Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Get Rid of Monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we get rid of the monarchy?
    Yes
    41.07%
    No
    58.93%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    it doesn't matter what they usually do.They still have powers that only elected people should have and only for a limited time
    'Should' have? They only ever follow the result of a general election. In a parliamentary system, it is the Head of State who appoints the PM in order to most suitable reflect what the public wants out of its government. Who would you rather have do this - a political president who will seek to get advantage for his political opinions, or a monarch, who has to find the least controversial solution on pain of losing their office for them and their children?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    'Should' have? They only ever follow the result of a general election. In a parliamentary system, it is the Head of State who appoints the PM in order to most suitable reflect what the public wants out of its government. Who would you rather have do this - a political president who will seek to get advantage for his political opinions, or a monarch, who has to find the least controversial solution on pain of losing their office for them and their children?
    I would vote Obama instead of Charles
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And claiming he had Diana killed is just laughable.
    Kate Middleton is laughable then
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    I would vote Obama instead of Charles
    Well unfortunately for you, Obama is American, so even if we were a republic, we wouldn't be able to vote for him.

    In fact, I can guarantee that if we were a republic, we still wouldn't vote for the president. It would be in the hands of Parliament.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Well unfortunately for you, Obama is American, so even if we were a republic, we wouldn't be able to vote for him.

    In fact, I can guarantee that if we were a republic, we still wouldn't vote for the president. It would be in the hands of Parliament.
    I would vote someone like Obama and I could because our nation would be a REAL democracy
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    I would vote someone like Obama and I could because our nation would be a REAL democracy
    The Economist disagrees with you.

    Of the top 10 democracies, 8 are monarchies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The Economist disagrees with you.

    Of the top 10 democracies, 8 are monarchies.
    the good about democracy is that everyone can have an opinion and vote accordingly.The economist can disagree but still there is no reason why the vote of the journalist who made the article should count more than mine.He wants Charles as the new head of State?One vote.I want another person.Let's vote and the person with more votes will lead the nation for 4 years.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    the good about democracy is that everyone can have an opinion and vote accordingly.The economist can disagree but still there is no reason why the vote of the journalist who made the article should count more than mine.He wants Charles as the new head of State?One vote.I want another person.Let's vote and the person with more votes will lead the nation for 4 years.
    I have already said if you want a republic there is nothing stopping you from voting for a party that advocates a republic. If that party doesn't get many votes you have nobody to blame but the electorate, who clearly have made it their democratic choice to accept the monarchy. Don't get butthurt if nobody agrees with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I have already said if you want a republic there is nothing stopping you from voting for a party that advocates a republic. If that party doesn't get many votes you have nobody to blame but the electorate, who clearly have made it their democratic choice to accept the monarchy. Don't get butthurt if nobody agrees with you.
    but there also other points for voting a party.Monarchy is not democracy.It's obvious
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    but there also other points for voting a party.Monarchy is not democracy.It's obvious
    If it's so obvious, why are we not already a republic? People are freely able to vote for one. It's happened in other countries before. Australia had a referendum in 1999 on the monarchy precisely because people voted for a republican political party.

    Any more excuses for your failure up your sleeve?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    If it's so obvious, why are we not already a republic? People are freely able to vote for one. It's happened in other countries before. Australia had a referendum in 1999 on the monarchy precisely because people voted for a republican political party.

    Any more excuses for your failure up your sleeve?
    It's obvious because Charles wouldn't win the elections.He will be head of State only because he's the son of someone.Not for his skills or his work
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    It's obvious because Charles wouldn't win the elections.He will be head of State only because he's the son of someone.Not for his skills or his work
    You dodged my question. If it's so obvious, why has the UK not already elected to have a republic? What's stopping it? The electorate have absolute freedom to elect a republican party. Sure, there are other considerations people have when voting, but if it were a vote-winner one of the major parties would take it up like a shot.

    The only reason the UK remains a monarchy is because the people freely and democratically choose to remain one. It appears that, despite Prince Charles' faults, they are prepared to at the very least give him a chance to prove himself before they decide whether or not to abandon it.

    You don't like Charles? Tough. I don't like Cameron, but we're stuck with him. I don't like the look of the Cabinet Secretary, but as I didn't elect him either, I'm also stuck with him.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You dodged my question. If it's so obvious, why has the UK not already elected to have a republic? What's stopping it? The electorate have absolute freedom to elect a republican party. Sure, there are other considerations people have when voting, but if it were a vote-winner one of the major parties would take it up like a shot.

    The only reason the UK remains a monarchy is because the people freely and democratically choose to remain one. It appears that, despite Prince Charles' faults, they are prepared to at the very least give him a chance to prove himself before they decide whether or not to abandon it.

    You don't like Charles? Tough. I don't like Cameron, but we're stuck with him. I don't like the look of the Cabinet Secretary, but as I didn't elect him either, I'm also stuck with him.
    these are your opinions.Still it is not democratic to have unelected people as heads of State and for life
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    these are your opinions.Still it is not democratic to have unelected people as heads of State and for life
    It is quite democratic if the people freely permit it to happen. Which they do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It is quite democratic if the people freely permit it to happen. Which they do.
    We don't know who would win until they count the votes.So a system that doesn't allow voting is by definition not democratic even if in your opinion Charles would win for 5 elections in a row
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It is democratic. Demonstrate that it violates the public will for the monarchy to exist. I think opinion polls will disappoint you.
    You’re conflating two very different things.

    Something can be legitimate without being democratic. The monarchy is legitimate because it has a traditional and established constitutional role in providing the nation with a Head of State, and people by and large accept that this is a system that works well.
    That does not make it democratic.
    In this country the judiciary are a legitimate body, but not one that is democratically-elected.
    You make the mistake in assuming that because democracy is the most lauded form of government is must, ipso facto, be synonymous with an impeccable constitutional structure, and every part of our governance is by extension one that is democratic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    We don't know who would win until they count the votes.So a system that doesn't allow voting is by definition not democratic even if in your opinion Charles would win for 5 elections in a row
    And I have already said, campaign for a republic. Off you go. See how successful you get. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It is quite democratic if the people freely permit it to happen. Which they do.
    Again. Not correct. You need to appreciate the difference between two different concepts: “legitimacy” and “democracy”. They are not the same thing. Read around Weber’s theory of authority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    And I have already said, campaign for a republic. Off you go. See how successful you get. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
    I can't campaign on one point only.People vote for other points.Still the monarchy is not a democratic system
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by playingcards)
    You’re conflating two very different things.

    Something can be legitimate without being democratic. The monarchy is legitimate because it has a traditional and established constitutional role in providing the nation with a Head of State, and people by and large accept that this is a system that works well.
    That does not make it democratic.
    In this country the judiciary are a legitimate body, but not one that is democratically-elected.
    You make the mistake in assuming that because democracy is the most lauded form of government is must, ipso facto, be synonymous with an impeccable constitutional structure, and every part of our governance is by extension one that is democratic.
    Well, I don't think that's quite what I'm arguing. I'm saying that it's within the powers of the British electorate to elect a government to abolish the monarchy, but it's quite clear that any party campaigning on such a thing would fail, because public opinion is against removing the monarchy.

    It's as democratically upheld as the US Constitution is (nobody's voted on that in centuries) or the fact that the Union Jack is the national flag (nobody's ever voted on that).

    Simply saying that something should be got rid of because there hasn't been a vote on it is just nonsense.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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