Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I take issue with one particular argument against monarchy: The argument that because we did not vote for the monarch, she has no right to rule. The Monarch rules by laws and customs made centuries ago. That is the basis of her legitimacy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Interesting, very interesting Waddell. I see that you have wisely removed "democratic" from your sentence. Good move. I still await your answer as to how an unelected monarch is a beacon of democracy.
    You obviously fail to understand our constitution so I'll enlighten you. We have a system of checks and balances to safeguard democracy and to prevent one person having overweaning power. The monarchy is the ultimate balance to an elected dictatorship. If the Prime Minister ever managed to get a bill through Parliament to dissolve it and make himself rule by decree or a bill that threatened our basic rights and liberties, then the monarch would be duty bound to refuse assent. In the case where we had no head of state, there would be little to prevent such a thing happening. The constitutional monarchy is a unique contract between the monarch and the British people. They both pledge alliegence to each other, to uphold the constitution and to defend the British state. The monarch is also there as a symbol of Parliamentary superiority, as a guarranteer of the people's rights and traditional liberties. The Queen knows her job, even if you so-called open minded liberals do not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    You obviously fail to understand our constitution so I'll enlighten you. We have a system of checks and balances to safeguard democracy and to prevent one person having overweaning power. The monarchy is the ultimate balance to an elected dictatorship. If the Prime Minister ever managed to get a bill through Parliament to dissolve it and make himself rule by decree or a bill that threatened our basic rights and liberties, then the monarch would be duty bound to refuse assent. In the case where we had no head of state, there would be little to prevent such a thing happening. The constitutional monarchy is a unique contract between the monarch and the British people. They both pledge alliegence to each other, to uphold the constitution and to defend the British state. The monarch is also there as a symbol of Parliamentary superiority, as a guarranteer of the people's rights and traditional liberties. The Queen knows her job, even if you so-called open minded liberals do not.
    At least somebody understands how these things work.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    Please read some posts before posting your own unfounded views. They do not cost the taxpayer money, in fact the Queen gives a net £90 million to the taxman, this net includes all of the money paid to the civil list.
    Not to mention the hundreds of millions from the crown estates that go to the excheqeur.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    You obviously fail to understand our constitution so I'll enlighten you. We have a system of checks and balances to safeguard democracy and to prevent one person having overweaning power. The monarchy is the ultimate balance to an elected dictatorship. If the Prime Minister ever managed to get a bill through Parliament to dissolve it and make himself rule by decree or a bill that threatened our basic rights and liberties, then the monarch would be duty bound to refuse assent. In the case where we had no head of state, there would be little to prevent such a thing happening. The constitutional monarchy is a unique contract between the monarch and the British people. They both pledge alliegence to each other, to uphold the constitution and to defend the British state. The monarch is also there as a symbol of Parliamentary superiority, as a guarranteer of the people's rights and traditional liberties. The Queen knows her job, even if you so-called open minded liberals do not.
    Thank you for your lesson on the constitution. I know perfectly well how the constitution works thank you very much. The House of Lords is there to prevent such a scenerio happening as you have suggested, we do not need a monarch for it. And in any case, the point is that if the constitution is flawed, which it clearly is, if it vests the head of the government with so much power, it should be amended, rather than having an unelected head of state to curb the power of the executive. A very strange argument indeed.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    I take issue with one particular argument against monarchy: The argument that because we did not vote for the monarch, she has no right to rule. The Monarch rules by laws and customs made centuries ago. That is the basis of her legitimacy.
    If we are democracy, she has no right to rule. If you want to go back to the laws by which the monarchy has authority, then the monarchy is to be vested with all the powers that the executive holds right now. In case you hadn't realised, we are in the year 2005 and in the process of exporting democracy to countries all over the world. A tad hypocritical if we are running an undemocratic system ourselves.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The principle is riddled with loop holes for abuse.
    Same thing. If the constitution is flawed, then it is the constitution that needs amendment. Not the monarchy, an unelected, undemocratic institution to keep a check on the power of the executive.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    At least somebody understands how these things works.
    I know perfectly well how the system works, that doesn't make it acceptable. Can either of you debate without patronising and personal attacks? Or is it because you're running out of arguments? I wonder....:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for your lesson on the constitution. I know perfectly well how the constitution works thank you very much. The House of Lords is there to prevent such a scenerio happening as you have suggested, we do not need a monarch for it.
    Who appoints the Peers? It is the Queen on the PM's advice. Therefore, the PM controls both the upper and lower chamber. In 1911, in order to push forward his people's budget, the PM simply created a majority of new liberal peers, and voila, bill was passed.


