He depends on his Maga supporters believing universal healthcare is a failure.

Actually needing US aid has less importance then convincing his voters of the need.

Let’s face it. Nearly all left wing hosts and talk shows. Have made a point that Greenland will not give up universal healthcare to join the US.

So it’s important he has some indication that the US needed to provide services to Greenland to continue to counter that political argument.

Just like bombing Venezuela and kidnapping it’s leader. It’s nothing to do with drugs. But is instead about making the lies about drugs more believable to the idiots that vote for him.

A case being “The Crown vs. HRH King Charles III” is perfectly feasible. The monarch being subject to law is a concept that goes back over 800 years.

Except the concept has not. At no point in that history. Has any UK king or queen ever been tried by anything other then parliament itself.

And the one time parliament did it. It was done in parliament exactly because the constituency of the crown being different from the current monarch is not well defined. It’s only separation definition is in the right for ownership and duty to be passed.

Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself.

They are not free of the whole justice system. They have limited parliamentary privileges mainly related to what they can say without consequences, but they couldn’t murder their opponents.

Actually no that is not how the sovereignty of parliament in defined.

Yes actions are only free of judicial jurisdiction when acting in parlimentry session. But those actions are in no way related to speech alone.

While no an MP could not murder someone during parliamentary session.

The normal justice system would not be responsible for protecting that person. Parliament will. This is exactly why the tower of London was originally considered the be the kings and then parliaments prison. And not the judiciary.

This is why parliament has a chief Marshall to enforce it’s authority. And why the tower of London has it’s own guards independent of the UK police and military.

While this all seems to be just of historic interest. And honestly the orders (people involved) are no longer armed or trained in a way that would be official to actually enforce the law. Not to mention the tower is no longer in a position to provide a reasonable or effective prison.

The legal structure has very much not been replaced in any way.

And if (cos I am biased after all.)

N Farrrage was to suddenly jump up and strangle J corbyn during PMs questions.

It would be an odd situation. Likely in 2026 it would involve parliament and the Chief marshall asking the met to actually help out. And quickly passing laws to support it. It would not be automatic.

International law dose not exist. It is just a collection of treaties signed by different nations that they agree to. IE it is entirely contract law.

And given how little the UK has cared about such agreements. IE openly committing genocide. Against the Geneva convention treaty. Arresting protesters and abusing disabled people against the ECHR treaties.

There is absolutely no way parliament is going to consider any of them to outright override UKparlimentry sovereignty.

And when you remember our constitution literally applies the historical authority of the king. Being passed to parliament. Any agreement we sign. Is very much only down to the current majorities willingness to follow.

A point very important to remember given current polling for the next election.

While Cromwell’s far from a great example of democracy.

He is the example of parliament creating a law that made killing a king illegal. And the very creation of our current constitutional monarchy. His actions basically created most of the constitution changes the nation now works on.

Hence why the example was made.

You are correct in the fact that telling secrets in parliament is technically legal. It is worth noting that parliament has the power to enforce rules upon itself. Technically to the point made by Cromwell.

IE in the event and MP was to announce secrets in parliament. Without gov approval and more so now it is televised. (This was not the case in my youth. When recording parliament was illegal for that very reason.)

Parliament would technically be able to have the MP imprisoned. Although as of now parliament has no where to store them. It was the tower of London in the past.

But yep it would have to be parliament that enforced such rules. And doing so would require a majority. Hence why bojo tried to close parliament and got prevented.

The kings authority to refuse is not recognised.

If a king or past queen were to be accused. It is technically impossible. As our whole criminal justice system is based on the king Vs the defendent/accused.

But that dose not apply to other royal family members. Other then the purely technical idea that the kings name used against a relative is sorta rude without authority.

But parliament has the full Auth to ignore his opinion. And as we saw under Cromwell. If the king was accused of a crime high enough. Parliament itself can try him. But it’s far from uncomplicated,

Other then the king. The only people fully free of the justice system. Are MPs when acting in parliament itself. This is done purely to prevent a majority party making opposition illegal. And even then it only applies to in parliament actions.

IE up till a few days ago. MPs could support PA in the house of commons. But doing so in public would have still be a crime. As dumb as that sounds.

That said. Legal and technical Vs the actual actions of people in a position with the prejudices involved. Are hardly equal.

Yep it’s about giving secret gov data to Epstein. So while the peado accusations will likely be investigated as a result. Based on motive gathering.

