• Barbados to Remove Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State
    83 replies, posted
Being a Barbadian, I can't believe I only found this out just now, on Facepunch, and not via radio/television. Either way, this is great, but our Prime Minister is going to fucking run our economy into the ground, if he hasn't already. Not completely in the ground, but far enough to make it a complete pile of steaming shit.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49316181]your country worships a fucking piece of paper from the 18th century, we're allowed to have a witch-banshee capable of summoning corgi swarms at will put your constitution and the queen in a room and have them fight, we'll see who wins spoilers: the entity which can't be contained by walls and is capable of dominating small animals with her mind[/QUOTE] our FREEDOM and LIBERTY and JUSTICE can and will beat the shit out of your queen and royal family. AMERICA GOD BLESS THE BEAUTIFUL
[QUOTE=Antlerp;49316363]Now the UK needs to do it too[/QUOTE] Lol no ty. I'd rather have the monarch in place to allow the existence of the Lords to prevent the Commons from being completely retarded.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316576]Except the position still remains part of your government, which really is a waste of time and money considering [I]every[/I] part of the government ought to serve the people instead of maintain a useless position "for tradition's sake". [/QUOTE] While I hate repeating something that I haven't verified myself, the royal family does generate significant money in tourist and other revenue for Britain, and simplifying it down to "muh tradition" is disingenuous and ignores the historical context that has allowed the monarchy to continue where so many other nations have eliminated theirs.
people forget the practical benefits of a constitutional monarchy too when a powerless monarch is head of state, it makes things such as revolutions and civil wars much harder to happen because the monarch isn't to blame for the factors which lead to the civil war/revolution, and because if the get deposed by some radicals or whatever the majority of the population does not see the new revolutionary government as being legitimate. it's a major force for stability and continuity that allows for a system to adapt and evolve to circumstances i know that if britain became a republic i wouldn't see the new head of state as the legitimate one of my country
Why are non brits so hostile towards the monarchy? Are you afraid the redcoats will come again?
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;49316762]Lol no ty. I'd rather have the monarch in place to allow the existence of the Lords to prevent the Commons from being completely retarded.[/QUOTE] So you want a non-elected body to govern over a body of government elected by the people?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316886]So you want a non-elected body to govern over a body of government elected by the people?[/QUOTE] not every position in the country has to be an elected one democracy needn't apply to absolutely every aspect of governance and administration also the commons has ultimately the supreme sovereign power, the house of lords does not govern over it
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49316875]people forget the practical benefits of a constitutional monarchy too when a powerless monarch is head of state, it makes things such as revolutions and civil wars much harder to happen because the monarch isn't to blame for the factors which lead to the civil war/revolution, and because if the get deposed by some radicals or whatever the majority of the population does not see the new revolutionary government as being legitimate. it's a major force for stability and continuity that allows for a system to adapt and evolve to circumstances[/quote] I sincerely doubt the UK will fall into anarchy and revolution if the head of state becomes an electable position. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49316875]i know that if britain became a republic i wouldn't see the new head of state as the legitimate one of my country[/QUOTE] Even if elected by the people of your country? [editline]14th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;49316870]While I hate repeating something that I haven't verified myself, the royal family does generate significant money in tourist and other revenue for Britain, and simplifying it down to "muh tradition" is disingenuous and ignores the historical context that has allowed the monarchy to continue where so many other nations have eliminated theirs.[/QUOTE] The Royal Family doesn't generate anything. The old castles and tourist sites produce revenue. No one goes to the UK as a tourist to have a sit down with a member of the royal family.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316886]So you want a non-elected body to govern over a body of government elected by the people?[/QUOTE] A non-elected body promoted by the current government, filled by specialists in their industry, who have more independent representation than the Commons, allowing for cross-party discussion and bipartisan legislation propositions, and who conduct more effective scrutiny than the Commons. Yeah, sure. I'll go with that.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316895]I sincerely doubt the UK will fall into anarchy and revolution if the head of state becomes an electable position.[/quote] the point is that it makes it less likely to happen in general also it starts to undermine the concept of the UK entirely. if you got rid of the monarchy we wouldn't be the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" anymore [quote]Even if elected by the people of your country?[/QUOTE] yes
