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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    I apologise if I sound xenophobic. I assure you this has not been my intention at all.

    Ironic though that you call me xenophobic, and then call Gordon Brown a one eyed scottish idiot

    Why is the monarchy an achievement? Quite the opposite in that no citizen can aspire to 'make it to the top' because there is already somebody sitting there, just because of which family they were born into.

    Why do we need the monarch to top up our spirit? Other countries manage fine without it, I think if we need a symbol to rally around it should be our great political tradition - the Westminster system, the magna carta etc. as well as our numerous successful celebrities and entrepreneurs and scientists. People who make our country good, and who have earned this right unlike the royals.
    I forgot quotation marks on the 'one eyed scottish idiot bit'. Albeit I still think he's an idiot.

    Oh come on - look at the queen - the best monarch ever and was forced into doing it.

    We do need them to top up our spirit. Have you seen what they do at awards ceremonys like the millies. It gives the people watching something to be proud of. We're in a big recession people are out of work - they our acting like a shining light to us.
    Also - the Westminster system at the moment isn't exactly popular thanks to expenses.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    How is it? It is completely true.
    How it is it any way true? I am "British". The country is made up of people like myself, be it of different creeds, opinions and ages. The Queen represents the coercive state, and does not personify the relationships between people that make up "Britain".
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Fair enough, if this becomes a significant problem I may take your advice. However for now I think the concepts are closely linked enough to justify having them in the same bill.
    Good luck, I sense this thread will go out of control. Nice bill btw, it seems well researched.:yes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    I forgot quotation marks on the 'one eyed scottish idiot bit'. Albeit I still think he's an idiot.

    Oh come on - look at the queen - the best monarch ever and was forced into doing it.

    We do need them to top up our spirit. Have you seen what they do at awards ceremonys like the millies. It gives the people watching something to be proud of. We're in a big recession people are out of work - they our acting like a shining light to us.
    Also - the Westminster system at the moment isn't exactly popular thanks to expenses.

    They are all forced into doing it. Can I ask what Elizabeth Windsor has achieved specifically which makes you so proud? I don't think their performance at an award ceremony is a valuable argument for their existence because actually their presence is little more than a throwback to a more backwards past.
    I don't care particularly if the Westminster system isn't "popular at the moment" --- it is that system which has produced such a successful British state precisely because it is the product of the will of the people. I may also point out to you that the Queen wasn't very popular when Diane died, would you have advocated this bill at that time? Please have a memory longer than a couple of months.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sakujo)
    Good luck, I sense this thread will go out of control. Nice bill btw, it seems well researched.:yes:
    Thanks very much
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    I may also point out to you that the Queen wasn't very popular when Diane died, would you have advocated this bill at that time? Please have a memory longer than a couple of months.
    a) One mistake - yes a big one but still the only tarnish on her record.
    b) If I was capable of english instead of crying then no I would not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    a) One mistake - yes a big one but still the only tarnish on her record.
    b) If I was capable of english instead of crying then no I would not.
    The only tarnish on her record because she doesn't have an entire country to run. I see no honest reason as to why we should continue being a monarchial state unless you dislike democracy.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    oh I like democracy but I like a monarchial state - it is what makes us unique.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    The only tarnish on her record because she doesn't have an entire country to run. I see no honest reason as to why we should continue being a monarchial state unless you dislike democracy.
    Are you suggesting that monarchy and democracy are not compatible? :eek3:

    it's a really well written bill btw but not one I could ever vote for.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    oh I like democracy but I like a monarchial state - it is what makes us unique.
    No, having a monarch is not in the least bit unique. What makes us unique is the Westminster system which we ourselves developed (amongst other things of course).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You cannot simply seize their estates and assests, they are owned by the crown. In all I think it's about ten billion pounds worth.

    And the current system works. Why change it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Are you suggesting that monarchy and democracy are not compatible? :eek3:

    it's a really well written bill btw but not one I could ever vote for.
    Not necessarily completely incompatible, but Afc was slating democracy wholesale whilst bigging up the monarchy. I do believe however that the monarchy is a stopper to the aspirations of Britain, and the fact that it is at the centre of our unwritten constitutions suggests that Britain is not yet truly democratic (in the modern sense, I know that Athenian democracy for all means and purposes is pretty much unworkable).

