Ewetube Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Can we have a bus again please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I've never understood why we'd need to replace the monarch with something else, like a presidency. What would be so bad about the Prime Minister becoming head of state, it's only a title after all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 26 minutes ago, Highgate said: Democracy is the best of all the bad options. Of course it stinks at times. The solution to the problem isn't to keep hereditary divine privilege in place. How does the fact that some are born entitled and some aren't provide a good foundation for any society? What 'job' are they doing that couldn't be done by an elected representative? I can't argue with the basic logic of your position. It would be undemocratic to do so and I am a democrat in principal, but the reality of our position in the UK is that we have this anachronism and it has worked astoundingly well particularly over the last 100 or so years which is in technical and historical terms a pretty good "sample" The alternative would be more democratic and, intellectually would be better; yet there are few democratic states with an elected presidential system that clearly have a more just and balanced outcome for the citizens at large as ours has had. So I am not convinced that it needs fixing. As you said in your earlier post it is essentially symbolic. Furthermore the checks and balances in our system of government would throw them out pretty quickly if it went wrong. The truth is the most vehement anti monarchists aren't arguing on a constitutional / justice basis (although they use it as a cover. ) They argue from a gut dislike of the rich and powerful and an unelected monarch is an easy target because they are unelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 17 minutes ago, reveldevil said: I've never understood why we'd need to replace the monarch with something else, like a presidency. What would be so bad about the Prime Minister becoming head of state, it's only a title after all? I guess the idea is that the Prime Minister, who has an important job to do doesn't have to waste his/her time with all the ceremonial crap that is expected of a head of state. The president in this case would do the same job as a monarch but they would be an elected, paid employee of the citizens. Just an elected civil servant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 34 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said: Just keeping it light with the cleavage and booze focus Many of the royal families are still in situ in Europe, still massively rich and influential, just off the radar. I think our constitutional monarchy model works well, and was hard won out of the carnage of the seventeenth century. There is a balance. If we had an elected president you know how it would play out .... it would end up being a well-respected former Commons front bench politician who would (probably) be in disagreement with the new majority Govt and we would end up with the USA style Oval Office- Senate-Congress deadlock. I am sure you have been there - Buckingham Palace is a very big building and if she didn't live in it we would still have to maintain it. I'm arguing against monarchies in general rather than just the British example. I'm not suggesting replacing the monarchy with an American style president. The Prime Minister and parliament would still run the country. The president would just be head of state, for ceremonial purposes mainly. And you don't need to elect a former politician if you choose not to. It can be whoever you want. David Attenborough, Stephen Fry, Bucko...the list is a long one. Predetermined inequality is a bad thing, I think you'll agree. Monarchy is a celebration of that...so why persist with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I like The Queen so it's a stay from me. Got no problem with those that would get rid, I'd just rather have the monarchy than not but can't be arsed defending my opinion to the forum intellectuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, Highgate said: I guess the idea is that the Prime Minister, who has an important job to do doesn't have to waste his/her time with all the ceremonial crap that is expected of a head of state. The president in this case would do the same job as a monarch but they would be an elected, paid employee of the citizens. Just an elected civil servant. Yes but you'd end up with a self important, fluffed up former party big wig and an accompanying retinue of hangers on. Lizzy doubtless has hers too but she's rather nicer and gets about zero on the "susceptible to corruption" scale. So Queeny for me. Tell me Highgate .. Do you have a candidate in mind ? Someone who would have the respect of the nation, its allies and the world at large ? Who could be a none partisan figurehead of sufficient stature and without an axe to grind ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 1 hour ago, WhiteHorseRam said: Trouble is, we aren't all born equal - if you did away with the monarchy there would still be fabulously wealthy families in the UK looking out for their own interests far more voraciously than the Royals do. 'If it ain't broke don't fix it', we could do with some stability right now. We tried the Republican thing 350 yrs ago and it was bloody miserable. They banned Christmas, theatres, most boozing and cleavages. Charles II was restored on a wave of ale and knockers. Hooray to that. And mince pies. Unforgivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I'm certainly no fan of the royals. But there is a valid argument in a society having a safety valve. Nobody elected the royal family or indeed the House of Lords. But nobody elected the US constitution either (although they do congress). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 31 minutes ago, jono said: I can't argue with the basic logic of your position. It would be undemocratic to do so and I am a democrat in principal, but the reality of our position in the UK is that we have this anachronism and it has worked astoundingly well particularly over the last 100 or so years which is in technical and historical terms a pretty good "sample" The alternative would be more democratic and, intellectually would be better; yet there are few democratic states with an elected presidential system that clearly have a more just and balanced outcome for the citizens at large as ours has had. So I am not convinced that it needs fixing. As you said in your earlier post it is essentially symbolic. Furthermore the checks and balances in our system of government would throw them out pretty quickly if it went wrong. The truth is the most vehement anti monarchists aren't arguing on a constitutional / justice basis (although they use it as a cover. ) They argue from a gut dislike of the rich and powerful and an unelected monarch is an easy target because they are unelected. Not entirely i would say, but good post nevertheless. I would dispute the claim that the just