Poll: Britain as a Republic?

[Zac_Dai]

Personally, I think removing the monarchy is unwise. Yes, they are privileged, but only to the same extent as other wealthy people are , barring the immediate Royal Family, who do have more privileges. However, those privileges are commensurate with their responsibilities to the nation - the ability to eat swans is hardly a great privilege.


Secondly, as a monarchy, it paradoxical makes it harder for an authoritarian state to be established, as it provides a secondary check upon the power of the state. In a republic, the government can say "Well, we were elected, we have a majority, we are serving the people by our actions", whereas, since the current government still offically serves both the people and Her Majesty, that argument can be invalidated for long enough, should the monarch be strong and respected enough (as Her Majesty is) for effective opposition to be taken. In essence, monarchy actually acts as a stabilising force on politics.

Thirdly, we come to the economic argument. Given that, while the Royal Family is maintained by the public purse, it seems odd that there should be an economic argument. But there is. In essence, the monarchy, being so unique and important to Britain, is a massive source of tourist revenue. Don't believe me? Go to Buckingham palace and count all the foreign tourists standing around there. Now, consider that these people will need food. They will need accommodation. They will need transport. Consider each one of those people a £400 pound injection into Britain's economy.

Now, multiply that number of people by 365.

That's a lot of money. A lot, lot more than we pay for our monarchy. Even if you assume only 15% of that is going into tax revenue, and discounting the multiplier effect....that is far, far more than we've paid for our Queen. And God Save Her Majesty.

Exactly my thoughts on the monarchy. Needs quoting for being an awesome post.

 

[Sovvolf]

Each UK citizen pays around £1 per year in tax toward the Royal family so the cost of keeping the monarchy is next to nothing especially when you factor in the amount of money they bring into the country via tourism and business connections.

The royal family has no influence in politics, in fact they are strongly discouraged from getting involved in any way, so the government would be exactly the same as it is now.

Fabs here's got it right, although it's a little more then a £1 a year. The royal family bring in a lot of tourism, there more of a gimmick then anything else, there a nostalgic tourist attraction, they have pretty much no say in anything, they don't run the country the priminster does much in the way of how a president works.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

£1 is alot.
Oh parliament serves no purpose other than being expensive these days too, gordown brown and david cameron suck.

True. But parliament officials have usually been elected by the people to a certain extent. Meaning that all the "suckyness" Gordon Brown or David Cameron brings is something the people brought upon themselves, unlike monarchy which is just an unfair and unreasonable advantage granted to some people whose ancestors murdered their way to power...

 

[Wadders]

Meh, Cromwell tried to make us unto a Republic after he won the Civil War, and that went arse over tits. As soon as he died we just invited the monarchy back again...

I know that was like 450 years ago and circumstances were entirely different, but it sums up my stance on this issue. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Besides, I like the Royals. They don't do any harm, they are amusing (both intentionally and unintentionally) and Prince Charles is awesome. Ish.

By that logic, every Britain should send 90% of our wealth to the third world, because, according to a certain band of loons, we basically murdered our way to the top of their societies. And that's true. Because that is how things were done, back then. And, if you'd actually cracked a history book in your life, you'd know that the current British monarchy was actually invited to rule the country by our Parliment.


Why, I do believe that is the sound of your argument slowly sinking under the weight of it's own fail?

Your thinking. I like it.
We oughtn't to apologize, compensate and grovel today for the things our forefathers did in altogether more savage times.

And yeah, they were invited back, but primarily because (I think) the alternative would pretty much have been a second (or third, depending on how you look at it) Civil War. Maybe if Cromwell and his son had sucked less at running the country, we might be in an altogether different position.

I'm not really sure what my point is, or if indeed I have one, but I agreed with your stance, so I felt the need to ramble on about some shit

 

[Rolling Thunder]

£1 is alot.
Oh parliament serves no purpose other than being expensive these days too, gordown brown and david cameron suck.

True. But parliament officials have usually been elected by the people to a certain extent. Meaning that all the "suckyness" Gordon Brown or David Cameron brings is something the people brought upon themselves, unlike monarchy which is just an unfair and unreasonable advantage granted to some people whose ancestors murdered their way to power...

By that logic, every Britain should send 90% of our wealth to the third world, because, according to a certain band of loons, we basically murdered our way to the top of their societies. And that's true. Because that is how things were done, back then. And, if you'd actually cracked a history book in your life, you'd know that the current British monarchy was actually invited to rule the country by our Parliment.


