Poll: Britain as a Republic?

[Ben7]

In one of my politcs classes a question came up regarding the pros and cons of replacing the monarchy for an elected head of state (such as a president).

Now I really believe in democracy and that the people should have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them. I hate the fact we have a hereditary lottery to decide for us, why should someone with a certain name have such substantial privelages over others? why should our tax money go towards them to enjoy such a great lifestyle? shouldn't it go towards more important things...

The monarch holds no substantial powers aswell so why do we need them, for historical and traditional values? I think thats just pointless when we can have a more effective government without it.


What are your thoughts?

 

[TheRealCJ]

Well, if your tax money doesn't go to the monarchy, it'll just go to some other undeserving bunch of sods. And hey, they keep the tabloids out of the real news areas, so why not.

It's like when Australia voted to become independant, it failed. Popular consensus on the decision was because it's easier to make gloat when we beat you at evereything always when you're still technically our lords and masters.

 

[Faps]

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.

 

[Dogstile]

you realise that the amount we spend on the queen is almost doubled when given back to us through the tourism it brings?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

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.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

The monarchy is just a figurehead, and pretty much a tourist attraction at this point. Hell the only interesting thing they can do right now is declare war on another country. Losing them would change pretty much nothing.

 

[internutt]

Getting rid of a monarchy would be a terrible decision. Most of the UK's Tourism relies on the Monarchy. Our money is covered in it.

However, I must admit that when the Queen dies, I do NOT want Prince Charles face on my money.

The only real issue I have right now is the fact I never voted for Gordon Brown. He just took charge as PM when Tony left without a fuss. Fair enough Labor are the ruling party, but when a head of state leaves office early we bloody well deserve to elect the next guy in charge regardless of party.

 

[CIA]

Keep the monarchy. Getting rid of it wont make the world a better place.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think that the United Kingdom should become a republic. I agree that the Queen is just a figurehead, and don't think that the money that the royal family costs is huge. It's just a matter of principle. I'm not anyone's subject, I'm a citizen. I refuse to pretend to be subject to a Queen for the sake of continuity with our history. It's anachronistic, and reinforces the image of Britain as a quaint relic, rather than a modern, cosmopolitan society. I'd be overjoyed if the monarchy was brought down tomorrow. [/treason]

 

[Agema]

I'm an unenthusiastic monarchist. Which is to say, I'm not really for the monarchy, but I think the time, effort and trouble required to turn the UK into a republic is far greater than the rewards.

Most critically, the UK government works - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Also, as pointed out above, although the monarch has some real and important constitutional powers that could be exercised if required, she doesn't run the country. The place you need to look at for better governance is parliament.

Sure, the Royals cost Britain a few million pounds a year, but that is peanuts in terms of the whole government income (about £600billion a year). If you replaced the monarch, much of that money would still need to be spent anyway on a president - accommodation, travel, security, salary and so on not just for the Pres but all his staff where necessary too. Very likely the government would also need to subsidise some ex-Royal dwellings as well - they're grade I listed buildings, and should be kept in a good state of repair.

Also, consider the nightmare involved in setting up a republic. Firstly, it has to be worked out what shape a republic would take. Next, we have to work out what of the "Crown Property" is owned by the nation, and what is personal property of the royal family (and believe me, that's a tricky issue): it's illegal to simply take anyone's stuff without fair recompense, even if that anyone is the monarch, as the UK has long since established that the law is superior to the monarch. Then you'd have to implement the new system. That's talking about government commissions to work out details, massive legal wrangling and representations and so on, which would almost certainly cost the nation hundreds of millions of pounds.

I'm not sure I agree it makes Britain seem more modern either. I don't know that Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Spain and Denmark have problems with being seen as quaint backwaters. The UK is pretty well recognised as a modern state making decent progress.

In time, should enough people tire of the monarchy, fair enough let's scrap it and damn the cost and trouble. Mind you, I think bit by bit the monarch's powers will drip away anyway, until eventually the monarch is entirely obsolete without anyone ever really noticing that it happened. That or we'll join a unified Europe, and the UK's head of state will be irrelevant anyway.

 

[Charley]

Put it to a vote. A whole country wide consensus and stand by what they think.

Good God, please no. When you consider the proportion of the country that's NEET... I really don't want their opinions to affect my future.

The only real issue I have right now is the fact I never voted for Gordon Brown. He just took charge as PM when Tony left without a fuss. Fair enough Labor are the ruling party, but when a head of state leaves office early we bloody well deserve to elect the next guy in charge regardless of party.

Let's be fair.. it's not as if there's a quality alternative - apart from the Milliband hive mind.

I'm not anyone's subject, I'm a citizen. I refuse to pretend to be subject to a Queen for the sake of continuity with our history. It's anachronistic, and reinforces the image of Britain as a quaint relic, rather than a modern, cosmopolitan society. I'd be overjoyed if the monarchy was brought down tomorrow. [/treason]

Incorrect, Sir. You wouldn't be a 'subject', yes, but you'd be a 'citizen of the republic' which is the same thing in terms of taxes, laws etc etc. You'd only really be changing the terminology. If it came to conscription, you'd still be forced to serve your Queen OR your country.

Without the Queen, we'd have colossal cuts compared to our current tourism (I'd suggest you take a previous rolling average rather than this year's numbers - "climate" and all that) which equates to big dips in revenue.

Thailand has a King in exactly the same functional role as our Queen. Thailand love him.

Actually, I have an idea - put it to a vote, then if the Monarchy is outed, force everyone who voted to get rid of them to make up the money lost in one year through less tourism, revenue from guest speeches, the cost of having to replace them with other dignitaries at foreign events etc.

If they fail, hang them for f*cking up the country and put Queenie back in. They won't succeed, so it's not an issue.

 

[Liberaliterr]

Well the monarchy have no power anymore anyway, not after the civil war.

Way back then we basically established a parliamenary democracy which has been used throughout the world since.

 

[Spaghetti]

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

 

[beddo]

In one of my politcs classes a question came up regarding the pros and cons of replacing the monarchy for an elected head of state (such as a president).

Now I really believe in democracy and that the people should have the ability to vote for who they want to represent them. I hate the fact we have a hereditary lottery to decide for us, why should someone with a certain name have such substantial privelages over others? why should our tax money go towards them to enjoy such a great lifestyle? shouldn't it go towards more important things...

The monarch holds no substantial powers aswell so why do we need them, for historical and traditional values? I think thats just pointless when we can have a more effective government without it.


What are your thoughts?

The monarchy is a mockery of democracy.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Monarchy = embarassing leftover from a more primitive age. It's disgraceful for any modern country to still keep it around.

Luckily my own country doesn't give the royal family any real power, but it's still embarassing that their livelyhood is upheld by tax payers money. If I had the power I would boot them out of the castle an tell them to work for a living like real people do.

There is only one proper answer for any royal family and that is called a guillotine...

 

[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.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

Look, i live in the US (sadly) and the democracy thing is completely over rated. I'd rather have a monarchy, just with some democratic privligages.