Barbados to Remove Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State
83 replies, posted
So many great, loyal subjects in this thread.
Wonder what it's like being a subject.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;49318199]So many great, loyal subjects in this thread.
Wonder what it's like being a subject.[/QUOTE]
Better than being obese
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;49318199]So many great, loyal subjects in this thread.
Wonder what it's like being a subject.[/QUOTE]
Wonder what it's like pledging allegiance blindly to a flag regardless of said flag's foreign policy
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;49318335]Wonder what it's like pledging allegiance blindly to a flag regardless of said flag's foreign policy[/QUOTE]
Legally you aren't required to do that.
[QUOTE=Griffster26;49318423]Legally you aren't required to do that.[/QUOTE]
Subjects aren't required to be subjects, they can choose not to be -as we see.
[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
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]
which is why I want Australia to still keep the Queen, also the Westminister system makes sense, I can understand Canadian politics with ease, same goes for New Zealand. Hell even reading into South Africa politics is easy as well since they use an offshoot version of the Westminister system, just adapted in a way that allows the President to be involved
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;49318199]So many great, loyal subjects in this thread.
Wonder what it's like being a subject.[/QUOTE]
*Commonwealth citizens
Subjects was discontinued in the 80's because countries that retained the powerless monarchy didn't like being called British Subjects so they said instead that we are simply citizens, like you, but we all belong to one commonwealth
[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".
[editline]14th December 2015[/editline]
The United Kingdom is going to be a sinking ship, politically, if everyone honestly sees the only possible other version for a republic is the US system.
If you don't like the US system, try another republican system. They're not cookie-cutter and all uniform in organization.[/QUOTE]
Have you ever heard the term "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Removing the monarchy would achieve nothing positive.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;49316685]yeah but your calf skin hasn't empowered a tiny old lady with the wrath of untold numbers of tiny dogs.
nothing can best the wrath of tiny dogs.[/QUOTE]
we have the eagles on our side
[t]http://www.hd-wallpapersdownload.com/upload/eagle-wallpaper/american-eagles-pics.jpg[/t]
and even tolkien knew, eagles always win
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;49318538]which is why I want Australia to still keep the Queen, also the Westminister system makes sense, I can understand Canadian politics with ease, same goes for New Zealand. Hell even reading into South Africa politics is easy as well since they use an offshoot version of the Westminister system, just adapted in a way that allows the President to be involved
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
*Commonwealth citizens
Subjects was discontinued in the 80's because countries that retained the powerless monarchy didn't like being called British Subjects so they said instead that we are simply citizens, like you, but we all belong to one commonwealth[/QUOTE]
For Americans, its just weird (and kinda funny tbh) to see "commonwealth citizens" defend an institution based on shit we know you don't believe in. We know you don't believe there is anything special about the royal blood that grants them rule by god. Or whatever the shit is.
The idea that you can't get to the highest position in the country by default because of your circumstances of birth is just such a foreign idea. People say that the monarch doesn't have a lot of power, but they still do on the books. I think the monarchy knows not to fiddle in politics and use their power nowadays because it'd lead to their demise.
Why are we even arguing?
The U.S. Constitution and legal system were based mostly off of the English Bill of Rights, and most of the voting suffrage and subsequent reforms in British Law were partially inspired by Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and later governmental reforms. It's a two way flow of ideas.
Point is, we both have well written government guidelines that have been periodically updated, rather than starting from scratch after every social upheaval.
It's better to have a several hundred year old document gradually revised through two dozen amendments than to keep writing two dozen amendments every year.
How many governments have countries like France, Germany, or the Slavic nations gone through since the 18th century? It's certainly not one continuous government operating under the same documents and judicial systems that's for sure.
