The Student Room Group

Should the UK have a Monarchy?? Yes or No?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by gladders
Monarchists. Royalists are something slightly different pol pot noodles; otherwise I agree with everything you write :wink:


In my defence, I happen to advocate for the eternal reign of Elizabeth II, so I am technically a Royalist.
Haha :biggrin: if we could it would be great!
Original post by Harley_Quinn
I'm pretty annoyed at the lack of respect for our country and culture on this forum.

If money is all you care about I should probably remind you about the amount of money we get from tourism from them. Everyone went mental for the royal wedding.


Everyone? Really? Funny, for a moment then I thought that it said 79% didn't give a monkeys!

Tourism argument is rubbish and has been debunked innumerable times before, and if you think that British Culture is entirely revolved around the royal family, you either
a) hate the country or
b) need your head checking! :wink:
Original post by JoeLatics
Everyone? Really? Funny, for a moment then I thought that it said 79% didn't give a monkeys!

Tourism argument is rubbish and has been debunked innumerable times before, and if you think that British Culture is entirely revolved around the royal family, you either
a) hate the country or
b) need your head checking! :wink:


The rest of the world was more excited then we were but the Americans in particular loved it. What else is left of our culture anyway? Labour destroyed most of it.
Original post by Harley_Quinn
The rest of the world was more excited then we were but the Americans in particular loved it. What else is left of our culture anyway? Labour destroyed most of it.


Pretty sure that 'the Americans like it' isn't really a valid constitutional argument :wink:

What is left? We're world leaders in sport, science and industry as we always have been. The BBC Proms. The Royal Shakespeare Company and the West End in general. Our music is some of the best in the world. The Iron Lady. The King's Speech. We're the land of Tolkien, Dickens, Rowling. The BBC. The British Museum. Wimbledon. Wembley. I'm also reliably informed that we're leaders in fashion (although what I know about that would fit on the back of a postage stamp! :wink: )
Original post by JoeLatics
Pretty sure that 'the Americans like it' isn't really a valid constitutional argument :wink:

What is left? We're world leaders in sport, science and industry as we always have been. The BBC Proms. The Royal Shakespeare Company and the West End in general. Our music is some of the best in the world. The Iron Lady. The King's Speech. We're the land of Tolkien, Dickens, Rowling. The BBC. The British Museum. Wimbledon. Wembley. I'm also reliably informed that we're leaders in fashion (although what I know about that would fit on the back of a postage stamp! :wink: )


I understand progress and saving money but some things should be left alone.
Original post by Harley_Quinn
I understand progress and saving money but some things should be left alone.


It's not even a fiscal issue to be honest. It just doesn't actually make any sense for the post of Head of State to be a heredity one, unless of course the Human Genome Project missed the special 'Head of State' allele!! :wink: Also it means that the HoS has no democratic legitimacy, which means the HoS can't be a check and balance on the Government at all. A non-partisan role with only power to refer to referendum (a bit like Ireland's) would be ideal for me.
Original post by JoeLatics
It's not even a fiscal issue to be honest. It just doesn't actually make any sense for the post of Head of State to be a heredity one, unless of course the Human Genome Project missed the special 'Head of State' allele!! :wink: Also it means that the HoS has no democratic legitimacy, which means the HoS can't be a check and balance on the Government at all. A non-partisan role with only power to refer to referendum (a bit like Ireland's) would be ideal for me.


I still absolutely disagree with any pretence that the Head of State, whatever their source of appointment, should be allowed to refer any bill to referendum. It challenges the centrality of the House of Commons as the people's legislature. You can't expect such a power to be used fairly or neutrally.
Original post by gladders
I still absolutely disagree with any pretence that the Head of State, whatever their source of appointment, should be allowed to refer any bill to referendum. It challenges the centrality of the House of Commons as the people's legislature. You can't expect such a power to be used fairly or neutrally.


Separating powers a little is kinda the point!
Hence power of recall :smile:
This isn't separation of powers - it would constitute abuse of powers. Joe, you haven't demonstrated how you can reconcile your claim that the post-holder would be impartial and yet recommend bills for referendum. It's a fundamentally political act, and one which is anti-constitutional.

Power of recall is also irrelevant, considering it has rarely been used elsewhere in the world (and the people are hardly going to recall a president for giving them a referendum on anything) - and in so doing, such a mechanism would further politicize the post.
Reply 310
Avatar for Band
Band
I have no strong feelings either way. I don't like how everything stems from the crown rather than the people, or giving deference to people because of their birth.

However the monarchy does represent stability and a unifying presence with other commonwealth realms.

