The British Monarchy

nonconformist · Apr 20, 2010

Taniciusfox said:
Perhaps I'm just unfairly stereotyping you with the rest of the forumgoers, but what if this statement was said by an American? It sounds like something the right-leaning ones would say.

Then you really do not understand the British system.

We, for example, have no law against murder.

Mise · Apr 20, 2010

Taniciusfox said:
More reason to get rid of that government salary. Welfare for the rich generally isn't accepted, last I checked. The fact she was born into a certain family doesn't make it any less abhorrent... in fact, if anything, it makes it worse.

You didn't understand what I posted at all. Oh well.

ParadigmShifter · Apr 20, 2010

Royal Family costs the country about 70 pence each per year, that's about a dollar I believe.

Mise said the Queen is worth £4bn to the economy.

A ceremonial President (which is what transferring the Queen's powers to someone else involves) would cost about the same I expect.

EDIT: Said taxpayers but meant country.

RedRalph · Apr 20, 2010

ParadigmShifter said:
Royal Family costs the taxpayers about 70 pence each per year, that's about a dollar I believe.

Mise said the Queen is worth £4bn to the economy.

A ceremonial President (which is what transferring the Queen's powers to someone else involves) would cost about the same I expect.

There can't be too many Monarchists around your neck of the woods

nonconformist · Apr 20, 2010

Why we being targeted instead of the 10 other European monarchies?

really · Apr 20, 2010

If there was to be constitutional reform in the UK I would have thought it would be in the lords rather than the monarchy.

Tani Coyote · Apr 20, 2010

Lillefix said:
What the british have, and what almost all important European countries except Russia and France have, is called a parliamentary system. One would have to change almost everything to move over to become a presidential republic(like all the failed african countries btw).

I'm well-aware? :confused:

ParadigmShifter said:
The Queen will never make political statements though.

Which is an excellent privilege of being a head of state, and thus being able to be above politics for the most part.

nonconformist said:
You really overestimate the Queen's theoretical power, it's only there because we, the people, allow it to be. The monarchy knows if they make one mistake, we'll throw them out on their arses.

That's good; accountability is always good.

So why not formalise the arrangement already? If they're already de facto powerless, and the opportunity presented itself, why not de jure make them powerless? Sure there's the whole "tradition gets rendered redundant", but that doesn't mean anything; we've rendered ours redundant time and time again.

And I'm fairly certain you all have as well, breaking one tradition after another, as all societies do as time goes on.

nonconformist said:
We, for example, have no law against murder.

...That's not helping me come to your side of the argument... :lol:

ParadigmShifter said:
Royal Family costs the taxpayers about 70 pence each per year, that's about a dollar I believe.

A ceremonial President (which is what transferring the Queen's powers to someone else involves) would cost about the same I expect.

I'm a very frugal individual, so what seems like chump change, if it is waste, is still waste. Getting rid of the salary would make me jump for joy, even if it wouldn't be too much of a dent; it's still waste, either way. Especially when they could pay for themselves.

Lillefix · Apr 20, 2010

nonconformist said:
Why we being targeted instead of the 10 other European monarchies?

If you look at his rhetoric he's not arguing so much against the monarchy. I think he actually argues against the entire Parliamentary system.

Mise · Apr 20, 2010

nonconformist said:
Why we being targeted instead of the 10 other European monarchies?

Our monarchy is the most prominent, and the most attractive to tourists, foreign dignitaries, business deals, charitable donations, etc. The same reasons that the monarchy brings in so much foreign money is what attracts so much foreign criticism -- its persistent prominence. Other European monarchs hide away from the public spotlight, which means they attract less criticism, but also hold less sway when dealing with foreign businesses and heads of states, and in attracting money for various charities and from tourists.

ParadigmShifter · Apr 20, 2010

RedRalphWiggum said:
There can't be too many Monarchists around your neck of the woods

I wouldn't describe myself as a monarchist. There's just no point changing to an elected head of state which will either be apolitical (pointless) or political (president Blair or Thatcher).

Didn't an Irish President once win the Eurovision song contest or am I tripping?

