[rmhumphries]

(Original post by Piprod01)
I could play the same game, and say things like well if it doesn't matter then everyday should be a public holiday. Peppering random events in addition to the usual ones doesn't seem like it's at all helpful with the economy the way it is.

If we found that having such a day is at all important we can always take inspiration from France's Bastille Day.

It is about how many public holidays there are, compared to non-public holidays. Say Sunday counts as a public holiday, as there is less production/etc, that is 52 so far. Add 8 for public holidays outside of Sundays, makes 60/365. 16.439% is a huge difference from 100%. Now we add one extra day for the Jubilee. Instead of 16.439% it is now 16.712% - tiny difference. If you don't include Sundays as non-worked days, then the difference is even smaller.

Also, compare the amount of public holidays we have to other EU states. In France, for instance, there are 11 public holidays. Even with one extra in a year, that is still 2 less than France, and France don't seem to be bankrupt because of having more holidays than us.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by rmhumphries)
It is about how many public holidays there are, compared to non-public holidays. Say Sunday counts as a public holiday, as there is less production/etc, that is 52 so far. Add 8 for public holidays outside of Sundays, makes 60/365. 16.439% is a huge difference from 100%. Now we add one extra day for the Jubilee. Instead of 16.439% it is now 16.712% - tiny difference. If you don't include Sundays as non-worked days, then the difference is even smaller.

Also, compare the amount of public holidays we have to other EU states. In France, for instance, there are 11 public holidays. Even with one extra in a year, that is still 2 less than France, and France don't seem to be bankrupt because of having more holidays than us.

There probably are some good explanations to why working 5 days in a week is typical. I suspect it might have something to do with increasing the number of people working, or reducing stress ect. But we have these things whether or not the jubilee is a thing, so I'm sceptical that they can be defended the same way. I don't think there was an increase in employment to compensate for the Jubilee.

[Pindar]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yeah but the real aim of our monarchy is to protect us and to uphold our democracy. If the government tried to establish a dictatorship, she is the only one standing between us and the dictatorship oppressing us

The dictator would save us from dictatorship?! This would uphold democracy?

[cid]

(Original post by anarchism101)
The monarchy doesn't have terms.

The entire point of a debate is to convince people one way or the other. To shape opinion. Therefore to state what public opinion is at the moment is not an argument.

Again, what?

Why are you telling the Monarchy does not have terms? I re read my post, I almost certain i did not say that the Monarchy had terms, (re reads post AGAIN) Yes, i did not say that the monarchy had terms, why you would tell me something i already know and am not arguing with you about baffles me.

I thought my argument was quite simple, but alas.

The reason we still have a Queen is that the public does not at this point in time does not hold a strong enough negative opinion of the Monarchy to want them disposed. I suppose in a similar vein, if the current government become so unpopular and i mean like an overwhelming majority unpopular, not me my mates and my mate's cousin Aaron, unpopular, then they would be forced to call an election

The opening post was pretty inaccurate in terms of pro Monarchy arguments, with only 1, i think, which i have actually ever seen used as a pro monarchy argument.

(Original post by Piprod01)
I'd say most people don't feel that strongly towards the Monarchy, and many support it because they think it brings in a net positive into the economy or just haven't given the topic much thought. That's why republican try to get their point across, and aren't really taken aback by "the majority want it".

I think a key part of democracy is the election process, it obligates leaders be accountable to the population. If public opinion turns against the Monarchy, they aren't obliged to give up their power, in that sense they really aren't democratic.

I think the public majority is very fond of its Monarchy, but feels no need to express it because it is not under attack. Just look at the Jubilee celebrations when the Republicans come out to protest in London and got choruses of God save the Queen chanted at them drowning out their protests, and this was from Joe public, not some EDL group. That was supposed to have raised awareness of the republican campaign, whilst I'm sure for some it was the first time they had ever heard of them, for a lot of people i think the immediate opinion of the republicans was 'what a bunch of spoilsports/ misery guts'. They say that no publicity is bad publicity, but since being noticed by a large proportion of the nation their cause still hasn't rocketed to the main stage. I suppose its still early give it a few years maybe, but i doubt it will be seriously considered whilst the current Queen still reigns.


Also, the Monarch would defiantly step down without any public support, wouldn't be obliged to? I don't know if the entire population of Britain demanded it, i fail to see how she could retain her position. I have yet to see a real argument as to how having a Monarch is un democratic, i wait with baited breath.


