Juan Carlos abdication sparks calls for referendum on Spain's monarchy - Polidicks

[img]http://imgkk.com/i/ngzv.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/king-juan-carlos-spain-protests-referendum-monarchy[/url] [quote]Tens of thousands of people in more than 60 Spanish towns and cities took to the streets on Monday evening to demand a referendum on the future of the monarchy after King Juan Carlos announced his plans to abdicate and hand over power to his son Felipe. Police estimated that more than 20,000 people descended on Madrid's Puerta del Sol square, and thousands more on Barcelona's Catalunya square. Solidarity rallies were also held in 30 cities across Europe and Latin America. The call for a referendum has been bolstered by several online petitions, the most successful of which counts more than 113,000 signatures (and growing), urging Spain's political parties to take advantage of this "historical opportunity to promote a public debate that will help regenerate democracy and determine the future of the monarchy".[/quote]

Get rid of it. It's an utterly ridiculous institution to have in the 21st Century. And Spain doesn't even have the phony tourism excuse that British people use.

Good, hopefully if they win it will make people think twice about blindly defending the monarchy over here in the UK.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44986928]Get rid of it. It's an utterly ridiculous institution to have in the 21st Century. And Spain doesn't even have the phony tourism excuse that British people use.[/QUOTE] idk if you can call it phony if it actually does draw a LOT of tourism [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=NorthernFall;44986939]Good, hopefully if they win it will make people think twice about blindly defending the monarchy over here in the UK.[/QUOTE] why is this an issue? the uk monarchy hasn't done anything wrong

[QUOTE=Kondor;44986950]idk if you can call it phony if it actually does draw a LOT of tourism [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] why is this an issue? the uk monarchy hasn't done anything wrong[/QUOTE] If you actually dig down into prince charles's activity you'd know he's quite a shify piece of shit with his hands in many pies. Also there is never actually any proof for the tourism arguement whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Kondor;44986950]why is this an issue? the uk monarchy hasn't done anything wrong[/QUOTE] Haha really? Even if that were true, the very existence of a monarchy is wrong. But in reality, every monarchy in history has been at the center of oppression and political domination for thousands of years. This is like saying "the Vatican hasn't done anything wrong" because there's a new Pope.

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;44986972]If you actually dig down into prince charles's activity you'd know he's quite a shify piece of shit with his hands in many pies.[/QUOTE] so is pretty much any wealthy land owning brit [editline]3rd June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;44986979]Haha really? Even if that were true, the very existence of a monarchy is wrong. But in reality, every monarchy in history has been at the center of oppression and political domination for thousands of years. This is like saying "the Vatican hasn't done anything wrong" because there's a new Pope.[/QUOTE] trust me on this one i'm 100% sure the british royal family is not a threat to anyone

What's wrong with a monarchy? It's utterly benign, it draws tourists and it has loads of cool pomp and parades and stuff. Certainly better than a benign president.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44986979]Haha really? Even if that were true, the very existence of a monarchy is wrong. But in reality, every monarchy in history has been at the center of oppression and political domination for thousands of years. This is like saying "the Vatican hasn't done anything wrong" because there's a new Pope.[/QUOTE] Modern monarchies do not hold any significant political power. They're basically mascots, good for trade missions and (inter)national events. That's how it is in the Netherlands at least.

[QUOTE=The mouse;44987026]What's wrong with a monarchy? It's utterly benign, it draws tourists and it has loads of cool pomp and parades and stuff. Certainly better than a benign president.[/QUOTE] I don't think tourism is a good enough reason to give privileges to a noble family when you claim to be a democracy.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;44987039]I don't think tourism is a good enough reason to give privileges to a noble family when you claim to be a democracy.[/QUOTE] err what privileges?

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987049]err what privileges?[/QUOTE] Permanent job security as long as you don't royally fuck it up :v:

[QUOTE=Kljunas;44987039]I don't think tourism is a good enough reason to give privileges to a noble family when you claim to be a democracy.[/QUOTE] But the privileges are irrelevant. The Monarchy is more of a cultural and historical icon than anything else. Regardless of whether our head of state is hereditary, the rest of our government is wholly elected and they're the ones that have all the power.

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987049]err what privileges?[/QUOTE] Are you serious? Maybe the privilege to live as a wealthy aristocrat on state subsidy simply because you were born?

