Should we abolish the Monarchy? Watch

Poll: Should we abolish the Monarchy?
The results of this poll are hidden until the poll closes.
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#421
Report 3 years ago
#421
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nah, I'm not a strong republican (I tend to approach things from a consequentialist viewpoint, and not much would change so I don't really give a damn). I just like arguing.
Oh, I've noticed your posts are fairly thoughtful - I was more generally referring to the common arguments I hear.
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#422
Report 3 years ago
#422
(Original post by sw651)
You are following the argument line of " I don't agree so you are wrong. This is the typical progressive thinking argument.
What does that even mean? How on earth am I following the "I don't agree so you are wrong" line of argument? Now you're just being silly. It's ironic, because that is exactly what you're doing - you say something, I refute it, and you don't address what I've said - you just move on.

I addressed every point you have made. I've substantiated my claims. You, on the other hand, seem to persistently sidestep what I'm saying. As I pointed out before, if you want to have a proper debate, address the points I'm making:

- A source for your poll
- My point about how the polls re. the monarchy can be quite deceiving
- The wealth the Queen brings in
- Charles' dementia
- Your understanding of the Royals' 'hard work'
- The nature of the UK constitution

It's almost as if you are trolling. From where I'm sitting, let me break it down for you. Here is how I see it:
1. You make a few ludicrous claims - some bizarre (e.g "the UK doesn't have a constitution), or some outright lies (e.g Charles has Dementia)
2. I refute your claims - or at least open the door for a debate on the issue - e.g polls, but you sidestep the issue and ignore my valid points
3. You then reply, but it usually consists of a couple of sentences of rhetoric (e.g "this is the typical progressive thinking argument")
- Does anyone else notice this with this poster, or is it just me?
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#423
Report 3 years ago
#423
(Original post by gladders)
Of course, but it's ludicrous to equate Britain's constitutional monarchy with anything remotely like a dictatorship.

I am perfectly aware that it's a complex matter - I'd argue, actually, that many monarchists approach the matter appreciating its complexities better than most republicans, who tend to say 'archaic/undemocratic' or that same tired old rot, and expect that to be the end of it.
How modest of you. In any case who needs rationale and logic when we can all worship a 2 year old boy with sycophantic articles like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ry-school.html

Good to know they will only be charging the public £30 a day for him to throw toys on the floor and make the other children his 'day butlers'.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#424
Report 3 years ago
#424
(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.
Why do you keep persisting with this figure when you know it excludes a bulk of the true cost?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#425
Report 3 years ago
#425
(Original post by Midlander)
How modest of you. In any case who needs rationale and logic when we can all worship a 2 year old boy with sycophantic articles like this one:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ry-school.html

Good to know they will only be charging the public £30 a day for him to throw toys on the floor and make the other children his 'day butlers'.
For the 267th time...we have a free press in this country, and they do their own thing. They peddle these photos because they think they will sell. They care not if the royal family benefits or not.

if you don't like them, don't buy them. Move on.

And also for a similar number of times, you're not paying £30m for him to play with toys. That's free.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#426
Report 3 years ago
#426
(Original post by Midlander)
Why do you keep persisting with this figure when you know it excludes a bulk of the true cost?
It covers the functions of the Head of State and ancillary costs. Security costs are irrelevant - the cost is decided by security specialists, not by the Queen herself. Security costs as much as it needs to cost. There's nothing to suggest security under a republic would be cheaper, after all.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#427
Report 3 years ago
#427
(Original post by gladders)
It covers the functions of the Head of State and ancillary costs. Security costs are irrelevant - the cost is decided by security specialists, not by the Queen herself. Security costs as much as it needs to cost. There's nothing to suggest security under a republic would be cheaper, after all.
My point is it is an additional cost of maintaining the monarchy which you and other monarchists never acknowledge, leaving most to believe it really is just £40m.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#428
Report 3 years ago
#428
(Original post by gladders)
For the 267th time...we have a free press in this country, and they do their own thing. They peddle these photos because they think they will sell. They care not if the royal family benefits or not.

if you don't like them, don't buy them. Move on.

