[michael321]

(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.



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



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



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.



Can you imagine elected Doctors or mathematicians? Equally absurd!



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.



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.



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



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



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



As a politician, how would this be ensured?



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?



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

Wonderful arguments. Sums up most of my reasons for wanting a monarchy.

Threads like this come up from time to time, and people get very inflamed about things, but ultimately I think there's pretty much no practical difference between a queen and a president, and the Queen seems more cost effective and has a few fairly minor arguments which swing in her favour.

[michael321]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Slavery was a great tradition. The 'continuity' thing is an amazing argument for a Dictatorship. We're losing money from this, today.

1 + 2) You're drawing rather irrelevant comparisons between a system of maintaining a head of state with little/no real power, and institutions which wreck millions of lives and stifle democracy.

3) I thought you said the money argument wasn't one you liked? And it's very tenuous - I firmly believe that a monarchy is an excellent international attraction, far more so than an empty building or some sterile presidency.

The wedding itself probably brought in tens of thousands, if not more, from spectators visiting from abroad (and spending foreign money). It was an excellent advertisement for London to an estimated audience of two BILLION people, who saw a very appealing and impressive image presented of the capital and its monarchy. If it contributed to the decision of 0.01% of its audience to visit Britain, it would bring in 200,000 tourists.

You only have to look at the fact that this wedding is headline news in numerous countries around the world to know that the monarchy is a significant attraction of Britain. Take the recent Irish and Australian elections - both received a bit of coverage in international news on the days they were held, and virtually none before that. This, on the other hand, has been news for months, even internationally - American news channels have been buzzing ever since the engagement was announced.

All this is GREAT publicity for Britain, and is keeping us in people's minds as a tourist destination. Ask yourself why anyone from, say, the USA would visit the UK. Is it perhaps because of our excellent weather? The exquisite cuisine? No, people visit the UK because it has history, a quaint and appealing (albeit misleading) image, and traditions like the royals. The pomp and ceremony of our establishment, accumulated over centuries of power, is genuinely like no other, and the Queen is a key part of this.

It's easy to dismiss this as surmise, but it's very logical surmise with a broad, common-sense base. Think about why you might visit America - most would say the exciting culture - the shopping, the modernity, all that - basically the culture, at least as it outwardly appears. The Queen is a key part of our equivalent. It's not hard to underestimate the power of a living, breathing monarchy, with centuries of tradition behind it, to pull in tourists.

Plus it would, I suspect, be pretty tricky to divest the royals of the crown estates without a lot of legal fees, at the very least, and I'm not sure it would happen then. Ostensible, legal ownership may not be the be-all-and-end-all, as the Windsors have a very substantial interest in the Crown Estates, and their various trusts.

[Tonn]

Back to the whole 'ask a republican' thing;

Most republicans come across, at least to me and other people i speak to, as being quite condesending to royalists and the general public, and are often rude, insulting and unappriciative of what the royal family does for us.

My previous post suggested that, while they arent perfect, the royals are mostly good people who don't deserve much of the bile that is thrown towards them.

Would republicanism be more popular if it was treated as an intellectual movement which considered the values and opinions of everyone kindly and fairly, accepting that people have differing views which are equally as valid as yours?

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Tonn)
Back to the whole 'ask a republican' thing;

Most republicans come across, at least to me and other people i speak to, as being quite condesending to royalists and the general public, and are often rude, insulting and unappriciative of what the royal family does for us.

My previous post suggested that, while they arent perfect, the royals are mostly good people who don't deserve much of the bile that is thrown towards them.

Would republicanism be more popular if it was treated as an intellectual movement which considered the values and opinions of everyone kindly and fairly, accepting that people have differing views which are equally as valid as yours?

Absolutely, we should try not to sound condescending (although you do get people taking that tone in all groups no matter which side, or what they're debating, for that matter).

It is my opinion, however, that the royals could do more work ("They're very good at working 3 days a week, 5 months a year, and looking like they work hard" according to their own press secretary), but people shouldn't be downright nasty to them. They should be scrutinised where needs be, however (Andrew, Charles, and the DofE come to mind!), and the two shouldn't be confused.

(Original post by michael321)
1 + 2) You're drawing rather irrelevant comparisons between a system of maintaining a head of state with little/no real power, and institutions which wreck millions of lives and stifle democracy.

