[Closed] Republicans ... miserable bunch arn't they?

So some people are miserable and then you say everyones happy. Make your mind up.

nice troll and when I live in a republic I will let you know whether I become instantly more miserable.

what next monarchist upset at the end of the monarchy - miserable bunch etc

To be fair this hasn't been the best day for Republicans, so you can't be surprised if they look a tad miserable.

You would hardly expect them to be overjoyed by today's celebrations, would you ?

To be fair i was having a great day till junior went to bed and i came over all tired and switched the telly box on. Up until that point i had seen nothing of the royal rubbish.

Just seen one

Jesus, that's a big "bunch"...

ernie_lynch - Member

You would hardly expect them to be overjoyed by today's celebrations, would you ?

Why not? It was mostly boats- republicans aren't particularily anti-boat. Just the one queen but [i]loads [/i]of boats.

Well in that case why the **** were they miserable ?

As you say, it was a great day for boats, sailors, whatever.

I think Frodo perhaps got it right after all.....a right bunch of miserable gits. As well as being unpatriotic.

republicans aren't particularily anti-boat

We only like boats full of republicans.

a right bunch of miserable git

genius!

I thought that was comedy gold ernie. Don't tell me it was merely a typo??

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Yeah I forgot the "s" zimbo. I don't know why you think I might have been 'joking'.

damo2576 - Member

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Really? why?

Eire seems to have had some decent presidents despite some well dodgy politicians in general

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Yeah! And a right old daft grump to prefer a hereditary queen to an unelected tyrannical dictator, which is my head-of-state of choice.

Great a new collective noun to add to the dictionary:

A "misery" of Republicans

How apt! 😉

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Especially when one considers said head of state would be voted in by the majority...have you actually [b]seen[/b] the majority...bloody scary bunch I tell you. I'm sure I don't need to remind people that the same scary bunch voted in that Tony B.Liar.

aye, and then they voted CallMeDave in. can't trust them one little bit

A "misery" of Republicans

Don't forget he only saw the one, so that's a "misery of republican".

So would the royalists oppose reform of the house of lords and give the monarch more power?

Really? why?

Aside from the usual arguments about stability, capability, incentive etc, for me personally I'd much rather have a hereditary head of state driven by sense of duty than an elected one driven by ego and votes winning.

Especially when one considers said head of state would be voted in by the majority

Not necessarily. The President of the Republic can be elected by parliament, as is the case in Italy.

Yeah! And a right old daft grump to prefer a hereditary queen to an unelected tyrannical dictator, which is my head-of-state of choice.

Mine too - but since they won't let [b]me[/b] be that tyrannical dictator, I'll have to settle for second best 😀

Not sure about a fully elected house of lords either. The second chamber does an important role and getting elections involved might muddy the waters? Not hereditary but appointed would be my preference. People from different walks of life, skills, abilities and professions.

As for the queen, who cares? She has no real power so all of these Republicans are getting their knickers in as twist about nought!

let me be that tyrannical dictator

See, where you're going wrong is you want them to "let" you. If you were any sort of tyrannical dictator you'd just go and get it. Two snooker balls in a sock, few cans of Special Brew, and get fighting.

As for the queen, who cares? She has no real power so all of these Republicans are getting their knickers in as twist about nought!

So you are saying why have a monarchy?

I like many believe the royal family are very disconnected from the people, however if you head to places like Edinburgh, London or Windsor and see the numbers of tourists I am sure they manage to bring in more money than they cost us. Americans probably come over here half expecting to bump into the Queen. So aside from the fact that I will not be attending any jubilee party or that my employer is not giving us a bank holiday I am happy enough to put up with them.

You want tourist legalise drugs and prostitution.
i once tried to see if there was any significance in tourist number for when she was here or in a palace and visits and you know what there was not apparently most tourist dont check or actually get to meet he

Re no power you are somewhat mistaken though i prefer to discuss crown power which includes the royal prerogative..its not like the crown call elections, signs legislation to make it law, has weekly meeting with the PM of their government or is the head of the state and the Church.
Your right the crown really does have no power and certainly not any more power than any other unelected person by benefit of birth

Your comment cheered up this republican

Americans probably come over here half expecting to bump into the Queen.

Really ? ......Jeezus those Yanks are daft ! 😀

There must a multitude of different ways that we can relieve them of their dollars.

Although telling them they might meet Lilibet is a good start.

I am sure they manage to bring in more money than they cost us

...this is probably true but they should have no part in the government of this land, in actuality or on paper.

To say that the Queen should have no part in the government sounds daft. For instance, I am sure Tony Blair was more influenced by George W Bush, than a cream scone and cup of earl Grey with Her Maj.

To say that the Queen should have no part in the government sounds daft

probably not as daft as you ignoring the "or on paper" bit what I wrote..

[img] [/img]

does the monitor lizard dance?

so its ok for an elected representative to meet weekly with an unelected person to discuss the govt business then because they have no influence 😕

The majority of the argument in support of this equates to it does nothing in which case lets just not do it.

are you askin'..?

yeah...but I'm shy... 😳

[img] [/img]

story of a wallflower's life...hang about and they cop off with someone else...

zimbo, I did not ignore it. I will admit that I am no expert in constitutional law, however what 'actual' power is the Queen likely to wield? I was trying to say that there are plenty of other factors more likely to influence a governments policies than anything the Queen is likely to say or do. I am aware that an elected party has to seek the Queens permission to form a government, and I imagine the Queen has the power to dissolve a parliament. I would like to see her try! It may be written 'on paper' in the bylaws of Shepton Mallet that it is ok to beat your pet lizard on a Sunday as long as it is wearing frilly knickers. So what!

other factors more likely to influence a governments policies than anything the Queen is likely to say or do

Yeah, you're right, but I feel that it's a matter of principle that our democracy should be just that. I know the Queen is likely to do nothing controversial but she should not even have the opportunity to do so. Principles are so important in drafting a constitution.

And yes, I beat my lizard without frilly knickers, but, honestly, I've never been to Shepton Mallet...

zimbo
Fair enough. We will agree to disagree.
I have never been to Shepton Mallet either.
Is anyone here from Shepton Mallet, what is the biking like, and what do you do to Scots on a Tuesday? 😕

I know the Queen is likely to do nothing controversial but she should not even have the opportunity to do so. Principles are so important in drafting a constitution.

Of course the counter point to that is that politicians are far, far more likely to do something 'controversial', than the Queen, and she is what prevents [i]them[/i] from having the opportunity to do so.

Of course the counter point to that is that politicians are far, far more likely to do something 'controversial', athan the Queen, and she is what prevents them from having the opportunity to do so

yeah, but, daft as we might be, at least we chose for them to be tits on our behalf

and she is what prevents them from having the opportunity to do so.