And also for a similar number of times, you're not paying £30m for him to play with toys. That's free.
They do their own thing until they actively challenge the Royals and the government closes the loopholes. Sycophantic drivel written about a family purely for their lineage-it leaves a bad taste even for those ambivalent on the monarchy, which happens to be the majority.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#429
Report 3 years ago
#429
(Original post by Midlander)
My point is it is an additional cost of maintaining the monarchy which you and other monarchists never acknowledge, leaving most to believe it really is just £40m.
But it's an irrelevant one. If that cost varied enormously between monarchies and republics, you'd have a point, but we have no evidence to suggest it does.

Therefore, it can be negated,
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#430
Report 3 years ago
#430
(Original post by Midlander)
They do their own thing until they actively challenge the Royals and the government closes the loopholes.
Think you'll have to illustrate what you mean by that.

Sycophantic drivel written about a family purely for their lineage-it leaves a bad taste even for those ambivalent on the monarchy, which happens to be the majority.
Pfff. It's celebrity gossip. Republics have that too. You're pissing in the wind.
1
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#431
Report 3 years ago
#431
(Original post by gladders)
But it's an irrelevant one. If that cost varied enormously between monarchies and republics, you'd have a point, but we have no evidence to suggest it does.

Therefore, it can be negated,
I'm not trying to compare it favourably to a republic? Just a simple fact that when you say it costs £40m this is quite simply not true.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Burridge
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#432
Report 3 years ago
#432
(Original post by gladders)
This is pretty weak stuff. It's democratic, but you don't like it, so you call it undemocratic anyway.

News flash: there's all sorts of unelected positions we have in our democracy that don't impinge on our democratic nature, and nobody seems to have a problem with them.

Judges can have absolutely enormous power, and they are not elected, and yet they are considered pretty essential for an independent judiciary.

I don't care if its inherited or not. What matters is its outputs - does it frustrate the democratic will through its actions? And in that regard, it does not.

Conversely, while tons of people seem to be in love with the United States as a democracy, I'd argue that the very fact that it has tons of elected positions which can mutually frustrate each other makes it considerably less democratic than our model of a single elected institution which is only supported, not challenged, by nonelected institutions.

Also, so what if for many, it's an emotional response? Your own post betrays that your aversion to the monarchy is just as rooted in emotion - you find it inherently dislikable.

That's entirely fine - it's a free country - but don't try to present your own view as logical and more worthy than anyone else's. You're just as fallible.

Emotions are an extremely important part of the human experience. Emotion brings attachment. Americans, French people, Australians, Chinese people, are all emotionally attached to things that are part of their country. Is it purely through emotion that Americans love their republican constitution, or is it through a cold, hard look at statistics? I think it's the former.
As I've said, it's democratic because, despite being an integral part of our constitution, it lacks any scrutiny and accountability, despite wielding a hefty amount of power (in the defacto and dejure sense). It sits at the near apex of society, yet is completely isolated in that it is not exposed to the normal democratic process - the popular vote. Royal Prerogative still gives the monarchy extensive powers; it's fine arguing that in practice they are rarely exercised - but that's because our country has a degree of stability and conducts itself in accordance with, well, the the status quo. What if the country elected a revolutionary figure, or someone who wanted to abolish the monarchy? Besides, even if the monarchy is increasingly becoming symbolic rather than an actual branch of the executive, it still undermines values that this country represents. I just honestly don't understand this notion that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to be born into such a significant position of power. It's bizarre and archaic.

Judges are a totally different kettle of fish. It's funny, because you as soon as somebody compared the monarchy to 'electing a dictator', you blurted out "it's ludicrous to compare (them)". Exactly the same with judges. The British monarchy is the Head of State; judges have a duty to interpret the law. The judiciary is independent, open to scrutiny, and is accountable to the Office for Judicial Complaints. Not to mention that judges are appointed (and can be dismissed) by an independent panel of experts - the Judicial Appointments Commission.

Emotion is important, I get that. But the point with the monarchy is that emotion seems to be the sole factor that fuels peoples' reactions - people forget that this is a bonafide constitutional issue. People don't want to address that. Instead, they just look at the Queen, or little cute Prince George, and develop a deep-seeded emotional attachment to the monarchy. As I've said, monarchy approval ratings would be much lower if Charles was King. In such a case, the notion of the monarchy having "popular consent" would diminish significantly.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#433
Report 3 years ago
#433
(Original post by Burridge)
As I've said, it's democratic because, despite being an integral part of our constitution, it lacks any scrutiny and accountability, despite wielding a hefty amount of power (in the defacto and dejure sense).
All of that power is exercised at the advice of the Cabinet, which is accountable to Parliament.

