The republicanism thread.

The queen did devote her life to serving this country wether you are pro or anti you can’t deny that. Meeting the PM 2 days before she died.

So I don’t think you can argue that.

The bigger question or the only one that matters now is that comes next.
 
Jedi boro said:
I’m all for reform but sadly all it will be is turn this country into the X factor.

President boris ???
Click to expand...
but this is such a weak argument on so many levels.
a) There is no guarantee that you won't end up with a monarch as corrupt as Johnson. In fact we have had monarchs as corrupt as him and will again.
b) Johnson is no longer PM because his corruption had consequences, there are no consequences for the corruption of a royal as head of state, in fact there are many protections to stop their corruption being public knowledge
c) you can't vote out the monarch, you can vote out a corrupt PM

All you've done by bringing Johnson into this is highlight why monarchy is so dangerous, you can't make the corrupt ones accountable and you can't get rid of them, you are stuck with a Johnson-esque sociopath for their lifespan. We see what that looks like in Saudi Arabia for example
 
BoroMart said:
I don't disagree with your reform suggestions, however it's incorrect to say that that both side currently keep to their side of the bargain, 1,036 laws at least have been modified by the last monarch, they aren't apolitical, they've also become massively wealthier in recent years through influence, avoidance of taxes and other laws etc. that is taking advantage of their position.

Extra jobs is only part of it, distribution of wealth is important, you can't distribute wealth in a system where one family gets to horde it. The fact that charles and cohorts didnt pay a penny of inheritance tax is disgraceful, and that it happened during a cost of living crisis shows the unfairness of hereditary power in all it's greed and ugliness.

I agree that politics have to change, but the representation of aristocracy in our system of government is ludicrously over represented. The royals, about half the tories and much of the house of lords are aristocrats, making and breaking the laws in our country for their personal benefit.....and we only get to influence one of those three legs of law making.
Click to expand...
All good points and I dont disagree with any of them, but fundamentally we need reform in other areas before we can even consider becoming a republic
 
Jedi boro said:
The queen did devote her life to serving this country wether you are pro or anti you can’t deny that. Meeting the PM 2 days before she died.

So I don’t think you can argue that.

The bigger question or the only one that matters now is that comes next.
Click to expand...
Of course you can, I don't agree she served us, she followed protocols and historical precedent but she served her families wealth. If she had used her time in power to push through new shelters for the homeless, or funded cancer research institutes, or lobbied for more social housing for the most poor in society, or got involved in providing better education services for all our children, then yes, you'd have a point. But she didn't do any of that, she simply wore a billion pound hat, met the PM, cut some ribbons, ate some cake, travelled the world in luxury and watched the horses.
 
Ironops said:
All good points and I dont disagree with any of them, but fundamentally we need reform in other areas before we can even consider becoming a republic
Click to expand...
that's probably true, because it would create a power vacuum for the Murdochs of this world to exploit.......first order of duty would be to get the press under control.
 
BoroMart said:
If she had used her time in power to push through new shelters for the homeless, or funded cancer research institutes, or lobbied for more social housing for the most poor in society, or got involved in providing better education services for all our children, then yes, you'd have a point. But she didn't do any of that,
Click to expand...
“or lobbied”

So you don’t want her to be political then ??
 
2019 election. When a party gains 48 seats, giving them an 80 seat majority with only 43.6% of the popular vote. The system is not working.
 
zzzzz said:
Pathetic time to start the debate. Would the same lack of respect be shown on the morning of anyone else's funeral?
As someone who is pretty much ambivalent about the rest of the Royals still kicking about you do you argument no good by raising it then.
Probably just trolling anyway, again.
Click to expand...

That’s your opinion, I don’t think there’s a better time to have it. The funeral was over, the monarchy is at the forefront of everyone’s thinking. Why not?
 
Jedi boro said:
“or lobbied”

So you don’t want her to be political then ??
Click to expand...
Nope, I don't agree with political positions by birthright. My point is that she didn't serve us, as serving us would come with political consequences. Because RWNJs think that providing shelters to battered housewives is socialism and they should look after themselves.
 
All the talk of charles sliming down the monarchy, is absolutely bogus. His objective its trim the role of minor royals whilst strengthening his own hand and protecting his wealth, he wont give away a penny of his own assets. Really the government should initiate reforms to the likes of the crown estates and say this is no longer your sole asset it belongs to the country, carry on ruling but we will have some of our money back your ancestor's stole thanks very much.
 
exiledinboro said:
That’s because we don’t have all the runners up forming the government

Neither will change anytime soon so we might as well deal with what we have rather than disagree on things that won’t change
Click to expand...
do you know what guarentees that nothing will change? Not talking about the things you want to change
 
I'd be up for slimming down the Royal Family, and modernising it. As soon as the line of accession changes down a level, then some of the upper levels should vanish. We shouldn't be seeing anything of the rest, at any time, and they shouldn't be there for public events. So for me, it should just now be Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and their nippers. No need for Edward, Andrew, Anne or any of their descendants to be anywhere near the place, and Harry's largely took that decision on himself, so fair play to him.
Of course, though, they are family, so things like yesterday should be shorter for the public, and give the family more time to do their own thing, out of the public eye. If my grandma died (or great grandma) and I had to go through that all day, before the private part I'd have hated it.

They should have no say in-laws (not that they do much nowadays), and elected MP's/ PM's etc shouldn't have to go to the royal family for box-ticking approval.

I'm not against them living in big houses and having wealth or denying our history (the good bits or bad bits), but their day-to-day living should be provided for by pre-existing legal wealth, the tourism it brings, not the taxpayer, and they should have to pay the same taxes as anyone else, they should end up with less and less over time.

I expect that tourism will drop (after a short boost), as the monarch won't have been there anywhere near as long to build up that constant/ always been there feel, and with that dropping so will support for the monarchy I think. You can see it already, people were all for the queen, without question, but not for Charles, it doesn't make any sense for royalists to think this way (but some do), but makes sense for those who don't care that much, or those outside the UK.

I'd possibly disband the commonwealth, I don't really see the need for it.

I don't think those in line to the throne should be kept out of doing normal "work", they need to see what it's like for the public, otherwise, it's completely unreliable. Doing visits doesn't tick this box, as wherever they go the whole place changes in preparation, all they see is a false version of reality.

We could probably do with putting an age cap on who is king/ queen too, they get looked after so well that they largely live long beyond the average person, and thus become a bit outdated. I'd rather have someone who had spent the majority of their life in more modern times, might make them a little more relatable to younger people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top