Hope the Queen reigns for years to come, a nearly 68 year reign in service to the Empire and later the UK (wouldnt mind if she lived long enough to outlive Charles though :smile:

).

The Crown Estates voluntarily relinquish the profits from their lands in return for a fixed annual sum, however constitutional the monarchy they weren't absent minded enough to hand them over, and are entitled take back the hundreds of millions from their lands - unless you want to somehow take their land by force.

Hard to see how they are scrounging especially since disregarding this she provides a huge economic boost especially in tourism.

Personally think the monarchy is a British icon and should be preserved for generations to come.

Think these issues have become convenient distractions from the failures of Parliament, politicians and bored people reading tabloid gossip till their eyes fall out.

Reply 27

username1799249

Original post by Wired_1800

Would you want a Queen as Head of State or a President like Trump or Putin?

We have Boris. So I'm not really sure what your point is. He might not be head of state but he does run the joint whilst being an @rse.

Reply 28

Wired_1800

Original post by ByEeek

We have Boris. So I'm not really sure what your point is. He might not be head of state but he does run the joint whilst being an @rse.

Boris is PM and he has a “boss”. We would need a President to divorce the legislature from the executive.

Reply 29

borisj

Original post by BlueIndigoViolet

Hope the Queen reigns for years to come, a nearly 68 year reign in service to the Empire and later the UK (wouldnt mind if she lived long enough to outlive Charles though :smile:

The tourists will still come whatever absolute nonsense they wouldnt if this bunch of Royal Misfits were got rid of.

France a perfect example millions visit and couldnt give a toss they got rid of their Royals centuries ago

Reply 30

username1799249

Original post by Wired_1800

Boris is PM and he has a “boss”. We would need a President to divorce the legislature from the executive.

Except Boris' "boss" is advised by Boris and then does what he says. She isn't a checks and measures and doesn't hold him to account. She is Powerless in all but status.

Reply 31

Wired_1800

Original post by ByEeek

Except Boris' "boss" is advised by Boris and then does what he says. She isn't a checks and measures and doesn't hold him to account. She is Powerless in all but status.

I agree, hence why we need a President and proper executive.

Reply 32

username1799249

Original post by Wired_1800

I agree, hence why we need a President and proper executive.

But how does that help? We have an executive called the cabinate who are held to account by the opposition and parliament and the Lords do an excellent job at scrutiny despite what some might say.

The issue we have at present is that Corbyn and Labour have been a hopeless opposition.

Reply 33

Wired_1800

Original post by ByEeek

We are not talking about Corbyn here. We are talking about the appropriate structure without a monarchy system.

The Lords is a powerless institution that serves as a glorified advisory council. They cannot do a lot and are at the mercy of the House of Commons. Also, the Opposition is powerless, if the Government has sufficient majority to push through their agenda (like we have at the moment).

What we need is a proper 3 arms of Government with separate power structures where the Executive and the Legislature are not the same thing. A President will be separate from the Parliament and will work towards his agenda, the Parliament then act as the scrutiny body with the Judiciary acting as the referee.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 34

username1799249

Original post by Wired_1800

But if the president comes from the same party as parliament surely we're back to square one? Or, you end up with a president opposed to parliament. So you get all or nothing. At least in the current system there is room for decent.

In the US system, the government has been impotent since Obama got in with one house or other blocking everything regardless of impact on pyrely partisan grounds.

Reply 35

RogerOxon

Original post by borisj

The behaviour of Harry and Megs are an utter disgrace. They are 2 of the most privileged muppets in the entire country yet have the nerve to complain about media intrusion but just like his mother happy for the media when it suits them.

Would you want to be a part of the Royal Family?
What age do you think that the Queen should retire at?

Original post by borisj

they think they can be financially sufficient LOLLLL

They have quite a lot of private wealth.

Original post by borisj

its high time the taxpayer didnt have to fund this bunch of idiots.

When talking about benefit scroungers this bunch are the biggest scroungers of them all, time to get rid of them asap.

Which taxes would you raise to offset the loss in net income that they bring to the country?

Reply 36

Wired_1800

Original post by ByEeek

That is true. However, the President has some powers such as executive orders that can bypass Parliament. Here, the PM needs a majority government.

It was clear how worried the country was, if we got another hung parliament. Blair, Major and their ilk supported a hung parliament because they knew that would create a dead parliament.

Reply 37

username1799249

Original post by Wired_1800

So to solve the problem of lack of accountability we give the president supreme power. That's progress I'm sure!!

Hung parliaments a brilliant because they require compromise and debate. The reason ours didn't work was because May and Johnson presented all or nothing options and tried to run rough-shod over parliament.

Minority goverments do work but require consensus and compromise, something we seem unable to muster.

Reply 38

Wired_1800

Original post by ByEeek

I disagree. I think minority governments and hung parliaments are dangerous plus toxic. They are blocked at every turn that the outcome tends to be nothing more than a zombie form of government.

Let us take two examples, Scotland and Wales.

Scotland is run by the SNP in a proportional representation system that is more like a committee than a proper government. Nobody really takes the blame and everyone tends to point fingers at everyone else. The SNP constantly gets dragged down because a policy is not favoured by the tories or a piece of legislation does not have sufficient focus on the rural highlands to receive Labour support. In the end, it is a slow treacle effect that keeps Scotland at the level it really is. It is one reason Scotland apparently has the highest level of debt in the UK.

Now, Wales is a bit different. It has a Labour majority in the Assembly but is dormant because it cannot really do much without proper support from central Government. In the end, whatever policies that the Labour majority proposes are meaningless, as the tories control the purse strings and wont budge for a second.

It is fine that you prefer a dead parliament with no actual direction. I don't want such. Brexit showed us the carnage that a hung parliament can do to the nation. Nothing worked and people pointed the finger at everyone else. I’d rather want a majority government than a minority one with the silly hope that they compromise like we are at prep school.

A Presidential system also has checks and balances but can be free to push their own agenda in certain ways. To show how bad the system is, Johnson made all new Tory MPs to affirm to support his Brexit deal to run as a candidate. Imagine, such a crazy thing happened in the US or Germany, we would be calling them dictators.

Reply 39

Napp

Still don't get why this is such an issue, aside from them disregarding protocol, they're rather minor royals. As for those complaining about the notional cost to the tax payer;
a) The bulk of the funds come from the duchy so technically not the tax payer
b) It is complete peanuts compared to the amount the government spunks on other useless things. For example, paper clips.