It sits at the near apex of society, yet is completely isolated in that it is not exposed to the normal democratic process - the popular vote.
So what? It's just as I said - it not being elected is not in itself a reasonable objection. There are plenty of offices that are specifically not elected, for good reasons.

Royal Prerogative still gives the monarchy extensive powers; it's fine arguing that in practice they are rarely exercised - but that's because our country has a degree of stability and conducts itself in accordance with, well, the the status quo. What if the country elected a revolutionary figure, or someone who wanted to abolish the monarchy?
How did that go down in Australia? I imagine that it would go ahead much as it has done - the monarchy knows not to tamper with the will of the electorate.

Besides, even if the monarchy is increasingly becoming symbolic rather than an actual branch of the executive, it still undermines values that this country represents.
Similar to what I said before, this is just your personal squeamishness and nothing more.

I just honestly don't understand this notion that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to be born into such a significant position of power. It's bizarre and archaic.
I just honestly don't understand this notion that it's perfectly acceptable for someone to be elected into such a ceremonial position. It's bizarre and chronological snobbery..

Judges are a totally different kettle of fish. It's funny, because you as soon as somebody compared the monarchy to 'electing a dictator', you blurted out "it's ludicrous to compare (them)". Exactly the same with judges. The British monarchy is the Head of State; judges have a duty to interpret the law. The judiciary is independent, open to scrutiny, and is accountable to the Office for Judicial Complaints. Not to mention that judges are appointed (and can be dismissed) by an independent panel of experts - the Judicial Appointments Commission.
That may be, but you haven't said why any of that can't be done with elected judges. I'm sure you do have a reason why it can't, and chances are I'd agree, but that point is that your claim of 'it's not elected and that's bad' is hopelessly simplistic.

Emotion is important, I get that. But the point with the monarchy is that emotion seems to be the sole factor that fuels peoples' reactions - people forget that this is a bonafide constitutional issue. People don't want to address that. Instead, they just look at the Queen, or little cute Prince George, and develop a deep-seeded emotional attachment to the monarchy.
Well speaking for myself, I address it plenty, as many republicans ignore the constitutional side and go straight for 'it's unelected/archaic, and that's bad'

As I've said, monarchy approval ratings would be much lower if Charles was King. In such a case, the notion of the monarchy having "popular consent" would diminish significantly.
Nah, Charles will be fine as King.
0
reply
Hans_301
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#434
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#434
(Original post by Hans_301)
Apparently an estimated 2/3 people support the Monarchy. I'd like to know your views.


(Very pleased with all the responses! So interesting to read. I honestly didn't expect this turnout. TSR is the s**t!)
Appreciate it all. Thought-provoking stuff.
2 years on. What do you all think now ?
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#435
Report 2 years ago
#435
(Original post by Hans_301)
2 years on. What do you all think now ?
No change, it still needs to go.


Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
beau02
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#436
Report 2 years ago
#436
If Charles becomes king then yes we should lol
0
reply
Hans_301
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#437
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#437
I think it needs to he abolished but I'm wary after Brexit how we handle change. Would it be a smooth transition ?
0
reply
ScottishBrexitor
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#438
Report 2 years ago
#438
Keep Monarchy until at least the death of Elizabeth assuming Charles will suck ass or a much better very popular alternative had been proposed.

Until then keep it though I would do the following proposed by Republic to keep republicans happy:

- Introduction of the Royal finances reform charter which has UK Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government minister, not Buckingham Palace.

- All security costs of the institution of the Monarchy to be made transparent and accountable. All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities as well as all members of the royal household, to be required to follow the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals

- Transfer the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury

- Prevent the Monarchy from being members of the Privy Council, meeting the Prime Minister weekly and access to UK government documents like Prince of Wales has apparently gotten in the past, they should be completely independent from politics bar Queen Elizabeth II singing bills, and appointing the Prime Minister
1
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 (16)
16.16%
Labour (41)
41.41%
Liberal Democrats (18)
18.18%
Green Party (5)
5.05%
Brexit Party (3)
3.03%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (0)
0%
SNP (2)
2.02%
Plaid Cymru (2)
2.02%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (0)
0%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (0)
0%
UKIP (1)
1.01%
Other (2)
2.02%
None (9)
9.09%

Watched Threads

View All