Should we get rid of the monarchy?

[-:Undertaker:-]

And if it were my choice we’d be straight out of the EUalso?

Fair play.

One step at a time. We need to scrap the Monarchy andleave the EU but obviously neither are easy task.

Why do we 'need' to scrap the Monarchy? what is this sudden 'need' to do change our constitution? a constitutional system I may add, that has kept us from violent revolutions in the past unlike other nations.

The monarchs live in luxury, off the taxes of the workingclass. The queen lives in a palace while thousands live in council estates. How much of tax payers money was spent on the royal wedding? Or actually, how muchof the tax payers money is spent on maintaining this ridiculous scheme?

So a President wouldn't live in a Palace? a President wouldn't have a high salary? a President wouldn't have various offical motorcades? a President wouldn't have taxpayers money spent on high profile do's? a President wouldn't live in luxury?

In turn, would a President care more about the stability of the country or his or her own political legacy?

How is it the perfect balance? The unelected royals living in luxury whilst majority of citizens have to work hard all their lifeto provide said royals with their possessions.

Because if you can't understand the benefits of having a non-political Monarch as Head of State as opposed to a political Head of State (a President) then I really despair. As for the possessions of the Royals, the great majority are gifts from both the public and foreign nations.

Change isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Where is the need to change a constitutional system which is quite possibly the best in the world?

It would be better to have an elected head of state, one who knows what they’re doing and can actually have influence over decisions made.

We do have this, just we have a Prime Minister who is elected and who carries out political duties and makes decisions. The Monarch is there for stability, to ever prevent an abuse of power.

I think you care too much about preserving tradition rather than advancing society. I think it’s disgusting that people are struggling to pay for their petrol because of crippling taxes to up keep this unelected group who have done nothing to earn their position and are merely born into it.

I do care about tradition because i've looked at the majority of nations around the world which killed off their tried and tested methods and they suffered greatly for it. I fail to also see the 'advance'? where is the advancement in replacing a tried and tested, 1,000+ year old system which has offered us stability like no other nation and replacing it?

As for taxation, the Monarchy is next-to-nothing and could even be self-funding if UKIP policy is ever adopted which would return the Monarchy to living from the fruits of their estates, rather than the present civil list (which was changed in the first place by Parliament). I would add however, what makes you think that a President wouldn't live from our taxes? how do you think the state gets its money? it is all taken via taxation.

We should elect our leaders, not have them imposed on us.

We should elect our political leaders, I agree.

Also Dan, no one asked about the ******* EU.

Then you obviously haven't examined what I said or why I said it, that nobody can seriously talk about the issue of the Monarchy being unelected (a Monarchy which has no political power or influence) whilst we are members of the European Union who make the majority of our laws, are foreign and are unelected.

Is that absolutely clear?

[The Don]

Why do we 'need' toscrap the Monarchy? what is this sudden 'need' to do change our constitution? aconstitutional system I may add, that has kept us from violent revolutions inthe past unlike other nations.

You could also argue the same for staying in the EU…

So a President wouldn't live in a Palace? a Presidentwouldn't have a high salary? a President wouldn't have various officalmotorcades? a President wouldn't have taxpayers money spent on high profiledo's? a President wouldn't live in luxury?

A president would have EARNT their position rather than haveit through birth.

Where is the need to change a constitutional system which isquite possibly the best in the world?

It would have the same effect except for the fact that thehead of state is elected…

I do care about tradition because i've looked at themajority of nations around the world which killed off their tried and testedmethods and they suffered greatly for it. I fail to also see the 'advance'?where is the advancement in replacing a tried and tested, 1,000+ year oldsystem which has offered us stability like no other nation and replacing it?

I merely suggest we change the figurehead, a head of statewho is elected, that is all, everything else will stay the same.

As for taxation, the Monarchy is next-to-nothing and couldeven be self-funding if UKIP policy is ever adopted which would return theMonarchy to living from the fruits of their estates, rather than the presentcivil list (which was changed in the first place by Parliament).

I thought you said there was no need to change the system asit’s “one of the best in the world”…

I would add however, what makes you think that a Presidentwouldn't live from our taxes? how do you think the state gets its money? it isall taken via taxation.

I have no problem with an elected president living off ourtaxes. I have a problem with someone being born into it though.
You complain about the EU as it is run by unelected members,yet you suggest we keep an unelected head of state. Your posts scream hypocrite.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You could also argue the same for staying in the EU…

I have and can provide numerous reasons for leaving the European Union, I cannot however, nor can you from the looks of it, provide reasons why there is a need to remove the House of Windsor from the Throne and destabilise a 1,000-year old system which has evolved over centuries.

A president would have EARNT their position rather than haveit through birth.

Earnt? by cosying upto television companies? by cuddling with newspaper owners? meeting with members of large corporations? the kind of cheap political rhetoric that propelled Mr. Blair and Mr. Cameron to office? Ask yourself, is this really a better alternative?