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49316894]not every position in the country has to be an elected one democracy needn't apply to absolutely every aspect of governance and administration[/quote] No, not every position - but the person chose as the representation of your country really ought to be chosen by the people. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49316894]also the commons has ultimately the supreme sovereign power, the house of lords does not govern over it[/QUOTE] While that may be, CMB Unit 01 implied otherwise in his post that the House of Lords is to "prevent the Commons from being retarded" which I can only take as the House of Lords obstructing legislation by a body elected by the people of the country.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316895]The Royal Family doesn't generate anything.[/QUOTE] they own various estates and industries whose wealth contributes to the country, and many monarchs have taken an active role in the economic, cultural, social, and political life and development of britain [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316923]No, not every position - but the person chose as the representation of your country really ought to be chosen by the people.[/quote] why? [quote]While that may be, CMB Unit 01 implied otherwise in his post that the House of Lords is to "prevent the Commons from being retarded" which I can only take as the House of Lords obstructing legislation by a body elected by the people of the country.[/QUOTE] the house of lords exists to scrutinize legislation in greater detail (due to it being more nonpartisan) and to prevent passage of questionable bills the lords is also obliged to never block any legislation which is promised in a general manifesto (i.e something the public voted for), they only really block bills which are introduced by the party in question that isnt in the manifesto
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49316922]the point is that it makes it less likely to happen in general also it starts to undermine the concept of the UK entirely. if you got rid of the monarchy we wouldn't be the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" anymore [/QUOTE] With the UK's rich political history of unity over the past 100+ years, I seriously doubt losing the monarchy will result in the dissolving of the country. If your nation's "concept" relies solely on one family of people, then your country [I]really[/I] ought to have fixing that be all the more important.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316939]With the UK's rich political history of unity over the past 100+ years, I seriously doubt losing the monarchy will result in the dissolving of the country. If your nation's "concept" relies solely on one family of people, then your country [I]really[/I] ought to have fixing that be all the more important.[/QUOTE] what does getting rid of the monarchy achieve exactly? yes it weakens the concept of the United Kingdom, but why should we do it? to what end? whose benefit? what is the ultimate point of it? getting rid of it will not help the economy, it won't stop people being discriminated against for being muslim or gay, it's not going to help us win wars or strengthen peacebuilding initiatives, it's not going to to improve diplomatic relations with other countries, it won't make any particular demographic happier, it's not going to make our legal or political system somehow more fair, just, or transparent because the monarchy has virtually no power in these areas. like, why? the monarchy isn't an malevolent force here. we're just as free and prosperous as any american or frenchman
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316923]While that may be, CMB Unit 01 implied otherwise in his post that the House of Lords is to "prevent the Commons from being retarded" which I can only take as the House of Lords obstructing legislation by a body elected by the people of the country.[/QUOTE] The legislative process in the Commons is dominated by the government. 95% of legislation proposed is through government agenda, and the 2nd reading stage when debate occurs over legislation only has enough time to allow for debates on the principles of a bill. Following this, the Public Bill Committees which have to scrutinise the legislation in detail are politically biased in favour of the government, meaning any effective and useful proposals made by the opposition are always blocked. The Lords conduct far more in depth and effective scrutiny of legislation. The stop the Commons from being retarded in that if the principles and clauses of a Bill are deemed in their opinion (based on them being experts in the fields of the proposed legislation, not career-politicians), then they are able to "block" (delay) a bill. This is not permanent. They are able to send their proposed amendments back to the Commons for approval, from which the Commons can either accept or reject them. The Lords can only block legislation for up to two years. That is all. This allows the government and the Commons time to reconsider their proposals, and if they are adamant that they want their version of the Bill, they can invoke the Parliament Act and force it through the Lords. The Lords are some of the best people we can have as a scrutinising body of the work of government, and I would be horrified that they would be removed out of the ignorance of their effectiveness. They are no longer the landed gentry of the past. They are industry experts who offer important insight into legislation, and are more effective at protecting the interests of the general public than those in the Commons, who are bound by government dominance.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49316883]Why are non brits so hostile towards the monarchy? Are you afraid the redcoats will come again?[/QUOTE] It's because this time the French won't be there to win the war for the Americans..
