« Slaughter for love | Main | Royal Flush »

July 21, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

robert

He has gone now thankfully, next to get rid of of is having one of this bunch as the Prince of Wales, waste of money and time, it just shows Wales are ruled and belong to England

Paul Flynn

Thank you Simon. Many of the points you make are reasonable. It's parliament I am blame for our failure to speak as citizens not subjects. Reforms will come. A new oath and freedom to criticise minor royals will happen. But it will take a few years because the royals popularity has peaked. It was at a low point at the death of Diana.
It's still impossible to discuss the merits of missing a generation in the succession because Charles is the republicans' friend and will drag down the reputation of a non-interfering monarchy that the Queen has earned by staying silent.

SimonWrights

Its important to remember that there is nothing within the British constitution (albeit an uncodified one) that prevents MPs from debating the Royal Family, Monarchy or offering criticism of both. Parliament sets its own rules and protocols, it is unfair to attach blame to the monarchy for the rules enforced or enacted. If parliament wishes to change its rules it can, just as it could change the oath that gets taken, change the line of succession, demand the royal family work a certain number of hours a week, cut its funding or even abolish the monarchy all together... parliament is sovereign and that must always be the case, that is how we are a democracy (those who want a republican written constitution would undermine parliamentary sovereignty, putting more power in the hands of the courts, which by the way are also unelected but have more power over government policies) .

Republicans problem is the overwhelming majority of British people and British MPs rightly support the monarchy so see no issue or need to change things.

I find it interesting that you wish to make a principled stand against monarchy by raising such matters in the Commons, yet you were elected on a Labour party ticket, labour being the only party of the big 3 who actually praised the monarchy in their manifesto in 2010.

Monarchy is a good thing for this country and we should never surrender it.

God save the Queen.

(Although i would like to praise you again for raising the issue of the route of fallen soldiers, its one of the few things ive ever fully agreed with you on).

Paul Flynn

Thanks Sion. You have got it right. It's a nonsense and must be changed.

carole clowes

well said, Sion Jones

Siôn Jones

It is ironic that you an say anything yo like about me, or almost anybody on earth, however libellous or untrue in the chamber of the HoC, and we have no redress in law, but you are barred form saying the truth about the royal yobbos.

The British state is no longer fit for purpose. We need a bill of rights, a written constitution, and a republic!

Paul Flynn

Thanks for the supportive comments. speaker Bercow has said today that the House of Commons has rediscovered 'its collective balls' by summoning witness to a Select Committee. We stop infantalising ourselves and allow free discussion on the frailities of the royal family.

carole clowes

keep up the good work,you should be able to criticise a member of the Royal Family if their behaviour is in question,as we the taxpayers who fund their lifestyle,should also know what is going on,never mind secrets and things being hushed up.they should not be above the law

Marion Shead

I agree with Bob - keep up the good work, Mr. Flynn. I personally wrote to the Speaker some time ago when he had said the references to royalty must only be made very sparingly or some such. I got an answer but not a very satisfactory one. As far as I am concerned, royals have no moral authority as they are not elected. They spend millions of tax payers money and should be accountable. Since they are funded by us, MPs, who are our elected representatives, MUST be allowed to disuss them openly in the House
As for them not being able to answer back, even the most minor royal has his/her own press secretary and the senior royals have many of them, all on enormous salaries paid by us. A constant stream of pro-royal publicity is dripped into our ears night and day by these people. - I have just had to sit through a report about Kate's old wedding dress being put on display on national TV news, as if there were not more important things happening in the world.

Joe Eldren, you know quite well that an elected Head of State will not be required to have a political background. We have told you often enough on Republic facebook page where you have made yourself such a nuisance many people have had to block you.

Bob

If ever there was a case for the "They cannot answer back" excuse to be binned this is it. They can answer back as far as I'm concerned, and I would relish hearing what they have to say to excuse their profligacy at our expense. Keep up the good work Mr Flynn.

Ewen Cameron

Joe Eldren.

There's an easy answer to the convention that they're "not allowed to answer back". Get out of public life. Get rid of the constitutional monarchy. Either be prepared to face up to you critics or move on.

I think it's an outrage that an elected Member of Parliament cannot critcise the behaviour of members of the Royal Family. It's the sort of thing we would be appalled at in North Korea or China as undemocratic or Totalitarian; and yet some people believe it's acceptable in The Mother of Parliaments.

"Absolutely disgraceful and another example of why a politician should never be allowed to take up the position of our head of state."

Have you ever done joined up thinking! If Paul Flynn has said something his constituents believe to be disgraceful they can remove him and get someone they believe to be a better representative. If the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince Philip say anything we consider to be disgraceful, (and, at least the latter two do on a regular basis),we not only have to put up with it; our elected representatives cannot criticise it and we can't do anything to get rid of them. So, I'll misquote you:

"Absolutely disgraceful and another example of why ONLY AN ELECTED politician should EVER be allowed to take up the position of our head of state."

You need to have a little more self respect.

D.G.

Bit rich of Joe Eldren to complain about debating technique then fall back on a strawman. Let's build another to keep it company.

"No doubt Joe is wholly in accord with the repressive dictatorship in Azerbajan that has been reported to boil people alive as punishment. Absolutely disgraceful, and another example of why you shouldn't leave royalists alone with your children."

Hendre

"his splendid home at Sunninghill Park"

Did you see it in the Dispatches (if I remember correctly) programme? It's been left to go to rack and ruin. The Queen must be mortified to see her wedding gift to her second son end up like this.

Paul Flynn

Not allowed to answer back?`'

This is the reverse of the truth. As an elected MP I was denied the chance to make the above speech. But in the debates several MP were permitted to praise Prince Andrew. Vince Cable and other prominent ministers were called in to defend him. There is also a vast expensive PR machine to defend royalty. It is those of us who are trying to have a balanced debate that are denied a platform in parliament.

Joe Eldren

Whilst I have every respect for you as an elected representative, you demonstrate in the above piece the typical politician - selective quoting to suit your own argument; taking easy potshots at people who are (as you well know and have mentioned) conventionally not allowed to answer back; misrepresenting Prince Andrew's meetings as personally inspired rather than at the behest of government bodies - I could go on. What of the many leaders of business who have praised Andrew for his opening doors on their behalf?

I found your comment on the House's reaction to Princess Margaret's death beneath you. She was if nothing else at one time the heir to the throne, an important constitutional position. No doubt you are wholly in accord with one supporter of Republic Campaign, who posted on its Facebook page yesterday that "the world would have been a better place without her".

Absolutely disgraceful and another example of why a politician should never be allowed to take up the position of our head of state.

Tom Scott

It is outrageous that in the mother of parliaments an elected MP such as yourself is not able to discuss members of the royal family. Andrew, accompanied by feudal servants including one minion with a six-foot ironing board, has been an expensive disaster as our trade envoy.

The sooner this feudal monarchy is swept aside the better. Democracy and monarchy are incompatible.

Please keep up the good work - you must not be gagged!

The comments to this entry are closed.