[Bellissima]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Thank you That's apparently what happens when you make anti monarchy banners after triple biology

haha well i would definitely count it as productive revision! and triple biology... feel sorry for you... and this is coming from someone who likes biology...

[Organ]

Get rid of the monarchy. I hope that 2066 (1,000 years after 1066) we will have finally won this battle against our Norman overlords!

[Origami Bullets]

United Kingdom, please.

[gladders]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Essentially parliament choose who the prime minister is and I don't see why that would cease to be the case in our system. Yes presidents make public speeches, they meet VIPs and visiting heads of state, and possibly appoint diplomats (depends on the system chosen). None of this really feeds into your conspiracy theory.

The very point of the Head of State is to be removed from the routine operations of the state and to be a continuing body while the rest of the state moves around it. If Parliament could dismiss the president just with a snap of its fingers, what's to prevent the President seeking to get actively involved to secure a majority favourable to himself?

The only means by which presidents are removable is through impeachment - not votes of confidence.

Well American presidents clash with congress because they have executive power. An Irish president doesn't tend to clash with the Dail or the Seanad because they don't have any real power to do anything. Presidential systems aren't all alike.

The Irish presidents don't clash because Ireland is a small country with a tiny army and little ability to throw its weight around. Money doesn't follow it. Places like Britain, however...

And yes, presidential systems aren't all alike; but they all, in parliamentary systems, include powers to appoint prime ministers. And these have been abused.

No, I refute that. There would be strict constitutional regulations of the powers afforded to the office of president. I would imagine that any changes to those powers would have to be subject to a popular referendum. As such, no president could simply absorb powers in the way you describe.

What would these strict regulations be? Remember, you need to allow him relative freedom to act if Parliament cannot function straightforwardly.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by thegodofgod)
Not sure whether this is a stupid question, but what would happen to the estates, e.g. the Balmoral / Windsor castles, which are owned (?) by the head of state, if the United Kingdom were made into 'United Republic'?

Not at all a silly question! The ones which the Windsor family owns personally such as Balmoral would still be theirs. The ones they just live in would still be property of the State. People often get confused between the two, but it's like Cameron and 10 Downing Street, when he gets voted out he won't be living there any more, but he'll still own his personal house(s)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[gladders]

(Original post by internetguru)
The head of state is the single most important role in the country and one that needs to be democratic in a free democratic nation.

Who says? Because 7 of the 10 most democratic countries in the world disagree with you.

[willbee]

Well I want a monarchy. I personally live for the tea towels.
60-YEARS-TEATOWEL.jpg
teatowel_etsy4.jpg
il_570xN.332575108.jpg
I don't know why you'd want to abolish our country's pride and joy. What would the world be like without Will & Kate? MISERABLE. It would be miserable.

[LETSJaM]

YES!

tsr1.JPG

<3 x

[JPKC]

(Original post by gladders)
Except a monarch has plenty of restraints on them already - public opinion and the very, very solid expectation that they keep their soggy mits away from power. That will be a fundamentally different dynamic with a president.

Oh yes the magic firewall of public opinion. That was so excellent at preventing all those coup d'etats last century. You can't keep tyranny away with "solid expectations" and a firm handshake, you need actual balance and proper checks.

I am perfectly aware of what a right is - and there is no 'right' that states every office in a state must be elected, or even appointed. The right related to having a democratic government - which we have.

You're talking about human rights, I'm talking about legal rights. Why shouldn't the state treat each citizen equally? Go on, I'm gagging to hear your rebuttal of uniform civil rights.

The monarchy isn't 'better' - you're saying that, not I - the monarch is capable of conducting the job better because they are insulated from politics and secure from the temptation to abuse the office. In this detail, they secure equality for everyone else.

So why are the Windsors always better at being monarchs? Or are you saying that everyone could have a go? We could just go all ancient Athenian and have a big nationwide lottery for it, with everyone's name in the hat. You need to justify keeping the same family in a position of power without regard for their talent/deservingness.

