why don't you republicans go and move to america? Watch

Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 7 years ago
#41
(Original post by NGC773)
If the state didnt have a say or cut in the crown then it would be far far worse off then they are currently. Also i would watch it but its a dead link:P
Oh, my bad. I missed a character in the code. This should work.



It's a response to this one, although I don't really think you need to see the original to get the response, since he includes most of the original anyway.

0
reply
Retrodiction
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 7 years ago
#42
Because the USA has some of the strictest immigration requirements of any country in the world?
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report 7 years ago
#43
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Well done for posting all that when i already know it and said nothing about it :rolleyes: . Bless.. you mad bro?

He has said he is seriously considering running for presidency, and in fact has said so in such ways to suggest he has decided on it. Problem with that? Problem with what i've said? Didn't think so
Are you a COMPLETE idiot "bro"?

You said you know all of the things I've posted, yet you are dumb enough to say he is definitely running - HE HASN'T EVEN FORMED A COMMITTEE (the first step required to even say one is going for a party nomination), LET ALONE THEN RUNNING FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. LET ALONE THEN RUN AGAINST OBAMA. Provide me any source which says he is definitely running for the Republican nomination, or indeed against the President - as this is the only way your original (and moronic) post works, as that's the only way people can even vote for him.

You must either be lying about knowing the situation, otherwise you wouldn't continue to post such a moronic retort, or you must be a moron frankly. "Problem with that? Problem with what i've said? Didn't think so".
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#44
Report 7 years ago
#44
(Original post by Jace Falco)
And then there's the point that eliminating elitism and furthering the cause of democracy is more important than a few tourists.
Of course I'm completely agree - the issue with the monarchy should be concentrated to matters of constitutionality and democracy, but its royalists who first and foremost go to the tourism/cost myths. Perhaps b/c they have no leg to stand on when considering the former issues with regards to a monarchy, who knows :rolleyes:
0
reply
Jace Falco
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 7 years ago
#45
(Original post by manchild007)
Are you a COMPLETE idiot "bro"?

You said you know all of the things I've posted, yet you are dumb enough to say he is definitely running - HE HASN'T EVEN FORMED A COMMITTEE (the first step required to even say one is going for a party nomination), LET ALONE THEN RUNNING FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. LET ALONE THEN RUN AGAINST OBAMA. Provide me any source which says he is definitely running for the Republican nomination, or indeed against the President - as this is the only way your original (and moronic) post works, as that's the only way people can even vote for him.

You must either be lying about knowing the situation, otherwise you wouldn't continue to post such a moronic retort, or you must be a moron frankly. "Problem with that? Problem with what i've said? Didn't think so".
Here you go



:teehee:
0
reply
gozatron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#46
Report 7 years ago
#46
(Original post by NGC773)
The Crown (aka the Queen) owns Buckingham palace and all of the royal estates in London and around the world.

If we ended it they arnt going to give those places up. They OWN them
They would have to then pay tax.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report 7 years ago
#47
(Original post by manchild007)
Are you a COMPLETE idiot "bro"?

You said you know all of the things I've posted, yet you are dumb enough to say he is definitely running - HE HASN'T EVEN FORMED A COMMITTEE (the first step required to even say one is going for a party nomination), LET ALONE THEN RUNNING FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION. LET ALONE THEN RUN AGAINST OBAMA. Provide me any source which says he is definitely running for the Republican nomination, or indeed against the President - as this is the only way your original (and moronic) post works, as that's the only way people can even vote for him.
.
Did i say i know he is definitely running? No.
Learn to read, it helps in situations like this.

I said that he has said himself (yes, he actually said it) he may intend to run for presidency, and it is being thrown around that he has said things to show that he actually intends to do it, not just think about it.

Your little arrogant mad mind is taking this too far. I have not used any of my own thoughts or guesses to say he is going to say, how he is going to do it, or what needs to be done. It is his own words that he intends to make a decision before June whether he will run for presidency or not.

Why are you trying to form these discussions out of nowhere? It is a simple fact, the only thing i stated is that he has seriously talked about intending on running for presidency. Technical details were not mentioned and thus do not need to be discussed.