ATM no new evidence of actual SA with minors has been shown in the files.

Just pics of him kneeling over a fully clothed shortish female of indeterminate age.

Will not stop wealthy parents buying new.

Will just take burden of poor while continuing to hilight the difference in quality.

Well that has changed. Because back in the early 200p the requirement existed.

Sorry. But that is for US citizens becoming dual.

Not foreign citizens becoming US.

If you are a non US citizen applying for US citizenship. Then you have to request the home nation end you citizenship.

Yes.

Translation:

The folks voting for me. Cannot afford to buy me.

When I lived in the US. The UK embassy was openly recommending this to folks taking US citizen ship.

Thanks for sharing. Nice to have less anacdotal evidence.

Well nice is not the right word. But I’m sure you know what I mean,

Yes. As far as making laws they can. That is the whole meaning or the phrase parliament is sovereign.

It’s not a good thing. But is why voting and education is so important. Because when it comes to actions in parliament only voting has any authority.

It’s not unique. As we see in the US. Where both houses have to act on many things. And when one party is given power their is little the nation can do to stop it.

But honestly there is not real answer. Any organisation given the authority to arrest parliament is under the same risk of abuse. As we see with the US FBI. All it means is the corrupt political org. Takes control of that first.

In the US and UK. It is why the right has taken control of the media over the last few decades.

This is also why both main parties have worked so hard to remove the right to protest. The mass is the only control we have.

Honestly. Would you really want the law to work that way.

The result would be a government that is impossible to legally fault. As doing so would be to expensive for the people in power.

But the answer is. No the acts of any MP in parliament are not within the remit of any legal authority other then parliament. Act outside parliament. IE not involved in the passing of laws are as for all others.

But nothing said or voted for in the house is allowed to be addressed outside the house.

The original reason for this was to prevent each party trying to make the actions of the last gov a crime. It really dose not take long to imagine the harm that would cause, unfortunately the only way such a thing could work. Would be if corruption did not exist. As it will always exist in all political movements. Allowing one political group to have the ability to make the ideals of another a crime. Is never workable.

Anacdotal experience only. But I’d suggest it’s way more common then folks know.

More so from the 1970s and before. And in rural areas of the UK. But that is more to do with options and how they spread post 1967 law changes. (Pill and abortion both legalized. Though pill only for married women at that time). But for younger readers. Both were often hard to obtain for young adult women in rural areas until the mid 80s.

As a teen My GPs lived in a farming village. And would hint at it when I visited and got to know a few local girls. I did not think much of it at the time.

Post Uni I lived with them for a few months. And got to know one of these girls way better. To the point she felt the need to explain why she never wanted children.

Apparently she knew a few others in the village were in the same situation. For timing this was mid 90s we were both in our mid 20s at the time. So he mother likely finished school in the late 60s. And I know sex education in schools was very hit and miss due to political attitudes at the time. With city schools being more comfortable then rural. Late 60s was when the pill was legalised and labour were pushing all schools to add sex ed classes. So many parents objected.

But news over the last 30+ years. Would lead me to recognise while Insest is no less common. Pro Choice really matters for more reasons then most would expect.

Resentful upvoter earned.

AI cannot take your job. But 10 years ago. It could not make many jobs any easier.

People are worried because AI is developing at a rate. Where the people currently paying you. Clearly think its development is worth huge funding. And they will only do this if they have reason to beltpaying you becomes less needed.

Last time we saw this. Was factory spending on robotics in the 1970s. Many then said they would take no jobs. Those of us older watched a direct reduction in jobs linked to this. And are expecting similar levels for AI in the next few decades.

And the reason they are pushing that shit. Is not to convince you your job is at risk. They do not want you to panic.

They push it to convince customers to accept the work AIs provide. Just like we now accept mass production way more then my parents generation did. We now expect identical rather then craftsman individualist production. Flat pack furniture produced by machine made wood. Etc etc.

Would have a point. If this was about him facing charges.

But it’s his employer. Any one who has worked knows Thier employer will never support this when acting in their name.

If you work retail even security no company is going to let you act to stop violence when in their name. They all make it clear to employees. Let the criminal go. Otherwise the company is too worried about taking responsibility for any harm customer or criminal.

It may not be right. But hardly a suprise.

More to the point. Taxing enough to pay it. Would make the billionaires investing in AI pointless. So such billionaires will never let it happen.

No one is investing in AI for the good of a nation. Just to save money on their own staffing costs.