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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You don't think their enormous population, remoteness from significant enemies, and easy access to vast natural resources doesn't have anything to do with it?

    Imagine this was 1913, with Britain at the top. Could we then argue that monarchy is obviously better because, not only is Britain #1, but Germany is #2, also a monarchy?
    It has been rivalled by Russia and more recently China for the last 70 years.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    It has been rivalled by Russia and more recently China for the last 70 years.
    Oh, wonderful examples.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Really. So there's some kind of conspiracy that only monarchists be elected. Well, I guess the entire electorate must be in on it as well. Damn, they failed to stop Tony Benn, or Norman Baker, Roy Hattersley, Ann McKechin or Stephen Pound. I guess they slipped through the net, eh?

    Honestly, this is ridiculous. A conspiracy to keep the monarchy in place? What's stopping me from switching that argument around and saying there's a conspiracy to stop France becoming a monarchy again - the people are being duped into voting for republican parties?
    1) I didn't say 'only monarchists get elected as MPs' (20% of the population being republican would see to that).

    2) I didn't use the word 'conspiracy'-that came from you. As far as I know there is no monarchist equivalent of Republic in France-I wonder why?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Oh, wonderful examples.
    Care to offer more than sarcasm?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    1) I didn't say 'only monarchists get elected as MPs' (20% of the population being republican would see to that).
    You're the one claiming politicians at the top 'adore royalty' no matter what. What impression am I meant to get from that?

    2) I didn't use the word 'conspiracy'-that came from you. As far as I know there is no monarchist equivalent of Republic in France-I wonder why?
    Funnily enough, monarchist sentiment in France is about 20% of the country, akin to the republican cause here. I think the entire thing is a case of 'the grass is greener on the other side'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Care to offer more than sarcasm?
    You mention Russia and China as contenders with America for top dog in the past century. As you use this as a supporting claim to your argument that America is top dog because it's a republic, should we extrapolate further that the next best thing is totalitarian communism?

    Give me a break.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    You mention Russia and China as contenders with America for top dog in the past century. As you use this as a supporting claim to your argument that America is top dog because it's a republic, should we extrapolate further that the next best thing is totalitarian communism?

    Give me a break.
    Haven't explicitly said America is top because it's a republic-but it is a leading nation which is one nonetheless. So clearly having a ceremonial head of state isn't a pre-requisite for success.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Haven't explicitly said America is top because it's a republic-but it is a leading nation which is one nonetheless. So clearly having a ceremonial head of state isn't a pre-requisite for success.
    I never said it's a matter of success. I said it's a matter of stability. Presidential states have a higher tendency than parliamentary states to degrade into totalitarian ones. That's not to say that all presidential states do, or that no parliamentary state does - statistically however, presidential states are at a higher risk.

    That, and parliamentarism is simply more democratic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    We have a democracy. If we truly don't want the monarchy, it is entirely within our power to elect a political party to remove it.
    monarchy is not a democracy.Camila will be the new Queen without having to get the votes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No. The Irish President costs £3 million a year.
    The Monarchy essentially costs nothing, since with the Sovereign Grant Act it receives a 15% cut of the profits of the Crown Estate. Before that the Civil List was £8 million a year.
    Pretty sure the civil list alone is £30+ million. And the article below calcultes the total cost of the monarch is over 200 million.

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...r-itself/10711
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    so the new King will be a man who cheated on his wife and maybe used the MI6 to kill her after she was pregnant from Al Fayed(according to Kate Middleton).And the queen the person he was cheating with.And we can't do anything because this is a Monarchy.In a republic we could just not vote Camila
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    monarchy is not a democracy.Camila will be the new Queen without having to get the votes.
    It is indeed a democracy. The government is elected by the people and thereby the people's will is translated into policy.

    Elections are not democracy. Elections are one means (indeed, the most important means) by which democracy is achieved. But you don't need to elect everything for a country to be democratic, particularly not a ceremonial office.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    Pretty sure the civil list alone is £30+ million. And the article below calcultes the total cost of the monarch is over 200 million.

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...r-itself/10711
    The Civil List is £8m but pays for part of the monarchy's costs. There are other expenses that deal with other things, which totals up to about £40m.

    I'm surprised at the £200m figure; I'd have to see exactly what they're claiming that is. A lot of republicans make up enormous sums and mark it 'security costs' a) with no evidence, b) assuming it's for the Queen or royal family only, or c) assume a president would not have that same coverage.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    so the new King will be a man who cheated on his wife and maybe used the MI6 to kill her after she was pregnant from Al Fayed(according to Kate Middleton).And the queen the person he was cheating with.And we can't do anything because this is a Monarchy.In a republic we could just not vote Camila
    I don't care one jot if the Prince of Wales had an affair. To steal your own pathetic argument 'It's 2013!'

    And claiming he had Diana killed is just laughable.

    Did the American people vote 'Michelle Obama'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It is indeed a democracy. The government is elected by the people and thereby the people's will is translated into policy.

    Elections are not democracy. Elections are one means (indeed, the most important means) by which democracy is achieved. But you don't need to elect everything for a country to be democratic, particularly not a ceremonial office.
    No,it's the Queen's government.She names it and she can dismiss it.No democratic nation gives these powers to an unelected person who is there for life just because he is the son of the former queen
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    No,it's the Queen's government.She names it and she can dismiss it.No democratic nation gives these powers to an unelected person who is there for life just because he is the son of the former queen
    She only does these things based on the winning party at the last government. She cannot choose who she likes.

    If the Queen has done so, please name a time at which she appointed a minister against the wishes of Parliament.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
    Pretty sure the civil list alone is £30+ million. And the article below calcultes the total cost of the monarch is over 200 million.

    http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...r-itself/10711
    No, the Civil List was £7.9 million. In fact it was fixed at £7.9 million for twenty odd years. The £30 million figure comes from the reserve the Monarchy built up in those twenty years through prudent and restrained underspending.
    As for the £200 million 'calculation', that's complete and utter barmy. Half the expenses they've tagged the Monarchy for would still exist for a President, like security and local visits. Don't even get me started on their logic for claiming the income of the Duchies is somehow a cost to the taxpayer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    I don't care one jot if the Prince of Wales had an affair. To steal your own pathetic argument 'It's 2013!'

    And claiming he had Diana killed is just laughable.

    Did the American people vote 'Michelle Obama'?
    In a democracy everyone has an opinion and votes.Many people wouldn't vote a person like Charles.In a monarchy we can't decide who leads the nation.If Charles killed your mother and got away with that(im sure he would) you couldn't even vote against him.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tigers)
    In a democracy everyone has an opinion and votes.Many people wouldn't vote a person like Charles.In a monarchy we can't decide who leads the nation.If Charles killed your mother and got away with that(im sure he would) you couldn't even vote against him.
    But you can vote for a political party that advocates a republic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    She only does these things based on the winning party at the last government. She cannot choose who she likes.

    If the Queen has done so, please name a time at which she appointed a minister against the wishes of Parliament.
    it doesn't matter what they usually do.They still have powers that only elected people should have and only for a limited time
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.