Monarchy threads are just gun control threads in reverse
I'd rather keep an unelected representative of the crown as a Head of State rather than make it an electable position. At least the current HoS is, in theory, non-partisan. Make it electable and it just becomes another venue for parties to sling mud at each other.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;49317554]... 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]
No-one is arguing for divine right of kings, even monarchists think that's a dumb argument. I'm just arguing that by having a clearly defined and unchangeable line of succession for a benign head of state is by far the best way of picking one.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;49318816]For Americans, its just weird (and kinda funny tbh) to see "commonwealth citizens" defend an institution based on shit we know you don't believe in. We know you don't believe there is anything special about the royal blood that grants them rule by god. Or whatever the shit is.
The idea that you can't get to the highest position in the country by default because of your circumstances of birth is just such a foreign idea. People say that the monarch doesn't have a lot of power, but they still do on the books. I think the monarchy knows not to fiddle in politics and use their power nowadays because it'd lead to their demise.[/QUOTE]
Where do people get this royal blood idea from, nobody cares about that.
And time be honest yes it's alien to you but it's fine and dandy for the rest of us thank you.
Not worth raiding and pillaging Barbados if it isn't controlled by Britain anymore.
No fun allowed for Scandinavia :(
Having a head of state that isn't determined through an election is great in my opinion. On New Year's eve two speeches are transmitted on DR1 and over the radio (I think) - one from our monarch, and one from out Prime minister. When the prime minister is speaking, just about half can probably get behind him/her, but when the monarch is speaking they really kinda are speaking for the entire country, because they're not a political force as such.
Having an electable monarch would be the most pointless excercise, not to mention it would take away all of the 'pomp and circumstance' of Royalty.
Personally, I feel that the monarch is fantastic and it would be tragic for us to to lose it. Although I am well aware many others feel differently.
[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)
[/QUOTE]
Not quite that imbalanced, however.
Cuba (briefly), Panama, Phillipines, Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Puerto Rico.
The latter four are still American territories or de-facto territories, with defense and social services managed by the US.
If we're being pedantic we could include all 50 states.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49316895]
The Royal Family doesn't generate anything.
[/QUOTE]
They generate a shitton of tourism income and serve as cultural diplomats. At least, the Danish royal family does and they excell at it. Your statement is ignorant and stupid.
ITT: Lot of kids unable/unwilling to comprehend that a constitutional monarchy isn't actually an old fashioned "All hail the king" monarchy. It's 50% for show and 50% for cultural/diplomatic endeavors.
[editline]15th December 2015[/editline]
[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]
That's actually a solid point. Our elections aren't as focused on Prime Ministers as the American one is on their President. It's more about the seats than the head in this case. That and pluralistic party system really results in more capable governments. Think of it this way: American conversations about politics are always about what the government doesn't do, but should do. Northern European politics conversations are more about what's gonna happen WHEN the government DOES something.
I know someone who isn't getting a Christmas card this year.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49321184]Having a head of state that isn't determined through an election is great in my opinion. On New Year's eve two speeches are transmitted on DR1 and over the radio (I think) - one from our monarch, and one from out Prime minister. When the prime minister is speaking, just about half can probably get behind him/her, but when the monarch is speaking they really kinda are speaking for the entire country, because they're not a political force as such.[/QUOTE]
still, no one could ever be monarch if he's not born in the single lucky family.
nepotism that crass is contrary to all our enlightened western values.
i do get it, you find solace in kings and queens, but when studied thoroughly, they are absurd remnant from the past.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;49328417]still, no one could ever be monarch if he's not born in the single lucky family.
nepotism that crass is contrary to all our enlightened western values.
i do get it, you find solace in kings and queens, but when studied thoroughly, they are absurd remnant from the past.[/QUOTE]
Lots of things are absurd: our attachment to pieces of cloth (flags), certain songs (anthems), types of food and drink (tea/fish & chips). Just because it is tradition, irrational or remnants from the past doesn't mean we shouldn't respect them.
Also: hierarchy exists in every society, atleast we're explicit about it and control it through a constitution.
Queen makes mad pennies from tourist money and doesn't really get in the way of much important, why would we want to get rid of her?
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49317173]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]
so at this moment in time, it's a utter non-issue because she has a higher approval rating than our own government.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, it's really hard to make unpopular decisions when you do fuck-all decision making
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.