One last thought, Sweden, Netherlands and Norway are considered by many to be progressive and democratic countries. Just saying.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by cid)
I think the public majority is very fond of its Monarchy, but feels no need to express it because it is not under attack. Just look at the Jubilee celebrations when the Republicans come out to protest in London and got choruses of God save the Queen chanted at them drowning out their protests, and this was from Joe public, not some EDL group. That was supposed to have raised awareness of the republican campaign, whilst I'm sure for some it was the first time they had ever heard of them, for a lot of people i think the immediate opinion of the republicans was 'what a bunch of spoilsports/ misery guts'. They say that no publicity is bad publicity, but since being noticed by a large proportion of the nation their cause still hasn't rocketed to the main stage. I suppose its still early give it a few years maybe, but i doubt it will be seriously considered whilst the current Queen still reigns.


Also, the Monarch would defiantly step down without any public support, wouldn't be obliged to? I don't know if the entire population of Britain demanded it, i fail to see how she could retain her position. I have yet to see a real argument as to how having a Monarch is un democratic, i wait with baited breath.


One last thought, Sweden, Netherlands and Norway are considered by many to be progressive and democratic countries. Just saying.

I heard that a lot of people were prevented from getting to the protest site, the police told people that the protest was full and to go home. Take a look at the Studentroom's poll from around the time of the Jubilee, republicanism isn't nearly as underground as you seem to think it is:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2012442

I think part of the problem is that the movement isn't really given much positive attention, if you watched the one show you might think republicanism is a tiny fringe movement, and the remaining 99% loves the Queen.

If 51% of people wanted a republic I can see the Monarchy trying to hold off leaving as long as possible.

The Monarchy is undemocratic because the Queen represents me and I have no way to take her to account at the ballot box. That I have to rely on the good will of Royal family to voluntarily leave is exactly why it's not democratic, especially if a lack of good will part of the reason I don't want them to represent me.

[gladders]

(Original post by Piprod01)
I heard that a lot of people were prevented from getting to the protest site, the police told people that the protest was full and to go home. Take a look at the Studentroom's poll from around the time of the Jubilee, republicanism isn't nearly as underground as you seem to think it is:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2012442

I hardly think an opinion poll on a discussion forum is exactly a scientifically gathered databank. I'll stick with the professional polls, thanks.

I think part of the problem is that the movement isn't really given much positive attention, if you watched the one show you might think republicanism is a tiny fringe movement, and the remaining 99% loves the Queen.

You can say that about any minority movement. If this were France, and we were discussing monarchy, it could be equally and unfoundingly claimed that monarchism is more popular than the regime will admit. It won't change the fact that the incumbent regime is pretty comfortably secure.

If 51% of people wanted a republic I can see the Monarchy trying to hold off leaving as long as possible.

Why do you find that a remarkable thing? Any institution would react in the same manner.

The Monarchy is undemocratic because the Queen represents me and I have no way to take her to account at the ballot box.

Do you, therefore, consider the presidents of Germany, Italy and others, to be also undemocratic? Because direct election of the Head of State is very rare.

That I have to rely on the good will of Royal family to voluntarily leave is exactly why it's not democratic, especially if a lack of good will part of the reason I don't want them to represent me.

On the contrary - the supremacy of Parliament is such that all it would require is a vote in the House of Commons for the monarchy to be removed. Your concerns are without foundation.

[gladders]

[QUOTE=Podcaster;38747091]

(Original post by gladders)
If you don't agree that having one family rule over us forever more and call us subjects is not cool then there is no point in continuing this argument.

They don't call us subjects. I suspect you are rather ignorant, and the fact that I am calling you out on it is making you flee.

300 years ago people were having this argument about absolute monarchy vs constitutional monarchy. Absolute monarchies do have their benefits, no "greasy" politicians, things get done faster, easy to expand without having to deal with public anti war sentiment, all power invested in one person so he can do what he wants so if hes good then great, but if hes bad....

That's a gross, gross, oversimplification of the questions of the Seventeenth Century. It wasn't simply a debate of absolutism or democracy. The side that won was as monarchist as the losing side - the question was whether the magistrate could be above the law or not.

I know it's just a computer game but I suggest you play Civilization. it shows that each government type has it's strengths and weaknesses and that ultimately you must give more and more power to the people as they become more enlightened.

You think [b]Civilisation[/i] the video game has anything to teach us on constitutional mechanics??

Dude, the people already have absolute power. What, exactly, would be gained from removing the monarchy that the people don't already have?