Oh and by the way, he does have an 'independent' committee. So to say he has 'nothing' is exaggerating a little.
1
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report 7 years ago
#48
(Original post by NGC773)
1) I dont get it why did you exclude sites that are closed to the public in your OP? Have you seen the amount of tourists outside Buckingham palace each day?
1. For goodness sake, think about this logically. We're talking about how much tourism is brought in by the monarchy? Buckingham Palace is closed to the public and by getting rid of the monarchy, will that stop people coming in and visiting the UK? Instead of simply being able to stand outside the building now, they may actually get to go in and have a tour etc - as with the Tower of London being opened up. As for the other Top 20 sites, the overwhelming majority have no connection to the royals, or a connection which would suffer as a result of abandoning a monarchy.

Think so otherwise, please provide a source backing this up.


2. Read;

It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, (see the report), that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.


If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."

Source: Professor Phillip Hall
0
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#49
Report 7 years ago
#49
(Original post by manchild007)
1. Of course Buckingham Palace is on the list of Top 20 sites, but we're talking about residences open to the public, of which there is only one. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace was actually vacated by the Windsor family. Ergo, keeping the monarchy active b/c of tourism is a moot point frankly.

Source: BTA (British Tourism Association) Table.

2. No they don't.

Spoiler:
Show
It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, (see the report), that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."


Source: Originally Taken From Professor Phillip Hall

3. Please provide me with a source if you're so sure the monarchy brings in more money than we give it. I will then also provide you with an accountable source that says it doesn't.

4. Do you know what OP means? It means Original Poster, and hence this point was not directed at you.

I look forward to seeing your reply, with SOURCES PROVIDED for each point.
1) Why do you only consider residences open to the public? It seems stupid to just guage it from that

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne
Everytime a new King or Queen takes the throne they can take back the entire estate for their own.

3) http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Sourcesoffunding/TheCivilList.aspx
In 2006-2007 the revenue surplus received by the Treasury from the Crown Estates was £200 million.
They receive around £40 million a year from the tax payer.
1
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 7 years ago
#50
Why are you trying to form these discussions out of nowhere? It is a simple fact, the only thing i stated is that he has seriously talked about intending on running for presidency. Technical details were not mentioned and thus do not need to be discussed.
Intending to run for the Republican nomination and intending to run for Presidency are WHOLLY DIFFERENT THINGS, and not just technical details. If he had the Republican nomination in the bag, then perhaps, I could grant you making such a moronic mistake, but he isn't.

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Oh and by the way, he does have an 'independent' committee. So to say he has 'nothing' is exaggerating a little.
LOL.

And herein you tell me you know nothing about the election process. He needs a steering election committee set (i.e. it helps form a PAC for political contributions/donations), not an independent committee - otherwise there would be no speculation of him running, if he had a steering election committee or PAC, it was virtually guaranteed he was running.
0
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#51
Report 7 years ago
#51
(Original post by manchild007)
1. For goodness sake, think about this logically. We're talking about how much tourism is brought in by the monarchy? Buckingham Palace is closed to the public and by getting rid of the monarchy, will that stop people coming in and visiting the UK? Instead of simply being able to stand outside the building now, they may actually get to go in and have a tour etc - as with the Tower of London being opened up. As for the other Top 20 sites, the overwhelming majority have no connection to the royals, or a connection which would suffer as a result of abandoning a monarchy.

Think so otherwise, please provide a source backing this up.


2. Read;

It is claimed, by the Queen herself no less, (see the report), that the monarchy costs this country nothing because she gives the revenue from the Crown Estate to the nation, and therefore is subsidising the Royal Family and their position in our society.

Because it is described as the queen 'surrendering' the revenue from the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List allocation, it is mistakenly assumed that this 'surrendering' is a personal financial sacrifice on her part for the good of the nation. And this fantasy is enthusiastically perpetuated by monarchists. The truth is rather different.

The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.


If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.

When Sir Michael Peat cheekily suggested that the Windsor's should receive the income from the Crown Estate rather than the Civil List, royal financial experts quickly pointed out the constitutional reality of the situation to him.

"The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."

Source: Professor Phillip Hall

You keep battering on to people about providing a source. Look at my posts ive provided many from different sources. Whereas you have just posted a guys name.
0
reply
placebo24
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#52
Report 7 years ago
#52
Because America is even more backwards than having a monarchy.
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#53
Report 7 years ago
#53
(Original post by NGC773)
1) Why do you only consider residences open to the public? It seems stupid to just guage it from that

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm

Everytime a new King or Queen takes the throne they can take back the entire estate for their own.

