Poll: Britain as a Republic?

[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.

I know. I've studied that era for about a year now

It was for that reason we have the powerless monarchy we have today. The king knew that to step out of line was to invite rebellion, and so Parliament continued to push the envelope as far as they could with regards to limiting the monarchy's power and advancing their own.

But I'm sure you know that already. What I'm saying is that the republic failed once already, and after that we gradually found the kind of government that suited us reasonably well. So there is no need to turn back time so to speak and try a republic again.

I agree, our style of government isn't any less flawed than that of any other western democracy, The monarchy have been marginalised and they only have as much influence as any rich businessman might.
I think they are an anachronism but that shouldn't result in them being forced out in order to impose a republic.

 

[brazuca]

Uh, it's not monarchy that's make people poor. If it was that Japan would be in a pretty bad situation, and let's not forget that Nippon have 150 milion people. Britain has 61 milion. It's just the economic "crysis". Now you wanna say Britain is in a bad situation... Brazil had 2 emperrors, one king, 5 dictators and lots of presidents. If political cience is your major (like my) you will realize that a president is almost as powerfull as king. Don't bealive me? How is a president empeached, uh trick isn't? Think that a president don't need a legislative to be president, his party can be off the power and he will be president anyway. Example, Clinton. Some countries like mine a president can make laws without asking the legislative permission. It can be revoked if the law is inconstitucional or they voted against it.

Presidency is not necessarily good or bad. Britain is just fine how it's. If you are concerned about social issues you should join a left wing party.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You miss the point, that no matter who people vote for in britain, they will suck, because the politicians are mostly complete morons.

What's stopping you from going into politics yourself then?

In any democratic country, pretty much anyone can start a political party and start trying to hog votes for themelves. But in a monarchy you can't really go about the same way into becoming a member of the royal family now can you? : )

 

[Wadders]

I agree, our style of government isn't any less flawed that any other western democracy, The monarchy have been marginalised and they only have as much influence as any rich businessman might.
I think they are an anachronism but that shouldn't result in their being forced out in order to impose a republic.

I concur. As long as Prince Charles keeps using whatever minor influence he possesses to block the construction of horrific modern buildings in old parts of London, the Royals are worth keeping

 

[Marcus Dubious]

You miss the point, that no matter who people vote for in britain, they will suck, because the politicians are mostly complete morons.

What's stopping you from going into politics yourself then?

In any democratic country, pretty much anyone can start a political party and start trying to hog votes for themelves. But in a monarchy you can't really go about the same way into becoming a member of the royal family now can you? : )

The problem is that most of the people who vote have no real understanding of how a country is run or what type of individuals would be capable of fulfilling the role.
People vote on personality and purely selfish issues.

This is why the wrong people are elected.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The problem is that most of the people who vote have no real understanding of how a country is run or what type of individuals would be capable of fulfilling the role.
People vote on personality and purely selfish issues.

This is why the wrong people are elected.

Exactly! Which is why the people have only themselves to blame for not getting more involved and active in their voting choices in a democracy.

Sure you could just do it the old ways and just hand over all the power to some monarchs, but that doesn't really solve any problems, it just gives you an easier scapegoat to blame once the shit hits the fan. However without a monarchy the people will be forced to step up and take responsibility for electing incompetents and idiots into office. They can't do the same with monarchs, because monarchs aren't elected.

 

[TotallyFake]

In any democratic country, pretty much anyone can start a political party and start trying to hog votes for themelves.

And we have that. We just also have a monarchy who, as stated earlier, generate fantastic revenue from tourism, neatly discounting your "spend the money on better things" argument.

I think every country needs something above the government. Something that defines them. "This is who we are, this is what we stand for" America has the constitution, we have the royals.

 

[Griff]

I did actually do a thread like this not so long ago

 

[Marcus Dubious]

The problem is that most of the people who vote have no real understanding of how a country is run or what type of individuals would be capable of fulfilling the role.
People vote on personality and purely selfish issues.