Why, I do believe that is the sound of your argument slowly sinking under the weight of it's own fail?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

By that logic, every Britain should send 90% of our wealth to the third world, because, according to a certain band of loons, we basically murdered our way to the top of their societies. And that's true. Because that is how things were done, back then.

Well, that's mighty gracious of you to concede to my point. : )

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Ew, President David Cameron just sounds wrong if it ever came to that.

Yes, I agree, the monarchy gets shitloads of money and shouldn't, but if we got rid of it we'd instantly remove most of what makes us interesting. Everyone comes here for the tradition and history, and to be honest, the modernised, non-traditional aspects of us really aren't as appealing.

 

[bad rider]

Um yes, I would rather have a politician leading me, rather than someone by lottery.... Honestly politicians scare the shit out of me as theyh are clearly corrupt, abusive or inept. The royal family is safe because they are born with power, so they do not seek it.

 

[bad rider]

Ew, President David Cameron just sounds wrong if it ever came to that.

Yes, I agree, the monarchy gets shitloads of money and shouldn't, but if we got rid of it we'd instantly remove most of what makes us interesting. Everyone comes here for the tradition, and to be honest, the modernised, non-traditional aspects of us really aren't as appealing.

To be fair, it's 50 pence each is what it was worked out as. So half a burger from macdonalds, or a lifelong heritage?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

By that logic, every Britain should send 90% of our wealth to the third world, because, according to a certain band of loons, we basically murdered our way to the top of their societies. And that's true. Because that is how things were done, back then.

Well, that's mighty gracious of you to concede to my point. : )

?

Where did I do that?

Oh, wait, you're flailing. Sorry. Come back if you want a reasoned debate.

 

[Booze Zombie]

As my father explained it to me, would you want someone who was born and "bred" to be what they are or someone who's going "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..." in charge?

Besides that, The Queen is little more than a figurehead now, though I'm still not a fan of her.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

pretty much have been a second (or third, depending on how you look at it) Civil War.

Or even actually fourth if you counted the fight between Cromwell and Charles II before Charles was reinstated as monarch, although Charles did use the Scottish as his army rather than the English.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

?

Where did I do that?

Oh, wait, you're flailing. Sorry. Come back if you want a reasoned debate.

I said that all monarchs are just people who'se ancestors have murdered their way to power at one time or another. You agreed.

That is all...

 

[Marcus Dubious]

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? : )

NO, that?s not what was said. This was sometimes true in the past, there are few ruling monarchies in the world today and none of them got their power through military victories. They got them through hereditary.

Meh, Cromwell tried to make us unto a Republic after he won the Civil War, and that went arse over tits. As soon as he died we just invited the monarchy back again...

I know that was like 450 years ago and circumstances were entirely different, but it sums up my stance on this issue. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Besides, I like the Royals. They don't do any harm, they are ammusing (both intentionally and unintentionally) and Prince Charles is awesome. Ish.

Cromwell and the New model Army managed to break the absolute power of the monarchy forever,
Charles II regained the throne as it was the only way to avert civil war but his power was broken, never again could a monarch rule without consent of the people.

These were the first seeds that led to democracy in Britain.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

To be fair, it's 50 pence each is what it was worked out as. So half a burger from macdonalds, or a lifelong heritage?

I don't like McDonald's. It scares me.

 

[murphy7801]

Each UK citizen pays around £1 per year in tax toward the Royal family so the cost of keeping the monarchy is next to nothing especially when you factor in the amount of money they bring into the country via tourism and business connections.

The royal family has no influence in politics, in fact they are strongly discouraged from getting involved in any way, so the government would be exactly the same as it is now.

yes or we could not pay them a penny and keep them were they are also take back loads of land, property and art to generate more tourism ?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

?

Where did I do that?

Oh, wait, you're flailing. Sorry. Come back if you want a reasoned debate.

I said that all monarchs are just people who'se ancestors have murdered their way to power at one time or another. You agreed.

That is all...

No I didn't. I said Britain murdered it's way to the top of a lot of other countries. And if we hadn't, those countries would have remained in the Stone Age. I then pointed out that Britain's current monarchy was invited by Parliment. Your attempt to twist my meaning has failed, sir.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

As my father explained it to me, would you want someone who was born and "bred" to be what they are or someone who's going "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can..."?

You can be "born and bred" to be royal, but what you should ask yourself is what good that does to you who aren't of royal blood.

Monarch history is filled with fuck-ups and incompetents, but it is rarely the monarch themselves who have to suffer, but rather the people under them. Seems only fair that if the end result is the people suffering it should be due to the fuck-ups the people have chosen to lead them, rather than fuck-ups who have forced their will upon the people...