3) http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHous...CivilList.aspx


They receive around £40 million a year from the tax payer.
1. You've basically asked the same question again for some stupid reason, so see my prior post for a response. If you feel you need to retort that point, feel free to do so addressing the specifics of that post.

2. It looks like we have reached an impasse on this point/issue. I'll direct you to this, which if you specifically critique, I shall reply with further information.
The Crown Estate and its revenue have never been the private property of the queen, or any of her predecessors. The Crown Estate is officially described as "hereditary possessions of the Sovereign", not the personal possessions of the individual acting as Sovereign.

She cannot give us what she has never owned. Her role is simply one of an individual - Elizabeth Windsor - acting in her constitutional role - the Sovereign - performing her constitutional duty and overseeing the transfer to the government the income from a totally separate legal entity - the Crown. The queen incurs absolutely no financial loss in this transfer process.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years - provide income for the administration of this country.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...untsareallspin or indeed see the research paper conducted into this issue.

3. As you have provided a source of the Crown Estate itself (a biased one if ever), I shall do likewise with finances.

The Queen's Civil List £15.1m
Parliamentary annuities (Prince Philip) £0.4m
Palaces and castles £15m
Travel £6.2m
Expenditure met by gov depts £4.9m
Security £100m
Duchy of Cornwall lost revenue £16m
Duchy of Lancaster lost revenue £13m
Costs to councils £10m
Unpaid tax £2m (?)
Travel and accomodation for Prince Charles £1.6m
Total £184.2m

The monarchy costs you, the taxpayer, over £180m a year in subsidies and lost revenue.

Our campaign is of course based on a few simple principles such as democracy, responsibility and accountability. So the cost of the monarchy isn't really a significant motivation for many of us. After all, we would still call for a republican constitution even if the monarchy cost the taxpayer nothing. However, the cost is an issue, particularly as the palace makes it an issue by claiming every year that the monarchy represents 'value-for-money'.

The cost is also an issue because the way in which the royal household spends our money demonstrates some of the key flaws with the monarchy - a lack of accountability and transparency. Their finances are not fully reported, a lot of expenditure is kept secret, much of it is just ignored by the official financial reports the palace publishes each year. Royal finances are not fully audited by the National Audit Office and the annual reports are prepared and presented by the palace, not by an independent authority. Routinely we hear about the misuse of public money by the royals, yet little is done about it.

Some will say that the total cost of the monarchy doesn't add to much compared with the government's overall budget of billions of pounds - but that is hardly an excuse to be careless with taxpayers' money. If an MP is caught misusing public money people rightly complain - the same standards should apply to the royal household.

Total Cost of the monarchy

Buckingham palace claims that the monarchy costs the taxpayer around £40m each year. In fact the total figure is more than £180m. The difference comes from the palace ignoring costs incurred by local authorities, unpaid taxes and security, as well as lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

This discrepancy between the official figure and our estimate highlights one of the key problems with royal funding - we, the taxpayers, are simply not allowed to know the full cost - it's kept secret. This is totally unacceptable.

View the summary of royal costs ::
Royals are 21 times more expensive than MPs

There has rightly been a lot of criticism in the media about parliamentary expenses and salaries. It is worth noting that a 'working royal' costs 21 times more than an MP.

There are fifteen working royals according to the official monarchy website. That means we pay around £12m a year for each one.

The total bill for parliamentary salaries and expenses is around £155m. Add other costs of running the House of Commons and we're looking at a total bill of approximately £365m. With 646 MPs that makes them cheap by comparison, at just £565K each.

Sources:
Telegraph
The First Post
Source: http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...nces/index.php
0
reply
username547863
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#54
Report 7 years ago
#54
(Original post by manchild007)
1. You've basically asked the same question again for some stupid reason, so see my prior post for a response. If you feel you need to retort that point, feel free to do so addressing the specifics of that post.

2. It looks like we have reached an impasse on this point/issue. I'll direct you to this, which if you specifically critique, I shall reply with further information.


3. As you have provided a source of the Crown Estate itself (a biased one if ever), I shall do likewise with finances.



Source: http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...nces/index.php
And you have just linked a post from the republic? Tell me how my link isnt if not less bias then yours
0
reply
fire2burn
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report 7 years ago
#55
(Original post by NGC773)
The Crown (aka the Queen) owns Buckingham palace and all of the royal estates in London and around the world.

