At school, college and university history lessons each teacher always said that in the UK the Queen is a kind of symbol. It is not right, as it were, for beauty, for a tribute to tradition.
Everywhere in the world is that the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, Limited.
Certainly not …
— Queen has the right to declare war without legal restrictions and without explanation and with anyone without checking it and without requiring authorization;
— Queen has the right to dismiss the government (similar);
— Queen has the power to dissolve parliament;
— once a year, it appears to Parliament and voiced their demands for the near future (that is actually shapes the policy of the state);
— to appoint the prime minister (and the one who wants to, not necessarily the head of the winning party);
— lead the armed forces, etc.
In domestic affairs power of the Crown broad. Appointment of ministers, privy councilors, members of the executive officers and other officials. In addition, the monarch is the head of the armed forces (the British Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and intelligence). It is the prerogative of the Sovereign — declare war, conclude peace, to direct military action.
Relate to the prerogatives of the queen and Foreign Affairs: negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, international agreements, parliamentary decisions are not needed. Sovereign also accredits British High Commissioners and Ambassadors, and receives foreign diplomats.
Sovereign also honored the fountain of justice and appoint judges in all types of cases.
Common law states that the Crown "can do no wrong"; monarch be tried in court for criminal offenses.
"Elizabeth II, by the grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom, Canada and other realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" is also the head of the Anglican Church.
Moreover all of the above powers queen has not only in the UK but also in Canada, Australia and other countries where it is the Head of State.
In fact, the Queen controls all branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial. And finally, the monarch — Supreme Ruler of the Church of England, and may appoint bishops and archbishops (ie not only the head of the secular, but spiritual power, which does not exist anywhere else in the world, even in Iran).
A large concentration of power there is no one person in the world. Even the Korean "Juche", which "democratic media" expose an example of the dictator, nervously smoking in the corridor.
Moreover, the inner almost absolute power it is not enough. Apart from dozens of countries of the British Commonwealth, which are formally independent, in 16 countries of the British Queen is officially considered the head of state and her are appointed by the Queen governors-general.
Among these countries, such as Canada, where the British Queen goes every two years with a "friendly visit", which is actually an inspection. The Governor-General says in his loyalty to the Queen, and reports on the current situation and listens to instructions for the near future. If something does not suit the queen — she dismisses him and appoint a new one.
Many may argue that the queen, though endowed with, but does not enjoy these rights. Very much enjoyed. Both Canada and Australia have participated in all the world wars on the side of the British. War on Germany on their behalf, announced the British monarch, although in 1914 no Kaiser could not even theoretically threaten these distant areas!
A similar situation occurred in 1939: September 1 Germany declared war on Poland. Look at a map? That in this situation threatens to Australia? What threatens South Africa and Canada? It's nothing. If you ask the citizens of these countries, if they want to fight? Of course not. But in a democracy for the citizens of the Anglo-Saxon empire is all about a king or a queen. The result you will read in the textbooks: September 3, 1939 the Third Reich declares war on Great Britain, Australia, India, New Zealand, France, September 4 — South African Union, September 7 — Canada.
So, in 80 it has deprived (at the time) Margaret Thatcher information from intelligence MI-6. She personally sent troops to the areas covered by the miners' riots.
And that the queen in the High Court took the decision to send troops to Iraq.
Furthermore, it should take into account such a little-known fact: Prince Charles controls the so-called "Island Club", which includes 4,000 oligarchs of all the Commonwealth countries. This financial and economic "fist" of the British monarchy, which slammed it can open many doors or knock.
Moreover, the 117 corporations whose headquarters are in the City of London, on the list of the 500 largest corporations in the world. And the owners and heads of almost all of these corporations are members of the House of Peers.
All this — the well-known facts that are freely available on the internet. Enough to put them, and organize and get this picture.
Speaking of democracy and parliamentarism. The election in Britain is only the lower House of Commons. The top, which has the authority to annul decisions bottom — the House of Peers, is hereditary.
Representatives of this aristocratic elite almost without exception are descended from the representatives of "decent" jobs, as racketeers, thieves, smugglers, drug traffickers, weapons and slaves, pirates.
And you can not forget that it was the British Crown directly involved in the drug trade for at least two centuries (this is for those who have forgotten about the "Opium Wars"). And by no means were taken tea "tea clippers" — not because of the tea would have started the American War of Independence.