Would a replacement be any better? I would certainly think twice before voting to replace the monarch with a politically motivated president.
Original post by jmenkus
The Royal Family is the best marketing team this country has - the royal wedding alone was watched by an estimated 2 billion people worldwide.

They travel around the Commonwealth and the wider world meeting heads of state and spreading goodwill. They receive dignitaries here in the UK. In the US, for example, the president has to waste valuable time on ceremonial duties. Here, the Royal Family handles most of that, allowing our elected representatives to do their real jobs.


:rofl::rofl: As if you just used the 2 billion stat!!! That has been completely and utterly debunked if you'd bother to do more than 2 seconds' worth of Googling, and not swallow what Jeremy Hunt pulled out of his arse as fact! Here, I'll even get you started!

In the second paragraph, you've literally just described what a Head of State does. You've not explained why the person for that role has to have come from one of Lizzie Windsor's magic ova.


Original post by gladders
This isn't separation of powers - it would constitute abuse of powers. Joe, you haven't demonstrated how you can reconcile your claim that the post-holder would be impartial and yet recommend bills for referendum. It's a fundamentally political act, and one which is anti-constitutional.

Power of recall is also irrelevant, considering it has rarely been used elsewhere in the world (and the people are hardly going to recall a president for giving them a referendum on anything) - and in so doing, such a mechanism would further politicize the post.


Saying it's anti-constitutional isn't really an argument seeing as we're talking about changing the constitution...

I thought it was pretty self explanatory. Nobody wanting any sort of power would touch it, as even the post holder would only be able to ask the people's views on it, so there's no real power there. Ban MPs from being HoS and vice versa. If the power is being abused, get whatever % of the population to sign an e-petition within a time scale, and there's a recall election.


Original post by Band
I have no strong feelings either way. I don't like how everything stems from the crown rather than the people, or giving deference to people because of their birth.

However the monarchy does represent stability and a unifying presence with other commonwealth realms.

Would a replacement be any better? I would certainly think twice before voting to replace the monarch with a politically motivated president.


Nobody said anything about politically motivated presidents, though! Nobody is advocating a US-style system! In fact, in Ireland, the last President was so universally popular that, even though they run under party banners, nobody even bothered to stand against her when her first term ended!

As for the commonwealth, they're slowly but surely cutting that particular thread. Jamaica is already in the process, Oz will follow suit when Lizzie has died, and I'd be shocked if the majority of the others didn't do the same.
Original post by JoeLatics
In the second paragraph, you've literally just described what a Head of State does. You've not explained why the person for that role has to have come from one of Lizzie Windsor's magic ova.


I have though - numerous times. And you've always ignored it as inconvenient.

Saying it's anti-constitutional isn't really an argument seeing as we're talking about changing the constitution...


But it defeats the very point of core executive accountability. The government is responsible for all that it gets through Parliament, and cannot shirk responsibility and divert blame for the consequences of its plans. The House of Commons is the single appropriate means of forming public policy.

I thought it was pretty self explanatory. Nobody wanting any sort of power would touch it, as even the post holder would only be able to ask the people's views on it, so there's no real power there.


That is extraordinary wishful thinking. It's an enormous power to cause obstruction and delay, and will be a powerful political football for political parties.

Do you seriously think, if parties can acquire an office that is capable of scuppering, or at least delaying, the legislative programme of the government purely for fits and gigs, they won't do everything they can to secure it?

Ban MPs from being HoS and vice versa.


Oh, well, that's only 650 people in the entire country prevented from standing, and as we know only those 650 are capable of being loyal to party above loyalty to the conduct of their office, right?

If the power is being abused, get whatever % of the population to sign an e-petition within a time scale, and there's a recall election.


Define 'abused' in terms of giving people a referendum on an issue. Ask anybody whether they would like a referendum on an issue and they will always say yes.

And once again - when has a recall election for a head of state ever been successful?

Joe, you're guilty of incredible wishful thinking.

Nobody said anything about politically motivated presidents, though! Nobody is advocating a US-style system! In fact, in Ireland, the last President was so universally popular that, even though they run under party banners, nobody even bothered to stand against her when her first term ended!


And so, your ideal 'elected' president is one without any opposition? Weird.

As for the commonwealth, they're slowly but surely cutting that particular thread. Jamaica is already in the process, Oz will follow suit when Lizzie has died, and I'd be shocked if the majority of the others didn't do the same.


Jamaica's Prime Minister conveniently kept shtum on the subject of republicanism until after she was elected - so she has no mandate to pursue such a course.

As for the others. Well I'm sure in the 1950s some people assumed the victory of communism was inevitable, didn't they?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you