    And in any case, the point is that if the constitution is flawed, which it clearly is, if it vests the head of the government with so much power, it should be amended, rather than having an unelected head of state to curb the power of the executive.
    Please answer my questions above about the difficulty of a head of state who controls the army. How do you challenge him or her? I also told explained why she is not elected, please comment on that.


    If we are democracy, she has no right to rule.
    Technically we are in a Constitutional Monarchy. Besides, the law says otherwise.


    If you want to go back to the laws by which the monarchy has authority, then the monarchy is to be vested with all the powers that the executive holds right now. In case you hadn't realised, we are in the year 2005 and in the process of exporting democracy to countries all over the world. A tad hypocritical if we are running an undemocratic system ourselves.
    We have a parliament, and an elected head of government, therefore we are democratic.

    In 1660, the king was invited back by parliament, thus it was the will of the people expressed by parliament that he should reign.
    The Acts of Settlement of 1690 and of 1701 were passed by parliament, therefore they are the will of the people expressed through parliament.
    Both these Acts affirm the right of the monarch to rule, as they were enacted by parliament. Therefore, it is the will of the people that the Monarchy should exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know perfectly well how the system works, that doesn't make it acceptable. Can either of you debate without patronising and personal attacks? Or is it because you're running out of arguments? I wonder....:rolleyes:
    Please, that's hardly an attack. Why are you all so sensetive? How dry debate is without a little sardonic humour.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Who appoints the Peers? It is the Queen on the PM's advice. Therefore, the PM controls both the upper and lower chamber. In 1911, in order to paush forward his people's budget, the PM simply created a marjority of new liberal peers, and voila, bill was passed.
    I think you will find it is the PM who appoints the peers and the Queen merely acts as a rubberstamp. Anyway, I digress - it is not the subject of the debate.
    In 1660, the king wa sinvited back by parliament, thus it was the will of the people that he should reign.
    The Acts of Settlement of 1690 and of 1701 were passed by parliament, therefore they are the will of the people.
    Both these Acts affirm the right of the monarch to rule, as they were enacted by parliament. Therefore, it is the will of the people that the Monarchy should exist.
    It was the will of the people in 1690 and 1701. Three hundred years have elapsed in between, and the power of the head of the state has been reduced to virtually zero but the will of the people is not discussed. Hell, even parliament don't discuss it. 300 years is a long time, a nation evolves and you can't base the will of the people 300 years ago and impose it on the people today.

    Head of state controls head of government. Nothing wrong with that. Please answer my questions above about the difficulty of a head of state who controls the army How do you challenge him or her? I also told explained why she is not elected, please comment on that.
    I have already stated that a head of state can be exactly the same as the queen is, just elected by the will of the people. Scroll up and see my response earlier.

    Please, that's hardly an attack. Why are you all so sensetive?
    Just stick to the topic, is that too much to ask? Without bringing in people's political affliations and what not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think you will find it is the PM who appoints the peers and the Queen merely acts as a rubberstamp. Anyway, I digress - it is not the subject of the debate.
    Legally speaking The Queen appoints them on the advice of the PM. Yes she is a "rubber stamp" and that is why I do not see the logic in your argument that the Lords are an effective balance to the commons. It is the subject of debate, so please justify what you said about the Lords being a suitable counterbalance to the commons


    It was the will of the people in 1690 and 1701. Three hundred years have elapsed in between, and the power of the head of the state has been reduced to virtually zero but the will of the people is not discussed. Hell, even parliament don't discuss it. 300 years is a long time, a nation evolves and you can't base the will of the people 300 years ago and impose it on the people today.
    And since it has not been put to public referendum in modern times, then, as is the case in the Law, precedent will decide the future. Does that mean we are not obliged to obey laws that were passed by parilaments we did not vote for?


