Give The Queen A Council House, Say Greens

[Chippiewill]

The Queen has been offered a council house by the Green Party, whose plans to abolish the monarchy would see her moved out of Buckingham Palace.

The party leader Natalie Bennett said she was sure there would be a state-funded property available for the Queen because the Greens planned to build more.

She said: "I can't see that the Queen is ever going to be really poor, but I'm sure we can find a council house for her - we're going to build lots more."

http://news.sky.com/story/1414174/give-the-queen-a-council-house-say-greens

lol

[-:Undertaker:-]

Greens should be mown, weeded or eaten; but certainly not heard.

Amen to that.

[FlyingJesus]

Can she claim the dole because being Queen isn't really employment is it

[Lewis]

I hate the royal family so that sounds good to me lmao

[Alkaz]

Or she could just move to one of the many private residences.... Sandringham, Balmoral or Highgrove House.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Or the Crown Estate profits could be returned to the Royal Family which would mean no more state funding and indeed HM Treasury would then lose out.

[Chippiewill]

Most people who want to abolish the monarchy take the view that the majority of their private property would be seized.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Most people who want to abolish the monarchy take the view that the majority of their private property would be seized.

Well exactly, those are the kind of people who aren't keen on monarchy: communists/greens with no respect for basic laws like property rights.

[Chippiewill]

Well exactly, those are the kind of people who aren't keen on monarchy: communists/greens with no respect for basic laws like property rights.

In their defence, when it comes to the Monarchy I think an exception considering circumstances isn't exactly unreasonable.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In their defence, when it comes to the Monarchy I think an exception considering circumstances isn't exactly unreasonable.

That's the justification all regimes or radicals use when it comes to property rights. Property rights are property rights, you either believe in them or you don't.

Can't say "I believe in property rights but I quite fancy the castle across the road that my neighbour owns so the state should seize that."

[FlyingJesus]

Why is it not unreasonable to dismiss property rights in the case of just one family idgi

[Chippiewill]

That's the justification all regimes or radicals use when it comes to property rights. Property rights are property rights, you either believe in them or you don't.

Can't say "I believe in property rights but I quite fancy the castle across the road that my neighbour owns so the state should seize that."

Well that's not really fair. The monarchy already has hundreds of other exceptions surrounding them. I don't expect they pay inheritance tax.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is it not unreasonable to dismiss property rights in the case of just one family idgi


"I believe in trial by jury - except for Jews."

Do I really then believe in trial by jury as a founding principle in law and liberty? I don't think so.

[The Don]

Right of conquest didn't abide by property rights, did it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well that's not really fair. The monarchy already has hundreds of other exceptions surrounding them. I don't expect they pay inheritance tax.

Well that's a different argument. If you abolished the Monarchy then obviously those tax breaks which comes from the Duchy rights and all that would be ended and they'd be liable that and other taxes. But principles in basic English law like property rights are a lot different to general taxation.

All hypothetical though as with any luck, we'll never come to this issue with a President Bennett installing solar panels on Buckingham Palace.

- - - Updated - - -


Right of conquest didn't abide by property rights, did it?

That'd depend if you wanted to open the can of worms with retrospective law.

Although I wouldn't put it past the Greens to propose a Year Zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_%28political_notion%29).

[FlyingJesus]

Right of conquest didn't abide by property rights, did it?

Pretty sure Lizzie didn't rob any palaces from anyone. Sins of the father is a terrible way to operate

[The Don]

Pretty sure Lizzie didn't rob any palaces from anyone. Sins of the father is a terrible way to operate

Not saying we should operate like that, just pointing out that dans joke example "I quite fancy the castle across the road that my neighbour owns so the state should seize that" is pretty much how the land became theirs in the first place