The argument was 'it's been there a long time, ergo it's good'. This isn't a particularly good argument, which is what I was pointing out.

(Original post by michael321)
3) I thought you said the money argument wasn't one you liked? And it's very tenuous - I firmly believe that a monarchy is an excellent international attraction, far more so than an empty building or some sterile presidency.

Turn it into a Versailles style museum, or a Louvre style (historical?) art gallery - they'd flock in. I wasn't using the money argument, rather pointing out that somebody else using that argument was wrong.

(Original post by michael321)
The wedding itself probably brought in tens of thousands, if not more, from spectators visiting from abroad (and spending foreign money). It was an excellent advertisement for London to an estimated audience of two BILLION people, who saw a very appealing and impressive image presented of the capital and its monarchy. If it contributed to the decision of 0.01% of its audience to visit Britain, it would bring in 200,000 tourists.

You only have to look at the fact that this wedding is headline news in numerous countries around the world to know that the monarchy is a significant attraction of Britain. Take the recent Irish and Australian elections - both received a bit of coverage in international news on the days they were held, and virtually none before that. This, on the other hand, has been news for months, even internationally - American news channels have been buzzing ever since the engagement was announced.

All this is GREAT publicity for Britain, and is keeping us in people's minds as a tourist destination. Ask yourself why anyone from, say, the USA would visit the UK. Is it perhaps because of our excellent weather? The exquisite cuisine? No, people visit the UK because it has history, a quaint and appealing (albeit misleading) image, and traditions like the royals. The pomp and ceremony of our establishment, accumulated over centuries of power, is genuinely like no other, and the Queen is a key part of this.

I've answered the tourism argument several times already, and already pointed out that we lost anything between £4bn and 24bn from the whole affair.

(Original post by michael321)
Plus it would, I suspect, be pretty tricky to divest the royals of the crown estates without a lot of legal fees, at the very least, and I'm not sure it would happen then. Ostensible, legal ownership may not be the be-all-and-end-all, as the Windsors have a very substantial interest in the Crown Estates, and their various trusts.

They hold them only in trust for the state. You've managed to use the money argument again (bold)!!

[michael321]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
The argument was 'it's been there a long time, ergo it's good'. This isn't a particularly good argument, which is what I was pointing out.

No, drawing an irrelevant comparison does not make the argument invalid. In the case of the monarchy, it is not harmful like the other examples you've given, and it would be a shame to chuck a non-harmful, long established constitutional monarchy out just because of a bit of principle which flies in the face of pragmatism.

Turn it into a Versailles style museum, or a Louvre style (historical?) art gallery - they'd flock in. I wasn't using the money argument, rather pointing out that somebody else using that argument was wrong.

I have no doubt that the monarchy draws in far far more than the Louvre does each year. It's a national attraction, and part of England's culture, which attracts tourists.

I've answered the tourism argument several times already, and already pointed out that we lost anything between £4bn and 24bn from the whole affair.

I can't see the posts to which you refer, but I assume you argued that the economy lost out from the day off - which IMO is BS.

First of all, the ultimate aim of economic prosperity is get "welfare gain" - something just as easily attained with an extra day off as with an extra few billion of notional cash flowing round the economy.

Secondly, many of the purchases/services etc.etc. which were not sold/demanded on Friday will simply contribute to the economy next week rather than this one.

Thirdly, if you are referring to the extra days off people supposedly took last week - well if it's their holiday time, they are fully entitled to. And if they were claiming illegitimate sick leave, that is a matter between them and their employer, who I hope will rightly request a doctor's note and dock a day's wages if this is not provided.

And as I said above, I disagree with you on the tourism. It's tricky to quantify, but I think the monarchy contributes to a lot of people's decision to visit Britain, as an integral part of our tradition and culture. I offer some pretty reasonable evidence in my above post.

They hold them only in trust for the state. You've managed to use the money argument again (bold)!!

I don't have a problem with the money argument - I just thought you did. At any rate, if the estates are profitable and well run, why return them to the state, which will just sacrifice long-term income and sell them off?

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by michael321)
No, drawing an irrelevant comparison does not make the argument invalid. In the case of the monarchy, it is not harmful like the other examples you've given, and it would be a shame to chuck a non-harmful, long established constitutional monarchy out just because of a bit of principle which flies in the face of pragmatism.

