The Student Room Group

Should we abolish the Monarchy?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Jammy Duel
You see, I got one minute into that video and rejected it for the usual republican "let's throw out the law and history to justify our views" and then claim that the conclusions of arguments are wrong through mere statement of their falsehood rather than challenging the logic or premises used.


Rejects video 1 minute in
Starts arguing about lack of logic

Lol, cool story brah
Original post by TheGuyReturns
Rejects video 1 minute in
Starts arguing about lack of logic

Lol, cool story brah


I'd rather not waste 10 minutes of my time after inepitude is demonstrated 1 minute in
Original post by gladders
Ah, yes, the old 'I'm open-minded, my opponents are sheep! ploy. Classic.


Original post by Jammy Duel
I'd rather not waste 10 minutes of my time after inepitude is demonstrated 1 minute in


Lol
Original post by gladders
Which is the same as what is dished out for the Prime Minister, or for foreign Heads of State in their own countries. She's not unique in that regard.


I don't believe I ever said that she was unique, I was just addressing a question regarding how much the Crown is paid annually.
Original post by drumsticks
I don't believe I ever said that she was unique, I was just addressing a question regarding how much the Crown is paid annually.


But it's important to distinguish between pay to the monarch (£0) and the money allocated to meet the costs of the office's duties (c. £40m). And that's what's missed in your post, as it gives the impression the Queen is, personally, raking it in on the public dime.
Reply 385
Avatar for sw651
sw651
3
Original post by gladders
But it's important to distinguish between pay to the monarch (£0) and the money allocated to meet the costs of the office's duties (c. £40m). And that's what's missed in your post, as it gives the impression the Queen is, personally, raking it in on the public dime.


With a 220 million profit for the UK
Original post by gladders
But it's important to distinguish between pay to the monarch (£0) and the money allocated to meet the costs of the office's duties (c. £40m). And that's what's missed in your post, as it gives the impression the Queen is, personally, raking it in on the public dime.


Sure, because indiscriminately giving the monarch £40 million in cash would make perfect sense. I just assumed that since this thread refers to the monarchy and not just the monarch, the context of my statement would be in relation to the Crown, and not just she who happens to wear it.
Original post by TheGuyReturns
Lol


Tell me then, is the poster an ultra socialist who thinks that private ownership of anything, but relevantly land, is an absolute abomination and must end, or is that philosophy only applied on monarchies?
Original post by Jammy Duel
You see, I got one minute into that video and rejected it for the usual republican "let's throw out the law and history to justify our views" and then claim that the conclusions of arguments are wrong through mere statement of their falsehood rather than challenging the logic or premises used.


The law isn't nearly as clear on some points as you think.
Original post by sw651
With a 220 million profit for the UK


That's as may be. The tourism argument is a problematic one for either side in my view, but anti-monarchists overstate their case by insisting tourism from the monarchy brings in nothing at all.
Original post by drumsticks
Sure, because indiscriminately giving the monarch £40 million in cash would make perfect sense. I just assumed that since this thread refers to the monarchy and not just the monarch, the context of my statement would be in relation to the Crown, and not just she who happens to wear it.


But it's a red herring. If someone tried to criticise the PM for receiving £100m (say) for the Prime-MInisterial office, and didn't distinguish between that and his personal salary, it would obviously be held in suspicion.

Suffice to say, among the Heads of State of other Great Powers, the cost of the British monarchy is quite slender.
Reply 391
Avatar for sw651
sw651
3
Original post by gladders
That's as may be. The tourism argument is a problematic one for either side in my view, but anti-monarchists overstate their case by insisting tourism from the monarchy brings in nothing at all.


We also have to look at the royal estates. The fact that they employ over 200 staff. The royal mail, the royal mint. All these things are possible because of the monarchy.
Original post by TheGuyReturns
Well, if you bothered to watch the video I posted, you'd see a complete tear-down of everything said in the first video.


I watched it :smile:


but
I'm still in favour of the monarchy (weirdly I'm sure you think)
If we abolished them, it's just taking away yet another chunk of the British identity. I'm proud to have the Queen as a figure head, and how they unite the commonwealth and wow I just realised how much time I wasted watching the video and trying to think of legible words because I'm tired and

IN SUMMARY

I'm hust another simple minded sheep who think Liz is great:u:

fite me
Original post by sw651
We also have to look at the royal estates. The fact that they employ over 200 staff. The royal mail, the royal mint. All these things are possible because of the monarchy.


