Forum menu
Then a single Premiership footballer can be paid how much a year….
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
Well they have a president, most presidents and prime ministers but yankland only has one dont they?
They have leaders of the houses.
But if the queen simply rubber stamps everything and says yes why do we need that? People just keep repeating that its because we do but I dont see why. The fact that in the last 70 years constitutionally shes done nothing says it all, why do we need royals or a president. The government is in charge and the royals are nothing but a side show.
Tied into the point above, what you end up with is two branches of government in deadlock. US Presidents get 2 years to achieve anything, then the mid term elections take place and almost inevitably castrate their ability to get anything done. So you only get effective government half the time, hence why they're always struggling to pass budgets.
If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they'd be elected, which means they'd have mandate, which would mean they'd probably opt not to sign anything the opposition in the Commons put in front of them.
Then you end up with the US system where the President can basically act unilaterally via decree's, which then stand until challenged in the courts, usual against hundred year old clauses in the constitution because that's how slow their government works. and it generally works fine as most presidents are like our Monarchy and don't go around writing a new decree every week and pardoning/commuting prisoners and instead work through Congress and Senate.
They you get someone like Trump elected and convention goes out the window.
If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate, which would mean they’d probably opt not to sign anything the opposition in the Commons put in front of them.
Republic of Ireland seems to manage just fine
Republic of Ireland seems to manage just fine
But some of the other examples in the list up there include:
US - Trump
Italy - Berlusconi
Turkey - Erdogan
Is Liz really that bad?
We've got a system that delivers functioning middle of the spectrum governments, why mess with it?
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
The Queen isn't that bad value?
I think the Head of State should be a constitutional role - entertaining foreign dignitaries etc. shouldn't fall to a partisan position.
I'm in favour of moving to a constitutional president, with much the same "powers" as the Monarch. Doubt it will happen in my lifetime though...
That Trump is an oaf is not a valid reason for a monarchy
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
The Queen isn’t that bad value?
I cannot see how a footballers pay affects me, my taxes arent paying them I dont watch them, they dont affect me and I'm not one of their subjects and they dont rubber stamp any laws so how are comparisons valid?
If you elected a head of state to replace the queen they’d be elected, which means they’d have mandate
I still cannot grasp why we need to, she has no role constitutionally as she has literally done nothing with her power in 70 years. I accept Royals do other stuff but as far as parliament is concerned she's an irrelevance. The Speaker has more power and look how Bercow was treated when he used it. I am not being just argumentative but I dont see why if we got rid of a role thats done nothing for 70 years (when was the last time a monarch said no to parliament anyway?) Why we'd suffer.
We’ve got a system that delivers functioning middle of the spectrum governments, why mess with it?
Because having one family held above all others due to an accident of birth is wrong and sends out all the wrong messages about how society should be IMO of course.
I cannot see how a footballers pay affects me, my taxes arent paying them I dont watch them
Your Sky subscription (or Amazon, or BT) is paying for them.
The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year - maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.
Because having one family held above all others due to an accident of birth is wrong and sends out all the wrong messages about how society should be IMO of course.
I agree with this sentiment.
Your Sky subscription (or Amazon, or BT) is paying for them.
Dont subscribe to any of those and if I did that would be my choice.
The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.
£4 each which could be spent on something useful like nhs, schools or green energy or Army, Navy whatever.
The Monarchy costs us a quid each per year – maybe £3 or 4 if you just pick economically active people.
Not even that. 69p per tax payer last year.
Sounds cheap. But what about all their wealth and land? If that was ‘ours’ what would its value to us all be? Why and how is it theirs not ours? What is our attitude towards the heads of state of other nations that hoard wealth for themselves, and still take money from tax payers?
£4 each which could be spent on something useful like nhs, schools or green energy or Army, Navy whatever.
You've already said the ceremonial role is required, how much do you think it will cost to disband the current lot and build a new "Office of the President" ?
Not to mention the wasted opportunity costs of spending all that parliamentary time when they could be doing something else useful.
You’ve already said the ceremonial role is required,
Not sure I have tbh, but the Irish presidents soaring costs I posted about about 1/7th of what the royals cost werent they?
Not to mention the wasted opportunity costs of spending all that parliamentary time when they could be doing something else useful.
Depends what you think is useful and this is just another whataboutery argument.
I think you're stretching the whataboutery definition.
You want to get rid. This is constitutional change.
Constitutional change will require parliamentary discussion and probably another referendum. Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role?
Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role?
What? Nothing?
Clearly nows not a good time, but I dont think it being a bit tricky is an argument against doing it. If we can "get bexit done" we could easily get rid of the Monarchy.
Have we really got time considering the replacement function will need to do largely the same role
Maybe a society where the head of state can be a catholic, Muslim , Jew, Hindu or atheist, not a direct descendant of the previous holder is worth a bit of time. Obviously those are the legal bars, don’t expect a BAME monarch any time soon.
Hang on.
If the replacement function has powers, which it does, then why does it lie in the hands of someone born into a single family. If, as monarchist argue, the role is ceremonial then there are no powers to transfer to the replacement function
Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.
Maybe a society where the head of state can be a catholic, Muslim , Jew, Hindu or atheist, not a direct descendant of the previous holder is worth a bit of time. Obviously those are the legal bars, don’t expect a BAME monarch any time soon.
Yup - I'd vote for that*.
* unless "that" involves the murder of everybody ahead of baby Archie in the queue, I think that's probably a step too far.
If we can “get bexit done” we could easily get rid of the Monarchy.
🙂
Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.
Do you accept the need for the position "Head Of State"?
Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them. For example, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen. Parliament can only be dissolved by the Queen. The military reports to the Queen. There is nothing is law stopping the Queen from dissolving parliament and/or refusing to allow the winner of the general election to take office and taking us back to pre parliament days. There is nothing in law stopping the Queen from using the military to do anything she wants. The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.
Quite, I dont understand on a fundamental level why we would need to replace them.
Because they do have all sorts of powers.
Which was my point several pages back, we've settled on a genius system that puts all the power in the hands of someone who wont use it.
That it basicly costs nothing and can largely be completely ignored by everyone who doesnt know or want to know what all the grandkids are called is a bonus.
You could re-write all the procedures so the PM didn't have to ask for permisons to do X, Y or Z. But then who gets to formally officiate over that? The PM? What if he loses a vote in the Commons and decides to do something anyway? The monarch is just a convenient mechanism to approve things.
You could vote in a president with the same powers, but that just seems like more of a risk.
What’s that got to do with anything other than football?
Classic whataboutery, how is that relevant?
Okay then, let's look at it another way then. It costs the police around £48m a year to police football matches, with only around £5.5m recoverable from football clubs.
So your tax £s going directly on footie whether you like it or not.
Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them
So whats the point? You all keep saying the same thing.
The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.
Do you accept the need for the position “Head Of State”?
Not really no, we currently are getting by with one that has done nothing for 70 years other than say yes, when was the last time one said no?
Okay then, let’s look at it another way then. It costs the police around £48m a year to police football matches, with only around £5.5m recoverable from football clubs.
So your tax £s going directly on footie whether you like it or not.
No thats indirectly on footie, the police do it to maintain law and order, thats their role, I see nothing wrong with football as such other than its dull so I cannot see how footballers being paid lots is similar to the concept of royalty. Ones wrong, the other I find boring.
No thats indirectly on footie, the police do it to maintain law and order, thats their role, I see nothing wrong with football as such other than its dull so I cannot see how footballers being paid lots is similar to the concept of royalty. Ones wrong, the other I find boring.
So you don't mind paying taxes to police football because it's only boring? I think I understand you.
I think I understand you.
I doubt you do.
Not even that. 69p per tax payer last year.
Thats minus security. Which as the daily hate and co have newly found out with regards to Harry adds up to rather a lot.
Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them.
Which in itself is an argument against them. What if Charlie decides to really stick his oar in and start interfering with things he doesnt have the capabilities for?
What if Charlie decides to really stick his oar in and start interfering with things he doesnt have the capabilities for again?
FTFY
Because the Monarchy still has lots of powers, The current one chooses not to use them. For example, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen. Parliament can only be dissolved by the Queen. The military reports to the Queen. There is nothing is law stopping the Queen from dissolving parliament and/or refusing to allow the winner of the general election to take office and taking us back to pre parliament days. There is nothing in law stopping the Queen from using the military to do anything she wants. The only reason she doesnt is convention and the inevitable crisis that would be bad for the royal gravy train.
Based on my limited rememberings of Alevel politics, doesn’t the monarchy do as it’s told as the government has the power to disband it, should it require? So yes the monarch chooses not to exert power, in the same way that I choose to go to work?
Which in itself is an argument against them. What if Charlie decides to really stick his oar in and start interfering with things he doesnt have the capabilities for?
Then we kill him. Royalty know the score. As long as they remain apolitical and keep it ceremonial they keep the HoS gig. The day they deviate from that they get deposed and we adopt something else.
I doubt you do.
You are absolutely 100% correct on that one.
**** all.
Get rid of the monarchy though and you start to call into question the rest of the inherited privilege system. That's never going to happen in the UK. The Labour Party occasionally witter about dismantling the HoL but never do anything when in power and are happy to swan about with their Lordships and Ladyships given half a chance.
Now is probably the best time to abolish, or at least severely curtail, the whole Royalty scam. Let the current monarch live out the role and instigate change before the next one.
You are absolutely 100% correct on that one.
Is it because you lack the ability to argue coherently that you decide to play the man, not the ball.
Quite pleased with the appropriate use of a footballing metaphor here
Hmm. Could we just subsidise them via CrowdFunding?
Is it because you lack the ability to argue coherently that you decide to play the man, not the ball.
Hmmm, I see it as a disagreement over a point of view, but if you view someone not sharing your point of view as having a lack of ability to argue coherently then yes, I am that man.
You win the internet today. Congratulations, have a biscuit.
Let's look at it another way.
If we didn't have a monarch and a Royal Family with the powers to over-ride democracy, would we legislate to create that system?
Then we kill him. Royalty know the score. As long as they remain apolitical and keep it ceremonial they keep the HoS gig. The day they deviate from that they get deposed and we adopt something else.
They're not apolitical and ceremonial though - the Queen has a chat with the PM every single week, and unless they're talking about the footie results (which I somehow doubt) they're discussing political events, and one thing I don't doubt is that when it's Charlie's turn he'll be sharing all the wisdom and intelligence 100's of years of inbreeding and entitlement gets you.
Then we kill him. Royalty know the score
Which renders them pointless no? Since the argument seems to be we need them to step in if necessary but if they do they die.
Also as others have pointed out I did skip over how they do actively interfere. Its not just queenies chats with the PM or Charlie mouthing off about bad architecture (whilst I dont disagree with some of his comments a)they shouldnt have any real weight just because of his birth and b)have you seen Poundbury? Ugly as hell) but the other interference in our system. Like how bills impacting them have to be sent to them for review without being in the public domain.
Hence why as poor as the law protecting leaseholders is those who fall under charlies duchy are even worse off.
Not even that. 69p per tax payer last year.
On balance I think I'd rather have my 69p