[yawn]

(Original post by cid)
all i found was this...



could you please show me what you mean because i don't think this is what you were referring to.

I didn't replicate the entire statement from the website on here. That seems to be a summing-up of the dangers of a monarch handing powers that are proper to that position to a government that is not entitled to those powers.

[cid]

(Original post by yawn)
I didn't replicate the entire statement from the website on here. That seems to be a summing-up of the dangers of a monarch handing powers that are proper to that position to a government that is not entitled to those powers.

no sorry i am not accusing you of copying anything.

I am asking can you show me what you mean about how it is harming Britain.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by yawn)
Your first question suggests that the monarchy is a passive institution that does no harm. If you read the link provided on the first page, you'll see how our system of monarchy is harmeful to both the country and its people.

Government power unchecked? Just because it derives from the Monarch? You quoted that extract to highlight how silly people can be, right?

edit: also, the extract is inaccurate. All power in the land does not derive from the monarch. Historically, parliament gained the power it has very much despite the efforts of the monarch.

(Original post by yawn)
..

Furthermore, you've said above that the government isn't entitled to the power it has. What constitutes "entitled", in your view?

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by freedom1)
But the Queen doesn't intervene or do anything so how does your point stand?

She doesn't need to intervene in politics because Parliament has always stayed within the boundaries of it's powers.

(Original post by freedom1)
the whole point of checks and balances is to prevent crazy things happening. Like we pointed out they can't prevent crazies, this means checks and balances are pointless.

A vague and ridiculous scenario that is never going to happen does not render the concept of checks and balances pointless.
What is Parliament doing that is crazy and requires the Queen to intervene? To what degree does it have the backing of the people?

[yawn]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Government power unchecked? Just because it derives from the Monarch? You quoted that extract to highlight how silly people can be, right?

edit: also, the extract is inaccurate. All power in the land does not derive from the monarch. Historically, parliament gained the power it has very much despite the efforts of the monarch.



Furthermore, you've said above that the government isn't entitled to the power it has. What constitutes "entitled", in your view?

You are obviously a monarchist and hence are defensive...unnecessarily, as far as I'm concerned.

I am contributing to this debate in a passive manner, not giving an opinion one way or the other...rather, merely replicating answers to common questions that are provided on the link highlighted by a post on the first page of this debate.

Any questions you may have, as a result of the claims made on the relevant website should be directed to them, not me since I am not the author.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by yawn)
--

You don't have to answer, of course, any post you don't want to. That doesn't mean the content you quote shouldn't be publicly refuted, and I hope someone with more time on their hands than I will do so thoroughly, lest people actually believe that the monarchy is any danger to their freedom or democracy.

[gladders]

(Original post by yawn)
Your first question suggests that the monarchy is a passive institution that does no harm. If you read the link provided on the first page, you'll see how our system of monarchy is harmeful to both the country and its people.

Are you referring to the Republic link? It's been pretty well established that the Republic website is about as fair and balanced as that of the English Defence League.

While the monarch herself has little power, except on rare occasions when she can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in the land. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise her powers through the Privy Council.

So the problem isn't the power of the monarch, it is the role of the monarchy in giving unchecked power to the central government.

The monarchy does not give unchecked power to the central government.

If it were unchecked, it would be powers which, no matter how much Parliament protested, the government would be able to exercise without any outside input, influence or stoppage.

Please demonstrate any power that meets the above criteria.

Regarding the cost of maintaining them:

<snip>

Do they come cheap? Depends upon your own thinking and attitude towards the monarchy. If you support them then you'll never be convinced that they are an expense we cannot afford. If you don't support them, the opposite will be the case.

<snip>

The key figure is £150m, the estimated total cost for the maintenance and lifestyles of one family: 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency, 17 times the cost (per person) of members of parliament and without any return on our 'investment'.

<snip>

I've never seen any source that actually justifies this £150m figure. It seems to be a number Republic have plucked out of the air, and is also the most extreme example.

Also, comparing the British Head of State's costs to that of the Irish President (6th richest and most populous country in the world against one of the smallest and a moderate economy) is apples and oranges. Compare it with Germany's, for a closer analogy. There it comes down to a pretty similar figure.

Either way, in these times of grave austerity, we should be scruntinising all the associated costs such as policing etc before we can make a valid judgement.

You're quite right that the costs of policing should be scrutinised as with any public body. However with you I don't think you'd ever be satisfied until there was no police protection for the Head of State at all.

Of course, should we then become a republic, no doubt you'd bat no eyelids at the cost of security ramping right up again...

[yawn]

(Original post by gladders)
Are you referring to the Republic link? It's been pretty well established that the Republic website is about as fair and balanced as that of the English Defence League.



The monarchy does not give unchecked power to the central government.

