Ceri

That "mate" is called slander. If I could be arsed I could sue you for even writing that. Sitting behind a computer does not give a person the right to say things about another person, which they can't legally say in the "real" world. Is that plain enough English for your ex- PAT brain to comprehend.

For the record your statement is absolutely outrageous. I am very against drugs (illegal). I never have felt the need to go down that path like so many sad souls, and also think Singapore has the right idea regarding drugs. Perhaps it's got something to do with seeing an old school friend throw himself under a train while he was addicted to drugs, he was only 15 yrs of age.. what a waste. Your statement is insulting,and very inaccurate and slanderous. legally I could sue you for that, but it's not even worth my spittle never mind my time
Who's Megs? Look above your post..surprise, surprise, the person who so-happens to post around the same time as you.. life is full of little mysterious like that isn't it.

Ceri

dugongs 50 odd percent only voted"yes" for the assembly - Have you considered the amount of English people in Wales who also vote?. Wales has a high amount of English people due to to it's geography unlike Scotland or N.Ireland.
Now can you see an English person in Wales voting yes for the Welsh assembly. That Is the reason why I personally think that the Yes vote was so low compared to other countries such as Scotland and N.Ireland .Look anyone living in Wales can vote on Welsh affairs, which is unfair and the voting in Wales will always reflect this. Wales has a very high amount of English people living there. I personally can't see any Englishman voting "yes". I personally think that there should be a residency time limit before they can vote at the very least ... and yes it works both ways, Welsh in England not voting, but they are just a drop in the ocean compared to the number of English living in Wales. Wales has around one quarter of the population of the country who were not born in Wales. Some areas it's almost as high as 50% of English living in these towns.. this obviously reflects in the vote.

The English monarchy has no bearing on Wales at all. Have you looked at your history. England basically wiped , murdered out our princes and their young children. . when England invaded Wales they made damn sure to kill them all off.. stop the blood line, so in the future not one of them could challenge England again.

.I'm a strong republican.. Having an English monarchy, and being governed from England that no welsh person had much choice over in the first place is wrong. It has no place in our so-called democratic world today. England basically tried to destroy Wales and it's people. .. they tried to wipe out all "welshness".

All I ask is a vote ( Democratic) on the matter regarding that monarchy. To get a fair result in Wales you would have to only allow Welsh people to vote on Welsh affairs, or a residency time limit.

If the people vote yes to keep the monarchy.. so be it, and if they vote no so be it too... but this is democracy, that is all most republicans ask for - a democratic vote



Cheers

wmoore

Going off topic ... I think it's amazing that Scotland, Wales and NI all have their own say in their own country (hear me out) and they also have a say in England. However, England doesn't have it's own 'assembly'. We're run by a combination of all the nations, each of which has influential people in politics ruling on our lives. Yet each of these nations can veto laws created by the British government in their own back yards. That's democracy Why not have an English assembly too?

Ceri

I have no problem with an English assembly, and I do hear that a lot of English people would like one too. You are entitled to govern your own affairs, whether it be English governing English matters, or Welsh governing theirs

And as for the Welsh assembly we do not have control over the major issues - that comes from London. But the assembly is a start, you've got to start somewhere no matter how small.

cheers

DagBoy

Slanderous to imply that you are addicted to builders' bums??
:scared:
Probably not worth pursuing.

dugongs

The correct title is as I posted not Queen of England or Wales or Scotland but Britain. The Scots cannot have it all ways particularly as it was them that needed to join the union of england and wales because their imperialist plans to steal south america and it's gold from the spanish ended in scottish bankruptcy.

Britain is still today a union and whilst England is the elephant in the room and Scotland, Wales and N Ireland merely fleas on the backside we unfortunately do not control Britain. The parliment at Westminster controls Britain and there all theses other small countries have considerable representation way in excess of their populations or economic contribution.

Maybe you should check an atlas and look at the angle of the border between England and Scotland. Then extend a line from this border into the North Sea and you will find that most of the oil and gas is in fact on the English side. Most Scots wrongly assume "the line" should be horizontal from where it leaves the land. England also pays billions of pounds in subsidies to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to help them.

I am not an English nationalist and certainly do not hate the scots. In fact I despise all forms of nationalism. But the union is extremely historic and nationalism is rising not only in Scotland and Wales but also now England. The union was a political fudge and entered into for the wrong reasons. The people of Scotland and England and Wales had no say in the matter other than through parliament which was far from democratic at the time. Surely it would'nt do any harm to check with the people that everything is working OK particularly now that the EU is available to provide the subsidies and big brother that Wales and Scotland need to survive.

dugongs

As I understand it roughly 500k or 20% or people voting in the referendum were born outside Wales. But only 1 million people of a population of 2.5 million bothered to vote. It is also just as likely that those born outside wales would support a national parliament. The borders have always been pro England for historical reasons in so much as the boundary has little effect on how people live their lives so inter breeding (if you like) and day to day interaction leads to acceptance.

