Corbyn's Republicanism, The Privy Council and national security

[Braggfan]

The tories managed it.

Regardless of which party is in opposition, I don't think their leader should be put in this position by someone who is unelected. I think the system would be better for everyone, whoever you vote for, if the the monarch was completely seperate from our politics.

 

[alfredmizen]

But he's not in charge of our armed forces and never will be unless he is elected to be so. I don't see what is so absurd about that.

Sigh, but he will be if he is ever elected , I find it absurd that people would elect him when he has been such an enthusiastic champion of those who murdered so many of them , you initially wanted evidence of corbyns IRA loyalties , it's been presented yet you choose to ignore along with a host of others on NSC http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

 

[BigGully]

Just turn up at the meeting and get done what needs to be done, sing the national anthem and make a few old soldiers happy or if you re so principled then state your case why you have no intention in doing so and we can all construct a view on whether we think he is being reasonable.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

*raises hand*. That's me.

Thanks for asking: I couldn't give a sh1t. And nor should you.

Same. I have never sang the National Anthem beyond having a mind of my own and do not expect anyone else to. For those that do - please carry on.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Just turn up at the meeting and get done what needs to be done, sing the national anthem and make a few old soldiers happy or if you re so principled then state your case why you have no intention in doing so and we can all construct a view on whether we think he is being reasonable.

Which is also fair enough.

 

[Machiavelli]

It does beg the questions, why does the queen or her officers get to exert such influence? IF we're a functionaing democracy why should someone unelected get those powers. For those who say her role is only ceremonial take note.

I'm not quite so sure that it's the Queen exercising influence here. It's Conservative politicians and, even more so, the conservative (i.e. most of) media that are exerting influence on this issue.

 

[Leyton Gull]

I see the media are running the story that the Queen's officers have stripped Corbyn of the title "Right Honourable" as he has not yet taken the oath and been sworn in to the Privy Council.

I'm mindful that Cameron took 3 months to get sworn in, but on the other hand Cameron wasn't a committed republican, he hadn't shown IRA sympathies and hadn't chosen to be silent whilst being filmed during the playing of the National Anthem.

It looks to me as though Corbyn is letting this "allegiance to the Crown" issue drift and as each day passes without him swearing the oath it seems to me he becomes that much less electable. I'm interested to know what Labour supporters with monarchist sympathies think about his actions, or lack thereof.

Crucially, the leader of the Opposition's membership of the Privy Council entitles them to receive briefings on matters of National Security. Do we really want our Opposition leader to be outside this important inner circle? Could he conceivably carry out his duties as Prime Minister without being a member of the Privy Council?

Jez has got amazing patience having to put up with a load of harris licking, lying Tory boys. If I was in his position I'd smash the teeth down their right wing throats. Unlike me though he is peace loving.

 

[1066familyman]

I'm with the two posts. Why, in order to receive national security briefings, is it/should it be a requirement to kneel before the monarch, and swear allegiance to the crown? Put like that, it's just plain silly. Which is what it is.

No, the media kerfuffle over Corbyn's well known Republican views is just plain silly.
What you describe is actually political blackmail and much more serious.

 

[Machiavelli]

Not nearly as absurd as having Corbyn in charge of our armed forces, I cannot believe how far up their own arses some people's heads are on the subject.

He's said that he won't ratify the deployment of the armed forces outside of our territory. While a tad simplistic, that's not a bad rule-of-thumb and probably preferable to an over-zealous use of the armed forces outside our territory (as Blair tried, which had the result of discouraging parliament to ratify other foreign excursions).

 

[BigGully]

He's said that he won't ratify the deployment of the armed forces outside of our territory. While a tad simplistic, that's not a bad rule-of-thumb and probably preferable to an over-zealous use of the armed forces outside our territory (as Blair tried, which had the result of discouraging parliament to ratify other foreign excursions).

Eh, so for you a good rule of thumb is that he wouldnt deploy our armed forces outside of our territory, how does that work, so no military intervention anywhere for any reason unless our own territories have been invaded ??

 

[el punal]

Yes and as a republican myself, I still can't help but think he's playing a dangerous game. We'll see.

However, the right wing press will cry hypocrite if he does so he can't win.

Of course he can't win. Despite his firm principles and being a radical far leftist within his own party, I wonder if Corbyn ever dreamt that he would be leader of the Labour Party. I would imagine he threw his hat into the ring to stir things up a bit, create a bit of mischief and put a few noses out of joint.

Well, he certainly succeeded. The only problem for the perennial protester is that the proverbial shit has hit the fan - he won. Like it or lump it he is now in charge and has to to be ever so responsible for what he says and does.

