The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Chit Chat (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/)
-   -   No To Republic (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/no-to-republic-35555.html)

Ryanm 07-29-2013 11:04 AM

No To Republic
 
Are you fed up with those republicans, no to republic has been set up as a counter protest group to the group Republic, we do not ask for money or anything like that, just for your support and a follow on twitter.
https://twitter.com/notorepublic

wyevale 07-29-2013 12:08 PM

'followed'...

Jacknch 07-29-2013 01:01 PM

The only thing that makes me fed-up with the pro-republics/anti-monarchy people is that whenever there is a major royal event, such as a wedding, Jubilee or birth, they're such a miserable bunch of kill-joys who have nothing whatsoever positive, friendly or even nice to say and it does nothing for their cause. There is nothing fun or celebratory about these people and, quite frankly, if the ones I have seen on TV teh last week or so are prime examples of who would run the country in the event of the abolishion of the monarchy, I am quite sure we would all end up having to wear drab blue uniforms, have a grey flag, eat boiled potatoes every day and sing a miserable durge instead of God Save the Queen!
I have been provided with not one single positive reason why we should become a republic, why an elected head-of-state is in any way shape or form more democratic than a monarch, or how they propose to deal with the issue of what to do when we end up with a complete dullard for a president - and "well at least he/she was democratically elected is NOT the answer I am looking for. I'm not waiting 50 years of successive presidential elections to finally get a president I like thank you very much!
How can they guarantee that I will like the president, his/her spouse/children? How can they guarantee that the president will not have sought the positition of head of state for his own political motives or for his own personal gain?
Further, exactly how does the British republic movement propose to replicate the national mood and joy of a major royal events such as the aforementioned weddings, jubilees, births etc?

PrincessKaimi 07-29-2013 10:18 PM

Do all monarchists and all anti-monarchists even share other political points of view? (About, for example, immigration?) I have always seen the monarchists, in particular, as rather a diverse group.

COUNTESS 07-29-2013 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Homme (Post 1583482)
Anti-monarchists just have a massive inferiority complex. The few I've met are a thoroughly miserable lot. Their so called movement has nothing to do with wanting a better country, as we would be far worse off without our Royal Family. What they want is to destroy what is left of Britain and all it's magnificent pomp and ceremony. Kill-joys indeed.

And *followed* as well.

Very strange point of view. As an American, I say good for you, if you all want this, but your Royal Family in many instances is a rum bunch and the waste is inordinate. Please, don't tell me how it costs 25 cents, it cost much more, but the sales pitch is good. The pomp etc. comes at a great cost, I know, 25 cents, but it is fun to watch and since I am not paying for it, enjoy.

Osipi 07-29-2013 10:57 PM

I had to shudder as I thought of the possibility that with the Royal Family being abolished in favor of a democratically elected head of state with all the hoopla of an election every four years with those skyrocketing costs of campaigns, the mudslinging and vapid promises, the Daily Mail and other rags would have a field day ripping people apart on a level never seen before. :eek:

COUNTESS 07-29-2013 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1583683)
I had to shudder as I thought of the possibility that with the Royal Family being abolished in favor of a democratically elected head of state with all the hoopla of an election every four years with those skyrocketing costs of campaigns, the mudslinging and vapid promises, the Daily Mail and other rags would have a field day ripping people apart on a level never seen before. :eek:

You have that, now. How do you get government? Where do your members of Parliament come from? They do not run against others. Prime Minsters? Now, you pay for a family, good, bad and most of the time indifferent, no one can express an opinion about them, they are stuck. And costs, I know 25 cents, the best Tom Foolery in the world. And the have no real responsibilities, except waving. Don't tell me how they labor at ribbon cutting. Ask yourself what decisions and people they must deal with, outside the diplomatic occasions. And best still they support themselves with the lands their forebears took from the people, with jewels purloined from colonies. Crown property. No taxes between sovereigns, very ingenious. Tons of money never taxed, and making the very, very rich, very richer.

Osipi 07-29-2013 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS (Post 1583687)
You have that, now. How do you get government? Where do your members of Parliament come from? They do not run against others. Prime Minsters? Now, you pay for a family, good, bad and most of the time indifferent, no one can express an opinion about them, they are stuck. And costs, I know 25 cents, the best Tom Foolery in the world. And the have no real responsibilities, except waving. Don't tell me how they labor at ribbon cutting. Ask yourself what decisions and people they must deal with, outside the diplomatic occasions. And best still they support themselves with the lands their forebears took from the people, with jewels purloined from colonies. Crown property. No taxes between sovereigns, very ingenious. Tons of money never taxed, and making the very, very rich, very richer.

All I was trying to put out there is that without the Queen as an apolitical head of state, an election would have to be held for the Big Cheese spot and to be honest, its a time here in the US that I do not enjoy. I just really kind of like the idea that the head of state represents not only the people but ALL the people and not a political party or political platform. The House of Windsor may be an old, wealthy family but its one family that really isn't associated with power or influence on the government. Even with a republic, they'd still be an old, wealthy family.

No government is 100% perfect and as long as there's more than one person on this earth, there'll never be one.

PrincessKaimi 07-30-2013 12:00 AM

The Queen is not the equivalent of a President. She does not run an executive branch nor make foreign policy (and a host of other differences).

Ish 07-30-2013 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi (Post 1583702)
The Queen is not the equivalent of a President. She does not run an executive branch nor make foreign policy (and a host of other differences).

In some ways she is, in other ways she's not.

The Queen is the head of state. In that sense she is the equivalent of a president.

At the same time, the Queen is an apolitical being and the functions of office that would be carried out by a president are more or less carried out by a Prime Minister. In that sense, the PM is the equivalent of a president.

vkrish 07-30-2013 01:29 AM

All this confusion and clash because people compare the position of the British Head of State with US Head of State. They are same in none but name.
The British position is mostly similar to that of India, where the Prime Minister is the real boss, and the president is the "supposed boss". Here the President becomes completely apolitical and is strictly a symbolic figure, though he has all the "powers" that a British monarch has. There is a great chance of electing eminent individuals who have contributed immensely in various fields to the post of President. We have done so in the past, and will do it hopefully in future.
The CONS: since the election of President is mostly dependant on the ruling party (and opposition's mercy,sometimes), there is always a chance of some stooges occupying the highest seat..
But then I feel next to having a RF, this system is the best thing..
I always wonder why Austalia/Canada/etc. ect dont go for this. But then I am not familiar with their forms of government..

Iluvbertie 07-30-2013 01:35 AM

Australia's system is very very similar to that of the UK - replacing The Queen with the GG who is chosen by the PM and appointed by the Queen.

We had a vote in 1999 to have a president chosen by 2/3 majority of the parliament and that was defeated. The powers of the president were to remain the same as those of the GG today.

We may revisit the issue again after The Queen dies - but as the republicans can't actually agree on how to choose the president we may still have difficulties getting a republic as we need an agreed model to put to the Australian people.

vkrish 07-30-2013 01:48 AM

Nope. I am asking about how the GG is elected..If its like India's President (all members of both houses of Parliament, all State Assemblies, practically every elected representative is part of Electoral College, which elects the President).
Because I have read somewhere that the reason for delaying republic (even in the referendum) in Australia is not due to specific wish for Queen's reign, but due to lack of consensus on the proposed republic model.. I dont know how far its true, though.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises