As a Scots Nationalist, I do not see the need for the monarchy, I think they are archaic and of no use in the modern world.
While we're on the theme...
1. Queen Elizabeth II is not the correct title there has never been a Queen Elizabeth in Scotland.
2. My "British" passport relays the fact that I am a British Citizen but the Queen is the head of state, monarchies do not have citizens they have subjects.
AS a Tory, I'm a great supporter of the Monarchy and the House of Lords.
Total democraties are the regimes which are among the most likely to turn into extremist regimes. People can easily get carried away with their emotions, as history has shown us. Look at Germany in '36, France during the previous elections when Le Pen got through to the final round, etc. Granted, this isn't an absolute statement, as monarchies can fall into extremism as well, but we stand a better chance of remaining balance if we have:
1) A House of Commons, 100% elected by the people, to carry out the people's Will and curb the excesses of the Monarchy
AND
2) A mainly appointed House of Lords to limit the sometimes rash behaviour of the people. Let's be having none of this "second elected chamber" nonesense, as it would effectively make the second chamber pointless.
I can see why people don't feel the need for a Monarchy, but let's get 1 or 2 of the most common objections out of the way first.
1) "The Royals are lazy money-grabbers. Why should I spend my hard-earned cash whilst they do damn all?"
> The Monarchy cost us just under £1 each during the Queen's Jubilee year, which is peanuts when you think of all the work they do:
The Queen & Royal Consort: hundreds of State visits (like having 2 PMs for international affairs, but without the gaffes...except for Prince Philip, who's sense of humour is nothing short of brilliant)
Prince Charles: inner-cities work, Kew Gardens, The Prince's Trust, lobbying for a return to organic and local produce.
Princes William and Harry: both Second-Lieutenants in the Blues and Royals, one having served as a JTAC in Afghanistan, the other about to start active service as a helicopter pilot running Air & Sea Rescue missions with the Royal Navy (following in Prince Andrew's footsteps).
To mention but a few things done. These are already great examples.
2) "Who are these people? I didn't vote for 'em!"
> I'm willing to bet you any money that you didn't vote for our current P.M. either, did you? Furthermore, how many PMs do you know who were trained in diplomacy since they were born?
3) "The Crown doesn't have any real power any more, so what's the point?"
> That's our own fault, actually, so we can hardly hold it against them.
I've got plenty more arguments, but that should do for starters.
Oh, just one more, if ever you find yourself in the position where a French friend says that the Monarchy is riduclous, just point out that their Head of State is Nicolas Sarkozy, and could have even been Ségolène Royale, France's pre-emptive version of Sarah Palin.
My "British" passport relays the fact that I am a British Citizen but the Queen is the head of state, monarchies do not have citizens they have subjects.
I've always found that stupid, as well.
However, without wanting to offend, do you think that you would feel the same about monarchies if Scotland had remained independant and kept it's own Crown?
My "British" passport relays the fact that I am a British Citizen but the Queen is the head of state, monarchies do not have citizens they have subjects.
I've always found that stupid, as well.
However, without wanting to offend, do you think that you would feel the same about monarchies if Scotland had remained independant and kept it's own Crown?
That is a very good point!! and one which I'm afraid I can't honestly answer. I'd like to think I'm totally against the monarchy but...
2) "Who are these people? I didn't vote for 'em!"
> I'm willing to bet you any money that you didn't vote for our current P.M. either, did you? Furthermore, how many PMs do you know who were trained in diplomacy since they were born?
No we didn't vote for them but we did vote for their party and their parties policies
3) "The Crown doesn't have any real power any more, so what's the point?"
> That's our own fault, actually, so we can hardly hold it against them.
Would you give absolute power to just one person ? At least the house of commons has representatives from each of the parties which means even if they are not in total power they still have a say in how the country is run
No we didn't vote for them but we did vote for their party and their parties policies
But one would expect the party, when theopinion polls are heavily against them, to have the guts to say: "here's our new candidate, what do you think?", especially as the Brown Bounce would probably have given them a victory.
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
Would you give absolute power to just one person ? At least the house of commons has representatives from each of the parties which means even if they are not in total power they still have a say in how the country is run
No, I wouldn't let one person have all the power, as I stated that it's good that we have a House of Commons that does the majority of the executive and legislative functions, but we could let the Corwn have a bit more real power, rather than theoretical power. Some laws and treaties, especially those which potentially affect Sovereignty, should be possible to be vetoed by the Crown. The Queen could refuse to sign them, but then would probably just have that power removed by the Commons.
On the other note, I can imagine that I wouldn't had these opinions if I were French, as I've seen how the French education system (which I have been in since the age of 6) promotes Republican values, and this is evidently stronger when the family has those values too...so tricky question.
There's a similiar system in Ireland, The President is the head of state but it's more of a figurehead... though all laws and such have to be signed by the President to be put into place. There's also the Senate, The Oireachtas (sp?), and the Dail (Government) of which the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is the leader.
I really need to research it and find out how it all fits together.
btw I was once told that even though the government had put some law in place back in the 90's to do with abortion,The President of the time refused to sign it, forcing serious ammendments and a referendum.
I'll look into it later it's too late/early just now.
Dubz
Ps, Nice debate and thanks for reminding me I really have to look into the workings of the Irish Government.
