[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
Because its functional to keep the executive government home, while sending the queen on state visits and cutting red tape.
She/he just proxies the foreign affairs minister and government. While to the outside world always remaining stable and establishing a brand.
tbh constitutional monarchies are better than presidential systems
a lot of people say it's undemocratic. i mean yeah, this is true, but it also means that the monarchy is not only able to be nonpartisan and impartial, but it actually leads to the expectation that they should be as well
presidents can just spout off whatever old shit they like by contrast
[QUOTE=Cold;50148220]Because its functional to keep the executive government home, while sending the queen on state visits and cutting red tape.
She/he just proxies the foreign affairs minister and government. While to the outside world always remaining stable and establishing a brand.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but to this your average republican will just point out that this is nothing an elected president couldn't do without owning lands and getting as huge amounts of money every year
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;50146917], and arguably aids with tourism..[/QUOTE]
The Queen easily pays for herself with the amount she brings in from tourism. The most recent statistic I found was about £500 million each year.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
Having a powerless monarch as head of state can help with stability. People disagree with and rebel against the government, the head of state stays intact because they haven't and can't do anything to upset the people
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50148268]Yeah but to this your average republican will just point out that this is nothing an elected president couldn't do without owning lands and getting as huge amounts of money every year[/QUOTE]
Its so the president can spend his time running the country rather then directly deal with International affairs and Symbolic duties.
[QUOTE=Britain;50146379]Yeah, well that 'broken' is very subjective. There can be no true democracy with an unelected head of state. Tradition isn't a reason, it's an excuse.[/QUOTE]
For all intents and purposes your head of state is the prime minister, and you elect him.
You're better off spending these resources fixing your broken as fuck election system than trying to boot the royal family.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50148279]Having a powerless monarch as head of state can help with stability. People disagree with and rebel against the government, the head of state stays intact because they haven't and can't do anything to upset the people[/QUOTE]
See how France killed its last monarch and then almost instantly descended into total anarchy with heads flying everywhere and a dictator seizing power within a couple decades.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50148266]tbh constitutional monarchies are better than presidential systems
a lot of people say it's undemocratic. i mean yeah, this is true, but it also means that the monarchy is not only able to be nonpartisan and impartial, but it actually leads to the expectation that they should be as well
presidents can just spout off whatever old shit they like by contrast[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=Cold;50148302]Its so the president can spend his time running the country, rather then show up in zimbabwe for a week to suck some government leader off, and briefly talk about human rights and not have a different person show up 4 years later.[/QUOTE]
There are more types of President than just the American-sort though, if you look at Germany their president has reserve powers, signs things into law, but can't refuse to sign unless they make a case that it is anti-constitutional. In addition to this, they sign foreign treaties and go abroad.
Also, the Queen says plenty of laughablly ineffective human rights babble that never gets anywhere. Just look at the commonwealth, which principal reasons to exist these days seem to boil down to an invitation to the commonwealth games and for the Queen to talk about human rights at the yearly address
I haven't personally decided what I think but I think in traditional monarchist arguments there are plenty of holes. Just about the most compelling reason I've heard is the obligation for the monarchy to be impartial.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50148325]
See how France killed its last monarch and then almost instantly descended into total anarchy with heads flying everywhere and a dictator seizing power within a couple decades.[/QUOTE]
That's absurd. The conditions in 1796 are nothing like those of 2016. The internet, the huge difference in popular thought and the way international politics work mean that the UK would never end up like Napoleonic France. The absolute worst case scenario the UK would face would be some group of die-hard soldiers taking the oath too seriously, leading to a standoff that would probably end peacefully after the case has been made the popular will of the people is to remove the monarchy, legally and effectively invalidating the authority of the monarchy.
[QUOTE=SpartanApples;50148272]The Queen easily pays for herself with the amount she brings in from tourism. The most recent statistic I found was about £500 million each year.[/QUOTE]
Unless that £500 million is from people paying to personally visit the Queen, chances are, most of that income would still be flowing in even without there being a monarch. I did check your source and I was right - it's all mostly from people visiting landmarks - landmarks which would still exist if the monarchy ended tomorrow. I will grant you that, by disposing of the monarchy, tourism revenue could be adversely impacted. But no one ever would visit the UK simply because 'the UK has a Queen', and of spending by tourists on 'culture and heritage', the Queen was only responsible for ~10% of that spending. Even then, tourists only have a finite amount of money but they are going to want the best holiday they can buy - so chances are that money will be spent in other places in the UK instead - such as other parts of culture and heritage.
