Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, egg said:

1) What harm does she do?

2) What would be the benefit of not having her?

1) The existence of a monarchy means we do not live in a full democracy. That is a bad thing.

2) Some of the many benefits...

- We would live in a full democracy 

- The UK taxpayer would not need to subsidise the descendants of medieval warlords

- Royal palaces in Republican France make more money from tourism than the royal palaces in the UK. More of the area of them being accessible to the public makes a difference. So a tourism boost to the economy clearly is not a reason to keep the current lot! We'd be better off doing what republican France does!

Posted
2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) The existence of a monarchy means we do not live in a full democracy. That is a bad thing.

2) Some of the many benefits...

- We would live in a full democracy 

- The UK taxpayer would not need to subsidise the descendants of medieval warlords

- Royal palaces in Republican France make more money from tourism than the royal palaces in the UK. More of the area of them being accessible to the public makes a difference. So a tourism boost to the economy clearly is not a reason to keep the current lot! We'd be better off doing what republican France does!

Do us all a favour and fuck off there then

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What do you think I said in that post?

So you can't show me. Thanks for clarifying.

We live in a Democracy where if a political party wanted to stand on an anti monarchy ticket they can, and people can vote for them. There's nowhere near enough appetite for that in this country, hence why our main democratic parties do not include it in their manifestos. 

Funny really, you were quite happy to do the glib "well, if people don't like a particular president they can vote to kick them out" routine.

By exactly the same process of people "voting to kick out" your fictional President, the exact same people can "vote in" a party pledging to bin the monarchy. Easy.

Actual, living Democracy is a right bitch, ain't it?

 

Edited by CB Fry
Posted
1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

So you can't show me. Thanks for clarifying.

We live in a Democracy where if a political party wanted to stand on an anti monarchy ticket they can, and people can vote for them. There's nowhere near enough appetite for that in this country, hence why our main democratic parties do not include it in their manifestos. 

Funny really, you were quite happy to do the glib "well, if people don't like a particular president they can vote to kick them out" routine but less comfortable that in our democratic system there is zero to minimal interest in removing the Queen.

What parties include in their manifestos is part of the process, you understand that, right?

Actual, living Democracy is a right bitch, ain't it?

 

We don't live in a full democracy. The monarch has the power to dissolve parliament,  she has the power to reject changes in legislation, she has the power to appoint ministers,  she can pardon criminals and declare war. Not using those powers does not make the system democratic. It is still not a fully democratic country whilst she holds those powers.

I didn't 'show you' because your post made no sense in relation to what I said!

Posted
30 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) The existence of a monarchy means we do not live in a full democracy. That is a bad thing.

 

Thank fuck for that!  Otherwise there might be the slimmest chance, however unlikely, that YOU could end up as head of state.  Imagine the outcry if that happened :mcinnes:

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Thank fuck for that!  Otherwise there might be the slimmest chance, however unlikely, that YOU could end up as head of state.  Imagine the outcry if that happened :mcinnes:

Please pick which option you'd prefer...

A) MLG is born into the family of descendants of medieval warlords and becomes King and head of state for 50 years

B) MLG is amazingly voted into the role of President and Head of State of a Republic. You have the ability to vote him out after 5 years.

No option C) is available. Pick between A or B only please.

Offer Decide GIF by ABC Network

Edited by Matthew Le God
Posted

Just saw the thread had gone to. 2 pages and thought what the fuck is everyone discussing. All made sense when I saw MLG was on the scene

  • Like 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

We don't live in a full democracy. The monarch has the power to dissolve parliament,  she has the power to reject changes in legislation, she has the power to appoint ministers,  she can pardon criminals and declare war. Not using those powers does not make the system democratic. It is still not a fully democratic country whilst she holds those powers.

I didn't 'show you' because your post made no sense in relation to what I said!

We live in a full, constitutional democracy. If the British people want to change it they simply vote in a party to do just that. 

Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, CB Fry said:

We live in a full, constitutional democracy. If the British people want to change it they simply vote in a party to do just that. 

Just because you don't like it doesn't change that fact.

Do you think an unelected descendant of warlords being able to dissolve parliament, elect ministers and reject changes to laws is q good situation compared to being able to vote out a head of state?

Posted
4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Just saw the thread had gone to. 2 pages and thought what the fuck is everyone discussing. All made sense when I saw MLG was on the scene

It is a thread title about a fictional character 'saving' a descendant of medieval warlords.

Avengers Endgame GIF

Posted
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you think an unelected descendant of warlords being able to dissolve parliament, elect ministers and reject changes to laws is q good situation compared to being able to vote out a head of state?

It's ceremonial power, nothing to get worked up about, unless you're desperate to have things paper correct to reflect reality.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

It's ceremonial power, nothing to get worked up about, unless you're desperate to have things paper correct to reflect reality.

It is not merely ceremonial. She has the power if she wishes to reject laws and appoint ministers. That is not merely ceremonial and it certainly is not democratic. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

It is not merely ceremonial. She has the power if she wishes to reject laws and appoint ministers. That is not merely ceremonial and it certainly is not democratic. 

It's ceremonial, the first time she uses it she's toast. Worry about real things.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you think an unelected descendant of warlords being able to dissolve parliament, elect ministers and reject changes to laws is q good situation compared to being able to vote out a head of state?

No matter how many times you included the words “unelected descendant of warlords” into a post it won’t make you right 

Posted
Just now, Turkish said:

No matter how many times you included the words “unelected descendant of warlords” into a post it won’t make you right 

Is she unelected.... YES

Is she a descendant of medieval warlords... YES

Facts GIF by Judge Jerry

Posted
15 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you think an unelected descendant of warlords being able to dissolve parliament, elect ministers and reject changes to laws is q good situation compared to being able to vote out a head of state?