This is not about just practical considerations it is about enlightenment. yes the monarchy works practically right now but it is not an enlightened form of government. people are not fully equal, people are not free to choose their leader.

It is an enlightened as any other system of government. People are fully equal under the law, and people are free to choose their leader - we elect the government every 5 years, and if the monarchy were to misbehave it would be easily removed.

Same as how Louis XIV's government worked great on a practical level (France was the most powerful country in the world at the time) But similarly (but to a greater extent) the people were not equal and free to choose their leader.

I can't believe you're trying to compare out constitutional monarchy with the absolutist monarchy of Louis XIV. We have about as much in common with it as does America's present constitution.

We have a non-executive, constitutional monarchy, which the people at any moment could vote to eject. That is light years different from an absolute monarchy which restricts all freedom of expression and does not share power.

Go back to playing Civilisation.

[cid]

(Original post by Piprod01)
I heard that a lot of people were prevented from getting to the protest site, the police told people that the protest was full and to go home. Take a look at the Studentroom's poll from around the time of the Jubilee, republicanism isn't nearly as underground as you seem to think it is:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2012442

I think part of the problem is that the movement isn't really given much positive attention, if you watched the one show you might think republicanism is a tiny fringe movement, and the remaining 99% loves the Queen.

If 51% of people wanted a republic I can see the Monarchy trying to hold off leaving as long as possible.

The Monarchy is undemocratic because the Queen represents me and I have no way to take her to account at the ballot box. That I have to rely on the good will of Royal family to voluntarily leave is exactly why it's not democratic, especially if a lack of good will part of the reason I don't want them to represent me.

So... it was a government conspiracy to prevent the republican movement looking like it had any real suppourt?

I don't think republicanism is underground, however i do believe it is a solid minority, as is, i think the strongly pro Monarchists, most of us are content with the status quo, seeing no real positive to ousting the Monarchy we are understandably skeptical of anyone that comes along trying to fix something we do not perceive as broken.

The Monarchy is seen as part of our culture and history and in a time when a lot of people complain that Britain has no culture it makes me chuckle that people want to get rid of a big part of our culture all because a few privileged people get more than everyone else.

That's what it is, and it's a fair enough argument, they do have a lot and have it solely on the basis that they where lucky enough to be born as Royalty, i just wish some people would come out and say it rather than beating around the bush and making pointless tit for tat arguments that solve nothing, they have more than me, but have done nothing to deserve it, its true and it is unfair.

But i don't think the general public will to too resentful unless it gets to the point where the Royals are walking around in solid gold tuxedos whilst the working family can't even afford to put bread on their children's plate and shoes on their feet. As i said majority are content with status quo, for now.


I haven't seen the one show but I'm guessing its a pretty pro conservative show, doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

The Queen represents you no more than a celebrity of British Origin represents you, yes she is the Head of State and can be the only one to performs state visits, but its all ceremonial, its just a formality, do people really think in the case of the outbreak of a major war or disaster HM will be in some bunker leading the efforts to retaliate or stabilize the situation?

I think we will see a referendum on retaining the Monarchy within our lifetime, most likely once the Queen is gone, on current sentiment i do not feel there is much danger of the republicans getting a majority, but I, as everyone else, can only judge that on the feelings of the social circles i am part of.


Also less than 500 people from a student forum does not in my mind paint an accurate picture of public opinion, most of the members of this forum probably think its somehow HM's fault they have to pay 9k tuition fees ...

[Libertarian_Walrus]

(Original post by gladders)
No, it wouldn't. It is as important here as in America; heck, I would argue that democracy is more secure and more directly apparent than it is in America.

This is the fundamental problem with the republican movement in the UK: they greatly overvalue the impact the monarchy has on democracy. Its removal won't change our democratic status in the least.

I'm from England, yet I know more about the US constitution than ours. Call me ignorant or whatever, but it should be taught in schools.


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

[gladders]

(Original post by Libertarian_Walrus)
I'm from England, yet I know more about the US constitution than ours. Call me ignorant or whatever, but it should be taught in schools.

You mean you think the British Constitution should be taught more in schools? I agree. The problem is that because it doesn't explicitly talk about the will of the people in any kind of preamble (despite the fact that it's implicit in its operation), people are turned off by it.

As if having something in a preamble actually makes a difference.