It isn't pragmatic or non-harmful, though. It harms the entire political system by concentrating all the power in the land, effectively, with one, non-directly elected person.

(Original post by michael321)
I have no doubt that the monarchy draws in far far more than the Louvre does each year. It's a national attraction, and part of England's culture, which attracts tourists.

There aren't any stats regarding Buck House - I can tell you that 8.5 million visit Le Louvre per year.

(Original post by michael321)
I can't see the posts to which you refer, but I assume you argued that the economy lost out from the day off - which IMO is BS.

First of all, the ultimate aim of economic prosperity is get "welfare gain" - something just as easily attained with an extra day off as with an extra few billion of notional cash flowing round the economy.

Secondly, many of the purchases/services etc.etc. which were not sold/demanded on Friday will simply contribute to the economy next week rather than this one.

Thirdly, if you are referring to the extra days off people supposedly took last week - well if it's their holiday time, they are fully entitled to. And if they were claiming illegitimate sick leave, that is a matter between them and their employer, who I hope will rightly request a doctor's note and dock a day's wages if this is not provided.

The fact is, Britain shut down for another day, at a time it could ill afford to.

We lost a lot more money through not manufacturing anything than we gained through tourism. There's a big difference between everyone in the country taking a day off at once, and individuals taking days off as normal.

(Original post by michael321)
And as I said above, I disagree with you on the tourism. It's tricky to quantify, but I think the monarchy contributes to a lot of people's decision to visit Britain, as an integral part of our tradition and culture. I offer some pretty reasonable evidence in my above post.

No. Nobody has ever said "let's go to Britain because they have a monarchy". They might say "let's go to see some of the history", which won't disappear overnight if we got rid! Buck House wouls still be there. As I've said before, I reckon visits to it would double - all access tours to every room in the place; seeing where kings and queens of old slept, ate and worked would appeal to anybody.

It speaks volumes that Windsor Castle is the only monarchy-related destination in VisitBritain's top 20 tourist destinations - beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland in number 7.

(Original post by michael321)
I don't have a problem with the money argument - I just thought you did. At any rate, if the estates are profitable and well run, why return them to the state, which will just sacrifice long-term income and sell them off?

They already belong to the state, as far as I know.

[gladders]

There's no point in turning Buck House into a museum/gallery. The replacement President will need an official residence and it would more cost-effective to move him into Buck House rather than looking for a new residence and spending millions on preparing that place to be a residence and making it secure.

[MrBleh95]

I'd say I'm probably a republican although I'm ashamed to say I did have a smile on my face when the royal wedding was on. It's just an irrational thing where many people just feel a strange pride for them (even though we shouldn't really). My main objection to the monarchy is just that it sounds out the wrong message that even though we live in a so-called 'meritocracy', it's still ok for people to have huge privelage through nothing more than the fortune of birth. For all I know they could be lovely people but I just don't like the message it sends.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
There's no point in turning Buck House into a museum/gallery. The replacement President will need an official residence and it would more cost-effective to move him into Buck House rather than looking for a new residence and spending millions on preparing that place to be a residence and making it secure.

It'd be several times more cost effective - the income from the first week would offset whatever costs are involved in finding and preparing the new Presidential residence.

(Original post by MrBleh95)
I'd say I'm probably a republican although I'm ashamed to say I did have a smile on my face when the royal wedding was on. It's just an irrational thing where many people just feel a strange pride for them (even though we shouldn't really). My main objection to the monarchy is just that it sounds out the wrong message that even though we live in a so-called 'meritocracy', it's still ok for people to have huge privelage through nothing more than the fortune of birth. For all I know they could be lovely people but I just don't like the message it sends.

It's frankly difficult not to feel something for a wedding! I was happy for the couple, but no more happy for them than the dozens of people I see marrying in the Oldham Chronicle every week!

People can scoff at the moral arguments, but, in the words of one of the greatest PMs: "Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right".

[JPKC]

(Original post by Diety)
She may have nominal constitutional power, but nothing actual.

British monarchs have latent actual power. Refraining from exercising it doesn't mean they cannot.

