[Ich Dien]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
I don't think that that will continue when Charles takes the throne.

I dont think he will at all..

[Tonn]

Do you find it at all ironic that, if you compare the three in line to the throne, and the three highest profile politicians, the royal family actually have more life experiance?

The queen volunteered and played a notable role in WW2, as well as having over 40 years of engaging with the public, handling the press, advising prime ministers (for which she has been praised by nearly all of them for having strong and effective advice), Charles' role in the princes trust has been exemplary, and has highlighted many causes that were non-political, in a similar way as Diana did to landmines, and william has risen to a high rank in the army, as well as being a rescue helicopter person. They also understand the perils of war better than any, considering their brothers (Harry and Andrew) have fought on the front line.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have never had proper jobs, and cannot identify with the people any easier.

Also, President Blair? Really? President Thatcher?

Also, non political head of state......

Clarkson would probably coast it, considering the viewing figures top gear has.........

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
I think that's the main problem we have to contend with - people have this irrational sort of connection to the monarchy, despite them being completely unconnected from us in almost all areas!

My attachment to the monarchy is not irrational. Indeed I started out as a die-hard republican, then I studied the subject seriously and made a substantive about-face.

I think that a lot of that 'attachment' comes down to the whole 'The Queen's really nice' thing. (My standard response there is 'So's my Nan'!) I don't think that that will continue when Charles takes the throne, partliculary if he makes Camilla de Vil Queen!!

We'll have to see, but even if the monarchy takes a slight knock, I think it can survive.

MP's expenses cost less than a penny per person, yet I'm sure you were as outraged as everyone else at that.

I, personally, weren't, as I understood the hard work they do.

The problem with the monarchy is that it means that the Head of State has no power whatsoever, thus forcing the Head of Gov (the PM) to take on a role as 'quasi Head of State' - enabling them to declare war etc without even consulting Parliament (look at Iraq - Blair didn't put it to vote until the troops were as good as there!).

Well this particular problem is more to do with the power of declaring war not being with Parliament - but you don't need to abolish the monarchy to remedy this. For myself, I would support placing the power in Parliament as long as the law that would make this so mad the definition of armed conflict sufficiently broad to prevent it being toothless.

As for my major grievences, as well as the finer political points, I can not comprehend who thought it would be a good idea to make the HoS a heredity-based system! Can you imagine heredity Doctors, heredity mathematicians? It just sounds utterly absurd when you say it out loud.

Can you imagine elected Doctors or mathematicians? Equally absurd!

As a Lefty myself (by no means are all Republicans on the Left, by the way - Republic has Tory and UKIP members!), I really struggle to justify somebody having better opportunities than somebody else because of what their parents did - the monarchy is that class system blown totally out of all proportions.

This has been explained many times before - the point of the hereditary system is that it is a method by which the occupier attains the position through uncorrupt means. The Queen, born into the role, has nobody to thank for attaining it, nobody to keep sweet to maintain it, and nobody to fight or provoke to keep it.

Additionally the long tenure in the position ensures a continually growing and improving expertise and natural talent for the role, which can only be fair-to-middling at best with an elected politician.

All they've done with the finances page is taken the palace figure of just over £40M, added on the Duchies, and added on security.

They've taken the £40m, added the Duchies for no reason at all, and completely made up a security figure, which is irrelevant as it would remain the same under a president.

Of course, if the royals weren't exempt from Freedom of Information, we'd be in a much better place to speculate. Again, though, I find the money argument a poor one all round, whether it's monarchists or republicans using them.

Agreed, though republicans tend to be the worse informed about it

Elected by the elected is better than not elected at all! However, I feel that all Heads of States should be subject to a direct vote. The rest of the world is starving - that doesn't mean that we have to.

I have to disagree, sorry. Would you elected judges? What is your position on elected police chiefs?

I'd go for a ceremonial,

So your criticism that 'the Queen does nothing' was for what purpose?