[UnderPost]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yeah but the real aim of our monarchy is to protect us and to uphold our democracy. If the government tried to establish a dictatorship, she is the only one standing between us and the dictatorship oppressing us

Yes, just like the monarchy of Italy, Spain and Greece protected their people from dictators!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Yeah but the real aim of our monarchy is to protect us and to uphold our democracy. If the government tried to establish a dictatorship, she is the only one standing between us and the dictatorship oppressing us

This is not a valid argument. If a PM and govt got to the stage where they felt comfortable enough to impose and autoritarian govt and/or dictatorship, that porbably means they have enough support from powerful peoplw to do so. Therefore it wouldn't really matter what the monarch said, because they'd be put into exile, like every other monarch that tried to oppose a dictatorship.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by cid)
Again, what?

Why are you telling the Monarchy does not have terms? I re read my post, I almost certain i did not say that the Monarchy had terms, (re reads post AGAIN) Yes, i did not say that the monarchy had terms, why you would tell me something i already know and am not arguing with you about baffles me.

I thought my argument was quite simple, but alas.

The reason we still have a Queen is that the public does not at this point in time does not hold a strong enough negative opinion of the Monarchy to want them disposed. I suppose in a similar vein, if the current government become so unpopular and i mean like an overwhelming majority unpopular, not me my mates and my mate's cousin Aaron, unpopular, then they would be forced to call an election

The opening post was pretty inaccurate in terms of pro Monarchy arguments, with only 1, i think, which i have actually ever seen used as a pro monarchy argument.

But the debate isn't about why we have a Queen, but what people should support.

[Cannotbelieveit]

A great servant for our country, long may she reign over us.

[cid]

(Original post by anarchism101)
But the debate isn't about why we have a Queen, but what people should support.

Actually the opening post was just an attack on (rather thin and not often seen...In my opinion at least) pro Monarchy arguments without any real direction of debate being set.

From my first post in this thread i have been debating why we have a Monarchy, as for suppourt, well the republican argument clearly isn't strong enough to sway the people occupying the middle ground, maybe a lot of people just like having a Monarch and don't even mind if it costs a little bit

Also ...surely the why we have a Monarchy and who people should suppourt are 2 strands of the same argument.

[Piprod01]

[Changed font colour to make it easier to follow]

(Original post by gladders)

I heard that a lot of people were prevented from getting to the protest site, the police told people that the protest was full and to go home. Take a look at the Studentroom's poll from around the time of the Jubilee, republicanism isn't nearly as underground as you seem to think it is:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2012442

I hardly think an opinion poll on a discussion forum is exactly a scientifically gathered databank. I'll stick with the professional polls, thanks.

Well mostly put that in there because it was done here, it got a fair number of respondents, it was conducted very recently, and it appears fairly high up on google.

Here's one conducted a couple months before the wedding, on 2400 individuals:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2011/03/25/...vely-princely/

The results were actually pretty favourable for the monarchy:

Only 13% would rather see the monarchy abolished entirely after Queen Elizabeth II’s reign is over

That's pretty low, depending on the question and time that number is as high as 22%. I can chose any of these statistics because my general point is about republicanism being pretty common.

I think part of the problem is that the movement isn't really given much positive attention, if you watched the one show you might think republicanism is a tiny fringe movement, and the remaining 99% loves the Queen.

You can say that about any minority movement. If this were France, and we were discussing monarchy, it could be equally and unfoundingly claimed that monarchism is more popular than the regime will admit. It won't change the fact that the incumbent regime is pretty comfortably secure.

I care about the bias I see here. If I lived in France I would care about bias in France.

If 51% of people wanted a republic I can see the Monarchy trying to hold off leaving as long as possible.

Why do you find that a remarkable thing? Any institution would react in the same manner.

I think it does matter because it kinda suggests that the Royal Family priorities self preservation at the expense of democracy. Which undermines one of the main arguments for the maintenance of Monarchy; that they are independent arbiter.

The Monarchy is undemocratic because the Queen represents me and I have no way to take her to account at the ballot box.

Do you, therefore, consider the presidents of Germany, Italy and others, to be also undemocratic? Because direct election of the Head of State is very rare.

It doesn't need to be direct, we vote for people who best represent us in the understanding that they vote in our interests. Which is fair enough.

That I have to rely on the good will of Royal family to voluntarily leave is exactly why it's not democratic, especially if a lack of good will part of the reason I don't want them to represent me.

On the contrary - the supremacy of Parliament is such that all it would require is a vote in the House of Commons for the monarchy to be removed. Your concerns are without foundation.