    I ask again, please answer my questions about military force and an elected head of state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Which regime did the Queen condemn?
    The British Government, or be more precise, Her Majesty's Government, has condemned almost all of the tyrannical regimes that have operated recently. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister chosen by the Queen, has condemned the regime of Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Muammar al-Qaddafi, as well as endless tyrants worldwide. Perhaps a more representative view of the monarchy's opinion on Zimbabwe could come from Prince Charles, who, according to the BBC , "finds the current Zimbabwean regime abhorrent". Hmm?

    Which Multiple groups are these?
    Primarily, I have issue with the Commonwealth. When our Head of State is simultaneously 'safeguarding' the interests of 52 other nations over whom she presides, it is impossible for her to avoid a conflict of interest. For example, the South African rule of apartheid began in 1948. They were in the Commonwealth until 1961 - how could she safeguard the interests of her South African subjects during her 9 years as Head of State there, from 1952 to 1961, whilst also 'safeguarding' our interests in Britain, where apartheid was thoroughly rejected?

    We have an elected prime minister, why are you complaining?
    Almost every civilsed nation has an elected Head of State, and as a so-called defender of freedom and democracy, we should not be forced to live under an unelected monarch.

    What has she actually done to you that was so bad? If it is just the principle you disagree with then let us deal with it in the theoretical context of political philosophy not use straw men arguments to defeat it.
    You are genuinely unable to see just how patronising you are being. I am unhappy that she has control without any support from the public. If she was to receive public backing in an election, there would be no problem, but as long as she is totally independent and uncontrollable, it is fundamentally against the principles of democracy.

    I see no point in further continuing in this debate until an acknowledgement of the contradiction to democracy is forthcoming from the monarchists. Until then, it is futile to attempt to persuade dogmatic royalists of the basic unfairness of the monarchy in Great Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The British Government, or be more precise, Her Majesty's Government, has condemned almost all of the tyrannical regimes that have operated recently. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister chosen by the Queen, has condemned the regime of Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Muammar al-Qaddafi, as well as endless tyrants worldwide. Perhaps a more representative view of the monarchy's opinion on Zimbabwe could come from Prince Charles, who, according to the BBC , "finds the current Zimbabwean regime abhorrent".
    I said before, the Queen is not responsible for what her ministers say and do. Prince Charles by the way is not the Queen. So again, which nation did her majesty condemn?


    Primarily, I have issue with the Commonwealth. When our Head of State is simultaneously 'safeguarding' the interests of 52 other nations over whom she presides, it is impossible for her to avoid a conflict of interest. For example, the South African rule of apartheid began in 1948. They were in the Commonwealth until 1961 - how could she safeguard the interests of her South African subjects during her 9 years as Head of State there, from 1952 to 1961, whilst also 'safeguarding' our interests in Britain, where apartheid was thoroughly rejected?
    The Queen is not the head of state for the commonwealth so the rest of your argument is moot.


    Almost every civilsed nation has an elected Head of State, and as a so-called defender of freedom and democracy, we should not be forced to live under an unelected monarch.
    Please at least comment on my objections to an unelected leader.


    You are genuinely unable to see just how patronising you are being. I am unhappy that she has control without any support from the public. If she was to receive public backing in an election, there would be no problem, but as long as she is totally independent and uncontrollable, it is fundamentally against the principles of democracy.
    She is not uncrontrollable, I have said this a million times already.


    I see no point in further continuing in this debate until an acknowledgement of the contradiction to democracy is forthcoming from the monarchists. Until then, it is futile to attempt to persuade dogmatic royalists of the basic unfairness of the monarchy in Great Britain.
    We have an elected government, thus we are a democracy. By Your last comment I suppose you admit you have failed to prove what you set out to prove?


    And I am asking again, please answer those questions I asked.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We have an elected government, thus we are a democracy.
    Head of State has power / influence.
    Head of State is not elected.
    therefore
    Some aspects of power are not exercised by people.
    therefore
    Undemocratic.

