[anarchism101]

(Original post by gladders)
Australia had a referendum in 1999 - the monarchists won comfortably from a position of monetary and media disadvantage.

55-45 isn't that comfortable, especially when it is considered that quite a few republicans voted no because they didn't like the proposed constitution. Australian polls generally show a republic (when the type of republic is not in question) to be more popular.

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
55-45 isn't that comfortable, especially when it is considered that quite a few republicans voted no because they didn't like the proposed constitution. Australian polls generally show a republic (when the type of republic is not in question) to be more popular.

Nonetheless, she won it, and carried every Australian State and Territory bar the Capital Territory. Unless and until they can propose a system that marries the advantages of the present system with election without exposing the Head of State to politicisation, they won't change it.

[Borderline]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I don't think you quite got the message; the evidence is all around.

I don't think you got the message: that isn't evidence.

I can tell that you think you're very wise and philosophical, trying desperately to portray that image with your avatar. In reality statements like "The evidence is all around" just sounds pretentious and empty.

You aren't Nietzche - stop trying to be.

Or is this all because my mind is too slow to understand, as you do pompously implied earlier.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by gladders)
Nonetheless, she won it, and carried every Australian State and Territory bar the Capital Territory. Unless and until they can propose a system that marries the advantages of the present system with election without exposing the Head of State to politicisation, they won't change it.

On the contrary, many Australians didn't feel the role of the President proposed under the referendum was politicised enough. The option proposed was a President chosen by parliament and subordinate to the PM, which was by far the less popular option compared to a directly elected president.

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
On the contrary, many Australians didn't feel the role of the President proposed under the referendum was politicised enough. The option proposed was a President chosen by parliament and subordinate to the PM, which was by far the less popular option compared to a directly elected president.

Well if they want their system to go in that direction that's fine by them I guess, I personally find it undesirable.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by najinaji)

I'd have to go a long way to hear so much rubbish again.

Who cares if the monarch owns the Crown Estate or not? Simply pass legislation saying they don't any more. I don't see why feudal landowning is any more valid here than anywhere else.

For most of the rest of the video he's just describing what is, rather than what should be. For example, the point about the judges, military, MPs, etc swearing an oath to the monarch. Personally I find that that happens utterly abhorrent. An MP is supposed to be a representative of the people. The loyalty of MPs, the army and judges should be to the people, not the monarch.

The democracy and freedom that we have are not gifts from the Queen, they are ours by right.

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The democracy and freedom that we have are not gifts from the Queen, they are ours by right.

Historically our rights and freedoms were both ours by right and gifts of the Sovereign - on account of those God-given rights being upheld by the laws and government of the monarch.

[najinaji]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I'd have to go a long way to hear so much rubbish again.

He's there pretty regularly in the chamber if you're interested...

Who cares if the monarch owns the Crown Estate or not? Simply pass legislation saying they don't any more. I don't see why feudal landowning is any more valid here than anywhere else.

How is it 'more valid' than anywhere else...? I don't understand what you mean.

For most of the rest of the video he's just describing what is, rather than what should be. For example, the point about the judges, military, MPs, etc swearing an oath to the monarch. Personally I find that that happens utterly abhorrent. An MP is supposed to be a representative of the people. The loyalty of MPs, the army and judges should be to the people, not the monarch.

Very true, but there are two things you need to bear in mind:

- Firstly, it is a historical relic, harking back from a time when parliamentarians acted as advisors to the monarch rather than legislators.

- Secondly, here is the oath:

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

This could be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but the most obvious is that they are addressing the monarch as a representative of the state, rather than specifically pledging allegiance to the Queen. Think of the Americans pledging allegiance 'to the flag'.

The democracy and freedom that we have are not gifts from the Queen, they are ours by right.

Well yes, but the Queen is there to protect them.

[SJC]

The same reason why I eat my brocolli.
No one likes it - but my gran tells me to

[anarchism101]

(Original post by najinaji)
How is it 'more valid' than anywhere else...? I don't understand what you mean.

It's a leftover from feudalism. The monarchy and royal family own the Crown Estate because they were formerly feudal masters of the land. What Rees-Mogg is essentially arguing is that they either already should be considered as a normal proprietor due to the abolition of feudalism.

What I am arguing, on the other hand, is that they have no justifiable right to the land whatsoever, and so should not.

Very true, but there are two things you need to bear in mind:

- Firstly, it is a historical relic, harking back from a time when parliamentarians acted as advisors to the monarch rather than legislators.

Then abolish that historical relic.

- Secondly, here is the oath:

This could be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but the most obvious is that they are addressing the monarch as a representative of the state, rather than specifically pledging allegiance to the Queen. Think of the Americans pledging allegiance 'to the flag'.

Them swearing allegiance to the state doesn't really make sense since they are part of the state.

And I oppose the American 'pledge of allegiance' as well. The republic exists for the people, the people do not exist for the republic.

Well yes, but the Queen is there to protect them.

How?

[anarchism101]

(Original post by gladders)
Historically our rights and freedoms were both ours by right and gifts of the Sovereign - on account of those God-given rights being upheld by the laws and government of the monarch.

The rights were not 'God-given', they were won by the people through struggle.

[mehreenyyy]

part of the interbreeding reptilian bloodline. david icke anyone?

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
It's a leftover from feudalism. The monarchy and royal family own the Crown Estate because they were formerly feudal masters of the land. What Rees-Mogg is essentially arguing is that they either already should be considered as a normal proprietor due to the abolition of feudalism.