and balanced outcome you talk about has anything to do with the monarchy. How have they helped in that regard? I'd also argue that it's not just a gut dislike of rich and powerful people, but more a dislike that it can be decided by birthright who should be rich and powerful. There are also some practical matters. For example, have you heard of Orders of Counsel? Where the government of the day, uses royal prerogative to get around rulings made by the courts? That's exactly what happened in 2004 when islanders from Diego Garcia and BIOT were banned from returning to their homes. The High Court had found that their enforced exile was unlawful, but that was ignored, all because of some arcane powers that are still invested in the Queen, and she did precisely what the government asked her to do and signed. As for your other question. I don't have a candidate in mind, not for me to decide, I'm not British, but i did give you 3 suggestions. From our own example in the Republic of Ireland, the general consensus among the public would be that our parliament is filled with self serving ******* (not entirely, but mostly), who effortlessly combine incompetence, ignorance and corruption. Conversely however, the last 3 presidents (going back to 1990), are all very highly regarded, and i think most people would say that they have done, or are doing, an excellent job as head of state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 5 hours ago, Tony Le Mesmer said: I'd vote for them to be ousted. Nothing against them personally just that it's 2016 and the whole shebang is totally unacceptable. As a side story, when I was a little bit younger I applied to join the army as a dog handler. Passed all the tests, interviews and the like and as part of the process they wanted me to swear allegiance to the queen and I refused to do it. Just as I would refuse to bow in deference if I ever met her. She's a nice enough lady and I respect her but like me, she's just another human being. No better or worse. Equals don't submit. We're all equals. Needless to say I didn't end up joining the armed forces. I would have served my country and countrymen but not 'Queen and country'. There are some really amiable royals, I like prince harry but on the other side there are some real boneheads. That's not the issue though. The issue is that the system is deeply unfair. We should get rid of the royals because it's the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Le Mesmer Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 8 minutes ago, StringerBell said: We should get rid of the royals because it's the Yes indeed and we still have a royal family. How mad is that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jono Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I love a good debate ! The thing is Highgate .. The very arcane powers you describe re Diego Garcia might very well be invested in some future president and reverse engineering my contention by saying the monarchy can't claim any credit for where we are now is just a whisker offside. If we were in a mess would it then not be monarchies fault ? I noted your candidates and felt they were amusing and thoughtful in varying degrees. I am not sure though they would all be entirely willing, capable or would all meet the universal appeal and respect criteria. As to the Republic of Ireland, I have to agree with you. Although I don't follow things in depth, whenever anything has come from the Irish presidency it has always seems measured and with the right level of eminence gris that a presidency should voice. hey ho .. I can't fault your logic and I do think we have a very unusual set of circumstances and encumbents in the uk. I am a solid monarchist but not a blind monarchist. Even hereditary monarchs can only rule for so long without popular consent. it is just the methodology behind election, succession and entitlement that is a little perculiar. Get it wrong and they get thrown out in no lesser way than a president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 9 minutes ago, Tony Le Mesmer said: Yes indeed and we still have a royal family. How mad is that! To be fair I like a lot of what you post, but I don't agree on this one. I like the royals, they do bring in money despite what people claim. I was in London when wills and Kate got married, the atmosphere was great. They get a thumbs up from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Never was really in ne camp or another but would definately keep them.. Its our history, where Great Britian is from. What's wrong with that, they are mainly ceremonial. The rest of the world envy us our royal family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 10 minutes ago, Tony Le Mesmer said: Yes indeed and we still have a royal family. How mad is that! I know! It's ridiculous pal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 13 minutes ago, Angry Ram said: Never was really in ne camp or another but would definately keep them.. Its our history, where Great Britian is from. What's wrong with that, they are mainly ceremonial. The rest of the world envy us our royal family. Where, Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 I voted for the Royal family but my view may change when the Queen dies. I am a huge admirer of hers - I was born with her as head of state (like the vast majority of this country) and see her as something of an institution personified. I don't care how rich you'd make me, I would not want to be on the job until my 90's or 100's with the constant pressure to be "on" and behaving in a certain way, I am happy with my lot thanks! I can imagine there must be loads of days when she can't be arsed to cut a ribbon in some no mark place but is always there, without fail. She deseves to see the clock out, I will pay my respects to her service and review my position on royalty thereafter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Just now, eddie said: Where, Germany? We are all abit all sorts. I'm sure you are half Belgian, half fan. Did the Belgians leave you here after Struper left.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Le Mesmer Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 26 minutes ago, Paul71 said: To be fair I like a lot of what you post, but I don't agree on this one. I like the royals, they do bring in money despite what people claim. I was in London when wills and Kate got married, the atmosphere was great. They get a thumbs up from me. Appreciate the kind words Paul. Me likewise. We can't all agree all of the time otherwise it would be a bit dull. I think as I've got older my resistance to the Royals has all but disappeared. A bit like many things I was so passionate about until you accept they are not really worth the energy anymore. Ultimately they're here to stay, I don't dislike them, just the priveleges they enjoy simply by being born and so let them crack on with their lives and us crack on with ours. It is 2016 after all eh Stringer? Who IS that bloke in the picture anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.