There's a similiar system in Ireland, The President is the head of state but it's more of a figurehead... though all laws and such have to be signed by the President to be put into place. There's also the Senate, The Oireachtas (sp?), and the Dail (Government) of which the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is the leader.
I believe it is (or was, not sure if it's still the case) the same sort of thing in Germany, albeit their P.M. equivalent is the Chancellor. It'd be good if someone could clarify it (he says, having shared a flat with a German girl for a year and not remembered have of what she said in her many lectures of the German system).
When Finland gained its independence the original idea was to have a king. A suitable prince had already been invited from Germany to do the job, a crown and a throne had been made, and then the parliament decided we don't need a king, after all. So now we have a president, whose position is changing, powers gradually cut so, that eventually the president will be more like the German president, mainly a figurehead. The Prime Minister has more power and is the head of the government. The parliament approves the laws, even though the president still has a right to veto at the moment.
I like the kind on monarchy there is for example in Britain and Sweden, where the royal family's main purpose is to market the country and they have no real power. Finns are obsessed with both sets of the royal families mentioned, so obviously they have their uses for the image of the country and PR purposes.
I'm totally for the monarchy. At least I'm for the Danish monarchy where the royal family is immensely popular. I don't know how much they cost per citizen per year, but I do know that creating the same PR without a royal family would be about 10 times as expensive as the costs of having our royal family.
Then of course I'm not being objective since I come from a town with a royal castle used as summer residence :o)
There was a good show on about Prince Charles this week, did anyone see it? I have to say I was impressed by the amount of work and commitment Charles puts into his charity work, with the Princes Trust etc. Without him having such a public figure, and such a draw with top businesses & public figures, a lot of the good work he does wouldn't get done. I'm kinda easing off on the monarchy. As long as they don't interfere too much and aren't too much of a money drain compared to what they bring in, then lets keep them. It gives the country a bit of prestige that I don't think you'd have otherwise
Now if only the cunts wouuld give us our crown back........
AAAARGH, the board just KILLED MY POST!
I didn't click anything!
argh argh argh.
Ok, I'll give you the short version now.
German system:
- Germany's a Federal Republic, we have a parliamentary system
we have:
- a president (in theory, he's head of state and part of the executive power, but in fact he's more a "representative" figure. basically, what he does is either putting a signature on a law or "appointing" people who've been elected by other organs)
- a chancellor (P.M.-equivalent, but not necessarily head of a political party) and ministers, who together form the Federal Government (=executive power)
- the Federal Parliament ("Bundestag") and the Federal Assembly ("Bundesrat") (=legislative power)
- the Federal Constitutional Court (=judiciary power)
And some details for those who are very very veeery interested:
The President:
- is, in theory, the head of state and in his office he has to be neutral in terms of political parties.
- is elected by a Federal Convention (consisting of all the members of the Federal Parliament, plus the same number of representatives from the 16 Federal Lands. It’s only job is to come together every five years and elect a new President.). he can be re-elected once.
- appoints the chancellor and all the ministers, and also dismisses them, but only after the federal diet (German Bundestag) has made the decision itself.
- represents Germany and signs contracts that the Federal Republic makes with other states
- has to sign new laws to make them valid and check if they’ve been passed in a correct process. If he thinks something went wrong in the legislation process, he can put in a veto.
- every signature of the president has to be countersigned by the chancellor or the responsible minister
- he has to make new laws public
- in some cases, he can dissolve the German Bundestag
The Chancellor and the government
- the chancellor is elected by the Bundestag, right after the election of the Bundestag by the people, every 4 years. (Every party elects their candidate before the elections and bases their campaign on him/her. I won’t go into details here because explaining the electoral system in English would take me waaay to long)
- he/she does not have to be a member of the Bundestag
- after he/she has been appointed by the Bundestag, and after the president has given his approval (see above), the chancellor puts together his “cabinet” and appoints one of the ministers as his Vice Chancellor (usually it’s the foreign minister, but there’s no rule).
Together they form the Federal Government (=highest executive power)
German Bundestag (“Federal Diet”)
- Is the highest legislative organ and the representation of the people. It’s elected every 4 years by the people in “general, direct, free, equal and secret” elections (at the moment there are 614 representatives, 598 by rule and 16 because of special cases in our electoral system).
- It’s the legislative power of the state, it controls the executive power, and in times of trouble it decides whether Germany has to defend itself or not.
- it can only be dissolved by the president after the chancellor has recommended doing so because he’s lost a “vote of confidence” (this happened 3 times, last time in 2005 under chancellor Schröder. afterwards, there were new elections and with the result of the “great coalition” under Angela Merkel)
Ok I won’t go into details about the federal assembly (it consists of representatives from the federal lands and has to give its approval on certain laws, e.g. all laws concerning budget).
This is way to long and I’m sure I could explain it better in German ;)
There's a similiar system in Ireland, The President is the head of state but it's more of a figurehead... though all laws and such have to be signed by the President to be put into place. There's also the Senate, The Oireachtas (sp?), and the Dail (Government) of which the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) is the leader.
I believe it is (or was, not sure if it's still the case) the same sort of thing in Germany, albeit their P.M. equivalent is the Chancellor. It'd be good if someone could clarify it (he says, having shared a flat with a German girl for a year and not remembered have of what she said in her many lectures of the German system).
I agree; good debate.
#
see my explanations above ;)
I think I'll write down some of your arguments, they might come in useful in my exams :)
