along

And whilst that difference may not appear to be significant to those who believe they have 'constitutional' rights in this country, then should they find themselves in conflict with the state they may find that they are gravely mistaken in their assumptions!

In what way?

Do you mean perhaps the monarchy might lock people up in wire cages without trial.

Oh wait a minute, thats what happens in a country with a written constitution and is a republic.

 

[Notch7]

Check out the small print regarding your passport/driving licence etc...

You are not entitled to such documents - you are simply 'allowed' them by the state under whatever rules the state deems appropriate at any given time.

Semantics once more.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Saying a citizen is not just somebody who lives in the country trivialises thst status, a citizen is somebody who is afforded all the rights and protections of the country.

What is a subject, then?

 

[transam]

Really?

If parliament is able to be arbitrarily suspended, then what type of democracy do you think we actually live in?

"leading Tory Eurosceptic Jacob Rees-Mogg, a supporter of Mr Johnson, said that suspending parliament so that MPs cannot stop the next prime minister forcing through a no-deal Brexit "may have to happen".

Are quitters happy for the UK to set sail on it's 'magical mystery tour' with no active ruling body?

Not what smog said on radio 4 this morning

 

[transam]

weird tranny.

But you say you agree that in the UK, we have the supremacy of Parliament, and have done since we last chopped a king's head off.

Never said said any different we live in a parliamentary democracy

As for what happened in Cromwell's day
Transam gives not a jot

 

[ellal]

Semantics once more.

Not semantics, but legal fact...

As I said, check out the small print

Do you mean perhaps the monarchy might lock people up in wire cages without trial.

I guess you've never heard of internment or detention without trial in the UK?

 

[JohnD]

There is no written definition of a UK citizen, as it doesn't exist...

You are a subject of the monarch!

It's very noticeable that you cling to the "subject not citizen" refrain, yet you are unable to provide a written definition of a Subject.

While falsely trumpeting that there are no laws saying who is a "citizen."