 

[alfredmizen]

Jez has got amazing patience having to put up with a load of harris licking, lying Tory boys. If I was in his position I'd smash the teeth down their right wing throats. Unlike me though he is peace loving.

Of course you would.........

 

[alfredmizen]

He's said that he won't ratify the deployment of the armed forces outside of our territory. While a tad simplistic, that's not a bad rule-of-thumb and probably preferable to an over-zealous use of the armed forces outside our territory (as Blair tried, which had the result of discouraging parliament to ratify other foreign excursions).

That isnt the reason i'd find him being in charge of our armed forces absurd.

 

[Machiavelli]

Eh, so for you a good rule of thumb is that he wouldnt deploy our armed forces outside of our territory, how does that work, so no military intervention anywhere for any reason unless our own territories have been invaded ??

You're twisting things. I'm saying that most countries should only use the military to defend their territory. That's why I described it as not a bad rule-of-thumb. I also characterised it as a tad simplistic, because there are exceptions to this rule. Declaring war on the Nazis would be one such exception.

 

[beorhthelm]

It does beg the questions, why does the queen or her officers get to exert such influence? IF we're a functionaing democracy why should someone unelected get those powers. For those who say her role is only ceremonial take note.

Do you think he's deliberately highlighting that the monarchy isn't just for show?

the Privy Council acts on behalf of the Queen under advice of the government of the day. its an extension of the royal prerogative under which much government business is done. the office of Privy Councillor requires you to swear an oath and its recognised as of higher privilege than the rest of the MPs, and used as privilege escalation for matters of state such as security briefings (though as i gather, mostly its trivial administrative business like appointing the Lord Lieutenant of Shiresex).

i think until a few weeks ago Corbyn had little idea what it meant to hold office so hasn't thought what will be expected of him, i certainly dont think he's trying it on.

 

[Pavilionaire]

All these threads on Corbyn are getting a bit boring , think the OP should give it a rest zzzzzzzzzz

You're entitled to you opinion but for the first time in my 47 years we have a confirmed republican leading one of the two main parties, he's fudging the question of allegiance whilst the whole parliamentary set-up is geared around deference to the Queen. If he doesn't enter the Privy Council then he'll have to send in a representative, so won't be getting a first-hand account on security issues. Arguably, foreign affairs haven't been this unstable since the Gulf War, so this is significant.

Moreover, this is the republicans big chance to highlight constitutional issues and push their case. Corbyn is 66 and has been a republican for decades, for him to be elected on the basis that he speaks his mind and is honest and principled then for him to upset Middle England by coming across as anti-royal then upsetting his republican supporters by caving in and bending his knee to the Queen would surely strangle at birth any hopes he had of becoming PM.

It would be sad if this thread became a slanging match about Corbyn and his politics, I'm more interested about whether people think there is too much royal protocol in the way parliament operates.

 

[Leyton Gull]

That isnt the reason i'd find him being in charge of our armed forces absurd.

He's going for the gig of PM in 21st century peacetime. This isn't the middle ages. Who do you want? Putin? If he's available.

 

[alfredmizen]

You're entitled to you opinion but for the first time in my 47 years we have a confirmed republican leading one of the two main parties, he's fudging the question of allegiance whilst the whole parliamentary set-up is geared around deference to the Queen. If he doesn't enter the Privy Council then he'll have to send in a representative, so won't be getting a first-hand account on security issues. Arguably, foreign affairs haven't been this unstable since the Gulf War, so this is significant.

Moreover, this is the republicans big chance to highlight constitutional issues and push their case. Corbyn is 66 and has been a republican for decades, for him to be elected on the basis that he speaks his mind and is honest and principled then for him to upset Middle England by coming across as anti-royal then upsetting his republican supporters by caving in and bending his knee to the Queen would surely strangle at birth any hopes he had of becoming PM.

it was a joke mate , i said it because ive been hammered for starting too many anti corbyn threads.

 

[HH Brighton]

Sigh, but he will be if he is ever elected , I find it absurd that people would elect him when he has been such an enthusiastic champion of those who murdered so many of them , you initially wanted evidence of corbyns IRA loyalties , it's been presented yet you choose to ignore along with a host of others on NSC http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...rbyn-and-John-McDonnells-close-IRA-links.html

Pathetic journalism by the Tory Graph and to think people are taken in by this shit. I'm no Corbyn fan but the rubbish written by the right wing press is laughable.

 

[alfredmizen]

He's going for the gig of PM in 21st century peacetime. This isn't the middle ages. Who do you want? Putin? If he's available.

No , somebody who didnt hold a minutes silence for the 8 terrorists killed at Loughalll, somebody who actually condemns IRA violence unlike corbyn who refused , simple really.