18 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Seitse[/i][/b]
At the theoretical level a lot of things may happen, yet they
don't. As for swearing an oath, that happens in all the countries:
Elected politicians swear alliegence to the Constitution or the flag, i.e.
most Latin American countries. Those are, for practical matters,
also symbols.
I would agree with this struggle [b]IF the Queen had
a [i]de jure erms, seems like trying to ban movies with nudity
in hardcore catholic countries, for example
I have given a concrete example where this theoretical power of the monarch had a significant influence in UK politics. Someone else has given an example where the queen's representative actually usurped the democratic wishes of the people of Australia.
This is more than symbolic.
There is a world of difference between swearing an oath of allegience to a flag or a constitution and swearing allegience to a person who's power is based on some kind of heriditary favour from their imaginary friend.
18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeIf you want to take the struggle to that field, then you must
[/i]
I have given a concrete example where this theoretical power of the monarch had a significant influence in UK politics. Someone else has given an example where the queen's representative actually usurped the democratic wishes of the people of Australia.
This is more than symbolic.
There is a world of difference between swearing an oath of all ...[text shortened]... o a person who's power is based on some kind of heriditary favour from their imaginary friend.[/b]
accept that the imaginary friend is solely your opinion
and you may be wrong, because you must accept that there
are also people that may think that God really gave the
royals the power. Pure logic. Therefore, it is ridiculous to
discuss monarchy in the U.K. other than in the field of symbolism.
As for the veto power, which is the only significant power left,
it's many years since the power was used. Costume is
construing a de facto reality which, by the way, is
reality itself. The only one that matters. Do you get this?
Facts. The rest is nonsense.
Then again, that is typical of developed societies. When they
climb in the Maslow pyramid, and reach certain level of security
and comfort, they start protecting the blue whales in the other
side of the world or fighting for the traffic signals to have
boobs so the traffic signlas are not chauvinist (i.e. Sweden).
Same thing with the anti-monarchy movement in the U.K.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseYour posts are getting more and more difficult to comprehend, but I think I get the general idea....
If you want to take the struggle to that field, then you must
accept that the imaginary friend is solely your opinion
and you may be wrong, because you must accept that there
are also people that may think that God really gave the
royals the power. Pure logic. Therefore, it is ridiculous to
discuss monarchy in the U.K. other than in the field of ...[text shortened]... las are not chauvinist (i.e. Sweden).
Same thing with the anti-monarchy movement in the U.K.
I'm not debating whether the monarch's imaginary friend exists. I'm saying that it is undemocratic to have to swear allegience to a monarch who's power supposedly comes from an imaginary friend we don't all believe in.
I don't get what you are saying about the veto power. 'Costume'? Do you mean 'custom'?
If so, then I've aleady cited cases, in reality, where the monarch had an influence, in their own interests, on two separate states. One by the use of their veto, one by its threat. This is reality.
18 Sep 06
Here is an example on how the times and de facto
power and costume supersede the non-important
de jure situations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3066673.stm
Patience. If the monarchy is to disappear, then the society itself
will erode it. Making quixotesque efforts to do so is wasting time.
The wheel of legal change has a great logic when it comes
to reflection of reality in the letter of law.
18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikePerhaps I am debating in terms of legal theory and that is unfair.
Your posts are getting more and more difficult to comprehend, but I think I get the general idea....
I'm not debating whether the monarch's imaginary friend exists. I'm saying that it is undemocratic to have to swear allegience to a monarch who's power supposedly comes from an imaginary friend we don't all believe in.
I don't get what you are saying a wo separate states. One by the use of their veto, one by its threat. This is reality.
It boils down to: It is not used thus it is not important
in juridical terms thus its value is somewhere else
And according to the latter rationale, monarchy is a paper
threat to democracy, not a real one.
Also read my post above w/link.
Edit. Sorry for the costume thing. Although I consider
my English pretty good, it will never be my mother tongue.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseReally, I think you mean 'custom', not 'costume'.
Here is an example on how the times and de facto
power and costume supersede the non-important
de jure situations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3066673.stm
Patience. If the monarchy is to disappear, then the society itself
will erode it. Making quixotesque efforts to do so is wasting time.
The wheel of legal change has a great logic when it comes
to reflection of reality in the letter of law.
I'm not sure what your point is about the bbc link. It is a July 2003 report on a set of proposals for some changes to the monarchy. None of which were ever implemented, as far as I know.
I'm also not sure what you think are 'quixotesque efforts'.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseIt is not that I don't understand your posts (albeit with a bit of lateral thinking involved), it is that I do not agree with you.
Perhaps I am debating in terms of legal theory and that is unfair.
It boils down to: It is not used [b]thus it is not important
in juridical terms thus its value is somewhere else
And according to the latter rationale, monarchy is a paper
threat to democracy, not a real one.
Also read my post above w/link.
Edit. S ...[text shortened]... tume[/i] thing. Although I consider
my English pretty good, it will never be my mother tongue.[/b]
I do not accept that the monarch's right of veto is not used, and I have given examples to demonstrate this.
Therefore I do not accept that it is not important.
18 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by RedmikeIn terms of the U.K.'s democratic life, in which place
It is not that I don't understand your posts (albeit with a bit of lateral thinking involved), it is that I do not agree with you.
I do not accept that the monarch's right of veto is not used, and I have given examples to demonstrate this.
Therefore I do not accept that it is not important.
would you rank the monarchy as a threat?
The link is an example as how things can change naturally
when such is the social trend. Things that are not
crucial for the life of a society change like that.
Those which are really crucial, change in a drastic,
revolutionary manner.
