United Kingdom or United Republic

Smidgey · 14-12-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tito

Smidgey, while I share your concerns over the unelected monarchy, consider this.

It is not the unelected part, per say.

Quote:

Democracy, as a tool to elect leaders, is imposing the tyranny of the majority onto the minorities. This isn't good.
Democracy as a tool to elect administrators is very good.

Indeed.

Quote:

I despise our elected leader, it is not possible for me to like an unelected leader any less.

I believe in a semi-elected monarch. As follows

Monarch is chosen by accident of birth, parliament votes on the monarchs accession to the throne. New monarch is now monarch for life, who can only be removed from office by majority vote in parliament and a national referendum (extremely unlikely)
The monarch should still be powerless though. A figurehead and head of state at present, but also a sworn defender of liberties. The monarch should be allowed to highlight injustices in laws against a written constitution. The monarch should be given the power to put such proposals through a supreme court style institution, if it is deemed constitutional the monarch could offer the public a referendum.
Parliament, and the prime minister, should not be as high profile as they are today. Instead they should be the administrators of the state, not the leaders of the state. Servants, not rulers. The monarch should be the figurehead of the people, keeping the people's administrators in line.

It would not only keep, and polish up, the historic institution of monarchy. But it would also provide a difficult hurdle for a would-be elected fascist to overcome. A monarch with such a role is likely to have an enormously high approval rating. If we had such a system now it would be the wakeup call the apathetic people need. Imagine the Queen coming on television now and saying that the government has gone too far and pointing out the erosion of liberties, the Labour government wouldn't last until the end of the week.[/quote]

I see nothing wrong with protecting liberties and a written, legally binding, constitution (I am a libertarian afterall - which is why I cannot support such institutionalised corruption). I just think that a head of state with the power of veto to be far more useful. I also dislike the celebrity cult that the monarchy is associated with.

rjt · 15-12-2007, 07:26 AM

I support the status quo and I would point out that HMQ already has very high approval ratings, I do not want to see a monarch involved in politics in any way.

noachian · 15-12-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

I support the status quo and I would point out that HMQ already has very high approval ratings, I do not want to see a monarch involved in politics in any way.

Yes, thats exactly why Her Maj has high approval rating; because she doesn't interfere with the Government. HOWEVER I believe if things were to get really bad then it is in Her best interests and duty to provide her subjects with security and therefore would not alow anthing or anybody to hinder or effect this. If a case of some political crisis were to accure I think there would be no better or more experienced person to fix it. For instance in 1974 after the febuary elections; Labour came out with 301 seat, six more than the Tories BUT the Tories won the Majoirty vote. Therefore it was the Queen's Constitutional duty to whip out her emergancy powers and sort the problem out

noachian · 15-12-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

The europhiles want to destroy all ancient British institutions - including The Crown.

They want a puppet President - who does what the EU tells him/her to do - to be Head of State of the UK.

exaclty right Britannist, a President would be nothing more than a puppet, Her Majesty has far to much experience with Government to be manipulated. 11 Prime Ministers and 55 years of Sovreignity LONG MAY IT LAST!!

Smidgey · 15-12-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

exaclty right Britannist, a President would be nothing more than a puppet, Her Majesty has far to much experience with Government to be manipulated. 11 Prime Ministers and 55 years of Sovreignity LONG MAY IT LAST!!

I think signing every single piece of legislation this government has brought forward is a good example of manipulation...

At least if someone had the power of veto we could hope that at least one or two pieces of legislation would have been stopped.

I don't understand why so many people have so much support for such an impotent political body...

noachian · 15-12-2007, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

I think signing every single piece of legislation this government has brought forward is a good example of manipulation...

At least if someone had the power of veto we could hope that at least one or two pieces of legislation would have been stopped.

I don't understand why so many people have so much support for such an impotent political body...