I'm afraid you're overstating a tad now. The Royal Mail and Mint would easily be reinvented in a non-royal style with a republic.
Original post by Hans_301
I'd like to know your views.


Original post by soulnspirit
Why on earth would we abolish the Monarchy?

The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of the modern UK, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.It does this is in a variety of ways:

•

Royal Prerogative: Royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

•

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

•

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when Parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes – meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.


The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4m, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. The argument that tourism benefits from the continued existence of the British monarchy is weak: the reverse may actually be true – if the palaces were open throughout the year, tourists would be better able to visit them (as has happened with the Tower of London).
Original post by gladders
I'm afraid you're overstating a tad now. The Royal Mail and Mint would easily be reinvented in a non-royal style with a republic.


They might not have the same brand value though without the word Royal, and the fame of the British monarchy.

Problem is, Royal Mail has been privatised, the Royal Mint may follow, so it is possible that in the future any benefit will accrue to foreign businesspeople unfortunately. That though is the Conservatives fault for not caring enough about our traditional national institutions to think of privatising them.
Original post by DMcGovern
The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of the modern UK, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.It does this is in a variety of ways:[*]Royal Prerogative: Royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.


The Government is accountable to Parliament for the use of the Royal Prerogative, and irregular or poorly-explained use of it can cost the Government badly-needed credit among MPs. It cannot be used lightly.

It is but the work of an Act of Parliament for the Prerogative to be differently defined. But be careful what you wish you - it has been pointed out that defining the Prerogative to declare war risks limiting the scope of Parliament to control the Government than it would restrain the Government.

[*]The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.


Highly misleading. The Privy Council can enact certain kinds of secondary legislation but the field is narrow and Parliament has the power to annul its work. Active members of the Privy Council are ministers, so the Government is answerable for the acts of the Privy Council.

Nor is such an institution unique to monarchies - similar bodies exist in republics.

[*]The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when Parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes – meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.


Not as simple as that, as it's restrained massively by the uncodified constitution and public accountability. Even then, it's not an issue unique to monarchies. What you point out is a mechanical issue, not an issue to do with the monarchy per se.

The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4m, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. The argument that tourism benefits from the continued existence of the British monarchy is weak: the reverse may actually be true – if the palaces were open throughout the year, tourists would be better able to visit them (as has happened with the Tower of London).


You're comparing the Head of State of one of the most powerful and internationally-committed countries in the world, with a population of over 60 million, with a (no offence) isolated, isolationist small state with no international commitments and a population of 8 million? Apples and oranges, I think.

Try comparing it to fairer equivalents, such as Germany, France, or Italy.
Original post by DMcGovern
The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of the modern UK, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.It does this is in a variety of ways:

•

Royal Prerogative: Royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

•

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

•

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when Parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes – meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4m, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. The argument that tourism benefits from the continued existence of the British monarchy is weak: the reverse may actually be true – if the palaces were open throughout the year, tourists would be better able to visit them (as has happened with the Tower of London).


Original post by DMcGovern
The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of the modern UK, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.It does this is in a variety of ways:

•

Royal Prerogative: Royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

•

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

•

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when Parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes – meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

The monarchy is estimated to cost British taxpayers £202.4m, when costs such as security are included, making it the most expensive monarchy in Europe and 112 times more expensive than the presidency of the Republic of Ireland. The argument that tourism benefits from the continued existence of the British monarchy is weak: the reverse may actually be true – if the palaces were open throughout the year, tourists would be better able to visit them (as has happened with the Tower of London).


but it's cooooooollll
Original post by Milzime
but it's cooooooollll


That is the best reason.
I totally agree with ye now :biggrin:

Of course I'm Irish so I don't have much say nor do I care very much - the presidents we elect are usually nearly as bad - the current one's a fecking leprechaun!


Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
The law isn't nearly as clear on some points as you think.


It's funny seeing TSR MPs scrapping in public chats like they do in the MHoC :biggrin:

Original post by Jammy Duel
Tell me then, is the poster an ultra socialist who thinks that private ownership of anything, but relevantly land, is an absolute abomination and must end, or is that philosophy only applied on monarchies?


Property is theft :tongue:
Private property is misconstrued by the right so often it needs clarifying.
All land made private property can be seen as theft by socialists, which is true, but Marx was against using property ownership to exploit workers.
Moreover, personal possessions, such as clothes etc. are also not private property.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you