NEUTRAL First Citizen

As a politician, how would this be ensured?

with some powers (and a mandate!) to check and balance the PM.

So not neutral at all then? And what if the president and PM are of the same party? What if they're of a differing party and end up clashing over pointless issues?

As a direct rep. of the people, HoS could force the PM to actually listen. Too many politicians see their election-winningness as a mandate to go the next 5 years doing whatever the heck they want.

I really, really do not see this happening at all.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
My attachment to the monarchy is not irrational. Indeed I started out as a die-hard republican, then I studied the subject seriously and made a substantive about-face.

Care to explain why?

(Original post by gladders)
We'll have to see, but even if the monarchy takes a slight knock, I think it can survive.

As you say, that remains to be seen!

(Original post by gladders)
I, personally, weren't, as I understood the hard work they do.

Yeah, why would MPs claiming for duck houses be a problem?!

(Original post by gladders)
Well this particular problem is more to do with the power of declaring war not being with Parliament - but you don't need to abolish the monarchy to remedy this. For myself, I would support placing the power in Parliament as long as the law that would make this so mad the definition of armed conflict sufficiently broad to prevent it being toothless.

Don't understand the highlighted bit.

The PM is the PM because he controls Parliament. That wouldn't solve the problem.

(Original post by gladders)
Can you imagine elected Doctors or mathematicians? Equally absurd!

Rubbish comparason. To get anywhere in the world of Government, you have to work hard and get elected. To get anywhere in the world of Medicine, you have to work hard and gain a degree. Same with maths.

(Original post by gladders)
This has been explained many times before - the point of the hereditary system is that it is a method by which the occupier attains the position through uncorrupt means. The Queen, born into the role, has nobody to thank for attaining it, nobody to keep sweet to maintain it, and nobody to fight or provoke to keep it.

Additionally the long tenure in the position ensures a continually growing and improving expertise and natural talent for the role, which can only be fair-to-middling at best with an elected politician.

Uncorrupt, lol...

For the last time, we aren't talking about politicians taking the role. Please try to grasp that!!!

(Original post by gladders)
They've taken the £40m, added the Duchies for no reason at all, and completely made up a security figure, which is irrelevant as it would remain the same under a president.

Which is exactly why we don't use the money argument (the irrelevancy of it, I mean). The Palace makes up this utter rubbish about 67p per person... it's nonsense!

(Original post by gladders)
Agreed, though republicans tend to be the worse informed about it

(Original post by gladders)
I have to disagree, sorry. Would you elected judges? What is your position on elected police chiefs?

They work hard and become experts in their field.

(Original post by gladders)
So your criticism that 'the Queen does nothing' was for what purpose?

Eh?

(Original post by gladders)
As a politician, how would this be ensured?

Ban MPs from becoming HoS, ban HoS from becoming MPs. Put a limit on the number of terms. No politician would touch it.

(Original post by gladders)
So not neutral at all then? And what if the president and PM are of the same party? What if they're of a differing party and end up clashing over pointless issues?

Sorry, should have been clearer - powers in emergency situations (maybe put Bills to referendum or something?), but actually have a mandate to act. If the people feel that the powers are being abused, they sign a recall petition, and we elect again.

(Original post by gladders)
I really, really do not see this happening at all.

It already does. Blair ignored 1,000,000 against Iraq, CamCam ignored 500,000 against tuition fee rises... It's particularly bad at the start of their terms.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Tonn)
Do you find it at all ironic that, if you compare the three in line to the throne, and the three highest profile politicians, the royal family actually have more life experiance?

The queen volunteered and played a notable role in WW2, as well as having over 40 years of engaging with the public, handling the press, advising prime ministers (for which she has been praised by nearly all of them for having strong and effective advice), Charles' role in the princes trust has been exemplary, and has highlighted many causes that were non-political, in a similar way as Diana did to landmines, and william has risen to a high rank in the army, as well as being a rescue helicopter person. They also understand the perils of war better than any, considering their brothers (Harry and Andrew) have fought on the front line.

