Would you not agree that the life of the Royal family whether that be their lavish lifestyle, or their behind closed doors drama aren't most popular with women? I know that's been the case with my family, and friends.
Would you not agree that the life of the Royal family whether that be their lavish lifestyle, or their behind closed doors drama aren't most popular with women? I know that's been the case with my family, and friends.
Using the fact that the UK does not presently have a written constitution as an argument against the workability of a (highly unlikely) hypothetical scenario that would only be possible with sweeping constitutional changes--probably including the adoption of a formal constitution regardless of what form the new head of state takes--is kind of weird.
I don't think it's weird at all to say that it's not as easy as just passing a law saying the Queen isn't head of state anymore.
I would imagine that if the monarchy is ever abolished it would be part of a raft of constitutional changes
Abolishing the monarchy would involve a lot of constitutional and legal changes
hypothetical scenario that would only be possible with sweeping constitutional changes
No.
No... It's a great distraction for wives, mothers, sisters, and girlfriends.
Why do the women in your life need "distracting" ?Would you not agree that the life of the Royal family whether that be their lavish lifestyle, or their behind closed doors drama aren't most popular with women? I know that's been the case with my family, and friends.
Getting rid of them wouldn't be a smart move. We earn more money from them than we spend on them. It's beneficial to have them from a purely economical point of view. Culturally they're all icons in their own regards and their various charities and projects help a lot of people that wouldn't have had the help without them
I need distraction too. Don't look so deep into the word "distraction".
I made literally this exact point in multiple posts of mine you've quoted in this thread.
Yes, hence the part after you quoted where I stated that it's a whole pandora's box of issues that need to be addressed, and given how well we're dealing with one major constitutional change at the moment, maybe opening up another front isn't the most appealing of ideas.
Imagine Chris Grayling in charge of this constitutional reform. I have very little confidence that our current batch of politicians could cope with the ramifications and the necessary changes in a vaguely competent way. They'd probably invest the royal prerogative in the PM, which could theoretically mean that someone like Theresa May, who's stated in the past a desire to rewrite the Human Rights Act and pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, enjoying what would be an pretty much unlimited elected dictatorship.
Abolish it before Charles becomes king. If he's ever on Australian money I'm flying back to vote for a republic.
No they wouldn't. Tourism regarding england's history isn't going to disappear just because the monarchy no longer exists.Get rid of them and England loses a LOT of tourism money.
Which we're going to need after this Brexit bollocks,
Calls to abolish the monarchy are pretty idiotic when you consider that the politicians who would handle the aftermath of such a tectonic shift are also the same politicians currently driving the country towards Brexit and doing that oh so well.
Yeah let's have the Conservative government write a Constitution. That will turn out well.
The queen doesn't write these speeches; the government does. She's a mouthpiece.
This is frankly my biggest issue with the idea. As of right now, I have no faith that the current government will properly handle abolishment. Even Corbyn's Labour government would likely use the funds to starve off the effects of Brexit.Calls to abolish the monarchy are pretty idiotic when you consider that the politicians who would handle the aftermath of such a tectonic shift are also the same politicians currently driving the country towards Brexit and doing that oh so well.
Yeah let's have the Conservative government write a Constitution. That will turn out well.
Yeah we have a monarchy in The Netherlands too. It's ancient nonsense. Like religion.
But the alternatives aren't so great either. It's more of a symbolic function right now. But it still costs a shitload of money.
It makes no sense, but i kinda like parts of it.
Wait, did that original video really use an image of St. Michel as an example of a british castle?
Anyway i fully agree that the royalty should be made illegal and i cannot conceive of any democratic country that would still support a monarchic lineage.
Yeah i agree (there was text after "nonsense").It'd be ancient nonsense if the monarch had any political power to begin with, but that's not really the case anymore and hasn't been for a long time here. And it's pretty much the same in most western countries with a royal house these days.
So what's the point of a largely symbolic function these days? Having a head of state who can be above party politics if the situation demands it. Let's say a hurricane hits a coastal city and the head of state visits the area afterwards in order to provide comfort to the local citizenry. Remember Obama's visit after Sandy? Half the country was immediately like: "Eh, it's a campaign stunt." And of course, Obama realized that if he fudged his trip, he'd pay a political price for it, so it was political in his mind too.
The "no man should be above others because of where he was born"-arguments I'm seeing here are missing the point, because of the symbolic status of the king/queen nowadays. You're not really above others because the position comes with a crapton of restrictions on your own personal freedom while you get no real political power to make up for that. Functioning as a national non-partisan mascot/symbol only works as long as you can manage to stay above the fray, no matter how you personally feel about matters. The moment you start throwing your weight around, you destroy the very institution you're upholding as part of your job.
Personally, as a Dutchy, I wouldn't want to trade places with Willem Alexander.
The monarchy isn't really about power anymore. What the question of this thread really comes down to nowadays is: Do you, in these increasingly partisan times where practically everything is political nowadays, see the value in heads of state who aren't affiliated with a specific political party?
It'd be ancient nonsense if the monarch had any political power to begin with, but that's not really the case anymore and hasn't been for a long time here. And it's pretty much the same in most western countries with a royal house these days.
So what's the point of a largely symbolic function these days? Having a head of state who can be above party politics if the situation demands it. Let's say a hurricane hits a coastal city and the head of state visits the area afterwards in order to provide comfort to the local citizenry. Remember Obama's visit after Sandy? Half the country was immediately like: "Eh, it's a campaign stunt." And of course, Obama realized that if he fudged his trip, he'd pay a political price for it, so it was political in his mind too.
The "no man should be above others because of where he was born"-arguments I'm seeing here are missing the point, because of the symbolic status of the king/queen nowadays. You're not really above others because the position comes with a crapton of restrictions on your own personal freedom while you get no real political power to make up for that. Functioning as a national non-partisan mascot/symbol only works as long as you can manage to stay above the fray, no matter how you personally feel about matters. The moment you start throwing your weight around, you destroy the very institution you're upholding as part of your job.
Personally, as a Dutchy, I wouldn't want to trade places with Willem Alexander.
The monarchy isn't really about power anymore. What the question of this thread really comes down to nowadays is: Do you, in these increasingly partisan times where practically everything is political nowadays, see the value in heads of state who aren't affiliated with a specific political party?
"British occupation"? What the hell are you talking about?Definitely abolish them, I can't believe Canada is still under British occupation. I am surprised though he responded to a 7 year old video.,
Queen Elizabeth is the head of state in Canada, and since every bill needs royal consent the monarch can effectively veto them.
No, she can't.Queen Elizabeth is the head of state in Canada, and since every bill needs royal consent the monarch can effectively veto them.