Poll: Britain as a Republic?

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The monarchy does infact have some significance - for one thing, we need it for tourism values, its one of the things most other countries think of as traditionally British. Also, we can't be arsed to overthrow our monarchy - too much paper work involved.

The french solved it without much paper work during their revolution. They just dragged the aristocracy out in the street and chopped their heads off.

Seems the french outsmarted the brits in that department. : )

 

[Cargando]

Because the monarchy is the richest part of our history, it made us what we are today, historical privelige, cliches, yadda yadda yadda. You know, all the usual reasons.

 

[Simalacrum]

The monarchy does infact have some significance - for one thing, we need it for tourism values, its one of the things most other countries think of as traditionally British. Also, we can't be arsed to overthrow our monarchy - too much paper work involved.

The french solved it without much paper work during their revolution. They just dragged the aristocracy out in the street and chopped their heads off.

Seems the french outsmarted the brits in that department. : )

Yeah, but thats a time when paper work wasn't such a deal... times have changed now, and ways have changed look at Agema's post... makes more sense then

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Yeah, but thats a time when paper work wasn't such a deal... times have changed now, and ways have changed look at Agema's post... makes more sense then

But that's what makes aristocratic families such grateful targets. Basically in order to inherit the boons of a departed aristocrat you have to be sort of blood related to him or her. Which means that if you hire a crack team of assassins to just hunt the entire bloodline down to the last one. No one will be able to stand to inherit any aristocratic rights or priviliges. Which means:... NO paperwork! >: )

Or better yet, when they finally invent programmable viruses which only kill people with a specific DNA. I know what I'd use it for. XD

 

[Marcus Dubious]

I'm not sure of the monarchy there are pro's and con's
They have no real political power so democracy isn't served either way.

More importantly, we should get rid of peerages and have an elected second house.

Just because your long dead relative did some monarch a favour or you contributed to a political party and got made a lord/lady shouldn't give you the right to serve in the House of lords and therefore have a say in the political process.

 

[iblis666]

believe me when i say you really dont want an elected head of state they tend to screw everything up what you really want is a non hereditary king that gets chosen by the previous king from among the most able to rule people based on intelligence and psychology. It may seem less fair but would cause a more stable government as long as it went along with the parliamentary system.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

believe me when i say you really dont want an elected head of state they tend to screw everything up what you really want is a non hereditary king that gets chosen by the previous king from among the most able to rule people based on intelligence and psychology. It may seem less fair but would cause a more stable government as long as it went along with the parliamentary system.

You mean like North Korea, hmmm.

Do you really think this form of dictatorship has been proven to work?

Once someone is in absolute power then this is what you have, there is no such thing as a benign dictator, they all turn into despotic fiends.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The monarchy does infact have some significance - for one thing, we need it for tourism values, its one of the things most other countries think of as traditionally British. Also, we can't be arsed to overthrow our monarchy - too much paper work involved.

The french solved it without much paper work during their revolution. They just dragged the aristocracy out in the street and chopped their heads off.

Seems the french outsmarted the brits in that department. : )

Yes, smartass. They then spent the next fifteen years fighting pointless, bloody and vicious wars and generally bringing misery to every corner of Europe until everyone else got back together and kicked their heads in. Revolution isn't just 'Oh, we got rid of the monarch, now let's get on with life as before'. It's Revolution. It's generally not a good thing, unless you've got a society as fucked up as Cuba, where the entire nation was basically owned by the Mob, or Russia, where the nation was basically bankrupt, losing a war and riddled with disease and inequity. None of which applies to Britain. So your argument is invalidated.


If you so object to the monarchy, then go and live in a Republic. There's plenty of them, and they've mostly got a decent standard of living.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

Actually, the monarchy does have quite a bit of power, especially considering Britain "techinically" doesnt have a constitution (well, it's unwritten but seeing as nobody can put it all into words).

The Queen has the power to declare war and make peace,
she must decides if legislation becomes law (although she's never used her power of veto)
She chooses the Prime Minister (although she has never gone against the publics choice)
If there is a "hung parliament" (i.e. no majority) the queen chooses which political party will lead
She's supreme comander of Britains Armed Forces
She's head of state for all of the members of the coomonwealth - Australia, Canada, Bermuda etc.

So the Monarch does have a lot of power. It's simply because she hasn't used any of this power in her time as queen that people think she's simple a figure head

Actually, the power to make war and peace has been given over to the PM.
The Royal Assent has only been refused once in the last 200 years and that did not end well for the monarch. The power of the monarch was even further reduced and it has become established that if the queen were to refuse to sign a bill, parliament would force her out of her position.
She does not really choose the PM. It is part of the British constitution (and yes we do have one, it just isnt codified(that means written down in one place)) that the leader of the party that secured the most votes in a genral election becomes prime minister.
Actually, the queen will gather together the leaders of both parties and talk over with them whether or not they would be able to work together in a coalition government until another election could be called that would be likely to result in one party having a majority as happened in 1974. The queen would also appoint the leader of the party that gained the most seats in this situation, even if they didn't have an overall majority.
The position of supreme commander means in all actualiy nothing. The president of the USA is the supreme commander of the armed forces of the USA but actually has very little power over them and more than the queen.
And her position as head of state is merely a formality. she has no power in any of those other countries you mentioned.
I now divert you to the post made by Rolling Thunder for reasons to keep the monarchy in place

 

[Nickolai77]

As everyone's saying, a good reason to keep the monarchy is tourism- we do get a lot of tourism revenue, and they don't require that much upkeep anyway. They also provide there own share of entertainment for the British people. Prince Harry landing an RAF helicopter in his gf's back garden, the whole Charles, Diana and Camellia thing, Prince Philip the dirty old racist, and the Queen, who is probably one of the best behaved monarchs we have ever had.

Here's an exhample from Mock the Week- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CHB2CVgQws

They don't wield any real power, but i suppose if they wanted to act in a dire emergency (Like let's say the BNP take over undemocratically) if i where King i would be very tempted to refuse Nick Griffin office and use my army to perform a military coup.
After all, the British Army is not part of the British Government, it owes it's loyalty to the Monarch,which is why all our ships are titled HMS.

However, i think the best reason to keep the monarchy is because of the British national identity. The monarchy sits proudly among all things that are British- tea, crumpets, red telephone and post boxes, London taxi's, sleepy rural villages, Winston Churchill, rainy days, and the satisfying sound of a spitfire flying high above the white cliffs of Dover.

Oh, and not forgetting Top Gear and Mock the Week.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

The monarchy does infact have some significance - for one thing, we need it for tourism values, its one of the things most other countries think of as traditionally British. Also, we can't be arsed to overthrow our monarchy - too much paper work involved.

The french solved it without much paper work during their revolution. They just dragged the aristocracy out in the street and chopped their heads off.

Seems the french outsmarted the brits in that department. : )

Yes, smartass. They then spent the next fifteen years fighting pointless, bloody and vicious wars and generally bringing misery to every corner of Europe until everyone else got back together and kicked their heads in. Revolution isn't just 'Oh, we got rid of the monarch, now let's get on with life as before'. It's Revolution. It's generally not a good thing, unless you've got a society as fucked up as Cuba, where the entire nation was basically owned by the Mob, or Russia, where the nation was basically bankrupt, losing a war and riddled with disease and inequity. None of which applies to Britain. So your argument is invalidated.


If you so object to the monarchy, then go and live in a Republic. There's plenty of them, and they've mostly got a decent standard of living.

The French revolution ultimately lead to Napoleon gaining power and his arrogant and despotic rule resulted in huge wars all across Europe and elsewhere for decades.

@Housebroken Lunatic
Don't forget the British defeated Napoleon more than once, so who was outsmarted by whome?

 

[goatzilla8463]

It's kind of woven into us (British) now.

It's just like traditions, such as "why do Americans celebrate Thanksgiving?"

And yes, I do consider myself British.

 

[iblis666]

believe me when i say you really dont want an elected head of state they tend to screw everything up what you really want is a non hereditary king that gets chosen by the previous king from among the most able to rule people based on intelligence and psychology. It may seem less fair but would cause a more stable government as long as it went along with the parliamentary system.

You mean like North Korea, hmmm.

Do you really think this form of dictatorship has been proven to work?

Once someone is in absolute power then this is what you have, there is no such thing as a benign dictator, they all turn into despotic fiends.

god no not like north korea he should never have become the leader of that country thats why id want a non hereditary king and if they cant choose family that would be all for the better. They turn into despotic fiends because there are no safe guards in place too keep their power in check and they are not drilled into believing that the country comes first.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

No. What we have now has worked for hundreds of years, why change?

Also, you think we'd more effective WITHOUT our monarchy? So the person with the most power would be, say, Gordon Brown? Soon, to be frank, David Cameron? I'd much rather the queen was in the position of ultimate power than Dave.

The problem is nowadays she is little more than a wrinkly figurehead. She has only slightly more power than I do.

Technically she has no more power, but she and her family have vastly more influence.
This can and has been a big problem.

 

[Agema]

A lot of revolutions have ended in long-lasting civil disorder and misery, England too.

Oliver Cromwell, to put it bluntly, was a military dictator. He ran a murderous campaign in Ireland, suppressed not just the royalists but various types democratic and reform groups in England and Scotland. He packed off troops to wage war on the continent, and I think ran the odd naval war. He so shattered England and Scotland's political system that when he died there was total chaos - that's why Charles II was invited back, because the three countries were by then a total screw-up.

Frankly, England in 1650 did no better than France in 1790. It's just it was too small, poor and backward to be able to invade most of Europe.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The British Monarchy had less and less and less power since 1707 i think or 1717, it was something beetween 1700-1719, after that point parliament had alot more say in running the country than taxes, and taxes have been controlled by parliament since medieval times, So since the 1700s the political power was transfered from the monarchy too the Parliament, no blood spilt, no wars, just a slow and steady transfer of power, i believe the brits have outsmarted alot of other countrys in this area.

Yes, a slow transfer of power. Yet the parliament still bleeds resources in maintaining the Queen's privilige in being able to wipe her ass with money.

Sort of the same crap's that happening here. Monarchy serve no purpose today other than being expensive...

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Yes, smartass. They then spent the next fifteen years fighting pointless, bloody and vicious wars and generally bringing misery to every corner of Europe until everyone else got back together and kicked their heads in.

Sort of the same way each end every monarch that has ever existed did in order to sieze power for themselves? : )