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have never had proper jobs, and cannot identify with the people any easier.

Also, President Blair? Really? President Thatcher?

Also, non political head of state......

Clarkson would probably coast it, considering the viewing figures top gear has.........

Clarkson would be banned under the rules I've suggested as an 'out' Tory.

What part of 'no ex-MPs could be candidates' are you having problems understanding? Not to mention that we already have President Cameron in all but title - the queen has no power, guess where that's devolved to?!

The Defence budget has been going downhill every year except one - that was the year that 'HRH' went out to fight (surrounded every corner by SAS operatives!).

Chuck has already used his role for political gain, and has already suggested that he wants to be an 'active monarch'. Not to mention that he's a pretty major reason that the NHS still funds homeopathy!

(Original post by Ich Dien)
I dont think he will at all..

Polls suggest that most people want Wills. Politicians wouldn't dare touch the heredity principal at present.

[betaglucowhat]

(Original post by gladders)
This has been explained many times before - the point of the hereditary system is that it is a method by which the occupier attains the position through uncorrupt means. The Queen, born into the role, has nobody to thank for attaining it, nobody to keep sweet to maintain it, and nobody to fight or provoke to keep it.

Additionally the long tenure in the position ensures a continually growing and improving expertise and natural talent for the role, which can only be fair-to-middling at best with an elected politician.

These arguments can be just as easily made in defence of a full on dictatorship and they are no more convincing when applied to the monarchy.

[Ich Dien]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Polls suggest that most people want Wills. Politicians wouldn't dare touch the heredity principal at present.

It wouldnt be about the public or politicians. I think he will abdicate of his own free will.

[Tonn]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Clarkson would be banned under the rules I've suggested as an 'out' Tory.

What part of 'no ex-MPs could be candidates' are you having problems understanding? Not to mention that we already have President Cameron in all but title - the queen has no power, guess where that's devolved to?!

The Defence budget has been going downhill every year except one - that was the year that 'HRH' went out to fight (surrounded every corner by SAS operatives!).

Chuck has already used his role for political gain, and has already suggested that he wants to be an 'active monarch'. Not to mention that he's a pretty major reason that the NHS still funds homeopathy!




Polls suggest that most people want Wills. Politicians wouldn't dare touch the heredity principal at present.

To my knowledge, Clarkson has never been an active member of the conservative party. If you are suggesting that no one with sympathies or leanings is eligable, then pretty much everyone is out in the modern, internet age.

Charles speaking up for homeopathy is idiotic, but it has little to no relevance to the debate. Far more likely is the fact that politicians dont want to bother dealing with the angry citizens who insist it made them better.

What is the point of having an elected head of state if he or she isnt actually going to do anything political? we keep the queen because its easy and convienent rather than for any better reason, and elections every X number of years for someone who wont even have any power seems quite pointless. either it will be boring, or people will try and ambush it for political ends.

When Charles actually does something unconstitutional, then I will demand either his abdication, or constitutional change. Until that point, unless you can actually give a tangible benefit then theres no point taking action

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Care to explain why?

I could go into a long, long essay, but essentially read back on my numerous posts on this long worn out subject over the past months!

Don't understand the highlighted bit.

The PM is the PM because he controls Parliament. That wouldn't solve the problem.

So what is your solution? Keep those powers in an elected president, and therefore have the same problem as under the monarchy? You can't simply say they're accountable because they're elected - they're accountable only at that particular moment they are candidates for election. In the ensuing years between elections, they are as unaccountable as the monarch.

Rubbish comparason. To get anywhere in the world of Government, you have to work hard and get elected. To get anywhere in the world of Medicine, you have to work hard and gain a degree. Same with maths.

