Should we have a referendum on the monarchy when HM dies? Watch

Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
Would make sense based on the current state of the royal family. Republic all the way! The Republic of Britain /United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/British Republic.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
I'm all for abolishing the royal family, however no more referenda!! Dear lord cant you not see referendums dont work, we must get away from using them in our political culture.
0
reply
MalcomTheFalcon
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
What's so bad about the monarchy that we would abolish it?
1
reply
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
I don't agree with the monarchy, the idea that there is a divine right to hold the throne is ridiculous. Also just really a waste of tax payers money just for some people who just so happen to be someones child.

But no referendum just get rid of them.
2
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
Yeah I think the next person to seriously suggest a referendum is getting defenestrated.
3
reply
PotatoFruit
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
We can have a referendum but the royals bring money through tourism
2
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
I think given the state of recent referenda I'd sooner shove fire ants up my urethra. Not saying I disagree with removing the monarchy, I absolutely agree (inherited power is absurd), but a referendum is a really bad idea
Last edited by Stiff Little Fingers; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
Nope they are beyond reproach, should be protected as a valued British institution for many years to come
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by MalcomTheFalcon)
What's so bad about the monarchy that we would abolish it?
You think nepotism and blue blood superiority based on birth right alone paid for by the masses is desirable?

Even if it was unequivocally proven beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt they made profit for the UK tax payer, by various countries and independent organisations with no ties to the UK. Even in that case, I'd still want rid of them on principle alone. I simply cannot except the idea that a human is worth more than another because of the mother they grew inside of.
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 2 weeks ago
2
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
It depends.
The status quo works well.
For it to be removed there has to be a good reason as to why.
If it's financial than by all means do a cost analysis and prove that the monarchy takes more than it brings in.
If the savings are significant then maybe that is the way to go.

That being said I like the idea of the queen and her continuity over 70 years. In contrast to the constant change in parliament.

I think a more pressing concern is reforming the house of lords and scrapping peerages.
Also removing the chruch of England from parliament.
4
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You think nepotism and blue blood superiority based on birth right alone paid for by the masses is desirable?

Even if it was unequivocally proven beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt they made profit for the UK tax payer, by various countries and independent organisations with no ties to the UK. Even in that case, I'd still want rod of them on principle, I simply cannot except the idea that a human is worth more than another because of the mother they grew inside of.
I used to be like you.
I mellowed out. This is one battle I just don't care for.
Maybe when a monarch comes to the throne that desires power and Is not just a mouthpiece for the current government than I will care.
0
reply
anosmianAcrimony
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
I think given the state of recent referenda I'd sooner shove fire ants up my urethra. Not saying I disagree with removing the monarchy, I absolutely do (inherited power is absurd), but a referendum is a really bad idea
(Original post by StriderHort)
Yeah I think the next person to seriously suggest a referendum is getting defenestrated.
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I'm all for abolishing the royal family, however no more referenda!! Dear lord cant you not see referendums dont work, we must get away from using them in our political culture.
I think referenda are still a useful political tool. I just think the most recent one we've had was humongously botched. We should have gone to the EU and worked out what Brexit would mean for the country, and obtained a deal, and then communicated the deal and the consequences openly and clearly to the public, and THEN had a referendum. We put the cart before the horse.

In this case, the best way would be to figure out what the alternative to a monarchy would be and lay it out very clearly for voters, and then have a referendum. But for the record, I don't think a referendum would be needed here because the royal family is so incredibly popular, it'd be pointless.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
no
3
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
I think referenda are still a useful political tool. I just think the most recent one we've had was humongously botched. We should have gone to the EU and worked out what Brexit would mean for the country, and obtained a deal, and then communicated the deal and the consequences openly and clearly to the public, and THEN had a referendum. We put the cart before the horse.

In this case, the best way would be to figure out what the alternative to a monarchy would be and lay it out very clearly for voters, and then have a referendum. But for the record, I don't think a referendum would be needed here because the royal family is so incredibly popular, it'd be pointless.
That was the same process with the indyref in 2014 as well though, no actual agreement on how independence would proceed just run it then work it out - I'd have little faith in the government coming in with a plan in the event of a vote against the status quo. And with that people who voted one way assume everyone wants the same resolution - the leave side started taking everyone who voted leave with a preference to just be in the EEA and assumed they wanted to put an outboard motor on Dover and move the UK to just off the east coast and be the 51st state. We need to fundamentally rethink how we engage with and run referendums before one is remotely advisable.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Ferrograd)
Would make sense based on the current state of the royal family. Republic all the way! The Republic of Britain /United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland/British Republic.
The simple answer is No.

While I don’t share the emotional attachment that some have to tradition I am a conservative and as such while I embrace change, it is my duty to oppose needless change. Removing a profitable monarchy to potentially replace them with a beaurocrat is the very definition of needless change.
(Original post by AnonymousNoMore)
I don't agree with the monarchy, the idea that there is a divine right to hold the throne is ridiculous. Also just really a waste of tax payers money just for some people who just so happen to be someones child.

But no referendum just get rid of them.
There is no waste of taxpayers money. The monarchy costs the taxpayer about 200m per year (though it’s actually a percentage of crown estate revenues) but generates about half a billion.

In addition unless you wish to steal private property from them they could strictly speaking walk away with 25bn.
2
reply
AnonymousNoMore
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Rakas21)
The simple answer is No.

While I don’t share the emotional attachment that some have to tradition I am a conservative and as such while I embrace change, it is my duty to oppose needless change. Removing a profitable monarchy to potentially replace them with a beaurocrat is the very definition of needless change.


There is no waste of taxpayers money. The monarchy costs the taxpayer about 200m per year (though it’s actually a percentage of crown estate revenues) but generates about half a billion.

In addition unless you wish to steal private property from them they could strictly speaking walk away with 25bn.
Those numbers aren't accurate, even the estimators will agree to that. However, if they could prove definatively that it is of tax payers benefit, I still don't think it's worth it. I don't believe we should allow an archaic monarchy to exist.
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
4
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#19
I agree; referendums are not a great idea, but realistically you can't get rid of the Royal Family unless you just execute them. Which I'm certainly not advocating for.
0
reply
Ferrograd
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
Nope they are beyond reproach, should be protected as a valued British institution for many years to come
That's like saying slavery should have been protected as a valued British institution because it brought in a lot of money to the UK, which is effectively the main argument for monarchists.

Yes, slavery is different from monarchism, but the whole idea of something being valued just because its been existed for however many years is simply wrong.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (362)
67.04%
No (178)
32.96%

Watched Threads

View All