RedRalph · Apr 20, 2010

ParadigmShifter said:
I wouldn't describe myself as a monarchist. There's just no point changing to an elected head of state which will either be apolitical (pointless) or political (president Blair or Thatcher).

Didn't an Irish President once win the Eurovision song contest or am I tripping?

you are tripping

Tani Coyote · Apr 20, 2010

nonconformist said:
Why we being targeted instead of the 10 other European monarchies?

It came up in the election thread. Don't worry though. I am like the Russian; I steamroll. I would just as eagerly seek similar reforms in the other monarchies.

I'm just making it that much easier to integrate into the EU for you all.

really said:
If there was to be constitutional reform in the UK I would have thought it would be in the lords rather than the monarchy.

Oh trust me, I'd drop a bomb on them too. I'd reform them so they're like Senators and elected from counties or whichever local unit... but I'd like to leave the power to the individual localities in how they choose their Lord... election, birth, etc.

I'd also want them to be on par with the Commons in terms of power. If a chamber can't really check another, I see no need for it other than fulfilling tradition... and we all know what they say about that.

Mise · Apr 20, 2010

Didn't every Irish person win the Eurovision at some point in their lives?

nonconformist · Apr 20, 2010

Taniciusfox said:
That's good; accountability is always good.

So why not formalise the arrangement already? If they're already de facto powerless, and the opportunity presented itself, why not de jure make them powerless? Sure there's the whole "tradition gets rendered redundant", but that doesn't mean anything; we've rendered ours redundant time and time again.

And I'm fairly certain you all have as well, breaking one tradition after another, as all societies do as time goes on.

Because her power is not totally eroded, she is one of the pillars of our constitution. A constitution cannot merely be changed, especially one of such long standing.
We are not removing 1000 years of constitution on the whim of idealists.

...That's not helping me come to your side of the argument...

Really it should, as traditionally we can convict murderers.

really · Apr 20, 2010

ParadigmShifter said:
Didn't an Irish President once win the Eurovision song contest or am I tripping?

Dana (non international) ran for president but didn't get elected.

She did get elected as MEP for one term a few years later.

ParadigmShifter · Apr 20, 2010

I'm thinking of Dana, she came third in the Presidential election (I discover after a little research).

nonconformist · Apr 20, 2010

Taniciusfox said:
I'd also want them to be on par with the Commons in terms of power. If a chamber can't really check another, I see no need for it other than fulfilling tradition... and we all know what they say about that.

Uh, Parliament Act 1911 changed this, for very good reasons.

ParadigmShifter · Apr 20, 2010

I would vote for RRW if he entered Eurovision.

Tani Coyote · Apr 20, 2010

Lillefix said:
If you look at his rhetoric he's not arguing so much against the monarchy. I think he actually argues against the entire Parliamentary system.

To an extent, yes I do. The Monarchy is just the focal point of my grievances due to its questionable nature to me.

I do want separation of powers and checks and balances, however. How you go about that doesn't really matter, but I'd do it by making the PM be popularly-elected, and the Chambers of Parliament being equal in terms of overall legislation, even if they'd each have special powers.

The exact details, however, would be yours to decide. I just argue for a general guideline.

Mise said:
Our monarchy is the most prominent, and the most attractive to tourists, foreign dignitaries, business deals, charitable donations, etc. The same reasons that the monarchy brings in so much foreign money is what attracts so much foreign criticism -- its persistent prominence. Other European monarchs hide away from the public spotlight, which means they attract less criticism, but also hold less sway when dealing with foreign businesses and heads of states, and in attracting money for various charities and from tourists.

...and it was brought up in the election thread.

ParadigmShifter · Apr 20, 2010

Well it was brought up by Flying Pig with regards to vetoing scrapping of nukes, I suspect he forgot to take his tablets when he posted that

The British Monarchy

Miserable

isle of lucy

Random Nonsense Generator

Deity

Miserable

Deity

Son of Huehuecoyotl

I'm serious. You can.

isle of lucy

Random Nonsense Generator

Deity

Son of Huehuecoyotl

isle of lucy

Miserable

Deity

Random Nonsense Generator

Miserable

Random Nonsense Generator

Son of Huehuecoyotl

Random Nonsense Generator

Similar threads