Mainly what I think is you are an utter prick.

Why don't you go back to doing clever-clever jokes about dead babies.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Fan The Flames said:

They need a facade of power, we want primacy for parliament. This is the win win compromise.

Why are many other countries able to function under an elected head of state in a Republic? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The @CB Fry and @Turkish playbook... unable to answer a question so resort to petty insults.

Petty insults like using the death of a baby to make cheap jokes?

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

The @CB Fry and @Turkish playbook... unable to answer a question so resort to petty insults.

Just because you didn't like the answer, doesn't mean the question wasn't answered.

CB has already pointed out how the monarchy can be dissolved in our democracy.  Amazingly, you don't seem to understand the answer.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Just because you didn't like the answer, doesn't mean the question wasn't answered.

CB has already pointed out how the monarchy can be dissolved in our democracy.  Amazingly, you don't seem to understand the answer.

I asked him a question, his response was to call me a prick. There was no answer in his post!

Posted
7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why are many other countries able to function under an elected head of state in a Republic? 

We function perfectly well as we are, whatever the blood lines of our monarch. How other countries function is irrelevant - a case for change of such magnitude isn't based on comparison with other countries. It's based on need. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why are many other countries able to function under an elected head of state in a Republic? 

There are different ways of running countries, two being Republics and Constutional Monarchies.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I asked him a question, his response was to call me a prick. There was no answer in his post!

I've answered all the questions.

As I've said, we live in a constitutional democracy. The constitution can be changed through democratic means. There is nowhere near enough any appetite for that change. If there was there would be democratic activity to drive that change.

Those are the facts. Twat on and on about fucking warlords as much as you like, it doesn't make you correct.

 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

What has she done to achieve this 'respect'?

What benefit does this respect bring?

In my opinion when the nation has had troubles, the King or Queen has been inspiration and succour. 

As for the French palaces there are more I suspect in France. 

Anyway it is not worth discussing it as you are the most set in the way/mind person there is and so the circles will be keep going around.

I respect your position, but to me the Queen has been a fantastic figurehead for the UK. A person who has massive respect around the world. A lot of time it is envious people who dislike her.

 

Posted
3 hours ago, OldNick said:

It seems to me that the Queen is more respected in the world than she is with some here.

The most powerful people in the world want to sit and have tea, be seen with the Queen. They wouldn't with Corbyn or Boris etc etc. 

 

 

I respect the Queen, I do not respect the anachronistic institution that is the Monarchy.

Posted
2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

- The UK taxpayer would not need to subsidise the descendants of medieval warlords

 

The majority of the country is owned by the descendants of medieval warlords, mostly descendants ofthe Norman nobility.

Posted
2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Do you think an unelected descendant of warlords being able to dissolve parliament, elect ministers and reject changes to laws .........

She can't.

Posted
13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I respect the Queen, I do not respect the anachronistic institution that is the Monarchy.

Are these lines from Monty Pythons Holy Grail 

Posted
2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why are many other countries able to function under an elected head of state in a Republic? 

Personally, we are more stable than many other countries due us having a Monarchy. Something to rally behind during times of crisis. 

 

 

Posted
36 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Personally, we are more stable than many other countries due us having a Monarchy. Something to rally behind during times of crisis. 

How does us having a monarchy make us more stable than France or the USA?

What recent crisis has rallying behind the monarchy helped us in any tangible way?

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, OldNick said:

1) In my opinion when the nation has had troubles, the King or Queen has been inspiration and succour. 

2) As for the French palaces there are more I suspect in France. 

3) Anyway it is not worth discussing it as you are the most set in the way/mind person there is and so the circles will be keep going around.

4) I respect your position, but to me the Queen has been a fantastic figurehead for the UK. A person who has massive respect around the world. A lot of time it is envious people who dislike her.

1) What has the monarchy done in a recent crisis for the benefit of the nation that couldn't be achieved in a Republic?

2) The Palace of Versailles has significantly more annual visitors than Buckingham Palace.

The big difference is without a monarchy living and young these palaces more of the Palace is accessible!

Same applies to other UK and French palaces. And gives France a bigger tourism boost compared to the UK.

3) This is nonsense. I'm open to changing my mind on any topic if the evidence supports doing so.

4) To dismiss critics of the monarchy as merely being 'envious' of her is utterly bizarre. The criticism of the monarchy is due to it being undemocratic and archaic. 

Edited by Matthew Le God
Posted
21 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Reality says otherwise. Of course she isn't going to, but technically she can. So this is an issue of principle. 

Reality says the moment she tried she would be out on her ear.

Posted
1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Reality says the moment she tried she would be out on her ear.

In which case it shouldn't be an issue out of principle to remove those powers from the monarchy. 

Posted
Just now, Matthew Le God said:

In which case it shouldn't be an issue out of principle to remove those powers from the monarchy. 

Stand for election to Parliament on that platform and see how far you get.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Stand for election to Parliament on that platform and see how far you get.

Stranger things have happened...

The Monster Raving Loony party had 'Passports for pets' in their manifesto in 1983.

In 2001 it became government policy!

Edited by Matthew Le God
Posted
4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Thank fuck for that!  Otherwise there might be the slimmest chance, however unlikely, that YOU could end up as head of state.  Imagine the outcry if that happened :mcinnes:

Despite being a life  long republican,  this is making me reconsider.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...