Who commands our respect as Head of State? HM Queen Elizabeth II or Anthony Blair?

It would have the same effect except for the fact that thehead of state is elected.

...then you mis-understand our constitutional system. Our Head of State is non-political, is not influenced by ideology or current events - it is solid, it is always there and as I said earlier; it has kept this country from the kinds of violent revolutions other nations have had.

I merely suggest we change the figurehead, a head of statewho is elected, that is all, everything else will stay the same.

Not at all, once the position of Head of State becomes political it becomes unstable (see history).

I thought you said there was no need to change the system asit’s “one of the best in the world”…

The constitutional system is for sure, the funding of the Monarchy perhaps not.

I have no problem with an elected president living off ourtaxes. I have a problem with someone being born into it though.

So taxation isn't really an issue to you, you just said it in order to bash the Monarchy when you propose to keep that very same status quo.

You complain about the EU as it is run by unelected members,yet you suggest we keep an unelected head of state. Your posts scream hypocrite.

Not at all, you have purposely ignored my points on this. Please see my various references on the European Union being unelected, political and foreign, whereas the Monarchy is non-political and native while unelected.

[Ardemax]

No.

I love the Queen and the guards with the fluffy hats.

I think the legacy our monarchy and stuff has left behind is too great for anyone really to say "off with their wigs!" and destroy what history has essentially created.

[GommeInc]

*snips post*

You are of the opinion the monarchy run the country and make the decisions that are not in the interests of its people. This is entirely wrong, as Undertaker has mentioned countless times, the Monarchy doesn't get involved in politics, they only enact laws passed through the political system - a seal of approval, in a sense The EU and the Monarchy are therefore entirely different - the EU attempts to run a large number of countries in the interests of its citizens (or as reality suggests, in the interests of itself - not the citizens of the member states), while the Monarchy do no such thing as they're politically neutral. So your thread is immediately flawed from the get-go. If your argument was "are they worth the taxes used to pay for them" then you would have an argument, but to suggest the Monarchy run the country is absurb and wrong, as they do not

Also, reflecting on your original post - without the Monarchy, Government would still have "limitless power", they could enact many laws if they were corrupt enough, and in some sense they are as they have created laws which no-one quite knows why. Thankfully, some laws like the Digital Economy Act which was pointlessly created and poorly written, are scrapped or re-written to be less stupid and economically crippling.

[AgnesIO]

You are of the opinion the monarchy run the country and make the decisions that are not in the interests of its people. This is entirely wrong, as Undertaker has mentioned countless times, the Monarchy doesn't get involved in politics, they only enact laws passed through the political system - a seal of approval, in a sense The EU and the Monarchy are therefore entirely different - the EU attempts to run a large number of countries in the interests of its citizens (or as reality suggests, in the interests of itself - not the citizens of the member states), while the Monarchy do no such thing as they're politically neutral. So your thread is immediately flawed from the get-go. If your argument was "are they worth the taxes used to pay for them" then you would have an argument, but to suggest the Monarchy run the country is absurb and wrong, as they do not

Also, reflecting on your original post - without the Monarchy, Government would still have "limitless power", they could enact many laws if they were corrupt enough, and in some sense they are as they have created laws which no-one quite knows why. Thankfully, some laws like the Digital Economy Act which was pointlessly created and poorly written, are scrapped or re-written to be less stupid and economically crippling.

Although they don't really have a say in the laws passed anyway - so they don't really even have to 100% approve haha

[The Don]

You are of the opinion the monarchy run the country and make the decisions that are not in the interests of its people. This is entirely wrong, as Undertaker has mentioned countless times, the Monarchy doesn't get involved in politics, they only enact laws passed through the political system - a seal of approval, in a sense The EU and the Monarchy are therefore entirely different - the EU attempts to run a large number of countries in the interests of its citizens (or as reality suggests, in the interests of itself - not the citizens of the member states), while the Monarchy do no such thing as they're politically neutral. So your thread is immediately flawed from the get-go. If your argument was "are they worth the taxes used to pay for them" then you would have an argument, but to suggest the Monarchy run the country is absurb and wrong, as they do not

Also, reflecting on your original post - without the Monarchy, Government would still have "limitless power", they could enact many laws if they were corrupt enough, and in some sense they are as they have created laws which no-one quite knows why. Thankfully, some laws like the Digital Economy Act which was pointlessly created and poorly written, are scrapped or re-written to be less stupid and economically crippling.

I know the goverment don't run the country, I made the comparison with the EU as dan complained about them being unelected, I complained about the head of state (even if they have little political power) being unelected.

[GommeInc]

I know the goverment don't run the country, I made the comparison with the EU as dan complained about them being unelected, I complained about the head of state (even if they have little political power) being unelected.

They are two completely different things though One is publically funded and declares how much it is worth, while the EU hides its costs in a mysterious black hole. The EU are unelected, indeed, but to nitpick on what Dan says, when we both know what he means, is driving us away from the point.