TSR Republican Society

Scroll to see replies

I'm not very patriotic. I mean, I'd prefer to live in England than many other places, but I wouldn't be immensely cut up about it if I were being hunted by the law and had to flee to Australia.

Original post by SciFiBoy

im one of the least patriotic people around...my opinion of my own country is almost always very low...

And this is why Republicanism will fail in the UK as you all seem to be very unpatriotic, a prerequisite to be one too :eek:

Reply 101

Jace Falco

Original post by tehFrance

And this is why Republicanism will fail in the UK as you all seem to be very unpatriotic, a prerequisite to be one too :eek:

In your opinion. In my view, all elitism is bad, and so I am opposed to all monarchies. The one in the UK happens to be the one that is closest to me, and therefore affects me most, and is the one I can do most about.

One doesn't have to love one's country to want what's best for it.

Reply 102

tehFrance

Original post by Jace Falco

In your opinion.
Well obviously.

In my view, all elitism is bad.
Does that mean you are against capitalism and the free market which creates a whole new upper class? The class system won't go away, it won't be reserved for monarchy but rich people.

In bold.

Reply 103

Jace Falco

Original post by tehFrance

In bold.

Um, yes, I am against capitalism and the free market. Along with organised religion, capitalism is one of the most vigorously evil things in the world.

Reply 104

SciFiRory

Original post by tehFrance

And this is why Republicanism will fail in the UK as you all seem to be very unpatriotic, a prerequisite to be one too :eek:

im an internationalist socialist, my opposition to monarchism is one of principle, I do not think that monarchy should exist anywhere in the world, same with elitism and capitalism.

Reply 105

Relaxicat

Original post by Supermanatemydog

erm, the costs of the Royal Wedding far outweigh the profits from tourism, the extra Policing alone on double time is expected to cost £5m.

And the profits from tourism will be...?

If you don't know any figures then you must admit that your post is nonsense.

Reply 106

Jace Falco

Original post by Relaxicat

And the profits from tourism will be...?

If you don't know any figures then you must admit that your post is nonsense.

How about you lot stop rolling out the tourism argument? How can you say that tourism is more important than bringing down elitism and furthering democracy and equality?

Reply 107

NikNakWakAtak

Original post by tehFrance

I have yet to meet an unpatriotic republican... it is one of the main things to be a republican.

Isn't flag-waving a form of deference? Personally, the idea and principle of a monarchy (and everything it entails) is more grotesque than the Queen's face (that's meant to be a metaphor; I'm not being mean).

It's the thought that counts.

Reply 108

Relaxicat

Original post by Jace Falco

How about you lot stop rolling out the tourism argument? How can you say that tourism is more important than bringing down elitism and furthering democracy and equality?

Don't be so naive :P

Reply 109

JoeLatics

Original post by Relaxicat

And the profits from tourism will be...?

If you don't know any figures then you must admit that your post is nonsense.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/eveningnews/main20056608.shtml

Reply 110

tehFrance

Original post by JoeLatics

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/eveningnews/main20056608.shtml

'The royals, known as "the firm"' these American's will make anything up won't they? since when were they known as the firm :lol:

The loss they are talking about is not just one day, the wedding, but 11 days including all bank holidays which is nonsense. CBS = Fail.

Reply 111

JoeLatics

Original post by tehFrance

'The royals, known as "the firm"' these American's will make anything up won't they? since when were they known as the firm :lol:

The loss they are talking about is not just one day, the wedding, but 11 days including all bank holidays which is nonsense. CBS = Fail.

3 days of holiday for 11 days off = win.
4 days of holiday for 11 days off = lose.

Reply 112

Relaxicat

Original post by JoeLatics

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/eveningnews/main20056608.shtml

'Extra policing and overtime alone is estimated at more than $35 million. Here's a further cost - when all the people are celebrating, they're not working. And because the wedding holiday falls between two long holiday weekends in England, you can take 11 days off by burning only three days of vacation time.'

They seem to have included normal holiday time alongside holiday time specifically related to the royal wedding.

So effectively the absurd $50 billion calculation blames normal holiday time as well - hardly the Monarchy's fault?

And besides, the article discusses only short term numbers, we might consider long term benefits.

And we might also consider arguments other than economic ones.

But all in all a good find! Has made me think.

Reply 113

Life-by-Law

Hi i have an assignment due really soon and im stuck!
Here it is...

the question is about a directive that was adopted by the EU and had an implementation deadline... between the date of adopting the directive and the deadline, a woman was in a situation where the directive would help her loss, however the UK had not implemented it yet....

So what does that mean!?.. i talk about direct effect but in the case of Ratti, it states that if implementation deadline date has not passed, it cannot have direct effect.

what about indirect or state liability? anything else that needs to be mentioned?

2) Also, theres another question saying that the UK wants to base a legal claim against the validity of the Directive, how would they do this? on what grounds?...

PLEASE PLEASE help if you can!!

Reply 114

jumpingjesusholycow

The right to democratically elect your head of state is a civil right that should be afforded to every human being of every nation state, including Britain. Republicanism should be just as legitimate in Britain, as it is in Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

Reply 115

The_Great_One

We do elect a head of state we elect the prime minister who does the queens work for her...so their for were electing someone to do the queens work for her which is technically speaking electing a head of state. Not only that but 48 million people around the world watched president obamas inauguration. Hundreds of millions if not billions watched the Royal Wedding, why on earth would we want to get rid of it.

By the way im all for capitalism, elitism and everything else.

Heres something to infuriate republicans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0tgW_vJ05U

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 116

gladders

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

The right to democratically elect your head of state is a civil right that should be afforded to every human being of every nation state, including Britain.

Where is this written?

I would say it is a civil right to choose your government - which we do. The public in general don't seem particularly bothered or put against in not having to elect their Head of State in a number of countries in the world.

Republicanism should be just as legitimate in Britain, as it is in Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

I don't think anyone's saying it shouldn't be - but then we should also expect respect from republicans who have this horrible tendency to assume that monarchists consist of stupid people, right-wingers, or both.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 117

dingdong89

This is a good video of Professor Adam Tomkins (a republican) discussing some of the flaws of Britain's constitutional monarchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhVbamFf40E

With regards to patriotism and republicanism, personally I think there are few things more patriotic than wanting your country to have the very best political system it can possibly have, and engaging in activism in order to attempt to make that dream a reality.