Who said anything about women? You.
The republicanism thread.
- Thread starter Scrug
- Start date
festa5
Well-known member
Why do we need a new system if we do away with the royals? Am I being oversimplistic?
If the role of the monarch is purely symbolic (and in terms of signing off government decisions, acts of parliament etc, it is) then why do we need to replace them with anything?
You could run everything exactly as it is, but without the charade of requiring royal assent. Which hasn't been denied for 100s of years.
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
If the role of the monarch is purely symbolic (and in terms of signing off government decisions, acts of parliament etc, it is) then why do we need to replace them with anything?
You could run everything exactly as it is, but without the charade of requiring royal assent. Which hasn't been denied for 100s of years.
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Let’s look at the facts the entire world ( not a hyperbole) has written about her since her death from putin to biden from macron to merkel and yet not one person had a bad word for her.
That alone speaks volumes.
Now we can debate the office of state but I don’t think you can really argue that the queen served the country to the end.
That alone speaks volumes.
Now we can debate the office of state but I don’t think you can really argue that the queen served the country to the end.
Its the draw on the public purse and the immunity from many things that apply to the rest of us commoners.Why do we need a new system if we do away with the royals? Am I being oversimplistic?
If the role of the monarch is purely symbolic (and in terms of signing off government decisions, acts of parliament etc, it is) then why do we need to replace them with anything?
You could run everything exactly as it is, but without the charade of requiring royal assent. Which hasn't been denied for 100s of years.
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
And as far as being 'purely symbolic'..... that's also part of the point. The notion of being born into superiority and 'upper class' is simply not relevant in a modern society.
NYboro
Well-known member
How did that turn out?
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
Parliament is sovereign. An act removing the monarchy from politics, to assume a figurehead role is all it would need.
The hole could be filled by
Written constitution. Because the unencoded one would be over
Bill of rights
Elected Second chamber
Voting by PR (choice of real one this time)
Yeah, I know, Fantasy Island
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Parliament is not sovereignParliament is sovereign. An act removing the monarchy from politics, to assume a figurehead role is all it would need.
The hole could be filled by
Written constitution. Because the unencoded one would be over
Bill of rights
Elected Second chamber
Voting by PR (choice of real one this time)
Yeah, I know, Fantasy Island
It’s called HM GOVT for a reason.
If the MEMBERS of Parliament vote no confidence in a government, and that government falls.
Parliament has made that decision. Therefore…..
Jedi boro
Well-known member
No as those member swear an oath before they sit in either chamber who is that oath too??
There NO way politically to remove the monarch none, in fact there isn’t even a way to debate removing them.
The crown overrules everything why do you think both boris and Liz went to balmoral even after they were voted out and in respectively.
-
The wording of the oath comes from the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and manner of giving the oath are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.
MPs take the oath by holding the sacred text in their uplifted hand and saying the words of the oath:
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, and I bet they were all tall/ strong and of the same height.
Last thing they wanted was a height or strength disparity, especially with so much carrying (and what they were carrying of course), long distances and up steps etc.
They did it all extremely well, which probably means they were the best lot for the job, well done is all that should be said I suppose.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Because OUR system is the royals. Or rather the monarch.Why do we need a new system if we do away with the royals? Am I being oversimplistic?
If the role of the monarch is purely symbolic (and in terms of signing off government decisions, acts of parliament etc, it is) then why do we need to replace them with anything?
You could run everything exactly as it is, but without the charade of requiring royal assent. Which hasn't been denied for 100s of years.
The answer to "what would you replace it with?" is surely - nothing
festa5
Well-known member
I don't disagree with any of that. Think that's kind of my point. Monarchists arguing we should keep them because there's nothing better to replace them with is nonsensical. Any influence they do have over the governance of this country they're not supposed to have. We don't need them or anything like them in order to run the country.
As far as I can see the only tangible benefit of them is the tourism argument. And that's not clear cut by any stretch.
They seem to play almost a semi-religious role in many people's lives I suppose. Looking up to them as if they are in some way superior just because who their parents are. It's not logical, but then other religions aren't logical. Suppose it makes people feel something though.
So could maybe continue as a charity like other religions then perhaps? If people want to bow and scrape before someone because they speak with a plummy accent and their ancestors did a bit of conquering and murdering back in the day, good luck to them. Not sure why the rest of us should be expected to play along with the farce though.
Andy_W
Well-known member
It's definitely a service too, yeah she was rich and had privilege, but loads of people get that and still have ultimate control over what they're doing. Even people far less well off have a much easier life I expect.
I'd much rather be rich, or even on a middle income, and be able to do what I want rather than have to do what they do every day and deal with what they do, can't imagine it's all that "fun". Can't imagine it's all that rewarding either, as you can't really "earn" anything, and earning things is one of the great joys in life.
All they have is family really, which is great, but friends of similar backgrounds are important too, as are friends with varying backgrounds.
Anything can be changed…if Parliament decided to remove the monarchy from Parliament. He would have to sign the bill.
This how it works in grown up countries. Don’t bother to throw the rise of the Swedish Democrats at me. I’m very aware of it.
Swedish government | sweden.se
Swedish government is built on democracy. The parliament and government have the political power. The monarch has ceremonial functions.
sweden.se
Jedi boro
Well-known member
No it can’t as there is no politicsl means by which we can remove the monarch it simply goes against what the system is.Anything can be changed…if Parliament decided to remove the monarchy from Parliament. She would have to sign the bill.
This how it works in grown up countries. Don’t bother to throw the rise of the Swedish Democrats at me. I’m very aware of it.
Swedish government | sweden.se
Swedish government is built on democracy. The parliament and government have the political power. The monarch has ceremonial functions.sweden.se
Aldo When you commit a crime you are against the monarch/crown not against the state ( ie the people v as in the USA)
Somebody earlier said the monarch is high up the pyramid.
NO The crown is the pyramid.
That’s my point.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
I’m not arguing against that I’m saying that this is our system.
changingman
Well-known member
I was having this very conversation the other day, I think a Venn diagram of those who believe in "a superior being" and monarchists would be interesting.
It definitely plays on the emotional sides of people's minds - when reduced to logical arguments it's difficult to justify.
NYboro
Well-known member
Sadly
That can be changed. Do you deny that is possible?