Britain should dump the monarchy

Originally posted by normbenign
I have no illusions that criminal enterprises take advantage of tax havens as do everyday people. I once considered relocating to the Bahamas to avoid income taxes. Let's face it, nobody I know enjoys paying taxes, and everyone tries to legally minimize what they have to pay. SCOTUS has ruled that criminal enterprises have no duty to report illegal incom ...[text shortened]... al is almost impossible. People routinely break laws they had no idea existed, or should exist.

I see. So we should live without regard for laws then?

Originally posted by finnegan
I see. So we should live without regard for laws then?

I feel that someone with good ethics should be able to stay within the law despite not knowing what the law is. If they cannot then there is a problem with the legal system. Obviously there are technical areas, for example health and safety at work, where this wouldn't be possible as the problems are technical rather than intuitive and someone with good ethics could fail to spot a problem with safety, but in everyday life I feel that if the law makes an ethical person into a criminal through ignorance then it's a bad law.

Originally posted by finnegan
I think the Queen is not benign and not a nullity but in fact a significant obstacle to open, accountable, democratic government. I do not think she is the only obstacle or that her removal would, in itself, open up a democratic and accountable constitution.

Republicans keep coming up with that argument no matter how often it is debunked, but do please stop to consider for a moment: which of these countries are parliamentary monarchies? And which of them are republics? And which of them are consistently ranked at or near the top of lists of most democratic countries, and which well known for corruption in government?

- Denmark
- The Netherlands
- Italy
- The USA
- Norway
- Russia
- Sweden
- Turkey

Of course, the average republican will now lash out with "but just think how much more democratic your country would be if you got rid of that CORRUPT, undemocratic monarchy!!". And provide, once more, no proof whatsoever for this suggestion except more screed of high-minded principle.

(Equally of course, the above does not mean that republics are bad, per se. Finland is in the same league as Sweden and Norway; Saudi Arabia is as bad as Russia. And the 18th century French monarchy was undemocratic. But replacing it with the terreur solved exactly nothing - in fact, it only made things worse.)

Originally posted by DeepThought
One of the difficulties for me with a Presidential system is that one ends up swearing allegiance to an abstraction. I'm rather more comfortable with the concept of swearing allegiance to a person, although since I've never been a member of the military or parliament and am a natural born subject I've never been called on to swear allegiance to the Quee ...[text shortened]... s undermine the point of having a president and swearing allegiance to the office is rather odd.

And when we get down to it, none of those are quite as silly as swearing allegiance to a piece of cloth, as children of an impressionable age are commonly and regularly expected to do in that hot-bed of anti-monarchistic democracy, the USA.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
And when we get down to it, none of those are quite as silly as swearing allegiance to a piece of cloth, as children of an impressionable age are commonly and regularly expected to do in that hot-bed of anti-monarchistic democracy, the USA.

And to the Republic for which it stands

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
And to the Republic for which it stands

But first to the flag. Which is perverse. And making your children swear that oath, when most of them are barely able to understand the ramifications of a promise to clean up their bedrooms, is downright unethical.

Originally posted by finnegan
Ireland has produced some very impressive and enlightened choices as president from a smaller population than Britain has to hand.

It certainly has. But other than looking impressive and enlightened, they don't actually do anything, unless you call declaring bills constitutional a proper job (here's the clue: they've just been passed by two houses of parliament).

Originally posted by Amaurote
It certainly has. But other than looking impressive and enlightened, they don't actually do anything, unless you call declaring bills constitutional a proper job (here's the clue: they've just been passed by two houses of parliament).

Well the USA gives its president seemingly vast powers and yet it turns out they are hobbled when it comes to changing anything that matters.

My observation was, from memory, really confined to the point that it is not necessary or even probable that England / Britain would replace its queen with someone like Boris Johnson (who is such a fabricated personality that he is himself only something like Boris Johnson).

Originally posted by moonbus
This is a spin-off from another thread. The motion: Britain should dump the monarchy and get themselves a president. Reasons for and against, please.

Pro: Countries with presidents know so much better than countries with monarchs how to run things.

Contra: “God save the president” has the wrong number of syllables for the tune.

Pro: England would fi ...[text shortened]... upt.

Pro: Without the royals, the tabloid press would have nothing to report and go bankrupt.

The Royal family should live off their own money, no public purse, I am unhappy paying tax to prop up parasites.

Originally posted by redbadger
The Royal family should live off their own money, no public purse, I am unhappy paying tax to prop up parasites.

They largely do that. They charge for the discharge of public duties. Have you any idea how much money they have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_Westminster

And obviously, you know where and how they earned it. It is a just and natural reward for the number of times their parents had sex with their legal partners instead of the other people they often liked to have sex with.

Originally posted by finnegan
They largely do that. They charge for the discharge of public duties. Have you any idea how much money they have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_Westminster

And obviously, you know where and how they earned it. It is a just and natural reward for the number of times their parents had sex with their legal partners instead of the other people they often liked to have sex with.

£80 million public purse/340million duchy Lancaster/728 million duchy cornwall/1.5 million parliamentary subsidies/her private wealth 400 million/crown estates 8 billion ( estimated) & that is probably the tip of a very large iceberg.

Originally posted by finnegan
They largely do that. They charge for the discharge of public duties. Have you any idea how much money they have?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Grosvenor,_6th_Duke_of_Westminster

And obviously, you know where and how they earned it. It is a just and natural reward for the number of times their parents had sex with their legal partners instead of the other people they often liked to have sex with.

The Queen is the largest landowner in Britain because of the Protestant Reformation.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The Queen is the largest landowner in Britain because of the Protestant Reformation.

Listen, those corgi's need to stretch their paws !