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

Referendum against the monarchy Watch

  • View Poll Results: Monarchy or republic
    Monarchy
    130
    57.02%
    Republic
    98
    42.98%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Because the royal family brought in 500 Million in tourism last year
    came on that line is getting sad now, same old wheeled out argument to why we can't move forward as a country

    they don't personal bring in that money, you don't pay to see the queen, you pay to look at a building and see changing off the graud
    all of happens if the queen is there or not, 9 times out of 10 during the summer when everyone comes to london, shes not even in london

    doubt other royals bring in that money, who want to see the duke of kent, or Prince Edward

    than they get given a load of military honorary without serving a day

    its a old out dated system that this country needs to change so we can move forward

    but oh no the money brought in too look at a building
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caspa)
    came on that line is getting sad now, same old wheeled out argument to why we can't move forward as a country
    Please define 'move forward'; we're a pretty cool country as it stands. What exactly would change under a republic?

    they don't personal bring in that money, you don't pay to see the queen, you pay to look at a building and see changing off the graud
    People pay to see a building which has contemporary royal connotations. I doubt there'd be many around if a humdrum president was in Buck House.

    all of happens if the queen is there or not, 9 times out of 10 during the summer when everyone comes to london, shes not even in london
    A bit more frequent than that, as she has constitutional duties that often require her to be nearby.

    [quote]doubt other royals bring in that money, who want to see the duke of kent, or Prince Edward[/quote

    You may not care, but the appeal is real for many people.

    than they get given a load of military honorary without serving a day
    You may want to seriously reconsider that statement. All the present members of the royal family have had at least a career in the military, and a good number have had active combat experience.

    its a old out dated system that this country needs to change so we can move forward
    Define, please: by what standard is it out-dated? What's out-dated about it that makes it inefficient?

    but oh no the money brought in too look at a building
    I can counter that. 'oh no it's old! Therefore it should go!' :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Please define 'move forward'; we're a pretty cool country as it stands. What exactly would change under a republic?
    the whole politcal system needs changing, is it fair that we have 1 vote for 1 MP, we don't elected our counties leader the PM, we elected our local MP

    our votes need to mean more, look at countries that have a republic, JFK changed the face of elections, leaders where about being smart, but JFK changed all that, to the good looking young man, fit and healthy (he really wasn't) and attacked, where Nixon wasn't a good look guy and well just didn't have the look at the time by he learnt
    we are not citizens we are subjects

    do you want to carry on having unelected PM? don't give all that bull oh by we do, we have never elected our PM, unless his your local MP

    tell me why by the luck of brith should they be in the royal family


    People pay to see a building which has contemporary royal connotations. I doubt there'd be many around if a humdrum president was in Buck House.
    i wonder how countires are with presidents, you go to DC you want to see the white house, and all that, whos says they will move into buck house? your make more money by having it opened

    A bit more frequent than that, as she has constitutional duties that often require her to be nearby.
    You may not care, but the appeal is real for many people.
    but she no real power, more duties to viste and open things and well as meet and great heads of state, which would keep you a busy person any way, and weekly meeting with the PM of the day, and well it has come public in the pass that she has fallen out with PM, like Thatcher
    the appeal is really real to see 100th in line who still hangs on

    You may want to seriously reconsider that statement. All the present members of the royal family have had at least a career in the military, and a good number have had active combat experience.
    a military career behind a desk and getting promoted faster than lighting
    the Duke of York and Prince Harry only onces to go off and do front line stuff
    Prince Edward spent three years in the Royal Marines as a University Cadet, thats really sevriving and to hold the rank off Commodore-in-Chief for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary at his age
    Anne, Princess Royal

    even if they have had a career, getting up to the rank they are at that age
    Define, please: by what standard is it out-dated? What's out-dated about it that makes it inefficient?



    I can counter that. 'oh no it's old! Therefore it should go!' :rolleyes:
    so your the normal if its not broke don't fix it, uni fee wasn't broke why they gone up
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caspa)
    the whole politcal system needs changing, is it fair that we have 1 vote for 1 MP, we don't elected our counties leader the PM, we elected our local MP
    1) What does this have to do with a republic?

    2) in a parliamentary system, electing the PM separately leads to serious problems. Israel tried it in the 1990s and promptly returned to our system.

    our votes need to mean more, look at countries that have a republic, JFK changed the face of elections, leaders where about being smart, but JFK changed all that, to the good looking young man, fit and healthy (he really wasn't) and attacked, where Nixon wasn't a good look guy and well just didn't have the look at the time by he learnt
    I really have no idea what you mean here.

    we are not citizens we are subjects
    Now you've shown your ignorance.

    1) We are citizens - we have been since 1981.

