MinDonner Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The revenue argument is weak: it's not as if Buckingham Palace is going anywhere, republic or not. France still has Versailles. Since guillotining the lot of them is a bit of a non-starter these days, moving them to a council house somewhere in Wales would work instead.And like I said, I'm happy enough to keep them around as tourist attractions, I mean we still employ people to dress up as peasants and whatnot on those medieval farm exhibitions etc. But enough with the deference and the pretending that they have some importance to our society; much as I hate Cameron, it was fucking ridiculous that there was this minor scandal when he was marginally disrespectful towards Her Maj, and there's all sorts of nasty secrecy around how much influence those parasites really have over our elected government. Even President Beckham would be preferable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkhangel Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 At least One Direction have a purpose and create something of value. Waving and screaming at Zayn and Harry isn't the same thing as paying obeisance to a centuries old class system which continues to fuck us over to this day, which I assume you knew when posting. We'll have to agree to disagree on the former. As for the latter, I'd say that waving and screaming at a carefully managed boy band manufactured by a multimillionaire entertainment mogul is essentially paying obeisance to the capitalist and corporatist system which actively fucks us over today. I'm not seeing much difference, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex. Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 We'll have to agree to disagree on the former. As for the latter, I'd say that waving and screaming at a carefully managed boy band manufactured by a multimillionaire entertainment mogul is essentially paying obeisance to the capitalist and corporatist system which actively fucks us over today. I'm not seeing much difference, really. Well that's your opinion on One Direction and I'm happy for you. How much money did the state give One Direction to fund their album and tours this past fiscal year? If One Direction reach their diamond jubilee as a band will the PM say we should buy them a boat using state money as congratulations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddington Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The state would also have to pay a president to travel and wave at people in different countries. Also assuming we are electing a President to just shut-up and wave, have the odd big dinner. A president that would hopefully have little real power and be completely non-political. What exactly do we vote on, how well they look? There abillity to wave? How does one canditate distinguish themselves from the other? Security concerns are probably going to be pretty similar, so not a huge saving there, it's unlikely that our president wont be similar to a large amount of our politicians, privately educated and wealthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talleyrand Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The state would also have to pay a president to travel and wave at people in different countries. Also assuming we are electing a President to just shut-up and wave, have the odd big dinner. A president that would hopefully have little real power and be completely non-political. What exactly do we vote on, how well they look? There abillity to wave? How does one canditate distinguish themselves from the other? National lottery, if you win you get a year as president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't think a ceremonial President should be voted on. It might give them ideas about having a democratic mandate. Have them appointed by a 2/3 vote of the House of Commons for one non-renewable five year term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkhangel Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Well that's your opinion on One Direction and I'm happy for you. How much money did the state give One Direction to fund their album and tours this past fiscal year? If One Direction reach their diamond jubilee as a band will the PM say we should buy them a boat using state money as congratulations? Er, just to be clear because you seem to be getting confused, I am in no way suggesting that One Direction should be made head of state. All I'm saying is that doddery old ladies who want to cheer and wave flags at the Queen are as welcome to do so as over-excited teenage girls are to squeal and wave their life-size cardboard cut-outs. It's no better and no worse, just different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The other issue is: who is the best Head of State? The person born and raised for the job, like it or not? Or the person who will do whatever he can, at whatever cost, to get the job? Duty? Or Desire?Think about it ;) The £1.50 or whatever it is it costs me per year to protect us from meglomaniacs taking control is well worth it in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Thought about it: we might as well get rid of any and all elected positions if it just encourages megalomaniacs to do whatever it takes at whatever cost to gain power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lacuna Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The other issue is: who is the best Head of State? The person born and raised for the job, like it or not? Or the person who will do whatever he can, at whatever cost, to get the job? Duty? Or Desire?Think about it ;) The £1.50 or whatever it is it costs me per year to protect us from meglomaniacs taking control is well worth it in my opinion. And this is an argument for retaining a symbolic, figurehead monarch how, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 The revenue argument is weak: it's not as if Buckingham Palace is going anywhere, republic or not. France still has Versailles. Since guillotining the lot of them is a bit of a non-starter these days, moving them to a council house somewhere in Wales would work instead. See I'm not to sure about the arguments, but my understanding is that in the agreement made between the Royals and the Government that in the event the Royals stopped being the Royals the agreement would be broken and Buckngham, as well as all other similar property held in trust, would revert back to private ownship of the no longer royals. And this is an argument for retaining a symbolic, figurehead monarch how, exactly? You don't have to make an argument for retaining the monarch, people who want the change have to make an argument to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lacuna Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 [...] You don't have to make an argument for retaining the monarch, people who want the change have to make an argument to change. Nonetheless, Essan did make an argument, and I disagree with his/her reasoning. For my simplistically expressed view on why the system should change, see my post upthread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Nonetheless, Essan did make an argument, and I disagree with his/her reasoning. For my simplistically expressed view on why the system should change, see my post upthread. Well, Märtha is ... what, fifth