[Dubliner]

(Original post by gladders)
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.

you know you want him..

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
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!

Actually, our arguments are twofold:

Firstly, wasting effort on something which brings no material benefit for the ordinary person on the street is insulting in these times when we're supposed to be addressing things such as the economy and health. In fact, it's a waste of time all the time, unless the monarchy actually becomes an active problem.

Secondly, the change risks all sorts of unintended consequences, of a new competing power in the constitution, confounding accountability and diverting energies from meaningful reforms.

[toronto353]

(Original post by TopHat)
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.

Please you couldn't come up with a system and so simply fudged the issue and kicked it into the long grass.

"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.

Cut that out. We trust the people to vote in this referendum. Now monarchists could have said 'well we don't support getting rid of the monarchy so we don't support the vote'. Did we? No we didn't and that just shows how we trust the people of this country. You don't even know what system you are going to use. In fact, some of your campaign didn't even know how countries elected their presidents. What that says to me is that your campaign can not be trusted with guiding this country to any solution.

In bold, that's why we've agreed to a referendum then? We all support democracy here and so I think that you're being disingenuous.

[madders94]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Referring to your manifesto. We're pro-democracy, you're appearing to be simply anti-effort!

We already have a democratic system of electing parties to decide what will happen to the country, the royal family seem to be more for ceremony and show - they have some power but seem to rarely exercize it, they are a British tradition and I think the massive celebrations for the royal wedding last year and the excitement for the jubilee this year shows that so many people still consider the royal family to be an integral part of living in Britain, and I think it would be an insult to them to change that.

[Birchington]

(Original post by gladders)
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.

There are various states that have successful independent candidates as head of state. It is far too simplistic an argument to assume that party politics alone will decide the outcome of elections.

Even if parties are involved in electing a head of state, they would have a democratic mandate that the monarchy does not have.

[Smack]

(Original post by gladders)
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?

You are correct that it matters not to the ordinary person as they are not of royal blood but the whole point of this is that we can make it matter to the ordinary person by allowing anyone, and not just those of a certain bloodline, to stand for the head of state. I do not see what is negative about that.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Referring to your manifesto. We're pro-democracy, you're appearing to be simply anti-effort!

I am thoroughly pro-democracy. But you're making a very grave mistake in confounding elections with democracy. Elections are part of it, but far from all of it.

We have a far more democratic system now, than a system with a competing elected official.

[Birchington]

(Original post by madders94)
think it would be an insult to them to change that.

It's an insult for every British citizen not to be allowed the democratic right to decide their head of state.

[gladders]

(Original post by Dubliner)


you know you want him..

Once more: Ireland is one country in a sea of republics with politicized heads of state.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
Actually, our arguments are twofold:

Firstly, wasting effort on something which brings no material benefit for the ordinary person on the street is insulting in these times when we're supposed to be addressing things such as the economy and health. In fact, it's a waste of time all the time, unless the monarchy actually becomes an active problem.

Secondly, the change risks all sorts of unintended consequences, of a new competing power in the constitution, confounding accountability and diverting energies from meaningful reforms.

(Original post by Monarchist Manifesto)
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.

First bit = too difficult, let's not bother.
Second bit says only republicans will be deciding the resulting system, a complete and utter lie. The manifesto is misleading and untrue.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Anti-Monarchists)
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.

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".

[JPKC]

(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.

Oh so does the Monarchist Campaign think that we all have the constitutional rights to 1) appoint prime ministers/Cabinet members, 2) sign acts into law, 3) have the armed services swear fealty to us etc. etc.?

(Original post by gladders)
If that's the case, why do we still manage to vote them into Parliament?

Because parliament is a political place. A head of state is not necessarily a political office - look at Greece, or, even, have a look at the speaker of the House of Commons. Besides, I reject your idea that somehow people hate voting for politicians. That's just crude - a majority of people in the UK like certain politicians, they just object to the political class overall.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Dubliner)
you know you want him..

Michael D. is, quite simply, the finest elected head of state anywhere in the Western World. Michael D rocking in the Áras for us!

[Kimbimbi]

Unfortunately I have only just joined TSR so cannot vote but I give out a rather worthless but still existent 'yes'. However I must congratulate whoever did the anti-monarchy campaign's banners. They are quite striking and could swing the favour of some voters.

[toronto353]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
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.

Yes, but the problem is that your fellow campaigners do not share this view. Your campaign co-ordinator is saying that they want the electorate to decide and that there isn't any system in mind, but you've got a system in mind. Already you're disagreeing over what to do. TopHat wants a consultation, you're favouring a system.

[gladders]

(Original post by Birchington)
There are various states that have successful independent candidates as head of state. It is far too simplistic an argument to assume that party politics alone will decide the outcome of elections.

Stands a jolly good chance, though. Sorry, not convinced.

Even if parties are involved in electing a head of state, they would have a democratic mandate that the monarchy does not have.

And the danger of that mandate is that they will abuse their position. That's the very basis of our concerns.

[TopHat]

(Original post by toronto353)
Please you couldn't come up with a system and so simply fudged the issue and kicked it into the long grass.

Repeating something over and over again doesn't make it right, it just makes you look rather slow.

Cut that out. We trust the people to vote in this referendum. Now monarchists could have said 'well we don't support getting rid of the monarchy so we don't support the vote'. Did we? No we didn't and that just shows how we trust the people of this country. You don't even know what system you are going to use. In fact, some of your campaign didn't even know how countries elected their presidents. What that says to me is that your campaign can not be trusted with guiding this country to any solution.

In bold, that's why we've agreed to a referendum then? We all support democracy here and so I think that you're being disingenuous.

Given 23 MPs to 18 are in favour of abolishing the monarchy, I'd say this was an absolutely last ditch attempt to delay what would have happened anyway. This isn't trusting the electorate, you're simply hoping against the odds that they might helping you stem the inevitable tide of republicanism. Thankfully, I trust they'll back us on this matter. Given your side's argument essentially boils down to "oh no! Allowing voters to pick and choose is too scary!", I can see why, too.

[Birchington]

(Original post by gladders)
Once more: Ireland is one country in a sea of republics with politicized heads of state.

At least Michael D. Higgins has been chosen by the Irish people. Liz Windsor has no such mandate.

[ras90]

Vote no people, stand up for democracy.

[toronto353]

(Original post by JPKC)
Oh so does the Monarchist Campaign think that we all have the constitutional rights to 1) appoint prime ministers/Cabinet members, 2) sign acts into law, 3) have the armed services swear fealty to us etc. etc.?

Removing the monarchy wouldn't give us those powers though, they'd go to a president so you're argument doesn't work because the people won't have those rights if you win.

Because parliament is a political place. A head of state is not necessarily a political office - look at Greece, or, even, have a look at the speaker of the House of Commons. Besides, I reject your idea that somehow people hate voting for politicians. That's just crude - a majority of people in the UK like certain politicians, they just object to the political class overall.

The electorate object to the political quarrels, but your campaign doesn't even know what system it prefers leading to more squabbling.