    I cannot put it more simply. If you refuse to accept it, fine, but until we can agree on this fundamental premiss, it is pointless to continue. Irrelevant of the arguments or logic that I put forward, this is the principle behind it, and any further points of discussion that I build upon it, you will ignore.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    brits should be proud of the royal family.. when princess diana died, it caused a great stirr throughout the world.. and why? because she was royalty. Most countries know britain for their kings and queens and that is a sort of identity.

    Most of the world knows Americas president, And most of them also knows uk's Royalty. (and not the prime minister) honestly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a royalist, not joining in this argument though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nasht)
    brits should be proud of the royal family.. when princess diana died, it caused a great stirr throughout the world.. and why? because she was royalty. Most countries know britain for their kings and queens and that is a sort of identity.
    The mournful response from the world was largely because of Princess Diana's renowned character as a philanthropist and high-profile charity worker, not her role as a *former* member of the Royal Family. She did lose the title 'Princess' when she divorced Prince Charles, didn't she?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)

    I know perfectly well how the system works, that doesn't make it acceptable. Can either of you debate without patronising and personal attacks? Or is it because you're running out of arguments? I wonder....:rolleyes:
    Well I regard your previous comments to me as quite patronising, so I reserve the right to do so to you. Being a tad hypo-critical, are we?

    Anyway, you asked me why the Queen was the guarranteer of democracy in the nation. If you knew as much about the constitution as you claim to, then despite being a republican you can surely see why the queen is the guarranteer of our liberties and democracy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Some aspects of power are not exercised by people.
    therefore Undemocratic.

    A syllogism? If all power was exercised by the people it would be an Oclocracy not a democracy. We do not elect the ministers, the military chiefs, our representatives abroad, our civil servants. We do not vote on legislation, we do not appoint the Lords. All these things could equally be called undemocratic but for some reason you single out the monarchy. Nobody said in a democracy ALL aspects of government should be decided by the people. In democracy we elect people to represent us, we do not tell them how to do their job. Our role in the process ends at the ballot, after that they act on their own discretion.

    This is the problem Thermo, you are not answering the questions I am asking you. I acknowledge your argument that the monarch is undemocratic (but the difference is I believe she can still represent our interests and does), but you are refusing to acknowledge the truth in my assertion that our country is democratic even though we have a monarchy because we are governed by an elected prime minister through an elected parliament. Saying we are undemocratic is plainly self defeating considering we have recently come out of a general election. Thermo, this could be a good debate but it won't work if you ignore all the things I asked you to comment on and if you refuse to answer the questions I asked.



    You are avoiding those questions I asked. Please answer them because I am genuinely interested in what solutions an anti-monarchist might propose to those questions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Please read and comment on this Thermo and Zaf I posted it but you ignored my invitation for you to comment. This is not my own work it is cut and paste. There is nothing wrong with using external sources for an argument so it would be unfair of you to attack me on that:

    The United Kingdom, usually described as a Constitutional Monarchy, is more precisely a Representative Monarchy whose integral relationships form a closed loop. Its People are sovereign; their sovereignty is represented by the Monarch whom they, the People, choose; the Monarch, as head of the People's Government, oversees the work of the Government; and the Government governs the People. The Government thus governs the People with the consent of the People ~ a closed loop.

    The Monarch, the nation's chief executive, is responsible for the effective coordination of a triad ~ the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. (The chief executive summons Parliament and dissolves it, appoints prime ministers and dismisses them ~ and the retention of these four powers allows the final freedom of choice essential to protect the People from mischievous ministers.) By Magna Carta the Monarch's authorit is subject to the Law

    The Monarch, the nation's chief executive, is responsible for the effective coordination of a triad ~ the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. (The chief executive summons Parliament and dissolves it, appoints prime ministers and dismisses them ~ and the retention of these four powers allows the final freedom of choice essential to protect the People from mischievous ministers.)