[QUOTE=Explosions;44987076]Are you serious? Maybe the privilege to live as a wealthy aristocrat on state subsidy simply because you were born?[/QUOTE] as opposed to the president of the united states? the only difference is that sometimes the person living there changes

You guy's talk as if there's actually support for getting rid of the monarchy in the UK. Which I'm sure some obscure party want's, however if the big parties mentioned anything about it they'd probably lose a lot of support.

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987116]as opposed to the president of the united states? the only difference is that sometimes the person living there changes[/QUOTE] To be fair, the president of the us has actually done something to get in the position Monarchs are cool though

like idk how you can even criticize the "privilege abuse" of the uk monarchy when the united states congress is actually a real thing

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987116]as opposed to the president of the united states? the only difference is that sometimes the person living there changes[/QUOTE] Even if that were the only difference, which it isn't, wouldn't that be a massive fucking improvement anyway? But that's not even close to being "the only difference." Is this a joke of a post? You seriously think all U.S. presidents have just been wealthy aristocrats who were privileged from the moment they were born? Really? Barack Obama, a black person with an absent father and chaotic childhood was privileged from the start? Bill Clinton, son of a traveling salesman who died before he was born was privileged? Give me a break. What are the chances of you ever becoming the head of state of your own country? Zero. Because you happened to be born to the wrong family. Your blood's not magic so you can fuck off and be a subject.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44987173]You seriously think all U.S. presidents have just been wealthy aristocrats who were privileged from the moment they were born[/QUOTE] nah just a lot of them

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987148]like idk how you can even criticize the "privilege abuse" of the uk monarchy when the united states congress is actually a real thing[/QUOTE] This post is completely incoherent. I'm not sure if you even knew what you were trying to say here. What does privilege have to do with the U.S. Congress, a body made up of people who came from even more lowly backgrounds than any president? It's like you wracked your brain for some generic insult at the U.S. because the person you're arguing with happens to live there. Complete nonsense.

yeah had to think really hard about the US congress being run by rich dudes invested in their own agendas maybe it's a generic insult because it's true

How are the US even relevant in this discussion?

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987219]yeah had to think really hard about the US congress being run by rich dudes invested in their own agendas maybe it's a generic insult because it's true[/QUOTE] Lol you can't find a good way to defend a monarchy so you're shouting out completely unrelated garbage about a different problem in a different country. Hilarious.

Most people in the UK are indoctrinated into thinking blind faith in the monarchy is equal to national pride

[QUOTE=NorthernFall;44987245]Most people in the UK are indoctrinated into thinking blind faith in the monarchy is equal to national pride[/QUOTE] indoctrinated? the monarchy was never mentioned in school, we never pledged allegiance to the monarch, the only time we ever saw the queen was during her yearly speech, and why wouldn't you be proud of a cultural and historical part of your country that has been around ever since its origins?

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987271]indoctrinated? the monarchy was never mentioned in school, we never pledged allegiance to the monarch, the only time we ever saw the queen was during her yearly speech, and why wouldn't you be proud of a cultural and historical part of your country that has been around ever since its origins?[/QUOTE] I said this in the earlier thread but I'll say it again. Imagine a world filled with only republics. Imagine someone suggesting the idea of a monarchy in such a world. It would be ridiculous and outlandish. The idea only retains support into the modern age due to both the continued control of the aristocrats in power as well as the more subtle force of nationalism which grants the aristocrats respect and admiration through historical ignorance.

imagine a world of despots, imagine someone suggesting around 1000 people should be in charge of the country, your analogy is bizarre and doesn't mean anything

[QUOTE=Kondor;44987354]imagine a world of despots, imagine someone suggesting around 1000 people should be in charge of the country, your analogy is bizarre and doesn't mean anything[/QUOTE] I don't see what's wrong with 1000 people leading a country provided they were elected and represent their people properly. Sounds like a good plan to me. It sure beats picking a single family to be the permanent rulers because they have magic blood and excluding everyone else from ever possibly filling that position.

The way I see it, countries that have overthrown the monarch such as previous Commonwealth realms have done poorly Fiji, South Africa, Swaziland, Somalia, Kenya etc. Most republics have done great, US, France, Russia, Tunisia, Taiwan/China but tbh I don't really want my government self governing simply because they're fucking retarded (Australia) That Governor General keeps things in check Maybe I'm delusional, but whatever