However, much of the drug trade British intelligence control so far.
Currently, the United States decided to consider for the main attack and control the world. However, if you remember the names of the founders of the U.S. Federal Reserve (private office) — it Warburgs, Morgans, Rockefellers and the Rothschilds — who own almost half of the world), it is clear who still sets the tone, and the geography is not as important. United Kingdom — is the brain (head), the U.S. plays the role of the body (instrument). Fascism originated in the island, Marx built his political economy of the island, all the filth of today's media and writers perebezchikov is also from the island. Even everyone who did something bad to flee the island.
All revolutions are there too — on the island. The practice of organizing and supporting separatist rebellion in Britain is typical for centuries. Colonel Lawrence, nicknamed Arabia, organized in 1916-1918 known Bedouin revolt against Ottoman rule. Movies show him in a romantic light, but in reality it was a typical British officer, cool and calculating, whose task was to weaken the Ottoman Empire.
Arabs got freedom after his rebellion, then? No, just a couple of years, they came under British "protectorate". Already British companies (that notorious "British Petroleum") started pumping Middle Eastern oil.
In general, a lot of the world's authoritarian rulers. And in Asia, Africa and Latin America. But the claims of many of them by the "enlightened West" not because they are not opposed to the neo-colonial policies, pumping natural resources of their countries and plunder their people. And the term "undemocratic regime" applies only to those of them who are resisting a robbery.
Who in the world is the main tyrants? Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Muammar Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, our President AG Lukashenko. What they have in common? Only one thing — all of these countries was the nationalization of natural resources (in our case — it was not carried out at all (privatization), it was not allowed), which does not allow impunity Empires steal their resources.
We can with certainty say that the "undemocratic" in the distorting mirror of Western propaganda is in reality a long time, "patriotic, acting in the interests of their country."
And terribly subtle, covert, intrigue and treachery to the British crown is not new. Aldous Huxley, British, known for its anti-utopia, "O brave new world", resulting in their research numerous cases of bribery by the British (after the failure of another landing expeditionary forces) heads of the countries included in the anti-Napoleonic coalition. Bribed even monarchs.
It is in the countries of the former colonies of the United Kingdom, the term 'comprador — the person representing the interests of foreign capital in the country. " As the British ruled not only by force of arms, but also actively bribed and corrupted the local elite. And not only military and political, but also intellectuals (forming of her dissent) and merchants.
By the way, the comprador bourgeoisie most actively opposed national liberation and socialist movements in the colonies never support them and always acting like a "fifth column".
For those who follow international developments, it is clear that the failed speech in Iran's recent attempts to cause unrest in Moldova and we in Belarus, and now the events in Libya — called from outside.
In poor countries, "the poor protesters" suddenly find themselves massively equipped with the latest iPhone proplacheny unlimited internet. And among the heads of the leaders of the protesters are funded NGOs such 'organizations to promote democracy, "the American IATP, Soros Fund" Renaissance "or other organizations working for foreign intelligence.
And if you dig, these organizations long before the beginning of the unrest in special training camps to work out a methodology processes grant money.
And the leaders of these organizations are selected unscrupulous ambitious young people hungry for money and power.
Type in google "unknown snipers". These mythical creatures appear in dozens of places around the world where there are pockets of instability. Stop the crowd snipers useless and meaningless, it simply does not notice, and her blood was just more angry. With the acceleration of the crowd is much better at the queue of machine guns over their heads.
But the "unknown snipers" appear regularly and collect their bloody harvest. And then in the "democratic media" appear staged pictures and articles about "atrocities of tyrants." Although the "tyrants" do not know how such a "joy" on their heads.
However, the "international community" is still that there is no dictatorship in Libya (there is actually a Soviet government, but Gaddafi managed only army and intelligence). The media will say that there is "little democracy" (as the media said that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, as in Afghanistan, "Al-Qaeda"), and NATO will be able to seize control of the oil fields in another country.
And the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian "free media" owned by comprador oligarchs who joyfully rastirazhiruyut this lie. They are already doing so.
"The world community" swallowed the bombing of Serbia, Milosevic's murder in prison, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, bullying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay — swallows and "tyranny of Gaddafi." Who is next in line of this humble queen? …