Believe it or not, though, the monarch's power (latent or otherwise) is far less of a concern constitutionally. It's where this power has gone in the meantime that is worrying. (As I've said,) The power that originates (constitutionally) with the monarch is now exercised on the monarch's behalf by other institutions. The Prime Minister is able to do what he likes with the military because he would be doing it through the Royal Prerogative. We could go to war and stay at war without the electorate having a say. Then there's the issue of the Crown in Parliament, which, in effect, renders it completely all-powerful - there are no constraints on what it could do. Because we are a monarchy, Parliament could pass a bill tomorrow that would abolish elections - democracy is only an insignificant footnote in our legal constitution because all power comes from the monarch.

The monarchy are good diplomatic representatives to other countries to encourage closer ties and investment in Britain. In anticipation of your counter, a president just wouldn't be the same; everyone has a president, but it is something special and unique to have an internationally recognisable head of state.

So you're justifying the current constitution under the (untested) assumption that it makes us wealthier? That's almost as phoney as the tourism argument.

They are an attraction to tourists, we might debate about the degree to which this is true, but I think is is indisputable that allot of people are attracted to come to Britain to see the things relating to the monarchy.

Oh, here it is. I believe that argument has already been negated further up the thread. My own argument is that it has nothing to do with monarchy. The Queen should keep her titles and, heck, maybe even her ceremonial stuff, I only care about making sure she has no more political rights than any other citizen - that's what the monarchy is, political inequality, inequality under the law.

The monarchy represents stability and continuity in Britain. No matter which party is in power, or to what degree society might be divided, the Queen provides a national and historical, cultural focal point that will always be there (unless you lot have your way of course).

The Queen is one of the most divisive figures in British politics, let's not labour under the assumption that we all have this emotional appreciation for her almighty God-appointed self. The Queen can represent all she wants as long as she doesn't hold any monarchical power.

Finally, the Queen's relationship with the PM is very important. They meet on a weekly basis and discuss matters privately. The Queen, as a neutral figure with vast experience can give the PM advice that he is not compelled to take, but should certainly consider. For example, she might say about a policy "well, Mr Major tried that before and it didn't work; are you sure about it?" (remember she has seen the leadership of allot of PMs). An important part of this is that she is not a party politician, and her primary focus will be to look out for the good of the country and the people.

That's pure speculation. The idea that the No. 10 Policy Unit gives two craps about what Her Majesty says is just quite funny.

I might add the old 'if it 'aint broke', don't fix it' argument to these. I think it would be silly to think things would be any better for this country with a party politician as head of state. Imagine President Cameron, or Brown or I dread to think... Miliband.

If a majority of people in the UK voted for any of them to become the head of state then so be it. What's this beef against democracy you have?

What would the balance be between the president and parliament? Would we have frequent vetoes of parliamentary bills as in the US? I think It's best to leave things as they are.

Look at the French constitution for a practical semi-presidential democratic alternative that would work in the UK, don't just jump to the nearest feckless presidency (such as that in the US). The anti-monarchy campaign doesn't compare HM with Saudi Royalty!

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
It'd be several times more cost effective - the income from the first week would offset whatever costs are involved in finding and preparing the new Presidential residence.

You have absolutely no evidence to back that up. Where would money be saved?

[gladders]

(Original post by JPKC)
British monarchs have latent actual power. Refraining from exercising it doesn't mean they cannot.

But if they did, they would lose their power.

Believe it or not, though, the monarch's power (latent or otherwise) is far less of a concern constitutionally. It's where this power has gone in the meantime that is worrying. (As I've said,) The power that originates (constitutionally) with the monarch is now exercised on the monarch's behalf by other institutions. The Prime Minister is able to do what he likes with the military because he would be doing it through the Royal Prerogative. We could go to war and stay at war without the electorate having a say.

He is answerable to Parliament for everything he does with the Prerogative. Moreover no government today would dare use such a power without the House of Commons behind them - as happened with Iraq, by the way.

Your criticism is empty.

Then there's the issue of the Crown in Parliament, which, in effect, renders it completely all-powerful - there are no constraints on what it could do. Because we are a monarchy, Parliament could pass a bill tomorrow that would abolish elections - democracy is only an insignificant footnote in our legal constitution because all power comes from the monarch.