The poor hard done by Welsh so innocent when Edward the I also known as hammer of the scots wiped you lot out. But the Welsh had been subserviant to the English crown for centuries before that mainly for reasons of defence so you can hardly blame him for stamping down on any uprising. The scots came off far worse. Sure the Welsh by modern standards had a hard time at the hands of the English in the period 1200 to 1500 or so. But it hardly happened yesterday did it. The point is Westminster appointed the current line of monarchs for Britain which is just as much a Welsh parliament as an English - in fact based on representation its more Welsh than English.

Ceri

lol nice theory.. but incorrect. I'm not getting into a debate about this. As it will go on for-ever.. and I'm sure to upset most people on here if I start, as most people on this forum are English, and far outnumber the minority nationalities.

They will take my words the wrong way as usual.

Believe what you wish.. it really doesn't bother me. (you are picking out snippets of history and not the wider, surrounding picture. If you do that the truth is no longer truth.. it becomes an incorrect account)

ahh go on then.. you may want to try as late as 1900 for suppression too, like yesterday . .. like me to post up a doc? would you like me to post up today's documents.
( I'm itching.. but I won't take it any further.. as I do not honestly care what you personally believe.. you are a just a drop in the ocean)

The point of the matter Don't you think Welsh people should decide for themselves.. hang no, we will be told by 50 million English people.

927 under the pressure of the Viking attacks, Welsh Kings submit to English kings, 1039 gruffyd ap Llewelyn takes too the thrown of his rightful place as Prince of Wales ,,, ... harold drives an army into Wales Llewellyn was betrayed by a couple of his own men.. who sided with the English.. back stabbing b*stards in 1039 .


1267 - Llewellyn the last takes to the rulership, 1282 the English killed him.... 1400 Glyndwr revolts against the English suppressers... the french tried to help , the pope who was very much on his side too.. they came in droves ( not the pope though ..lol).. with the whole welsh nation behind him... around 1410 the rebellion is suppresses by Henry IV... Glyndwr disappears into thin air.... where art thou my glyndwr ( dates are estimated by myself , I'm not home and can't reach for the history ref book for the accurate dates)

Nice theory though
cheers

Ceri

Now that is sick! If I was addicted to Builders bums I may consider trying drugs to help me get over that very sick, sad addiction... have you seen any good looking builders bums???? lol... yuck! they all seem to be so fat and spread to such a position.. that gets me wondering about the theory of gravitation.. I can't work it out ... too many wobbly bits that seem to hang in mid air ... not that I go around looking you understand, as that would be sexual harassment

Ceri

Titles
Main article: List of Titles and Honours of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Following a decision by Commonwealth Prime Ministers at the Commonwealth conference of 1953, Her Majesty uses different styles and titles in each of her realms. In each state she acts as the monarch of that state regardless of her other roles.

In the United Kingdom, her official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

In Canada, her official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

In Australia, her official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth," omitting the line "Defender of the Faith."

All other Commonwealth realms follow the Australian form, and give her the title Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of ____________ and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

The only exception is Papua New Guinea, which gives her her shortest title, simply Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, omitting both the "Defender of the Faith" as well as "By the Grace of God."

In common practice Queen Elizabeth II is referred to simply as "The Queen".

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Eli...United_Kingdom

.................................................. ............................
But to me she will always be known by her real title... that foreign inbred, waste of space, scrounging old ****.

MeganEkno

Your posts are still, I see, not informative but personal.

CPW

The requirement for a constitutional amendment to be supported in a referendum both by a majority of voters and by a majority of voters in a majority of states dates back to the original constitution, which came into effect at the time of Federation in 2001. It was seen as a way of preserving the status of the states (fully self-governing colonies as they were before Federation), which were worried about being subsumed by an overweening Federal Government.

Some people get very worked up about this provision, but it has in fact made a difference to the outcome in only a very small number of referendums. (I can't remember off-hand how many, but I could find out - maybe two or three.) For example, it certainly didn't make any difference to the outcome of the referendum on the republic, where all the states voted "no". (Victoria came closest to voting "yes", but even it voted "no" by a tiny margin.) But of course, a majority of the electorate overall voted "no", too.

It is hard to see, at this stage - although things can of course change - how this provision of the constitution could be removed, since the smaller states would probably be unlikely to vote in favour of such a change.

I have often observed that the people in the "central" states of Australia - NSW, Victoria and, to a lesser extent, South Australia - have less consciousness of being connected with their state than do the people of the "outer" states - Queensland, WA and Tasmania. I suspect that it would, in fact, be the people of these three "outer" states who would be least likely to support a constututional amendment to remove this provision.

MikeStanton

Personal? Mmmm. And which Mr/Mrs/Ms Aussies would that happen to be exactly ?

WBB

and cocky with it!