Bills have to go though a final step of Royal Assent before they are approved. The Monarch is also free to not to approve it. I don't think this is a likely scenario, but it's one more reason to support republicanism. And hey, if there such a thing as "royal blood", who's to say there's not enough madness to running though their veins to actually do it?

[A Mysterious Lord]

Republicans are deluded if they think that abolishing the monarchy will have any effect whatsoever.

[Benamisimo]

Royalists often argue that the monarchy is a purely symbolic institution. Therefore, I think, arguing about the Queen on an economic level is kind of besides the point, and it is very difficult to establish the facts (most of the direct income from the monarchy comes from crown lands, which would just be passed into the hands of the Government and thus the income would still be received, and the idea that suddenly everyone would stop visiting the UK because we don't have a Queen is frankly ridiculous.)

We have to ask ourselves what the monarchy represents then. "Britishness," you could say, and "tradition." And both of those things would be true.

The problem is however that the Monarchy represents everything wrong with "Britishness." Our social mobility has been decaying for decades. It is now harder than ever to move upwards in class, and it is virtually impossible to enter the top proffesions without existing contacts. Rich people get far better education, healthcare and freedom, and often, this isn't even private; the richer areas tend to have better state run facilities. All this means that jobs are passed down, if not exactly father to son, then at least within the same social levels. Yes, of course there are exceptions. But trumpeting these things in the face of reality is misleading.

Now, I'm not saying this problem is the fault of the Queen. It is the fault of a more general aspect of our culture; it doesn't matter about your natural ability, only whose vagina you fell out of. Our head of state is there to set an example, to typify the rest of the nation and show its best virtues. What virtues do the royal family have? Despite having the best education in the world, there is not a single one of them who has contributed anything significant to the worlds of art, science or culture. Any achievement they have inevitably boils down to the fact that they have a lot of money rather than anything particularly useful.

What have they done so that they can sit there and supposedly represent us? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. We live under this barbaric relic of a system, and for some reason, we love it. For the jubilee armada thing down the Thames, one businessman spent £5 million on a yacht for her majesty. The Queen has enough yachts. That money could have gone towards education or a hospital. Again, this is an example of the kind of culture we have, passing the wealth around at the top. Go into any private school or opera house and you will see plaques thanking various wealthy people for their contributions, in order to pay for a third minibus or plasma screen TV. This is what is wrong with our culture, and the monarchy is a pivotal aspect of that. And the worst thing is that we love them for it.

[rmhumphries]

(Original post by Piprod01)
There probably are some good explanations to why working 5 days in a week is typical. I suspect it might have something to do with increasing the number of people working, or reducing stress ect. But we have these things whether or not the jubilee is a thing, so I'm sceptical that they can be defended the same way. I don't think there was an increase in employment to compensate for the Jubilee.

Even keeping the 5/6 working day week, then the Jubilee is no different to an event such as May day / August bank holiday extra - except it is a one off, and it had a particular reason behind it. What I found was that people who love the Queen lapped it up, and people who hate the Queen ignored the TV and went out, enjoying the weather and having a nice relaxing day away from uni/work or if they needed to work in shops/etc, enjoyed the fact they got extra pay. So it was good for morale / gave people an extra rest / etc - factors which can't be measured in money terms - just the same as our non-religious bank holidays, and even to a degree our religious bank holidays do. Why did the Jubilee have any different effect to the what August bank holiday does?

[rmhumphries]

(Original post by gladders)
I hardly think an opinion poll on a discussion forum is exactly a scientifically gathered databank. I'll stick with the professional polls, thanks.



You can say that about any minority movement. If this were France, and we were discussing monarchy, it could be equally and unfoundingly claimed that monarchism is more popular than the regime will admit. It won't change the fact that the incumbent regime is pretty comfortably secure.



Why do you find that a remarkable thing? Any institution would react in the same manner.



Do you, therefore, consider the presidents of Germany, Italy and others, to be also undemocratic? Because direct election of the Head of State is very rare.



On the contrary - the supremacy of Parliament is such that all it would require is a vote in the House of Commons for the monarchy to be removed. Your concerns are without foundation.

Furthering this point, then out of the 11 or so elections for if there should be a mayor or not, only 1 succeeded, with 1 keeping the major they already had. So that means that only 2/11 cities wanted an elected head of the city, the other 9 were happy with a non-elected head of the city. Isn't that also undemocratic, that the head of the council is not someone who I might want as head? But a huge number of people seemed happy with it a city level, suggesting to me they seem to be happy with it at a country level.