08/06/2011

Disrespectful Behaviour by Assembly Members

A number of National Assembly Members behaved in a disgustingly disrespectful way during the Queen of England's visit to the Senedd yesterday.

The vast majority of the members of the Assembly were elected having stood for election as Socialists, Nationalists or Liberal Democrats. Socialists are supposed to believe that everyone is equal, there is no nobility and peasant, that no person is better than another because of accident of birth. Nationalists are supposed to believe that Wales is a nation that sovereignty comes from the people of Wales rather than from the monarch of another country. Democrats are supposed to believe that the head of state should be elected by the people rather than given to us "By the Grace of God" and heredity. By standing for election on such tickets it is totally unreasonable to argue that, having won, elected members should then throw their principals away by cow-towing to a monarchy that their principals suggest that they oppose. But 38 out of 45 of them chose to do so yesterday!

The behaviour of 38 of the Assembly Members who decided to attend the Royal Opening of The Senedd yesterday was extremely disrespectful. It showed a lack of respect to the voters who elected them as Socialists, Democrats and Nationalists, it showed a lack of respect to the principles of Socialism, Nationalism and Democracy, but even worse it showed a distinct lack of self-respect, as the members lowered themselves into doing something that their election tags suggested that they did not wish to do, for the sake of systemic propriety!

Thank goodness for the few who showed a bit of respect for their constituents, their principles and themselves!

13 comments:

  1. Rubbish!! Insulting an old woman is what you consider 'respect'!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Queen is our Head of State, and her position is democratic, it is democratic because the people of Britain have chosen not to replace her as Head of State.

    A reminder ... the British removed King Charles I at Whitehall on a scaffold in front of the Banqueting House, so we have the will if we choose, we choose not to at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am a Democrat so I accept the argument that most people in the UK (and wales) are in favour of the Monarchy

    But being in a minority and republicans are a significant minority does not make you wrong.

    Nor does it mean you should be forced to swear allegiance to the Queen and her Heirs if you want to sit in one of the UK legislators (Accept N.I. and we all know why not there).

    We are effectively barred from expressing our views in this so called Democracy and if we take a stand we are told we are being disrespectful.

    The Queens age is immaterial and there was no insult merely people taking a stand.

    Can an AM open a debate on the Oath of Allegiance and is it not a violation of our Human rights to force us to swear an oath to which we are profoundly opposed.

    John is quite wrong on Charles 1 he was not executed by the British as the Union had not come into existence then and he was executed got treason not because he was King.

    PS. Everyone should look at Gareth Hughes' Blog on this.Aa superb analysis. I bet he would't have done it if he was still working for ITV though which perhaps sums up the whole position with regards the establishment and the Monarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I used the term British as an understandable term, he was executed for High Treason.

    ... the important element of my comment remains ...

    "The Queen is our Head of State, and her position is democratic, it is democratic because the people of Britain have chosen not to replace her as Head of State."

    ReplyDelete
  5. John, following your argument ad absurdum a dictator could argue that he was democratically elected because the people have chosen not to replace him. Without violence how does one remove a dictator or a monarch?

    I don't care if she remains queen of England, what's important to me is that she's rejected in Wales. A start has been made.

    ReplyDelete
  6. maen_tramgwydd08/06/2011 11:27

    John, the people of the UK have never had the opportunity of making an informed choice on this issue. The press and the media are owned and/or controlled by the ruling establishment elite. The monarchy is the central pillar which preserves that privileged elite.

    It’s not simply a matter of having a king or queen, there’s much more to it than that.

    England’s unwritten constitution vests sovereignty in the nebulous concept of the ‘Crown in Parliament’. In reality, that gives politicians virtually all the power, and the monarchy undefined influence. Both retain huge powers of patronage. The result is a large democratic deficit, as evidenced by an unelected second chamber and an electoral system which denies a true choice for the electorate. We get to choose, every five years or so, between one rotten bunch of politicians or another equally corrupt bunch, whose interest lies in preserving that system at all costs. They’ve failed, for example, to abolish the House of Lords in over a century.

    The result has been very bad government and consequently the UK is in a mess. It’s hard to find anything that works well here. Schools, hospitals, roads, railways, the economy, and inflation are prime examples. The outstanding exceptions are warmongering... essentially the killing of people who live in mud houses... and arming the dictators who keep them in their place.

    The entire system is rotten from the top down. It all needs to be swept away, as the French did in 1793 and the Russians in 1918. I can’t see England ever ridding itself of the monarchy and the bankrupt corrupt constitutional system it represents. We in Wales can do so by a simple vote in a referendum on self-determination. That’s the only hope that Wales has of ever being prosperous.

    I applaud the stand made by the four Plaid AMs. If more of us in Wales stood up for ourselves then we would be treated with far greater dignity. Wales will remain a poor forgotten exploited backwater until that takes place.

    ReplyDelete
  7. John;

    When have we ever been given the choice to replace the Queen or any Monarch through a democratic Vote?

    But even if there was one and it was say 3:1 in favour of the monarchy. Under a democracy we would still have the right to argue for a republic.

    You don't stop campaigning when your party looses an election.

    But not according to you apparently.Unless of course when you are in a minority and then you feel free (rightly) to express your views.

    ReplyDelete
  8. With your permission, below is a rewritten comment I posted elsewhere today:

    How exactly would the AMs who didn't attend have “represented their constituents” by being there? What benefits would that have brought people in Wales? Let’s drop this whole idea that AMs failed constituents. It’s a ceremony, and my Mum (rest her soul) taught me that most ceremonies are a waste of time - particularly compared to action.

    This whole idea that those AMs a grasping trough scoffers by taking the oath “to get the money” fundamentally misunderstands the procedure. MPs only have to swear an oath of allegiance to the crown to enter the House of Commons. The may still act as MPs otherwise. AMs must swear it to take office, not merely their seat. In Wales, it is far more universal.

    There is precedent for waiving this condition in Westminster, too. The Good Friday Agreement led on to allowing Sinn Fein MPs to take their seats in the Commons without the oath, so why force other committed republicans to do the same?

    And let’s remember what exactly we’re talking about. It’s an oath – an feudal tradition that has absolutely no place in the modern world. Why should any politician in a democracy have to swear any kind of oath to anyone? Service is implied in the role. You don’t have workers swearing allegiance to their bosses, and who would willingly get on bended knee for anyone? That is what an oath is. It is a reminder to the maker that he or she is a step below the person the oath is being made to.

    Yet some people believe AMs should do it – why? Because they’re politicians? Look to your own prejudices, I say.

    ReplyDelete
  9. With all due respect to John. King Charles Ist was denied his legals rights of a free trial and was executed by a nasty cabal of religious fanatics who wanted to impose their Taliban style religion on England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland

    ReplyDelete
  10. Isn't it a little odd referencing an event that took place over 360 years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  11. All those AMs who swear blindly that they will represent the views of ALL their constituents and not just the minority (of their consituent population that is) that voted them in are lying buzztards then. About right I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The BNP got 4,714 votes, or 3.1% of the total vote, in South Wales West on May 5. By Anon 09:30's logic, those AMs that were elected should be working to kick the blacks out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Isn't it a little odd referencing an event that took place over 360 years ago?"

    Not when the facts are not entirely correct, I would have thought that the first attempt at a republic would be of interest?

    ReplyDelete