    Hypothetically, could I ask why you would vote against?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Nebula)
    You cannot simply seize their estates and assests, they are owned by the crown. In all I think it's about ten billion pounds worth.

    And the current system works. Why change it.
    That is a fallacy. The estates are owned by the state, the crown is currently part of the state but if the monarchy was to go then the states would automatically be taken by the replacement. It is known (AFAIR) as a 'sole corporation'. I think this bill is pretty generous in giving a pension and living space (certainly beats chopping their heads off...)

    I agree that it 'works' to an extent, but so would the new one - with the vital difference being that we aren't funding a nepotist system.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Not necessarily completely incompatible, but Afc was slating democracy wholesale whilst bigging up the monarchy. I do believe however that the monarchy is a stopper to the aspirations of Britain, and the fact that it is at the centre of our unwritten constitutions suggests that Britain is not yet truly democratic (in the modern sense, I know that Athenian democracy for all means and purposes is pretty much unworkable).

    Hypothetically, could I ask why you would vote against?
    Because (without wishing to go into the fineries of the debate, that is the job of your fellow MPs) I don't support the abolition of the monarchy. They are the foundation upon which our democracy is set, and a bedrock ensuring that it shall never be overthrown.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Because (without wishing to go into the fineries of the debate, that is the job of your fellow MPs) I don't support the abolition of the monarchy. They are the foundation upon which our democracy is set, and a bedrock ensuring that it shall never be overthrown.
    Ok, I realise that you might not want to get dragged in..

    But I actually believe that the bedrock to our democracy are documents such as the Magna Carta and ensuing parliamentary bills. I think that the British constitution which this bill would establish will make sure that the democracy can never be overthrown.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ^Hey, good luck with it Is this a Centre Party bill, or an independent endeavour?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If the writer of this bill (it is well written, much as I disagree with its aims) was serious about democracy, then why is he worried about totally minor factors like the House of Lords... let alone HMQ.

    Surely the place to start with the bulldozer would be the EU, where most of the laws which affect Her Majesty's Subjects' lives now come from? The Lords by contrast actually try and prevent bad legislation (though can, naturally, be overruled by the elected Commons). Whereas our elected Commons' legislation can be overruled by the infinitely less accountable EU.

    Stop being distracted by these side issues and see the bigger picture.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    ^Hey, good luck with it Is this a Centre Party bill, or an independent endeavour?
    Cheers, I thought you might pop in because I saw your name when I was researching other republic bills in the HoC :p:

    And it is a PMB.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnythingButChardonnay)
    If the writer of this bill (it is well written, much as I disagree with its aims) was serious about democracy, then why is he worried about totally minor factors like the House of Lords... let alone HMQ.

    Surely the place to start with the bulldozer would be the EU, where most of the laws which affect Her Majesty's Subjects' lives now come from? The Lords by contrast actually try and prevent bad legislation (though can, naturally, be overruled by the elected Commons). Whereas our elected Commons' legislation can be overruled by the infinitely less accountable EU.

    Stop being distracted by these side issues and see the bigger picture.
    Because I believe that the House of Lords would function better if it was democratic, and because I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to have a Head of State who only attained that position because of her family lineage. I guess you could say that on principle I believe it would be criminal to allow this relic to survive, as well as detrimental to the overall democratic nature of Britain.

    The Lords would still by the way retain their right to overrule commons decisions, they simply would no longer be assigned by either (a) politically biased government or (b) which family they were born into.

    I can't attack all that is un-democratic in this bill of course, which is why it doesn't include the EU. I think that is a separate matter (which the house has tried to tackle before). Anyway, there is no point leaving the 'little things' be just because there are bigger things to deal with surely?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afcwimbledon2)
    b) If I was capable of english instead of crying then no I would not.

    What? :lolwut:
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2010
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • 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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.