I just think that there are other threats for democracy that are
far more real than the monarchy, i.e. mega-corporate power
and the dictatorship of the financial markets.
And I do think monarchy unites people and gives them a sense of
belonging, which many countries lack, unlike the U.K.
If they were more than a symbol, I would fight against them.
Edit. I also don't think the examples provided are enough frequent
and important in order to call that power a real threat to democracy.
Though, then again, it is a matter of perception.
In Central America, I've seen (first hand) democracies
demolished due to real threats (corruption, flawed or tricky
legislation, real legal intertwine between branches of power,
militarization, juridification, granting of factual and juridical
powers to trade associations, etc.), maybe that's why I
see British monarchy as a symbolic figure.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeBetter the intervention of a monarch whose powers of 'veto' are restricted to expressing disappoval rather than the one-man-band dictatorship of the communist party and its uncouth representatives.
It is not that I don't understand your posts (albeit with a bit of lateral thinking involved), it is that I do not agree with you.
I do not accept that the monarch's right of veto is not used, and I have given examples to demonstrate this.
Therefore I do not accept that it is not important.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseThat's fair enough. I do not think that the monarchy is the biggest threat to the UK's democracy. There are many other things more important - not least the break up of the UK.
In terms of the U.K.'s democratic life, in which place
would you rank the monarchy as a threat?
The link is an example as how things can change naturally
when such is the social trend. Things that are not
crucial for the life of a society change like that.
Those which are really crucial, change in a drastic,
revolutionary manner.
I just think tha ...[text shortened]... o trade associations, etc.), maybe that's why I
see British monarchy as a symbolic figure.
I don't see you link is an example of how things could change naturally - it is a 3-year old story of a proposal for some changes to how the monarchy works. I'd support all of these proposals, but none were ever taken any further.
I also agree that sometimes changing things more slowly can be more effective than sharp, radical change - the concept of 'boiling a frog'.
Abolition of the monarchy is not a priority to me - not least because I expect Scotland to be out of the UK soon enough. This doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI am not even from a country member of the commonwealth,
That's fair enough. I do not think that the monarchy is the biggest threat to the UK's democracy. There are many other things more important - not least the break up of the UK.
I don't see you link is an example of how things could change naturally - it is a 3-year old story of a proposal for some changes to how the monarchy works. I'd support all of thes ...[text shortened]... otland to be out of the UK soon enough. This doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it.
thus it does not affect me beyond a mere ideological level. I
dislike monarchies myself, yet I do not see British monarchy
as a real monarchy per se.
As for the link, the fact that proposals are made (even if they are
not immediately translated into reality) speaks of how time and
real usage change unimportat (or not so important) things. That
was the intention of the link. I could not imagine a proposal like
that 200 or 300 years ago.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by RedmikeWhat a joke you are. A democratic communist? Surely a contradiction in terms.
That's fair enough. I do not think that the monarchy is the biggest threat to the UK's democracy. There are many other things more important - not least the break up of the UK.
I don't see you link is an example of how things could change naturally - it is a 3-year old story of a proposal for some changes to how the monarchy works. I'd support all of thes ...[text shortened]... otland to be out of the UK soon enough. This doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it.
Lenin,Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et al were all communists like you and were no more interested in democracy than was Hitler.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseWell, I'm not sure what makes a 'real' monarchy, but this bunch of unelected money-grabbing parasites are real enough to us. Sure, they're not absolute monarchs as still exist in some places, but we are still expected to bow and curtsey in her presence, we are still expected to believe she is more favoured by 'god' than the rest of us, we are expected to believe that this is because of who she is descended from, and we are expected at accept this gives them the right to interfere in our democracy.
I am not even from a country member of the commonwealth,
thus it does not affect me beyond a mere ideological level. I
dislike monarchies myself, yet I do not see British monarchy
as a real monarchy per se.
As for the link, the fact that proposals are made (even if they are
not immediately translated into reality) speaks of how time and
real u ...[text shortened]...
was the intention of the link. I could not imagine a proposal like
that 200 or 300 years ago.
Of course there have been proposals to change the monarchy, and the fact that the authors didn't get beheaded is progress of sorts. Still, none of the proposals were implemented.
18 Sep 06
Originally posted by SeitseRedmike is a Glaswegian armchair ( or pub) communist who advocates a dictatorship run by the sort of specimens who compose the Scottish Socialist Party.
I am not even from a country member of the commonwealth,
thus it does not affect me beyond a mere ideological level. I
dislike monarchies myself, yet I do not see British monarchy
as a real monarchy per se.
As for the link, the fact that proposals are made (even if they are
not immediately translated into reality) speaks of how time and
real u ...[text shortened]...
was the intention of the link. I could not imagine a proposal like
that 200 or 300 years ago.
18 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeYeah, I meant absolute monarchy as real monarchy.
Well, I'm not sure what makes a 'real' monarchy, but this bunch of unelected money-grabbing parasites are real enough to us. Sure, they're not absolute monarchs as still exist in some places, but we are still expected to bow and curtsey in her presence, we are still expected to believe she is more favoured by 'god' than the rest of us, we are expected to bel ...[text shortened]... didn't get beheaded is progress of sorts. Still, none of the proposals were implemented.
Interesting point: If the Queen is legally disempowered,
would you accept her existence as a mere symbol? (astronomic
budget included)
Is there a recent nation-wide poll on sympathy regarding the
royalty? (I see no other way of demonstrating that they
at least serve as a source of social cohesion and national pride)
Well, if not, then they should loose the veto power and remain
as touristic attraction maybe. They built many of the things tourists go
and visit these days. Sort of a gratitude thing for the
construction of the attractions that currently exists nowadays.