This is why the wrong people are elected.

Exactly! Which is why the people have only themselves to blame for not getting more involved and active in their voting choices in a democracy.

Sure you could just do it the old ways and just hand over all the power to some monarchs, but that doesn't really solve any problems, it just gives you an easier scapegoat to blame once the shit hits the fan. However without a monarchy the people will be forced to step up and take responsibility for electing incompetents and idiots into office. They can't do the same with monarchs, because monarchs aren't elected.

In history a Republic was the elite choosing who represented them in power.
How is this different from modern democracy?
The elite control the media and the monetary contributions to their chosen political parties,

This control of media and dissemination of information results in a completely distorted view of political policies, agendas, personalities of politicians, outcomes of scandals and everything else that leads to certain people being elected.

If you want a republic, look at Fox news and other so called unbiased outlets and tell me some countries are not well on the way to becoming a republic.

 

[Boaal]

The Royal family have next to no political power. They CAN veto stuff, but they are pretty much advised not to.

Also no. I like having the royal family as part of my national cultural identity. They bring in a lot of money to the country too. Sod it, they are a bunch of inbred, incredibly stupid and ignorant, fools, but I at least like to have a Queen.

I don't want to be The USA Mark II.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

I did actually do a thread like this not so long ago

Then don't keep us waiting, you must have lots to contribute.

 

[Marcus Dubious]

The Royal family have next to no political power. They CAN veto stuff, but they are pretty much advised not to.

Also no. I like having the royal family as part of my national cultural identity. They bring in a lot of money to the country too. Sod it, they are a bunch of inbred, incredibly stupid and ignorant, fools, but I at least like to have a Queen.

I don't want to be The USA Mark II.

The only ?veto? the queen has is in regard to the swearing in of a new Prime Minister.
It is nothing more than an accepted formality and a throw back to British monarchic heritage.
But you have a point the queen could refuse to accept a new Prime Minister and therefore, technically, Britain would be without a leader.

This could possible be regarded as treason.

The idea I mentioned was covered by a BBC drama a few years ago.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

Having the Queen doesn't do us any harm. I, for one, quite like having a figurehead, ceremonial as she may be.

 

[bluepilot]

Monarchy is a lot cheaper than democracy (MP expenses scandal).

Plus having a Queen and that tradition brings tourism which more than pays for the Queen`s share of the tax money. Most of the money she gets is used to pay wages, so the Queen makes jobs too.

I see no benefit in getting rid of the Queen. If we did she would just be replaced by expensive red tape. We do have a rather rotton government.

 

[Ben7]

Out of curiosity does anyone know the figures the Queen generates through tourism compared to say our historical landmarks or even football fans coming over.

 

[Terramax]

Well, if your tax money doesn't go to the monarchy, it'll just go to some other undeserving bunch of sods.

Like badly injured people needing urgent treatment from the NHS?

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

Disregarding the civil war or the constant crossing over of Christian beliefs that costed thousands of people their lives?

Today we pay hundreds of thousands of pounds a year just so this family can take special class tickets around the world just to have a sodding dinner party with other toffs.

I don't mind the Royal family existing. I do mind that my taxes pays for them though. Let the Christians pay for their own monarchy. Why should hard-working atheists pay for these scumbags?

Out of curiosity does anyone know the figures the Queen generates through tourism compared to say our historical landmarks or even football fans coming over.

That I know of, no. Why not ask these forums if anyone here has had a holiday JUST to see the royal family and their palaces? Or if they chose a trip to England over France because seeing the Queen's royal guards seemed more entertaining than the Eiffel Tower.

 

[GodsAndFishes]

I'm just going to give one name for this argument and walk away. Prince Philip.

 

[Terramax]

I'm just going to give one name for this argument and walk away. Prince Philip.

What about him? Seriously, I can't think of what that's supposed to prove?