[artery08]

I'm personally in favour of monarchy purely because there's no solid reason to change it, especially since the royal family bring in tourism. But for those who are pro-monarchy, I would also like to say that there is literally no historical reason to ever be in favour of monarchy, in fact, anyone who knows a little bit of history would know that the British monarchy and by extension monarchies around the world, have almost always been self-serving absolute rulers who identified themselves as sole representatives of their nations and the nation itself, They were the law and considered their word to be the be all end all of justice in the land, they could not be held to account. It's very surprising then that considering this, some pro-monarchists try to rationalize their stance using some fancy symbolic arguments, if anything the monarchy symbolises oppression and tyranny. And this is someone who doesn't mind monarchy!

[Paul McCartney]

Voted no

(Original post by Moleman1996)
As all UKIP MPs are voting for the monarchy is the inclusion of UKIPs logo in the "united against the monarchy" montage thigny not a little misleading?

Not entirely misleading. I'm not an MP, but I'm a UKIP member and a republican.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
As all UKIP MPs are voting for the monarchy is the inclusion of UKIPs logo in the "united against the monarchy" montage thigny not a little misleading?

I think a better question regarding all of the TSR UKIP MPs supporting the Monarchy is: why do they object to European politicians who were not voted for by the British people having power over the United Kingdom, but they have no problem with having a head of state who's also never been elected?

[Lipvig]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
As much as I would oppose that system, being elected by the elected gives one more legitimacy than being in a position because of some bizarre belief in a magical Head of State gene, or whatever the heredity principal is based upon!


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

But how though? Most of the time, a government would is formed with less then half the vote. Therefore, it's actually the decision of politicians elected by about a third of the electorate that matter. How can that sort of system be justified?

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Lipvig)
But how though? Most of the time, a government would is formed with less then half the vote. Therefore, it's actually the decision of politicians elected by about a third of the electorate that matter. How can that sort of system be justified?

Again I would oppose it (and there's not a cat in hell's chance that that's gonna be the system we end up with) but again, indirect election from 1/3 of the electorate is better than relying on pure chance.


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

[Keckers]

(Original post by Addzter)
I think a better question regarding all of the TSR UKIP MPs supporting the Monarchy is: why do they object to European politicians who were not voted for by the British people having power over the United Kingdom, but they have no problem with having a head of state who's also never been elected?

The role of a head of state and Brussel's bureaucrats are incredibly different.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
As all UKIP MPs are voting for the monarchy is the inclusion of UKIPs logo in the "united against the monarchy" montage thigny not a little misleading?

So much for their (already dubious) claims of libertarianism.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Addzter)
I think a better question regarding all of the TSR UKIP MPs supporting the Monarchy is: why do they object to European politicians who were not voted for by the British people having power over the United Kingdom, but they have no problem with having a head of state who's also never been elected?

There's your solution. The Queen really has very little power. The EU has too much power. Our problem is that it is the EU deciding laws for British people and that shouldn't be happening at all, though please stop blurring the issue.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TheHansa)
So much for their (already dubious) claims of libertarianism.

TSR UKIP is very different from RL UKIP.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by toronto353)
TSR UKIP is very different from RL UKIP.

Both are very socially conservative.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Addzter)
You clearly tried hard not to include any ad hominems in your post, but I think you ought to have also tried to exclude straw men. The anti-monarchy camp doesn't propose a system of government to succeed the current in the case of a rejection of the monarchy. Despite this, you claim that a future British president would be "in a position to overrule the parliament."

This is largely based on the description of the alternative as a United Republic. In most republics the President holds an executive veto on laws. Perhaps having no plan but 'not that' is not something for the anti-monarchist camp to be proud of.

[DebatingGreg]

Not exactly too substantial to the debate in hand, but, nonetheless, vaguely on-topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18205999

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Birchington)
I strongly dispute that, and I request you demonstrate the evidence you have to justify this sweeping statement.

Aside from the fact that the No campaign material at the start of this thread offers no positive reason to change to a new system, or clear explanation of what it would be, basically preventing any sort of positive campaigning, I would refer you to the statement directly below yours. When I am attacked for pointing out problems with a potential republic because the no campaign is not suggesting a republic, or in fact, suggesting anything other than the removal of the monarchy, I think I am justified in my statement. If you want to make a positive case for a republic, please do, I would welcome some debate to that effect.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Addzter)
I think a better question regarding all of the TSR UKIP MPs supporting the Monarchy is: why do they object to European politicians who were not voted for by the British people having power over the United Kingdom, but they have no problem with having a head of state who's also never been elected?

Well, I'm not a TSR UKIP member, but I'd suggest that it would be the fact that the EU commission actually write the laws for the EU, and decide what is and isn't voted on in the EU parliament, while commission bills require less votes to pass in the Council than non-commission bills. The Eurocrats wield considerable political power, the queen does not.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by TheHansa)
So much for their (already dubious) claims of libertarianism.

Try telling the TSR Libers voting yes that. The monarchy serves to prevent the state exercising some of the powers attached to it and protects the sovereignty of parliament. A president, as an extension of the powers and substance of government, is not a very good thing for liberty as I see it.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Try telling the TSR Libers voting yes that. The monarchy serves to prevent the state exercising some of the powers attached to it and protects the sovereignty of parliament. A president, as an extension of the powers and substance of government, is not a very good thing for liberty as I see it.

I'm not sure if it was you I discussed this with, but the monarch gives the PM more power as the powers of the monarch to bypass parliment are delegated to the PM who could act like a dictator and declare war without putting it to the house of commons, to why not tell me more about how the monarch protects liberty?

[Tahooper]

Who would you rather have as your country's figurehead, a gracious, firm but kind lady, or a pretentious and privately educated prat?

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Tahooper)
Who would you rather have as your country's figurehead, a gracious, firm but kind lady, or a pretentious and privately educated prat?

Makes little difference if Charles is the next monarch

[Tahooper]

(Original post by TheHansa)
So much for their (already dubious) claims of libertarianism.

I think you fail to comprehend the basics.

The EU holds a lot of power and drains the UK of money.

The UK monarchy, on the other hand, holds little actual power and actually gives UK taxpayers more money than they pay in.

[TheHansa]

(Original post by Tahooper)
I think you fail to comprehend the basics.

The EU holds a lot of power and drains the UK of money.

The UK monarchy, on the other hand, holds little actual power and actually gives UK taxpayers more money than they pay in.

It also says that through the lottery of birth a person is destined to be head of state, it's highly illiberal, but thanks for admitting UKIP is a one policy party.


That last bit is total *******s as the video in my sig explains, £200,000,000-£40,000,000=£160,000,000 fails to take into account additional costs such as protection, not that any serious libertarian would sell out democracy for such a pittance anyway.