    2) What's wrong with being a subject anyway? Are you aware that historically the terms citizen and subject were more or less interchangeable?

    do you want to carry on having unelected PM? don't give all that bull oh by we do, we have never elected our PM, unless his your local MP
    Yes, yes I am. The PM is the head of the Executive, and being an MP and not separately elected keeps him firmyl rooted in parliamentary accountability.

    tell me why by the luck of brith should they be in the royal family
    To make political neutrality more likely, to celebrate our history, and ensure continuity while there is change.

    i wonder how countires are with presidents, you go to DC you want to see the white house, and all that, whos says they will move into buck house? your make more money by having it opened
    People go to see the White House because it's the residence of the most powerful person in the world. Do people go to check out the German President's residence (which is the fairer comparison)? Answer: not really.

    but she no real power, more duties to viste and open things and well as meet and great heads of state, which would keep you a busy person any way, and weekly meeting with the PM of the day, and well it has come public in the pass that she has fallen out with PM, like Thatcher
    I'm not sure what you're saying here. Could you repeat?

    the appeal is really real to see 100th in line who still hangs on
    Please clarify?

    a military career behind a desk and getting promoted faster than lighting
    the Duke of York and Prince Harry only onces to go off and do front line stuff
    Prince Edward spent three years in the Royal Marines as a University Cadet, thats really sevriving and to hold the rank off Commodore-in-Chief for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary at his age
    Anne, Princess Royal
    It's still a heck of lot more experience than almost every MP who we entrust our government to.

    so your the normal if its not broke don't fix it, uni fee wasn't broke why they gone up
    I make no comment on fees - whatever the solution, uni fees were, for a significant chunk of the population (not me necessarily), thoroughly and demonstrably broke. There is no tangible way you can demonstrate a republic working better than the present system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I make no comment on fees - whatever the solution, uni fees were, for a significant chunk of the population (not me necessarily), thoroughly and demonstrably broke. There is no tangible way you can demonstrate a republic working better than the present system.
    there is but no one will listen, you are either for or against, being for you normally get the same old crap, being against you get called everything

    shout down with prove its better, how can people still be fore a elitist system, anything else they are up in arms about

    there are ways to demonstrate, just look at countries who have better checks and balances, we have a system where the executive and legislature, so how can people truly vote on bills, if your part of the government you can't vote no

    we have weak separation of powers

    this a debate we need as a country, but sadly the only time it will come up with when the queen dies and it will be the wrong time because support will go up, and both sides shout each other down, normally the pro side do it more
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    there is but no one will listen, you are either for or against, being for you normally get the same old crap, being against you get called everything
    Do you now? Odd, as I tend to get the same reaction from republicans. Apparently, monarchists are feudalism loving blowhards who cling to the principle of inheritance and despite democracy. It’s easy for both sides to use ad hominems on the other.

    shout down with prove its better, how can people still be fore a elitist system, anything else they are up in arms about
    The problem is abolishing the monarchy would do absolutely nothing to make Britain more egalitarian. In fact there’s plenty of examples of republics – for example, the US – which are more uneven than us, and monarchies, such as Sweden, which have a fantastically small rich/poor gap.

    there are ways to demonstrate, just look at countries who have better checks and balances, we have a system where the executive and legislature, so how can people truly vote on bills, if your part of the government you can't vote no
    That’s too simple. Firstly, what you’re describing is parliamentarism –which republics have too – including Germany, Sweden, Italy and Canada, to name a few. It’s actually the most common state framework in the world.

    we have weak separation of powers
    Not really. What we have is an overlapping of powers, which is perfectly normal and works fine.

    Under the US system of full separation, neither the legislature nor the executive has a means to resolve disagreements between them – they are mutually independent. There is no democratic means to resolve a confrontation. As such there’s real problems, not only with passing legislation (there’s nothing more frustrating for everyone than no legislation getting through), but in more extreme circumstances it has seen one of the two sides resort to extra-constitutional means, such as decrees, emergency powers, or even coups, to get their way.

    Parliamentarism works different, as you know – the legislature can dissolve the government, and the government can dissolve the legislature. Much like two people holding guns to each other’s heads. They’re mutually interdependent. In order for government to function, both sides must cooperate. Parliament cannot dissolve the executive too willy-nilly, but then the government can’t take the legislature for granted, either.

    MPs remain at liberty to vote as they please, but the decision comes with political costs, such as threats to their career and so on. However, the government cannot take its MPs for granted, either – PMs who have include Thatcher and Blair. And poor old Major and Brown had rebellions and headaches galore. A party which bullies its MPs may get its way on some things but will rapidly lose loyalty.

    So by the face of it, you see, presidentialism appears to be better as it has implicit separation of powers and checks and balances. But parliamentarism has its own advantages, including a more continuous connect with parliamentary opinion and government need to keep parliament sweet. Its checks and balances take into account party politics in a way presidentialism does not.

    this a debate we need as a country, but sadly the only time it will come up with when the queen dies and it will be the wrong time because support will go up, and both sides shout each other down, normally the pro side do it more
    I’m all for a full and comprehensive discussion about the constitution, but on the whole people are content with it and would much rather we concern ourselves with bread and butter issues such as health, policing and education, not tinkering with a constitution which by and large works excellently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry but our tourism would be damaged without the Royal Family. For **** sake just look at the effect Kate Middleton has had already:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11959566

    Sure, the buildings will still be there, but their value is decreased if they don't have the royal family in the media promoting them. Their only as popular as they are because they are still used today and are functioning parts of a monarchy. Less and less people would care if they were just relics of an age past.