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316886]So you want a non-elected body to govern over a body of government elected by the people?[/QUOTE] The Lords are decent and rounded, they have stopped many ridiculous and stupid things from being passed before, and are largely not aligned with political parties. I don't get your argument, it works for [i]us[/i] so why should we change something. The Royal Family is a tradition, they unite the Kingdom and somewhat the commonwealth with their presence, it's historical, from colonies and territories those countries and the UK have advanced together into the 21st Century, and the Queen embodies that.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49315947]Now for the rest of the former colonies can modernize, too.[/QUOTE] How arrogant to assume that whether or not a country has ties to the crown defines how modern it is. What a conceited statement.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316939]With the UK's rich political history of unity over the past 100+ years, I seriously doubt losing the monarchy will result in the dissolving of the country. If your nation's "concept" relies solely on one family of people, then your country [I]really[/I] ought to have fixing that be all the more important.[/QUOTE] In terms of practical effects on policy, the UK's monarch has roughly the same impact as the pretenders in France and Germany. If the Parliament wastes time to take a crown away from some old lady, she can still just be a pretender to the throne and nothing has changed - except maybe some symbolic gesture towards representative government. If I was a citizen of the UK, I'd put my time into more practical causes that might have some effect on how people live their lives in general. No need to waste time making the small literature professor inside of me happier with symbolism and gestures.
I don't get the argument for "they represent your country, they ought to be elected if they do". we don't elect ambassadors, but they represent the country. why should we elect a head of state?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49317119]I don't get the argument for "they represent your country, they ought to be elected if they do". we don't elect ambassadors, but they represent the country. why should we elect a head of state?[/QUOTE] The fetish of having every single role possible be an elected role has led to wonderful things such as how our judges work in the USA (in addition to that, a lot of other local problems but they depend on each state tbh) Also I don't really see the point of worrying about the British monarchy. Their drain on the budget is incredibly small, and there's other more pressing issues that actually affect people. Getting rid of the queen will just shrink the UK's expenditures by a tiny amount and erode away a chunk of tradition, really not a cause to focus on imo.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316923]No, not every position - but the person chose as the representation of your country really ought to be chosen by the people. While that may be, CMB Unit 01 implied otherwise in his post that the House of Lords is to "prevent the Commons from being retarded" which I can only take as the House of Lords obstructing legislation by a body elected by the people of the country.[/QUOTE] You really think you should be arguing about how great our representative system is right now and how it should be applied to all nations? [img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg[/img_thumb]
I think i can sum up what most people 'under' the rule of crown think in 2 words. So what.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316923]No, not every position - but the person chose as the representation of your country really ought to be chosen by the people. While that may be, CMB Unit 01 implied otherwise in his post that the House of Lords is to "prevent the Commons from being retarded" which I can only take as the House of Lords obstructing legislation by a body elected by the people of the country.[/QUOTE] nah i'm pretty okay with the queen being the head of state and judging by the fact that she has a 90% approval rating, so is everyone else [URL]https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/124/MonarchyRoyal-Family-Trends-Satisfaction-with-the-Queen.aspx?view=wide[/URL] so at this moment in time, it's a utter non-issue because she has a higher approval rating than our own government.
I think Constitutional Monarchy is legitimately the best way of picking a head of state. Look at every state where the the Head of State is elected, half the country likes them and half the country hates them and the office is inherently political. Whilst in a constitutional monarchy, because no-one votes for the head of state everyone likes them, we don't have to spend time or money on pointless elections and we get to have lots of cool ceremony.
The people should determine what government fits best for them.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316895] The Royal Family doesn't generate anything. The old castles and tourist sites produce revenue. No one goes to the UK as a tourist to have a sit down with a member of the royal family.[/QUOTE] Oh, I guess I was just imagining that royal wedding thing that happened a few years ago and generated millions of pounds in merchandising and other revenue.
[QUOTE=The mouse;49317196]I think Constitutional Monarchy is legitimately the best way of picking a head of state. Look at every state where the the Head of State is elected, half the country likes them and half the country hates them and the office is inherently political. Whilst in a constitutional monarchy, because no-one votes for the head of state everyone likes them, we don't have to spend time or money on pointless elections and we get to have lots of cool ceremony.[/QUOTE] ... and you still promote the archaic medieval idea that they are entitled to all of the luxuries and the such, only for being born into the royal family, having ''blue'' blood, making them ''special'' or ''better'' than everyone else. I get that you don't like political bickering, I'm the same, but I'll take it over monarchs every day of the week.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49316542]number of states ruled by the queen in her time as overlord: 32 number of countries ruled by the constitution: 1 (and most of the time you can't even decide what it's saying) checkmate paper-kids[/QUOTE] Number of countries/semi-independent places where the Queen actually matters and is still relevant: 0 Number of countries where the constitution actually matters and is still relevant: 1 OWNED BITCH
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.