Because we have an unwritten constitution could Parliament do such a thing - it's nothing to do with being a monarchy; there are monarchies which would not be able to do this, and if we were a republic such a 'concern' would still exist. Again, your criticism is empty.

Oh, here it is. I believe that argument has already been negated further up the thread. My own argument is that it has nothing to do with monarchy. The Queen should keep her titles and, heck, maybe even her ceremonial stuff, I only care about making sure she has no more political rights than any other citizen - that's what the monarchy is, political inequality, inequality under the law.

Nope, sorry. It's equality under the law. The law makes the Queen the Queen, and even if she is technically legally immune, there is no way in hell that she could get away with anything we are barred from doing.

The Queen is one of the most divisive figures in British politics,

Really? Divisive to you perhaps. For the remaining 80% of the country, she's pretty unifying.

let's not labour under the assumption that we all have this emotional appreciation for her almighty God-appointed self. The Queen can represent all she wants as long as she doesn't hold any monarchical power.

And she doesn't. At least, she only possesses emergency constitutional powers as a means of denying their access by politicians, who may be tempted to abuse them on a day to day basis.

That's pure speculation. The idea that the No. 10 Policy Unit gives two craps about what Her Majesty says is just quite funny.

You've read too deep into what he said: he didn't say No. 10 fawns at every word; but the Queen has the right to make her voice heard behind closed doors and even the most ardent republican ought to respect the witnessing and knowledge of 60 years in the middle of government. She has no power to force anything, but if she's ever proved right on something it's bound to encourage second thoughts next time others swan in on ill-considered plans. In any case, it's refreshing to know there's at least one voice at the top which isn't a politician's.

If a majority of people in the UK voted for any of them to become the head of state then so be it. What's this beef against democracy you have?

It's nothing to do with democracy. Most heads of state worldwide are not elected, and they are still democracies. The government is elected by the people, and that is the definition of democracy. All else is redundant, really.

Look at the French constitution for a practical semi-presidential democratic alternative that would work in the UK, don't just jump to the nearest feckless presidency (such as that in the US). The anti-monarchy campaign doesn't compare HM with Saudi Royalty!

The French constitution is dreadful; it combines the worst aspects of presidentialism and parliamentarism into one ugly whole. The French constitution is considered less democratic than Britain's.

[Diety]

(Original post by JPKC)
British monarchs have latent actual power. Refraining from exercising it doesn't mean they cannot.

You and I both know they would never use their powers. Then there would be a revolution.

The Prime Minister is able to do what he likes with the military because he would be doing it through the Royal Prerogative. We could go to war and stay at war without the electorate having a say.

Actually, this power is now currently restrained by convention, and either now or in the near future (one of my politics teachers says it has happened, the other says it is in the pipeline) will be removed by statute law.

Then there's the issue of the Crown in Parliament, which, in effect, renders it completely all-powerful - there are no constraints on what it could do.

Oh no! A democratically elected parliament having the power, what will we do! Isn't this what you want?

Because we are a monarchy, Parliament could pass a bill tomorrow that would abolish elections

1. This is never going to happen. 2. If it ever does, the monarch provides a good restraint. Would a president step in? Most likely he would be on the same side as the other politicians in parliament.

So you're justifying the current constitution under the (untested) assumption that it makes us wealthier? That's almost as phoney as the tourism argument.

Actually my source is the former head of the CBI, Digby Jones.

The Queen is one of the most divisive figures in British politics, let's not labour under the assumption that we all have this emotional appreciation for her almighty God-appointed self. The Queen can represent all she wants as long as she doesn't hold any monarchical power.

Actually, according to a recent poll by Ipsos MORI, which has been canvassing opinion on the same subject every year since 1993; 80 per cent of Britons want to remain subjects of the Queen, with just 13 per cent in favour of living in a republic, the lowest proportion for at least 20 years.

That's pure speculation. The idea that the No. 10 Policy Unit gives two craps about what Her Majesty says is just quite funny.

The idea that the PM doesn't listen to advice from a very experienced Queen, and that the No. 10 Policy Unit doesn't give 'two craps' about what the PM says is what I'm finding funny.

If a majority of people in the UK voted for any of them to become the head of state then so be it. What's this beef against democracy you have?

As the poll results showed; the majority of people want THE QUEEN to be the head of state, so what's your beef with democracy?