And do you have to work hard and get a qualification to become president? No? Because that is also a rubbish comparison. Once you're an MP there is hard work, absolutely - but election itself, be it for Parliament or for a Head of State, is in no way meritocratic.

Uncorrupt, lol...

For the last time, we aren't talking about politicians taking the role. Please try to grasp that!!!

Please demonstrate how you would prevent hijacking of the appointment of the Head of State by political parties. Whereever there are elections, massive resources are needed to get votes, which under our present society, only political parties are capable of providing on a national scale.

Which is exactly why we don't use the money argument (the irrelevancy of it, I mean). The Palace makes up this utter rubbish about 67p per person... it's nonsense!

67p is absolutely accurate.

They work hard and become experts in their field.

And Heads of State do? I dare you to say yes.

Eh?

You stated that the Head of State under a republic would be ceremonial, which begs the question of why criticise the Queen for only being ceremonial herself.

Ban MPs from becoming HoS, ban HoS from becoming MPs. Put a limit on the number of terms. No politician would touch it.

Yes they would - they would put up a non-MP party member. Trust me - nature abhores a vacuum, and so do parties.

Sorry, should have been clearer - powers in emergency situations (maybe put Bills to referendum or something?), but actually have a mandate to act. If the people feel that the powers are being abused, they sign a recall petition, and we elect again.

'The people' would be as divided over whether the President had a right to act as they would under the present monarch, and it would divide essentially over party lines. A Labour President referring a Tory PM's bill to a referendum would cause such a massive controversy and throw up much light but little heat.

Moreover I remember reading a study on the German President's powers last year (I forget where it was), which showed a strong correlation between a President's tendency to refer Bills to the Constitutional Court and their political incompatibility with the Chancellor. It's simply another means by which political parties abuse their position.

It already does. Blair ignored 1,000,000 against Iraq, CamCam ignored 500,000 against tuition fee rises... It's particularly bad at the start of their terms.

It already does, yes, but I see an elected President intensifying it, particularly as it would move political conflict outside of Parliament and into cross-institutional fields.

[gladders]

(Original post by betaglucowhat)
These arguments can be just as easily made in defence of a full on dictatorship and they are no more convincing when applied to the monarchy.

You're very close to Godwinning yourself there!

[tehFrance]

(Original post by SFsucks)
In a republic do you have to have a president?

From my understanding you do not as the Prime Minister takes on whatever role of the monarchy is left if he so wishes, there is the option to change her/his title from Prime Minister to President and then the Deputy becomes Prime Minister (as with France) or Vice President (US).]

This is just my understanding

[Psyk]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
The point is that the role wouldn't have very much power - rather just checks & balances. Ban all MPs from becoming the HoS, and ban ex-HoSes from becoming MPs - anyone wanting actual power would be taken straight out.

Say that parties aren't allowed to back candidates, and that candidates can't have actively backed/campaigned for any party. Write in the actual dos and don'ts of the role into a constitution, and elect David Attenborough!

So there would be a separate election for a head of state? How would they campaign for the job? Unlike elections for parliament it wouldn't be about their policies because as a ceremonial head of state they shouldn't have any.

You're saying that you want to avoid people who want power, so what sort of person would actually stand for election?

[Fusilero]

(Original post by gladders)
You're very close to Godwinning yourself there!

The vast majority of dictatorships aren't Hitler

(Original post by tehFrance)
From my understanding you do not as the Prime Minister takes on whatever role of the monarchy is left if he so wishes, there is the option to change her/his title from Prime Minister to President and then the Deputy becomes Prime Minister (as with France) or Vice President (US).]

This is just my understanding

Depends on the Republican System. Both of those are Presidential systems (which I favour! Vive la France! Vive la République!) and not a Parliamentary System like the one we have (with an unclear separation of power between the executive and legislative).

[gladders]

(Original post by Fusilero)
The vast majority of dictatorships aren't Hitler

Nonetheless, it would behove you to debate the substance of my post rather than trying to divert people's attention to how approximate it is to dictatorial systems.

