Monarchy or Republic

[-:Undertaker:-]

(Royal Coat of Arms & Commonwealth Flag of which the monarchy rules over (most countries of the Commonwealth)

Our Queen, Queen Elizabeth II has ruled since 1952. Our monarchy is a constitional monarchy and is not elected. The monarch of the day holds the power to dissolve parliament & appoint anyone Prime Minister of the country and Commonwealth nations.

Our monarchy of the United Kingdom came into existance when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into being in 1801, replacing the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. In recent years, mostly the 1990's the monarchy became rather unpopular due to the whole Princess Diana fiasco but in recent years has become more popular than unpopular.

Extra information
Unbiased sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy
Biased in favour of monarchy: http://www.royal.gov.uk/
Biased in favour of a republic: http://www.republic.org.uk/

The question is, do you believe we should move onto a Presidential Republic and dissolve the monarchy, or should we keep the monarchy? - This discussion can apply to people from Commonwealth countries aswell, I think it will be interesting to see what people think about the monarchy.

Thread moved by Garion (Assistant Forum Manager): From "Current Affairs" as it is essentially a debate.

[Jordy]

I've always liked having a Monarchy as it is but the thing with President's is they have ever so much power, far more than our current Prime Minister. I suppose the Monarchy do 'in theory' have a lot of power, they're the top positions in the armed forces and can pick and control a government but until they start using these powers I'll continue to support the Monarchy.

As for the Monarchy controlling the Commonwealth I think that's very unlikely, if the Monarchy started interfereing with countries in the Commonwealth they'd just choose to break-away. I think we'll see the Commonwealth fall in our lifetime (It means very little as it is anyway).

[-:Undertaker:-]

I support the monarchy simply because it has worked and kept our country one of the most stable countries in Europe and the world for hundreds, nearly a thousand years with about 2 major changes in that time, the fall of Harold in 1066 and the rise and fall of Cromwell. I think monarchy should stay and I think the majority of people who don't support it are people who tend to be socialist and believe that it is a case of state/rich/powerful vs the people which is just communist propaganda.

[alexxxxx]

Monarchy, yes. It's a very important placement. I'd like to think the Monarchy would sack the government if something seriously bad happened within it?

However, how can you support UKIP and Conservatives at the same time? Conservatives support the existance and britain's membership of the EU, whilst UKIP are against it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Monarchy, yes. It's a very important placement. I'd like to think the Monarchy would sack the government if something seriously bad happened within it?

However, how can you support UKIP and Conservatives at the same time? Conservatives support the existance and britain's membership of the EU, whilst UKIP are against it?

Yes the Queen can dissolve the government if something awful occurs, such as a state of emergency/a power struggle. I can support both, as I know there are many parts of the Conservative Party which would want a full withdrawal from the European Union. Realistically I know UKIP is many years away from potentially gaining power, so therefore as I support most of the Conservative policies, I would like the Conservatives to gain power over Labour.

To support a party you do not have to agree with everything it stands for.

[Browney]

I support monarchy to keep reminding us of our (sometimes not so) rich past.

[Technologic]

Constitutional monarchies allow power to be spread out more, in Republics the power often falls upon the president who can pass laws without the consent of the rest of the government...

Constituional monarchy is better

[alexxxxx]

all about the EU mate - our economy would be alot worse if we didn't have the EU or common market, though i can understand why people don't like how some laws are being implemented europe-wide.

I'm very pro-eu, but i think it's not democratic enough. What I like about the conservatives is that they're pro-euro reform, but i have issues about other things. Our largest export/import partner is with the EU, if we were to leave, our goods could be put under tariffs and taxes, which means even more jobs lost.

[-:Undertaker:-]

all about the EU mate - our economy would be alot worse if we didn't have the EU or common market, though i can understand why people don't like how some laws are being implemented europe-wide.

I'm very pro-eu, but i think it's not democratic enough. What I like about the conservatives is that they're pro-euro reform, but i have issues about other things. Our largest export/import partner is with the EU, if we were to leave, our goods could be put under tariffs and taxes, which means even more jobs lost.

The orginal purpose of the EU for easier trade relations was good idea. However, now it is biased and has a strong left-wing influence in it, as you said it has become very undemocratic and personally I think it is the biggest waste of money possible.

In a global world nowadays, a trade organisation such as the EU is no longer needed, so our economy wouldn't have all of these restrictions of agriculture and fishing which would mean a stronger economy for our country.

What started off as a post-war trade organisation for a war torn europe has now turned into a unelected, buracratic and biased union which most people would at least like a say on, whether or not they support it.

[alexxxxx]

The orginal purpose of the EU for easier trade relations was good idea. However, now it is biased and has a strong left-wing influence in it, as you said it has become very undemocratic and personally I think it is the biggest waste of money possible.

In a global world nowadays, a trade organisation such as the EU is no longer needed, so our economy wouldn't have all of these restrictions of agriculture and fishing which would mean a stronger economy for our country.

What started off as a post-war trade organisation for a war torn europe has now turned into a unelected, buracratic and biased union which most people would at least like a say on, whether or not they support it.

I personally believe a free-trade organisation is still required, for example, the united states wish to employ protectionist practices during this economic crisis, the same done here would devastate the whole of Europe and prolong a recession.

It is left-wing because the majority of European nations are left-wing, including this one. Agricultural restrictions are there to protect jobs, so is fishing. Without CAP subsidies, no farmers would be able to earn a living a wage, without fishing quotas, there would soon be no fish left in the sea.

Unelected is just not true, it is elected, the european parliament is a vital part of how the European Union works, and the other house in Brussels is filled with people sent from an elected government in this country. Though it would be nicer if the second house was more democratically appointed, and i believe a president elected by the people would be a good addition (this was actually a clause in the Lisbon Treaty).