in line now? And the oldest of those five? We won't see her crazy ass on the throne (I reckon if there was a chance of her acutally getting the throne, with Ari in the wings, we'd be republican with President Per Sandberg (just kidding) by noon the day after). Haakon Magnus is bland as they come. Don't really care one way or another about him, his wife or his (not yet in the media) children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 What MinDonner said. Also, I'd hate to be expected to act deferential and subservient to, say, princess Märtha Louise, who claims to be able to commune with angels and dead people, plus other supernatural abilities. In and of itself, this is harmless enough, but she now runs a school where she charges money to "teach" others to do the same. :ack: Eh that's not more crazy than a lot of celebrities, some of whom have used claims like that to become famous. But I also dislike the institution for the sake of the people born into it. I wouldn't want to be born into public scrutiny like that, with your life all planned and laid out for you. A problem in a lot of rich and celebrity families. It is backwards thinking, and it's wrong that someone has different legal rights, as well as responsibilities, than others simply due to birth. This argument has my sympathy. Though I'm no actually sure what legal rights of the royals are different. Examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rorshach Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 This argument has my sympathy. Though I'm no actually sure what legal rights of the royals are different. Examples? Now, I already said I don't really care one way or another, but I believe one of the laws is that the king (and I guess the royal family) are not allowed to vote. They are also very careful not to say anything on political issues, as they are meant to be above that sort of thing. I'd go crazy myself if I had to communicate with the media on a daily basis without getting to say what I mean about politcal issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Now, I already said I don't really care one way or another, but I believe one of the laws is that the king (and I guess the royal family) are not allowed to vote. They are also very careful not to say anything on political issues, as they are meant to be above that sort of thing. I'd go crazy myself if I had to communicate with the media on a daily basis without getting to say what I mean about politcal issues! Actually, the Royal Family, including the King, does have the right to vote, by custom they just chose not to. The constitution does forbid the King to partake in parliamentary debates, thus he cannot be elected to parliament. The King himself is above the law according to the Constitution, but if he did break the law, I'm sure that 'they' would find a way to get around that little constitutional detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lacuna Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Eh that's not more crazy than a lot of celebrities, some of whom have used claims like that to become famous. True enough. Doesn't make it right, especially considering that Märtha is supposed to be an official symbol of the Norwegian people, not just a de facto one. A problem in a lot of rich and celebrity families. I'd wager it's easier (although not easy, I grant you) for a celebrity/wealthy couple to shield a child from the media spotlight. A prince or princess doesn't have that luxury - their birth and life thereafter is an official event. And I for one would hate it. This argument has my sympathy. Though I'm no actually sure what legal rights of the royals are different. Examples? The constitution is full of examples. "Article 5: The King’s person is sacred; he cannot be censured or accused. [...]" Link Sorry for derailing the UK & Commonwealth debate here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aemon Stark Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't really care, though the Crown in the abstract is a key constitutional concept in Canada. Essentially the Crown has equal standing in both provinces and the federal Parliament, acting as a sort of unifying legal concept where all Acts are done in right of either the "federal Crown" or the "provincial Crown". However, this system doesn't really require an actual person to serve as a monarch, as the Queen presently has no de facto role in the system, and arguably no real de jure role either. The problems in Canada don't have much to do with the monarchy per se, but with the fact that PMs and premiers can exercise the Royal Prerogative to do a lot of essentially arbitrary stuff (prorogation most infamously in the past few years) that is effectively unconstrained. If the Governor-General weren't simply a position appointed by the PM, this wouldn't necessarily be the case. Consequently I think - at minimum - that Parliament should appoint the GG, perhaps with a super-majority, and perhaps in concert with delegates elected by the provinces and territories in rough (but not absolute) accordance with their population. We can probably leave the Senate out of it. This is essentially how the Federal Convention works in Germany, and I tend to think of Germany as the best working example of a federal parliamentary republic. It's notable that the German Federal President is usually a politician, but doesn't really participate in party politics while in office. The essential problem in Canada is the the GG has considerable - considerable! - reserve powers, but lacks the legitimacy to use them, even when it is fully indicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oberyn Out Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 they earn a small fortune in tourist dollars. This argument is an absolute nonsense. Versailles has more annual visitors than any British tourist attraction, including the Palace in London where you can stand outside and hope for a glimpse of someone who is your social better by virtue of birth getting into a blacked out Range Rover. The Tower of London, which the spongers have long since vacated, also enjoys more visitors than Buckingham Palace. Incase you haven't guessed, I say sack this monument to state funded inequality, and hopefully get rid of all the fawning and deference that goes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lacuna Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well, Märtha is ... what, fifth in line now? And the oldest of those five? We won't see her crazy ass on the throne (I reckon if there was a chance of her acutally getting the throne, with Ari in the wings, we'd be republican with President Per Sandberg (just kidding) by noon the day after). Haakon Magnus is bland as they come. Don't really care one way or another about him, his wife or his (not yet in the media) children. Like it or not, and I don't, Märtha is part of the package. The fortuitous fact that she's fourth in line (according to wiki) must be the only time, by sheer happenstance, that state-sponsored sexism has worked out for the better. (She's the firstborn, but males had primogeniture until a more recent, non-retroactive resolution.) Also, I couldn't reply to your post until this morning. The thought of Per Sandberg as president would have given me nightmares. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.