[betaglucowhat]

(Original post by gladders)
Nonetheless, it would behove you to debate the substance of my post rather than trying to divert people's attention to how approximate it is to dictatorial systems.

The point was not that the monarchy is similar to a dictatorship, it was that the argument I quoted is not persuasive.

[Fusilero]

(Original post by gladders)
Nonetheless, it would behove you to debate the substance of my post rather than trying to divert people's attention to how approximate it is to dictatorial systems.

Why me in particular? As far as I'm aware I haven't answered many of your points. His argument was that your argument could be used to defend dictatorships. Mind you, most pro-Republican arguments can also be used to defend dictatorships. Dictatorships and Oligarchies have a funny way like that.

[electriic_ink]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
MP's expenses cost less than a penny per person, yet I'm sure you were as outraged as everyone else at that.

But the MPs' expenses system was not designed to give MPs a lavish lifestyle, like the system we have for the Royals is.

(Original post by JoeLatics)
The problem with the monarchy is that it means that the Head of State has no power whatsoever, thus forcing the Head of Gov (the PM) to take on a role as 'quasi Head of State' - enabling them to declare war etc without even consulting Parliament (look at Iraq - Blair didn't put it to vote until the troops were as good as there!).

Not really an argument for abolishing the Monarchy, more an argument for forcing a Commons vote before war is to be declared. Besides that, Blair went into Iraq at the risk of his and his party's popularity - and they did suffer.

(Original post by JoeLatics)
As for my major grievences, as well as the finer political points, I can not comprehend who thought it would be a good idea to make the HoS a heredity-based system! Can you imagine heredity Doctors, heredity mathematicians? It just sounds utterly absurd when you say it out loud. As a Lefty myself (by no means are all Republicans on the Left, by the way - Republic has Tory and UKIP members!), I really struggle to justify somebody having better opportunities than somebody else because of what their parents did - the monarchy is that class system blown totally out of all proportions.

Whilst I agree with you, does it really matter? They have no power - all they're doing is living a life of tax-payer funded luxury and in return further Britain's popularity abroad.

If hereditary privilege is your biggest grievance with the Royal Family, might I suggest you focus your attention on the 90+ Heriditary Peers in the House of Lords, who have real power?

[gladders]

(Original post by Fusilero)
Why me in particular? As far as I'm aware I haven't answered many of your points. His argument was that your argument could be used to defend dictatorships. Mind you, most pro-Republican arguments can also be used to defend dictatorships. Dictatorships and Oligarchies have a funny way like that.

I do beg your pardon, I thought you were the poster of the original comment!

Anyway, perhaps I should add the qualifier as long as the office-holder is the Head of State; the reason I single it out is because it is a position of a different kind from those of the day-to-day government and of Parliament, and possesses powers which are dangerous in the hands of an elected politician.

[tehFrance]

Where's a question for the republican's... do you support gay rights as in to marry, adopt and create a baby via IVF/surrogacy and have the same spousal/parental rights?

[Fusilero]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Where's a question for the republican's... do you support gay rights as in to marry, adopt and create a baby via IVF/surrogacy and have the same spousal/parental rights?

Yes but I also think that gay marriage, and all other marriage, is not a place the state should be involved in. If the state doesn't recognise gay marriage (or any marriage) then marital status and sexuality will not be a factor in adoption.

The following I hold less strong opinions on and do not understand fully but I shall embark on a loose viewpoint anyway, always good to hold at least some viewpoint (but be flexible for change!):

In regards to IVF and surrogacy it should be possible that the state recognises the parents of the child in a similar fashion to adoption with the donor and surrogate, if desired, being allowed to opt out of parental status before the procedure is performed and for prospective parents to gain the rights and responsibilities over the child before the procedure is done assuming the procedure goes ahead and all three parties are happy with it.