Should we abolish the Monarchy? Watch

Poll: Should we abolish the Monarchy?
The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#341
Report 3 years ago
#341
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
ummmm, no it doesn't... it can be written across several documents, include unwritten elements, or be completely unwritten, does not mean it does not exist.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...er-781975.html

This explains it well enough.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#342
Report 3 years ago
#342
(Original post by sw651)
Correct, but a constitution HAS to be a written document. Britain has no such document.
This is untrue.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#343
Report 3 years ago
#343
(Original post by sw651)
Firstly, let's not lie about official polls. It's is 75-80%, 80% in the most recent. Would you like the link?
Ouch, I'd appreciate not being called a liar, for starters. You're free to debate the validity of what I've said - but to call me a liar is overstepping the mark a bit.

I'd appreciate a link - it'd be interesting to see what the specific question asked was.

- In their latest poll - September 2015 - YouGov (perhaps the most reputable source for this kind of stuff) found that 68% believe that the monarchy is good for Britain
- In a 2012 Guardian/ICM Poll, the figure was 69%
- The Sunday Telegraph conducted their own poll in July 2013, which gave a 66% figure
- A Survation Poll gives 71% support for the monarchy
- The highest figure I've seen is from Ipsos-Mori, who give a 77% figure in their most recent poll

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08...chy-here-stay/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/m...record-support
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oll-shows.html
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...=122&view=wide

80% would definitely be pushing it a bit. I wouldn't doubt that figure - I'm sure a poll has came out with an 80% result - but I'm just saying that, on balance, general satisfaction ratings are a bit lower than the 80% that you quoted.

(Original post by sw651)
Second. You clearly don't know how Britain works. We do not have a constitution, so how can it be a constitutional issue. You seem to forget that the Queen brings in a huge amount of wealth and diplomatic relations to Britain. They do actually work, they don't just sit around all day. The Queen never stops working. Prince Charles may say some silly things, he has dementia though. Give the man a break. He will never see the crown.
That's a bit bizarre. Maybe you should do your research next time. We do have a constitution, it's just not fully codified. We have a constitution that consists of a variety of written and unwritten sources (e.g Royal Prerogatives, Constitutional Conventions, Common Law etc).

Does the Queen bring in a 'huge' amount of wealth? Care to substantiate what you actually mean by this? Are you referring to tourism, because that argument is getting a little boring now.

I don't doubt that Royal Family do a lot of 'work'. Of course, it's a different definition of work - and they're treated pretty well in return (by both the general public and the tax payer). I'm sure, no doubt, that the pros of being a member of the Royal Family vastly outweigh the cons - however much we insist that they 'work hard'.

Besides, what do we even classify as working 'hard'? Is it the hours they put in? Because not only do millions of people up and down the country - doctors, nurses and firefighters - put more hours into a much more stressful job, I'd also question if the Royals do work hard at all; in 2005, Mark Bolland, former press officer to Prince Charles said: "The Windsors are very good at working three days a week, five months of the year and making it look as if they work hard".

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...e-royal-family

I didn't know Charles had dementia. There hasn't been much reported about it in the press, and a quick Google search doesn't flag up anything. Do you have an sources for that? I know that the Queen has dementia though ... yet she doesn't seem to come out with half as much drivel as Charles does.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#344
Report 3 years ago
#344
(Original post by sw651)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...er-781975.html

This explains it well enough.
So you're declaring that a constitution MUST be codified, ort at least written, and then cite an article talking about the Britsh constitution as an uncodified, unwritten entity. If you're going to argue something false at least be consistent in arguing falsehood.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#345
Report 3 years ago
#345
(Original post by sw651)
Correct, but a constitution HAS to be a written document. Britain has no such document.
:giggle:

Are you sure about that? A constitution doesn't have to be a written document at all. That's absolute nonsense.

By definition, a constitution is a document or set of documents that facilitates a process of creating and regulating the institutions of government. It can be written or unwritten - the UK constitution has numerous basis'; three written sources and three unwritten sources.
0
reply
Metrododo
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#346
Report 3 years ago
#346
(Original post by AlwaysWatching)
No. Absolutely not.
+1. Also strong avatar to content ratio
0
reply
xoweeknd
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#347
Report 3 years ago
#347
As someone not patriotic in the slightest, I say get rid of the good for nothing scroungers. But hey, that's just me..
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#348
Report 3 years ago
#348
"A constitution has to be a written document"

lol no, every sovereign state has a constitution by default, whether it's written or not.
0
reply
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#349
Report 3 years ago
#349
(Original post by Burridge)
:giggle:

Are you sure about that? A constitution doesn't have to be a written document at all. That's absolute nonsense.