    Without the hereditary Monarch, Parliament cannot in practice legislate, for although the Royal Assent is given by the three Lords Commissioners for the Monarch, that Assent has first to be authorised by the Monarch. Assent will not normally be withheld, but it is not impossible to imagine a situation in which the Monarch might be aware that the Sovereign People the Monarch represents have had their trust abused by the members they have elected to Parliament, and that the abuse has not been countered effectively by the Second Chamber, the House of Lords. The Monarch might then suggest to her first minister, the prime minister, that the Government seek a new mandate from the People for what is manifestly against the wishes of the People.

    Parliament today, with its hereditary Monarch and Peers, gives stability and security, rules in the name of the British People, and is accountable to the British People. Dare the People now give aspirant dictators with a five-year mandate a licence to "reform" Parliament in such a way as to unbalance that stability and thus to reduce their security? The present blend of hereditary peers and life peers curb the excesses and abuses and silliness of the present Labour Government, as they did with the previous Conservative Government. Long may they continue to do so. If they are put at peril, if they are to be put at peril, we are at peril, liberty is at peril.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Got to ask you again Thermo:

    1. How do you propose we elect an apolitical president, who does not face the conflict of interests that naturally arise between populism and practicality? What system do you reckon we might use?

    2. Who controls the elected president if his or her powers are as extensive as a monarch, but witht he added authority of popular support? In short, "Who to bell the cat"?

    3.How do you remove a president from whom the armed forces take orders?

    If you do not answer these questions I will assume you have conceded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    If all power was exercised by the people it would be an Oclocracy not a democracy. We do not elect the ministers, the military chiefs, our representatives abroad, our civil servants.
    But all these people work to get into power, and achieve their positions largely by their own merits. I admit that there are many roles that affect the lives of the British people that it would be wrong to intefere with, such as military roles, but I also vehemently believe that all the roles that you specify above are accountable to the British people. Ministers that fail are replaced; military chiefs that are foolhardy and unreasonable are removed, and, to perform any major action in the first place, require the support of our elected representative; civil servants and international diplomats are controlled, achieve their positions again via their merits, and can easily be replaced. The monarch is not accountable, and until there is a Head of State who does not have any of the 'unchallengable' control over their position, it is not, in my opinion, a legitimate form of democracy.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    We do not vote on legislation, we do not appoint the Lords.
    The Lords is equally undemocratic, but that isn't what the debate is about. There should be an elected Upper Chamber, like the US Senate, maybe based on Proportional Representation. We obviously don't vote directly on legislation, but we have some say at least on who is in the House of Commons, and which issues we want the government of the day to promote and legislate for, during the frequent elections. We do not have any of that influence over the monarchy.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    I acknowledge your argument that the monarch is undemocratic (but the difference is I believe she can still represent our interests and does), but you are refusing to acknowledge the truth in my assertion that our country is democratic even though we have a monarchy because we are governed by an elected prime minister through an elected parliament.
    I have no problem whatsoever with Queen Elizabeth II as regards her individual style of leadership - her detached, apolitical attitude suits me fine. But the method by which she has obtained this power is undemocratic, as you rightfully acknowledge. Even if we were to have 10 year Presidential terms, with a limit of one term 'per person', it means that it is democratic, and avoids the 'pandering' to populism that you have previously expressed concerns about.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Their sovereignty is represented by the Monarch whom they, the People, choose.
    The people have never, as far as I am aware, had any input into the monarch. If that is true, then surely a mandate of the masses could remove a monarch, thus moving swiftly towards the choice of a Head of State, and therefore Republicanism. The rest of the argument seems to be based on the presumption that such a law exists, and if that is so, could you enlighten me as to its existence and content, thus allowing me to comment more effectively on the rest of the points raised in this extract.

    Now, perhaps I could ask you a simple question: why should the Head of State of 60 million people also have to be the leader of the Church of England? Surely the exclusion of other religions, as well as the law that specifically prevents Roman Catholics from becoming the monarch, from the monarchy, is illegal based on international law? I'm specifically talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which states;
    Article 21.1
    Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
    Article 23.1
    Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

    You specifically mention that the Head of State is a job, so why should anybody's "free choice of employment" be restricted by their religion?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: June 13, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.