If it were unchecked, it would be powers which, no matter how much Parliament protested, the government would be able to exercise without any outside input, influence or stoppage.

Please demonstrate any power that meets the above criteria.



I've never seen any source that actually justifies this £150m figure. It seems to be a number Republic have plucked out of the air, and is also the most extreme example.

Also, comparing the British Head of State's costs to that of the Irish President (6th richest and most populous country in the world against one of the smallest and a moderate economy) is apples and oranges. Compare it with Germany's, for a closer analogy. There it comes down to a pretty similar figure.



You're quite right that the costs of policing should be scrutinised as with any public body. However with you I don't think you'd ever be satisfied until there was no police protection for the Head of State at all.

Of course, should we then become a republic, no doubt you'd bat no eyelids at the cost of security ramping right up again...

I shall repost my answer to Timmona whose point went along similar lines to your own.

(Original post by me)
I am contributing to this debate in a passive manner, not giving an opinion one way or the other...rather, merely replicating answers to common questions that are provided on the link highlighted by a post on the first page of this debate.

Any questions you may have, as a result of the claims made on the relevant website should be directed to them, not me since I am not the author.

Thanks.

[gladders]

(Original post by yawn)
I shall repost my answer to Timmona whose point went along similar lines to your own.

Thanks.

Would you say you endorse them as if you were your own?

If so, why shouldn't we critic them?

If not, why refer to them, and again, why shouldn't we critic them?

[Loveisonthedole]

They might talk with their mouth full when addressing the PM, but they ****ing **** there pants when they have to meet the Queen. she's the man.

[YorkieLad101]

as a monarchist i say YES! an im appy to say well always have a monarchy!

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by YorkieLad101)
as a monarchist i say YES! an im appy to say well always have a monarchy!

Can you tell us exactly why that makes you appy?

just out of interest.

(Original post by gladders)
Would you say you endorse them as if you were your own?

If so, why shouldn't we critic them?

If not, why refer to them, and again, why shouldn't we critic them?

Yeah, I think we should try just quoting a website every time we want to make a point, and then saying we're not debating when we're questioned

[YorkieLad101]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Can you tell us exactly why that makes you appy?

just out of interest.

cos im a monarchist, duh!

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by YorkieLad101)
cos im a monarchist, duh!

Oh yeah, right, you said.

Sorry, it's late

[YorkieLad101]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Oh yeah, right, you said.

Sorry, it's late

lol

[eaglegenus]

"She doesn't need to intervene in politics because Parliament has always stayed within the boundaries of it's powers".

are you sure about that? can you then answer why is it in the hands of the PM+Parliament to join the US in the wars around the world against (I assume! the peoples' will? Thanks

[eaglegenus]

But part of the job of being a copper or a judge is that they have to be impartial. Whether they have opinions or not is irrelevant; the requirement is that they do not act upon them in their professional work and treat everyone equally. I believe it's called zealous disinterestedness.[/QUOTE]


What makes you sure they really do not act upon their political opinions and they are impartial? are they robots?

[Clumsy_Chemist]

(Original post by eaglegenus)
"She doesn't need to intervene in politics because Parliament has always stayed within the boundaries of it's powers".

are you sure about that? can you then answer why is it in the hands of the PM+Parliament to join the US in the wars around the world against (I assume! the peoples' will? Thanks

Parliament doesn't have to do what the people want it to do on any given day. It would be impossible to determine exactly what the public wanted and the public regularly changes its mind. Parliament is elected on broad policy stances and then judged at the next general election. All its accountability rides on it wanting to be re-elected at the end of the Parliament. My point is that the government doesn't drop its policy just because people oppose it. The link between public opinion and politicians is much more loose, because elections are so infrequent.

Also, the government did not overstep its powers by waging war. Where does it say in any of the fragments of our country's constitution that the public themselves have to be directly consulted before military action is taken? When has there ever been a snap referendum of that nature? Never...

[Jale]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
Also, the government did not overstep its powers by waging war. Where does it say in any of the fragments of our country's constitution that the public themselves have to be directly consulted before military action is taken? When has there ever been a snap referendum of that nature? Never...

Nowhere. But, lack of a requirement to consult people doesn't protect the government from the harshest public criticism when it comes to light that they knowingly mislead us over the impetus for war.

[Cheese_Monster]

I think the question we should ask after should the UK have a monarchy is 'why' should we/do we have a monarchy? What benefit do they really provide?

Yes the emotional/nationalist/traditional aspect of the monarch enshrining British history is what causes our overawing attraction to them. That said, abolishing the monarchy seems entirely time-consuming and for the sake of constitutional reform which we cannot prioritise ahead of the economy. Not that i'm an expert, but i'm pretty sure the amount of money given to the monarchy is beyond that which is brought in by tourism?