Republicanism versus Monarchy in Great Britain

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As for subsidizing the monarchy, this could end without actually getting rid of the monarchy. I think the term is bicycle monarchy. They are ordinary folks born into the role of monarchs, rather than fabulously wealthy folks born into the role. I don't know that much about it though, but it seems it would work.

I agree. I think there are several reforms which could be made to the monarchy without abolishing it, and this is a good one. AFAIK quite a lot of the monarch's family are on the Civil List (I might be wrong about this, though), and I think it could feasibly be restricted to the monarch, his/her consort, and the heir to the throne.

Nice list, Gaffer I can't think of anything to add at the moment...

(RE: Iraq - Blair did hold a vote in Parliament, but I don't think he was actually required to, because one of the powers of royal prerogative is to declare war. Probably not one of those things you'd get away with now though )

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I support the monarchy. However, good arguments for dissolving it are:

a) a democracy needs an elected head of state. The monarchy is hereditary and doesn't take into account an individual's suitability or desire for the job.
b) while the powers of the Crown and the PM remain unfixed except by convention, the slow slide of power towards the (not directly-elected) PM is undemocratic. Royal prerogative is the reason why Tony Blair didn't have to consult Parliament over war with Iraq.
c) the powers of the monarch to dissolve Parliament, give Royal Assent to legislation, etc. should be held by someone with a mandate and checks on their authority.
d) the monarch holding the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England makes separation of church and state impossible, doesn't reflect the range of religions in Britain, discriminates against Catholics (by law, and other religions by convention), and unrealistically imposes a religion on the monarch him/herself.
e) the monarchy is expensive, and we shouldn't subsidise people who were simply born to privilege.
f) it makes Britain look old-fashioned in the eyes of the world, and re-inforces the common belief that we are a class-bound society.

Personally I don't think these arguments outweigh the arguments for a monarchy, but I have sympathy with (b), (d) and (e).

well thank you for that: that to me is an honest and intelligent post: and because you so astutely put forward what you consider GOOD arguments against your position it, on a personal level, makes me have much more respect therefore for your own position! - i.e it must be well thought out at the least

*bit tongue in cheek now* what's wrong with satire though? even if some of it was just plain Silly: weren't the Pythons? - i do not claim any comparison!!! -

c'moN! give us an opposite humourous scenario!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Draken

A brief summary of Britain's one flirtation with Republicanism, in the style of Little Britain's Lou and Andy.

Lou: Right then, which sort of government would you like now?
Andy: That one.
Lou: Well, you've picked out Republic. I don't know if you'll really like that!
Andy: Want that one.
Lou: But you've always said Republicanism in Britain would be an artifice that in sweeping away the traditions of the Magna Carta and the gradual retreat from an absolutist monarchy could well replace them with a populist tyrant...
Andy: Yeah I know.
Lou: So how about a nice Kingdom instead, eh?
Andy: Want THAT one.
Lou: Alright... Republic it is...

(Brief pause while a Republic starts.)

Andy: Don't like it. Want a Constitutional Monarchy with executive powers remaining nominally with a hereditary monarch but the Treasury controlled by an elected parliament.

(Lou looks exasperated)

(End of Republic)

firstly total respect!
for being both extremely funny, original and clever AND making important poltical points ( if i read it right?) through satire and humour!

My whole point all along: a thread that could be both light-hearted AND serious, non overly dogmatic yet thought-provoking!

...er.. am i right in saying you are making a point that actually (after it starts) like the character - he actually doesn't like it?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

slightly O/T, but did you know that david walliams and matt lucas based andy and lou on andy warhol and lou reed?

[Draken]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

...er.. am i right in saying you are making a point that actually (after it starts) like the character - he actually doesn't like it?

Yes indeed, and glad it raised a smile! I think the republic's days were numbered when it banned Christmas, miserable Puritanical b*****s that they were.

LCOU - yup I knew that!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

slightly O/T, but did you know that david walliams and matt lucas based andy and lou on andy warhol and lou reed?

well their earlier sketch of warhol and reid if iam correct: but lets not go there: unless you are saying in some way andy is a monarchist and lou a republican or t'other way round?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Fair enough. Were there any any anti-monarchy arguments I omitted to mention? I didn't include 'it's out of date in our modern world' because I like history and all things ancient (democracy is one of the oldest systems of government, you know ) so personally I never see the age of something as a point against it

also do i greatly admire that which has come before, but just because something is old, does that mean we should keep it? you yourself are using a computer, hardly an ancient invention there? how about lighting your room? do you use a candle or an oil lamp, or perhaps an electric lightbulb, looking back is one thing, holding on to the past like it was some glory filled era, where nothing went wrong is ridiculous, idealism in the extreme

[Draken]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

just because something is old, does that mean we should keep it? you yourself are using a computer, hardly an ancient invention there?

Interesting, as I'm considering starting an Amish-like sect for those that miss the 1980s. We will hold that every form of IT after the ZX Spectrum is unholy and should be shunned. Ditto any computer game other than 'Manic Miner' and very blocky flight simulators.

[The Gaffer]

Count me in. I have yet to find a flight sim game to match Elite. All this swanky graphics and what do we get? The same games recycled again and again with different graphics.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

well thank you for that: that to me is an honest and intelligent post: and because you so astutely put forward what you consider GOOD arguments against your position it, on a personal level, makes me have much more respect therefore for your own position! - i.e it must be well thought out at the least

*bit tongue in cheek now* what's wrong with satire though? even if some of it was just plain Silly: weren't the Pythons? - i do not claim any comparison!!! -

Satire is humour which makes a serious point. That's why Draken is so good at it . Sometimes the Pythons did that, sometimes they didn't.

Originally Posted by LCoU

also do i greatly admire that which has come before, but just because something is old, does that mean we should keep it? you yourself are using a computer, hardly an ancient invention there? how about lighting your room? do you use a candle or an oil lamp, or perhaps an electric lightbulb, looking back is one thing, holding on to the past like it was some glory filled era, where nothing went wrong is ridiculous, idealism in the extreme

How do you decide which bits to keep and which bits to get rid of?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by sunstar

How do you decide which bits to keep and which bits to get rid of?

you keep those which work, and are good, those which are wrong or do not work you discard, unwanted, to the rubbish heap of society

[Draken]

aww you've made me blush now s-s!