There are legitimate reasons for keeping the monarchy: It's a part of the UK's heritage, it provides for public unity in a way which could never happen in many other parts of the world, and in theory it can provide a safeguard against malevolent governments - even if that power hasn't been exercised in over three centuries. I don't think 'but tourist revenue' is one of those legitimate reasons.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
What does the current year have to do with it
Monarchs do and will always exist, although we're raised in the doctrine that democracy is the one good way of running a country
a person ruling an entity isn't really a non-time-proof concept
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50148342]There are more types of President than just the American-sort though, if you look at Germany their president has reserve powers, signs things into law, but can't refuse to sign unless they make a case that it is anti-constitutional. In addition to this, they sign foreign treaties and go abroad.
Also, the Queen says plenty of laughablly ineffective human rights babble that never gets anywhere. Just look at the commonwealth, which principal reasons to exist these days seem to boil down to an invitation to the commonwealth games and for the Queen to talk about human rights at the yearly address
I haven't personally decided what I think but I think in traditional monarchist arguments there are plenty of holes. Just about the most compelling reason I've heard is the obligation for the monarchy to be impartial.
That's absurd. The conditions in 1796 are nothing like those of 2016. The internet, the huge difference in popular thought and the way international politics work mean that the UK would never end up like Napoleonic France. The absolute worst case scenario the UK would face would be some group of die-hard soldiers taking the oath too seriously, leading to a standoff that would probably end peacefully after the case has been made the popular will of the people is to remove the monarchy, legally and effectively invalidating the authority of the monarchy.[/QUOTE]
Look at it this way, the King/Queen (legally) isn't responsible for anything that happens in the country. The ruling executive government or president is.
Our prime minister has an absolutely abysmal amount of direct executive power, even in comparison to Germany, but he's still the one who glues everything together, and holds responsibility.
Which is more then enough executive power to rather have him here in the Netherlands, rather then dealing with foreign affairs and symbolic duties.
And all that is still ignoring the brand and stability the queen/king represents.
[QUOTE=sb27;50148384]Unless that £500 million is from people paying to personally visit the Queen, chances are, most of that income would still be flowing in even without there being a monarch. I did check your source and I was right - it's all mostly from people visiting landmarks - landmarks which would still exist if the monarchy ended tomorrow. I will grant you that, by disposing of the monarchy, tourism revenue could be adversely impacted. But no one ever would visit the UK simply because 'the UK has a Queen', and of spending by tourists on 'culture and heritage', the Queen was only responsible for ~10% of that spending. Even then, tourists only have a finite amount of money but they are going to want the best holiday they can buy - so chances are that money will be spent in other places in the UK instead - such as other parts of culture and heritage.
There are legitimate reasons for keeping the monarchy: It's a part of the UK's heritage, it provides for public unity in a way which could never happen in many other parts of the world, and in theory it can provide a safeguard against malevolent governments - even if that power hasn't been exercised in over three centuries. I don't think 'but tourist revenue' is one of those legitimate reasons.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah you're correct in some ways, people don't visit the Queen herself. But there are significant booms in tourism around events like the royal wedding and birthdays, which wouldn't happen if we didn't have a monarchy.
[QUOTE=Saturn V;50148341]what[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here."what" doesn't convey very much information
[QUOTE=Saturn V;50148341]what[/QUOTE]
I think what he's trying to say is because it's an unelected position the monarchy is unlikely to be partial and partisan. Unlike the president, a queen or a king does not go around the country actively campaigning and seeking to promote a political agenda. Unlike the president, they are not controlled by influential lobbyists and would spout whatever bullshit might please them. Queens and kings, with all the financial security and privileges they have, have nothing to gain by going against the democratic institutions like parliament. If they do, it would plunge the country in a constitutional crisis and public pressure would be so high that they would naturally be forced to resign.
So the public expects the monarchy to be impartial and nonpartisan, but for a number of years in Canada (i dont know about UK though) we started to believe that the monarchy should play a role of "check and balance" on the Prime Minister. In other words, If the latter decides to act like a dictator, our queen representative can kick him out and choose the opposite party leader to be PM. But anyway this is just theoretical since no one ever did that.
Parliament is supreme. They have total plenary power.
If they really want to remove the Queen, they just have to pass a law which describes the replacement for the Queen and bang, Queen is no more.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50144936]Good, if only Canada would follow suit, but with the clusterfuck of how our constitution gets amended it'll never happen, largely because of Quebec.[/QUOTE]
Why, its not like the queeny bits do anything except sign whatever paper is pushed in front of them.
Anyways, I've met our current governor general, hes a good guy.
I, as a staunch royalist, also swore an oath to the Queen, she won't be going anywhere :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