By definition, a constitution is a document or set of documents that facilitates a process of creating and regulating the institutions of government. It can be written or unwritten - the UK constitution has numerous basis'; three written sources and three unwritten sources.
Hang on, you just said documents or a set of documents, how can documents be unwritten?
0
reply
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#350
Report 3 years ago
#350
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
"A constitution has to be a written document"

lol no, every sovereign state has a constitution by default, whether it's written or not.
By default? The only single document which can be called a proper constution in the UK is the Magna Carta.
Either way we are off topic.
0
reply
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#351
Report 3 years ago
#351
(Original post by xoweeknd)
As someone not patriotic in the slightest, I say get rid of the good for nothing scroungers. But hey, that's just me..
In that case can we get rid of welfare too?
0
reply
xoweeknd
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#352
Report 3 years ago
#352
(Original post by sw651)
In that case can we get rid of welfare too?
you can do whatever the **** you want mate ahaha, that woman's got jewels in her crown that could feed three third world countries but I doubt you care very much about that because she's such a wonderful lady, I mean you would know, knowing her personally and all.
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#353
Report 3 years ago
#353
(Original post by sw651)
By default? The only single document which can be called a proper constution in the UK is the Magna Carta.
Either way we are off topic.
A constitution doesn't need to be documentary. It merely refers to the details of a state's constitutional settlement.
0
reply
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#354
Report 3 years ago
#354
(Original post by xoweeknd)
you can do whatever the **** you want mate ahaha, that woman's got jewels in her crown that could feed three third world countries but I doubt you care very much about that because she's such a wonderful lady, I mean you would know, knowing her personally and all.
And we give billions to the welfare state that could feed third world countries. And actually that crown is a national heritage feature, should we sell the houses of parliament off to the highest bidder to feed the third world? I doubt you have even been to a third world country.
0
reply
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#355
Report 3 years ago
#355
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
A constitution doesn't need to be documentary. It merely refers to the details of a state's constitutional settlement.
Fair enough. Can we be on topic now?
0
reply
drumsticks
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#356
Report 3 years ago
#356
Nope, because money.

As usual, CGP Grey comes to the rescue with a beautifully informative video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
1
reply
xoweeknd
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#357
Report 3 years ago
#357
(Original post by sw651)
And we give billions to the welfare state that could feed third world countries. And actually that crown is a national heritage feature, should we sell the houses of parliament off to the highest bidder to feed the third world? I doubt you have even been to a third world country.
I doubt you've been to the poorest parts of this country,people sleeping on the streets, the elderly and vulnerable children being neglected. It's funny how the people born with silver spoons in their mouths are always the ones to stick up for those money grabbing tossers. As for welfare, she's a tax dodging pleb anyway. Quit licking her arse and acquire some morals.
0
reply
AlwaysWatching
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#358
Report 3 years ago
#358
(Original post by Burridge)
First, let's not over-egg the pudding. Monarchy approval ratings - whilst at an all-time high, admittedly - generally fluctuate between 65-70% depending on the poll and the structure of the question.

Second, and more importantly, people's support for the monarchy often hinges on emotion; for many, it fosters up a sense of patriotism and nostalgia. It's like a big pantomime show - and the general public lap it up; royal weddings, Prince George, what Kate's wearing etc. Frankly, it's quite facile - this is a constitutional issue, people seem to forget that. In addition, I suspect that when people are judging the monarchy, often they're just expressing satisfaction with the reigning monarch at that time (i.e the Queen). If, for example, Charles - who famously has much lower public satisfaction ratings - were the King, I imagine monarchy approval ratings would much less clear-cut.
If the monarchy has higher approval than Republicanism, surely it is democratic to keep the monarchy - after all, it is what the majority wants?
0
reply
sw651
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#359
Report 3 years ago
#359
(Original post by xoweeknd)
I doubt you've been to the poorest parts of this country,people sleeping on the streets, the elderly and vulnerable children being neglected. It's funny how the people born with silver spoons in their mouths are always the ones to stick up for those money grabbing tossers. As for welfare, she's a tax dodging pleb anyway. Quit licking her arse and acquire some morals.
I lived in India for five years pal, I know all about poverty. I was born on a council estate to a druggie and an alcoholic, and then I was adopted into an upper class family. Welfare gives nothing back to the country. The monarchy does. Perhaps you need to stop insulting people and acting like you know the way the world works.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#360
Report 3 years ago
#360
(Original post by xoweeknd)
I doubt you've been to the poorest parts of this country,people sleeping on the streets, the elderly and vulnerable children being neglected. It's funny how the people born with silver spoons in their mouths are always the ones to stick up for those money grabbing tossers. As for welfare, she's a tax dodging pleb anyway. Quit licking her arse and acquire some morals.
Dodging so much tax that her tax rate is 100% with an effective rate of 85%.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (134)
18.53%
Labour (309)
42.74%
Liberal Democrats (144)
19.92%
Green Party (41)
5.67%
Brexit Party (21)
2.9%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (2)
0.28%
SNP (9)
1.24%
Plaid Cymru (6)
0.83%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (1)
0.14%
Sinn Fein (1)
0.14%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (1)
0.14%
UKIP (7)
0.97%
Other (8)
1.11%
None (39)
5.39%

Watched Threads

View All