Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

United Kingdom or United Republic? Vote in the official TSR Referendum!

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 15-09-2014
  • View Poll Results: Do you wish to retain the monarchy of the United Kingdom?
    Yes
    275
    59.91%
    No
    172
    37.47%
    Abstain
    12
    2.61%

    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    NO!
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    We have supporters from UKIP, so no
























    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    Neither do I. But he'll certainly be a better representative of this country than the shambles of politicians we've suffered under for the past 10 or so years.
    If we didn't want party politicians like Blair/Cameron then we wouldn't vote them in to replace the monarchy. Presidencies across the World are filled by dignified senior statesmen without partisan inclinations.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    Neither do I. But he'll certainly be a better representative of this country than the shambles of politicians we've suffered under for the past 10 or so year.
    What's to say the system will be dominated by party politicians? Independent candidates will also benefit from being able to run as head of state. I personally would want someone like Stephen Fry (for example) as head of state, chosen by the people with a democratic mandate. I respect but disagree with your position.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    That's that one sorted.



    Even if this were true about the current monarch, what makes being "careful"/"measured" traits inherent to the Royal dynasty? Besides, if they were so brilliant at holding their birthright constitutional power, what's to stop them being elected to perform such roles?

    Finally: why are you so opposed to everyone having equal political/legal rights?
    Everyone does have equal political/ legal rights so that argument is gone there. What system are you intending to use? The fact is that the Republican campaign has no clear vision.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    If we didn't want party politicians like Blair/Cameron then we wouldn't vote them in to replace the monarchy. Presidencies across the World are filled by dignified senior statesmen without partisan inclinations.
    If that's the case, why do we still manage to vote them into Parliament?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It speaks volumes, by the way, that the monarchists' number one argument is simple negative campaigning, by the way. "It would take a little effort to do, so we shouldn't bother"...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    What's to say the system will be dominated by party politicians? Independent candidates will also benefit from being able to run as head of state. I personally would want someone like Stephen Fry (for example) as head of state, chosen by the people with a democratic mandate. I respect but disagree with your position.
    Being elected requires the publicity, staffing, resources and awareness of a political party behind them, so no: not going to happen.
    • 48 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeLatics)
    It speaks volumes, by the way, that the monarchists' number one argument is simple negative campaigning, by the way. "It would take a little effort to do, so we shouldn't bother"...
    Enlighten us then what system would you use? The fact of the matter is that you have no clear system.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Ok so what system do you prefer then? You see if you have a system in mind, then be honest. If not, then stop lying and admit that you don't have a plan because you couldn't agree on one.
    Wow, what a false dichotomy. If you check the Anti-Monarchist thread (which over 1000 more people have done than for the Monarchist equivalent... poor show, lads), you'll see essentially from page 1 we said that we'd leave to the voters to choose the plan. Do you have nothing better to do than falsely accuse us of lying? Guess that sums up the quality of your argument.

    You're proving exactly what we're saying - that politicians will end up quarreling for months for their system to be used and we end up with a fudge. This self-determination argument is rather ridiculous because this referendum is about self-determination so you're misleading the electorate again by bandying these terms about. Let's try again - what system would you prefer?
    "We end up with a fudge"? This just highlights how undemocratic the Monarchist campaign is. Apparently, the people of this nation cannot be trusted to sit down and reach a decision by means of the vote. No, they have to have their situation dictated to them! Unlike you, I am a Democrat first and foremost. I trust that the people can express their will through the eletoral system. That's no fudge - that's democracy.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    If we didn't want party politicians like Blair/Cameron then we wouldn't vote them in to replace the monarchy. Presidencies across the World are filled by dignified senior statesmen without partisan inclinations.
    I don't want to be just another presidency. We're the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world with our system of government. It's unique in both its history and traditions. Furthermore, monarchy does not harm whatsoever to this country. As I said, don't fix what ain't broken.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A campaign video:

    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoeLatics)
    It speaks volumes, by the way, that the monarchists' number one argument is simple negative campaigning, by the way. "It would take a little effort to do, so we shouldn't bother"...
    Are you ignoring the entire two years (or so) of debating you and I have had together? Convenient.

    By the way, the republicans' main argument has been 'oh isn't this unfair! I'm going to ignore how it matters not on jot to the ordinary person!' How's that for negative?
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Being elected requires the publicity, staffing, resources and awareness of a political party behind them, so no: not going to happen.
    I suggest you take a look at Ireland's recent presidential election, where several independent candidates - in particular David Norris - did well during the campaign.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    What's to say the system will be dominated by party politicians? Independent candidates will also benefit from being able to run as head of state. I personally would want someone like Stephen Fry (for example) as head of state, chosen by the people with a democratic mandate. I respect but disagree with your position.
    And vice versa. We're never going to persuade each other, but I enjoy the debate.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Exercising our democratic right cannot be defined as treason. I assume you made that comment in jest.
    :lolwut: no, they mean that they're going to direct the treason police to the house of every "no" voter and demand that they be executed.

    I'm pretty sure they meant it in jest.

    Anyway, my signature makes it pretty clear what my vote was
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Everyone does have equal political/ legal rights so that argument is gone there. What system are you intending to use? The fact is that the Republican campaign has no clear vision.
    From a personal point of view, the presidency that I most admire is that of Ireland. Given our historical ties and similarities, that is where I would see any British presidential model taking its influences from.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Enlighten us then what system would you use? The fact of the matter is that you have no clear system.
    Don't think I said that I had the answer already. I said that "it would require effort so let's not bother" is a ridiculous argument, particularly as the headlining point in your manifesto!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    I suggest you take a look at Ireland's recent presidential election, where several independent candidates - in particular David Norris - did well during the campaign.
    Favouring one example over the countless other countries which do not enjoy Ireland's good luck is a fail. I have absolutely no faith in party politics not seeping into the presidential elections.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Are you ignoring the entire two years (or so) of debating you and I have had together? Convenient.

    By the way, the republicans' main argument has been 'oh isn't this unfair! I'm going to ignore how it matters not on jot to the ordinary person!' How's that for negative?
    Referring to your manifesto. We're pro-democracy, you're appearing to be simply anti-effort!
Updated: May 20, 2013
New on TSR

A-level secrets uncovered

Learn from the experience of last year's A-level students

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.