What I am arguing, on the other hand, is that they have no justifiable right to the land whatsoever, and so should not.

They have exactly as much right to what land their own as any other landowner in this country. If you take the land from the royal family you threaten property rights for every British citizen.

Then abolish that historical relic.

Why? Why not celebrate it?

Them swearing allegiance to the state doesn't really make sense since they are part of the state.

They are an apolitical figurehead, the human face of the British state and nation. Fealty to the monarch is equivalent to fealty to the nation.

And I oppose the American 'pledge of allegiance' as well. The republic exists for the people, the people do not exist for the republic.

Depends what you mean here: if you mean the oath that officeholders are meant to take on taking office, I think it still has a purpose; if you mean the daily recitation of the pledge in schools, then I'm with you.

How?

A symbolic enforcer of the laws as Head of State.

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The rights were not 'God-given', they were won by the people through struggle.

The literature and speeches of many periods, particularly pre-civil war, would disagree with you: they were asserting existing rights, perhaps interpreting them in a broader sense than before, but there was little innovation, really.

The rights were defended through struggle.

[M4LLY]

Tradition?

[Beebumble]

It's tradition, looks nice and just gives us something to forget about our own woes I suppose. Yes there is the argument that they bring in money through tourism and they do but that usually just goes back into keeping them I don't think the economy would suddenly crumble if we got rid of them because the money lost from lack of royalist tourists would be made up on lack of money spent on them. The whole tourism thing just seems like a smoke screen just to justify the fact we really just have them because we simply like them. Most people come to London go to the London eye, big ben etc.. anyway.

Having said that I do quite like having a royal family as long as we don't give them too many handouts like a state funded boat (stares at Gove) and the cost of keeping them doesn't exceed the amount we get for tourism. Besides what would we do with them if we suddenly decided we didn't want them anymore? I don't think the EU will be too happy with beheading them.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Martyn*)
That may be a separate issue though. If it is true that the Royals are value for money (and it may be true), why get rid of them? However, the reason why we still have a Royal Family are quite different from the reason that they are value for money. Even if the Royals didn't generate any money, people would still believe in them, because it is traditional and bound up with the cultural and historical heritage of the country. This is why they are always in the news. They are here as part of the plan to maintain the status quo.

Oh I see what the thread is getting out now. Yeah, the existence of the Royal family is inseverable from history.

[TheHansa]

That I can tell you in one word:

Tradition!


They should be throne out though

[najinaji]

(Original post by anarchism101)
It's a leftover from feudalism. The monarchy and royal family own the Crown Estate because they were formerly feudal masters of the land. What Rees-Mogg is essentially arguing is that they either already should be considered as a normal proprietor due to the abolition of feudalism.

What I am arguing, on the other hand, is that they have no justifiable right to the land whatsoever, and so should not.

So you're saying that a family doesn't have the right to a piece of land formerly owned by their ancestors...?

Then abolish that historical relic.

There's not really any point...

Them swearing allegiance to the state doesn't really make sense since they are part of the state.


And I oppose the American 'pledge of allegiance' as well. The republic exists for the people, the people do not exist for the republic.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean people swearing allegiance to their government or head of state? Because that isn't what they're doing.

PMs and Peers swear allegiance to the monarch basically saying 'I swear to be an honest, just MP', as she is the head of state and can legally remove those powers if needed. However, they are also doing that as an indirect swearing of allegiance to the entire nation.

As for America:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Basically 'I pledge to be a proper member of American society and not destroy the state'.

How?

She is legally sovereign, so can take back any powers she usually hands over to the legislature & executive. For example, in the event of a British Hitler/Kim Jong Il, she could remove their powers and order the army to get rid of them.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by najinaji)
So you're saying that a family doesn't have the right to a piece of land formerly owned by their ancestors...?

Yes. I don't support automatic inheritance. And certainly not in the case of land owned simply by state proclamation. The ancestors only owned the land in the first place by forcibly taking it.

There's not really any point...

I appreciate it's only wording and wouldn't change much, but I don't see why it should be kept simply due to being the status quo if it was technically wrong.

I really don't know what you're talking about. Do you mean people swearing allegiance to their government or head of state? Because that isn't what they're doing.

That is exactly what they're doing. The Queen is the head of state and the oath involves the swearing of allegiance to the Queen.

PMs and Peers swear allegiance to the monarch basically saying 'I swear to be an honest, just MP', as she is the head of state and can legally remove those powers if needed. However, they are also doing that as an indirect swearing of allegiance to the entire nation.

No, it's rather more than that. MPs are supposed to represent the wishes of the people, not the monarch.

As for America:

Basically 'I pledge to be a proper member of American society and not destroy the state'.

No, they swear allegiance 'to the republic'. The state should exist for the people, not vice versa.

She is legally sovereign, so can take back any powers she usually hands over to the legislature & executive. For example, in the event of a British Hitler/Kim Jong Il, she could remove their powers and order the army to get rid of them.

No she can't. Since the UK has an uncodified constitution, it's agreed that she can't. Saying 'she could theoretically' means nothing because she only could do so with the support of parliament and or the people, so realistically it would not genuinely be her doing so.

Did she or the Governor-General step in to stop apartheid? Did Victor Emmanuel III (a monarch with more realistic power than the Queen) step in to stop Mussolini?