    Not only that but I'd vote for keeping our Political system as is because I daren't risk switching to a republic, and letting our political system become vulnerable to some sort of state where money plays a much larger role.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I Vote for DEMOCRACY
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Queen pays taxes herself.

    The queen represents the monarchy incredibly well. There's been very little slipping in her professional non-political approach during her reign.

    There is no reason to get rid of her. If the country became a republic, it'd probably cost the same (or at least the same tax money would be pumped into it) as is the case with the monarchy. Nothing really would change, apart from the fact England would be substantially more boring.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Pitch)
      Other countries are republics and have far more tourists.They come for monuments and monuments would still be here
      I think this is right. I read somewhere that the French get a comparable level of revenue from tourist interest in their own royalty-based attractions, even though they did away with their actual monachy a while back. It's not the royal family itself that is the central element in the draw but the paraphernalia of big houses, royal collections etc. They're just some well-off family who happen to be born into a rather anachronistic institution. I almost feel sorry for them, trapped in a bizarre time-warp role of waving at the commoners and patronising charities.

      The best option is to gradually scale back the connection between royalty and the state and then, when the time is right, cast them adrift.
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by F i s)
      I Vote for DEMOCRACY
      So do I! What's your point?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      For the price of a mars bar I personally have bigger fish to fry
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Oswy)
      I think this is right. I read somewhere that the French get a comparable level of revenue from tourist interest in their own royalty-based attractions, even though they did away with their actual monachy a while back.
      I think France has the edge, though, in that most of the surviving royal buildings are pretty darn enormous and fantastic, so they stand in their own right as attractions - I can't see Buck House pulling crowds without it being the Queen's official residence!

      It's not the royal family itself that is the central element in the draw but the paraphernalia of big houses, royal collections etc. They're just some well-off family who happen to be born into a rather anachronistic institution.
      I really dislike how the 'anachronistic' argument (if you can call it an argument) is bandied about. You might as well call trial-by-jury anachronistic, as it's been around almost as long.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Pitch)
      Other countries are republics and have far more tourists.They come for monuments and monuments would still be here
      The royal family spend a lot of money they get on repairs + refurbishment to the palaces etc
      If we got rid of them, the government would still have to use tax payers money to keep the buildings in good condition so tourists will still come.

      The royal family brings in more money than they get and is given back to the treasury, so I don't see the problem.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by gladders)
      So do I! What's your point?
      Not really a democracy with the narcissistic monarchy is it?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      I don't have any particular opinions on this issue, because I can see both sides of the argument. However, the whole "they bring in loads of money through tourism" thing- the palaces/castles/ crown jewels etc. will still exist, which are more of a draw to tourism.
      Maybe we need a violent uprising Russia-1917 style where every member of the Royal family is beheaded... everyone still talks about the Tsars.
      (That was sarcastic, for all of who may be half asleep)
      Offline

      13
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by F i s)
      Not really a democracy with the narcissistic monarchy is it?
      Democracy = rule of the people. The people elect a sovereign and supreme Parliament to govern. The Government comes from MPs. The Queen's role in day to day operations is nil.

      Democracy would not be advanced by electing our Head of State.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by F i s)
        I Vote for DEMOCRACY
        (Original post by gladders)
        So do I! What's your point?
        That is a waste of a vote:

        Monarchy is better than democracy

        Democracy & Rational Ignorance

        Incidentally, if I was to choose, I'd pick the free-market anyday. But instead of that, it has to be a Monarchy.
        • Political Ambassador
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Caspa)
        came on that line is getting sad now, same old wheeled out argument to why we can't move forward as a country

        they don't personal bring in that money, you don't pay to see the queen, you pay to look at a building and see changing off the graud
        all of happens if the queen is there or not, 9 times out of 10 during the summer when everyone comes to london, shes not even in london

        doubt other royals bring in that money, who want to see the duke of kent, or Prince Edward

        than they get given a load of military honorary without serving a day

        its a old out dated system that this country needs to change so we can move forward

        but oh no the money brought in too look at a building
        Umm the royals do actually serve in the military. Prince Harry served out in Afganistan.

        The monarchy have no power. Getting rid of them hardly moves the country forward. And its not a tired old argument it remains to be true. The royal wedding will bring in 500 million pounds. They also have mass popularity in other countries like the US for example. Plus events like the changing of the guard would not happen if we did not have a monarchy their would be no point.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Pitch)
        Tourists would still come
        It gives our country a sense of identity, especially with regards to tourism. So far you havent actually given a credible counter point to the ones that have been thrown at you, rather just coming up with a load of crap on how the queen controls tuition fees. If you have an opinion, dont just put it into argument form without having something to support it.
       
       
       
    • 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
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      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.