[gladders]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Still, it's easier to get rid of President Thatcher, than Queen Thatcher (aye, she's no chance of being queen - but assume her family were in the royalty line)
Presidents being elected are easier for us to oust if they become a tyrannical dictator than if a king/queen were to do the same.

Nope, they're harder. If the Queen started misbehaving we'd have a republic within a week. A president would be able to cling to power.

[gladders]

(Original post by TopHat)
It's in the Democrat manifesto. Private assets, like Balmoral and Windsor, would remain owned by the Royal Family. The Crown Estates and the Duchies would become property of the state, as they're owned by the Monarchy and not the Monarch. I hope that helps!

The duchies are not owned by the monarchy. They are owned by the Dukes. They would remain their personal possessions.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Bellissima)
haha well i would definitely count it as productive revision! and triple biology... feel sorry for you... and this is coming from someone who likes biology...

Haha, tell me about it! At least it's the good side of biology, none of this boring planty stuff :P


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Morgsie]

Giving power to a political Head of State, I don't know what will happen and I dread it.

Save the Monarchy.

[internetguru]

(Original post by gladders)
Who says? Because 7 of the 10 most democratic countries in the world disagree with you.

Who cares what other countries think.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Mazzini)
This is a non-starter. We still have to have a head of state. So this £163 million will still be spent, but on another person. On the President (if TSR so chooses). It would not be available to spent on "improving schools, creating tax breaks or building hospitals".

Well plausibly but since we wouldn't be paying for extended retinue, multiple palaces and an extended family that figure would come down.

[Birchington]

(Original post by gladders)
Nope, they're harder. If the Queen started misbehaving we'd have a republic within a week. A president would be able to cling to power.

You appear to completely overlook the role of a constitution in regulating Presidential duties, powers and behavior, rendering your argument pointless.

[DebatingGreg]

(Original post by willbee)
Well I want a monarchy. I personally live for the tea towels.
60-YEARS-TEATOWEL.jpg
teatowel_etsy4.jpg
il_570xN.332575108.jpg
I don't know why you'd want to abolish our country's pride and joy. What would the world be like without Will & Kate? MISERABLE. It would be miserable.

I personally prefer these: http://www.radicalteatowel.com/teatowels?page=teatowels

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by Morgsie)
We have a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. The Queen is Head of State and above politics though she gets involved when there is a hung parliament and carries out duties like opening Parliament.

I don't want a political Head of State.

WOW. I'm agreeing with a Lib Dem. This is unusual

<3 x

[The Epicurean]

(Original post by madders94)
I want you to guarantee that if we have a republic, we won't end up with people crying in the streets every time the head of state blows his nose because if they didn't he'd kill them.

The UK's Monarchy and the DPRK's Monarchy are both bolstered by the divine and supernatural. Throughout British history, the Queens/Kings subjects have been led to believe that the Monarchy was not subject to earthly authority and that God directly gave them their right to rule. Likewise, in North Korea, Kim Jong-Il was born on a 'sacred mountain' whereby his birth was greeted with divine apparition of rainbows, an illuminated sky and flocks of birds expressing their jubilation.

A Republic however would entail a secular democratic election whereby the leaders would not exist through some divine or supernatural right and would therefore be fallible and open to criticism. Also, the UK Monarchy is still tied in with the Anglican Church. With a Monarchy, what is to stop our country descending into Swaziland?

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by willbee)
Well I want a monarchy. I personally live for the tea towels.
60-YEARS-TEATOWEL.jpg
teatowel_etsy4.jpg
il_570xN.332575108.jpg
I don't know why you'd want to abolish our country's pride and joy. What would the world be like without Will & Kate? MISERABLE. It would be miserable.

My sarcasm detector is a little off, so I apologise if my point here is redundant, but I can guarantee you there'll be more excitement for the Euros and Olympics this summer than the Jubilee. As fun as spending a wedding looking at the bride's sister's bum undoubtedly is, I'm sure we'd be able to get along without dying of boredom ;-)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App