If we ended it they arnt going to give those places up. They OWN them
I'm sure Marie Antoinette made that assertion too until they lopped off her head...
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#56
Report 7 years ago
#56
(Original post by NGC773)
And you have just linked a post from the republic? Tell me how my link isnt if not less bias then yours
Exactly, did you not read what I wrote. I stated, as biased as your post from the royal website is, I shall provide my own too (in this case from the biased Republic website).

Also see the Guardian link, which is somewhat less biased than our two sources you'd agree.
0
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#57
Report 7 years ago
#57
Rofl, what a biased source.
'Lost revenue from Duchies is included here because we believe the Duchies ought to be in public ownership. They are not, and never have been, the personal property of the Windsor family. We see no reason why the revenue should go to Elizabeth Windsor and her eldest son.'
'Estimates can range from £50m to £100m a year, so the figure in our table represents the high end of the estimate.'
'This figure is an estimate based on some specific visits.'

Seems like a lot of random guessing. . 'Oh, the figure is usually 50 or 100 million, so we picked the biggest amount, seems fair' . Idiots.

I guess the Republic is a much more unbiased source than multiple (lots) of articles from various news sources (lol)
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#58
Report 7 years ago
#58
(Original post by Tommyjw)
Rofl, what a biased source.....
ROFL.

Biased source? As opposed to the figures from the royal site, to whom this money goes to? Indeed, you are an idiot. Provide me any other independent source and I shall concede if that is the case.

Also, nice back-track on the Trump thing by-the-by; let me know when election rules have changed though, as setting up an independent committee being a sign of running for "president" is a lot easier than this whole forming a PAC and steering-election committee nonsense. I'm sure a lot of US politicians would appreciate it you moron
0
reply
Aphotic Cosmos
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#59
Report 7 years ago
#59
(Original post by humanrights)
so, you want a corrupt system.

the brilliance of constituional monarchy is that in theory the monarch is the defender of the constitution. and as a monarch, she is untouched by the corrupting hand of politics which is by nature divisive and tainted by the influence of big money and business.
I utterly reject the notion that a president, lord protector or similar role for the UK would be particularly political. Whilst the election of any individual necessarily entails politics, once elected most ceremonial presidents stay comfortable out of the limelight, trying to maintain the dignity of the office and intervene if necessary, as well as representing their country on the world stage and at state occasions at home. Ceremonial presidents typically have long terms (6 years) and usually command respect as elder statesmen from both the government and opposition benches throughout their time in office. On top of this, ceremonial presidents are actually useful in constitutional crises because unlike monarchs they have the democratically appointed right to intervene and so needn't fear reprisals from the legislature seeking to interfere with the powers of the office. The British monarchy, however, has done bugger all in more than 300 years, fearing that the legislature would just do away with them altogether should they exercise their power.

The fact that most other countries in the developed world are republics, and the fact that most of these other countries aren't failed states, indicates that we aren't going to suddenly collapse should we get rid of the monarchy, and indeed with such a fundamental constitutional change we could take the opportunity to collect the constitution into a single, clear, modern document and create a bill of rights, and reform Parliament to make it both more representative and accountable.
1
reply
Tommyjw
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 7 years ago
#60
(Original post by manchild007)
ROFL.

Biased source? As opposed to the figures from the royal site, to whom this money goes to? Indeed, you are an idiot. Provide me any other independent source and I shall concede if that is the case.

Also, nice back-track on the Trump thing by-the-by; let me know when election rules have changed though, as setting up an independent committee is a lot easier than forming a PAC and steering-election committee. I'm sure a lot of US politicians would appreciate it ha
Biased as opposed to several news and other sources. Yes
Explain to me, even with these 'exaggerated; figures of 100 odd million... costs us more than figures saying we have gained 200+ million?
200 is bigger than 100, btw, incase you need help with that.

And i ignored your post because your arrogant . You continue to ramble on about irrelevant technical details and love to completely ignore American news articles stating what i have said.

All in all, you just seem to like ignoring things which don't fit to your view. Good job.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (312)
37.68%
No - but I will (64)
7.73%
No - I don't want to (62)
7.49%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (390)
47.1%

Watched Threads

View All