[Metrobeans]

Should we keep the Monarchy or should we abolish it? You decide in the TSR Model House of Commons referendum! This thread is open to all on TSR, so argue to your hearts content to keep or get rid! The Model House of Commons campaign teams have written documents to help you decide which way to vote, so have a read, cast your vote and get involved with the debate! If you want to find out more about the Model House of Commons, including how to get involved with TSR's most exciting debating community, click here!

The poll closes on Tuesday evening.

To prevent fraudulent voting, you must have been on TSR more than 3 months and have more than 150 posts to vote. Those who have neg rep may find themselves unable to vote. If this is the case for you and you have more than 3 months/150 posts, send me a PM and I shall ensure your vote is added.

YES Campaign Manifesto

Three Reasons Why You Should Vote YES:

1. Republicans have no clear vision as to what could replace the Monarchy.

• Expect months of tiresome political squabbling if the 'No' campaign wins. The republicans range from diehard socialists to extreme pro-market libertarians: do you really expect such people to agree?
• The resulting system would be a murky compromise reflecting the will of the most powerful republicans in the campaign - not what our country needs.

2. The current constitutional arrangements represent centuries of accumulated wisdom.

• Designing a constitution from scratch is the dream of revolutionaries everywhere, but our traditions and institutions have not survived for so long by some historical accident.
• Not only has the system outlasted most others; a monarch does too. Unlike politicians, a monarch can aid Britain’s long term goals, by a lifetime of careful, measured actions, rather than mindlessly pursuing the last opinion polls, or dealing information a tabloid proprietor in return for good headlines.

3. Abolishing the Monarchy will simply hand more power to greedy politicians, making corrupt and inefficient technocrats our ultimate leaders.

• Democracy would slow down because an elected head of state would be able and seek to challenge the authority of Parliament leading to the kind of hopeless political deadlock we see in America.
• Furthermore, Britain is already a democracy and does not need to abolish an institution that has long shown itself capable of modernisation to prove that fact.

NO Campaign Manifesto

Inherited power: why should anyone be entitled to more rights and wealth, purely because of their ancestry?

The anti-monarchist campaign is composed of left and right, Conservative and Labour, Libertarian and Socialist, united in favour of one thing – democracy. That's why we'd abolish the monarchy.

How would we abolish it? The monarch's constitutional powers would be redistributed amongst existing Parliamentary structures. The state would receive all Crown Estate and Duchy assets. The Queen could retain her title for ceremonial purposes, and keep all private assets such as Balmoral.

So why abolish the monarchy? The first argument is equality. Why should someone enjoy more rights than you, just because of birth? Monarchy is the antithesis of democracy. It represents the principle that one person can have the right to declare war, dissolve Parliament, and pass Royal Assent, through birth alone. It violates the basic principle of political equality. Nobody should enjoy extra power on account of who they were born to. Instead, everyone should enjoy those rights equally by subjecting them to the democratic process.

The second argument is the cost of the monarchy. The monarchist side may say this is a very small amount of money per person, but as fiscally aware anti-monarchists will point out, this misses the opportunity cost. Yearly Head of State Expenditure is £40 million annually, and including security is £140 million, and including money spent on royal events by councils is £163 million! That's £163 million annually we could put towards improving schools, creating tax breaks, or building hospitals instead.

Your vote can achieve this. Please: vote no.

[toronto353]

Good luck to all, but vote YES.










Campaign Video:



Articles:


http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk...1466-31004394/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/9279739/Her-Majesty-our-pilot-through-uncharted-waters.html

[meenu89]

Voted 'Yes'.

[TopHat]

Voted no.

[Dubliner]

United Republic! English throw off the yoke of the Normans who have robbed you since 1066 just like us Irish did!

[JPKC]

"No"

[PoGo HoPz]

United Republic? That holds a certain je ne sais quoi does it not? I voted 'no.

[Birchington]

Yes! Time for some fun debating.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Birchington)
Yes! Time for some fun debating.

Are you saying you voted 'yes'? This would conflict with your signature somewhat.

[Birchington]

It was more of a declaration of excitement, yes standing in for woop woop.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Are you saying you voted 'yes'? This would conflict with your signature somewhat.

In fairness, I wouldn't be surprised if people were confused. Typically, the status quo is the No vote.

[Tudball]

I see no discernible impact that the removal of a largely defunct institution will have on our country.
Nevertheless, I see it as a component of our culture, tradition and national identity.

Voted 'Yes'.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
In fairness, I wouldn't be surprised if people were confused. Typically, the status quo is the No vote.

Tell me, what presidential system do the Republicans favour. Do you also not feel that your second paragraph applies to both campaigns?

[Birchington]

To clarify, vote NO guys!

[gladders]

Oh wow, the republican manifesto relies on the cost argument? Really? That's so easy to destroy!

[toronto353]

(Original post by gladders)
Oh wow, the republican manifesto relies on the cost argument? Really? That's so easy to destroy!

Go for it.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
Tell me, what presidential system do the Republicans favour. Do you also not feel that your second paragraph applies to both campaigns?

That's up to voters after the referendum. Unlike monarchists, we don't seek to dictate the system. As for cost, given our proposal initially just redistributes powers amongst existing structures, we wouldn't be spending a penny. If, after the referendum, voters did decide they want a president, then they can all decide how much they're willing to pay. I'd bet large amounts they'd want it cheaper.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Nope.


The head of state should be the person who inspires the confidence of the people, now that may well be Elizabeth Windsor, but why not let her stand for president?

[Mr Dangermouse]

(Original post by Muffled Snuffles)
This is treason. Yes voters are all going to be hanged.

Acts can be overwritten.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
That's up to voters after the referendum. Unlike monarchists, we don't seek to dictate the system. As for cost, given our proposal initially just redistributes powers amongst existing structures, we wouldn't be spending a penny. If, after the referendum, voters did decide they want a president, then they can all decide how much they're willing to pay. I'd bet large amounts they'd want it cheaper.

Ah no you see this is the problem with your campaign. What you're doing is trying to be something to everyone. Isn't the truth that you don't have any system in mind because you couldn't agree on any system?