Quite agreeable Smidgey, it is minipulation that HMQ is practially forced to sign every single piece of legislation. She is too worried being dissliked by her people for interfereing with politics if she were to intrevene. However the Monarchy largley is not about vetoing and legislation passing, it is about unity, looking to somebody above peatty political arguments, somebody to reprisent us in the world as our Head of State who's family has done the same for our country for a thousand years, somebody who hasn't got corrupt political schemes or isn't elected by some reigeme. No matter, Smidgey, of your view of the Monarchy, she still reprisents you as a Briton and thats what the Monarchy will always do

as Antisithenes said "A King's lot: to do good and be damned." meaning its a Monarch's duty to do the right thing but be damned and hated for it. A famous Scrubs episode said "Thats what a good leader is, giving the people somebody to hate by doing the right thing." Her Majesty might seem undemocratic, it might seem old fashioned, elitist and 'unfair' but the fact is, is that this is GReat Britain, this is who we are, this makes us what and who we are. I hope one day you will realise that we need the Monarchy, whether for the Emergancy Powers or just to wave a Union Flag at uniting the Country in peace for a Jubilee or Commonwealth Day

Smidgey · 15-12-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

Quite agreeable Smidgey, it is minipulation that HMQ is practially forced to sign every single piece of legislation. She is too worried being dissliked by her people for interfereing with politics if she were to intrevene.

So she is selfish? If I were prime minister I would be happy to garner some dislike as long as what I was doing was something in favour of liberty.

Quote:

However the Monarchy largley is not about vetoing and legislation passing, it is about unity, looking to somebody above peatty political arguments, somebody to reprisent us in the world as our Head of State who's family has done the same for our country for a thousand years, somebody who hasn't got corrupt political schemes or isn't elected by some reigeme.

So it is about collectivism then? If this is your argument, it makes me want it even less...

I would also not take pride in the record of her family - tyrants and murderers, many who should have been stripped of power and placed in prison cells. The fact that anyone could have respect for someone like Henry VIII or George III is morally disgusting.

Quote:

No matter, Smidgey, of your view of the Monarchy, she still reprisents you as a Briton and thats what the Monarchy will always do

as Antisithenes said "A King's lot: to do good and be damned." meaning its a Monarch's duty to do the right thing but be damned and hated for it.

If its their duty to do the right thing then why on earth have they signed all that legislation? It seems if that was the duty, she is acting against it!

I don't care if she 'represents' me (which is clearly does not, since she doesn't hold my views). Gordon Brown supposedly 'represents' me too. The idea that we can have representatives who are chosen by birth or who are chosen by tyranny of the majority (democracy) is naive and absurd.

Quote:

A famous Scrubs episode said "Thats what a good leader is, giving the people somebody to hate by doing the right thing." Her Majesty might seem undemocratic, it might seem old fashioned, elitist and 'unfair' but the fact is, is that this is GReat Britain, this is who we are, this makes us what and who we are.

Don't dare tarnish me with your sick collectivist ideology. I am what I make myself, not because some person wearing a funny hat lives five hundred miles away from me. I am not part of some collective, some uniting body. I am an individual who is free to make their own decisions and create their own lot in life. The fact that government uses violence and force to steal from us or to force certain ideologies upon us does not change this - the moral law is still the greatest guiding compass and no matter how many church leaders, governments or groups continue to deny the moral law does not make it false. People who do so reveal their own immorality in the process.

Quote:

I hope one day you will realise that we need the Monarchy, whether for the Emergancy Powers or just to wave a Union Flag at uniting the Country in peace for a Jubilee or Commonwealth Day

I need monarchy like I need a brain tumor...

I have no need for this sizeable government and I have no need for your collectivism.

noachian · 15-12-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

So she is selfish? If I were prime minister I would be happy to garner some dislike as long as what I was doing was something in favour of liberty.

So it is about collectivism then? If this is your argument, it makes me want it even less...

I would also not take pride in the record of her family - tyrants and murderers, many who should have been stripped of power and placed in prison cells. The fact that anyone could have respect for someone like Henry VIII or George III is morally disgusting.

If its their duty to do the right thing then why on earth have they signed all that legislation? It seems if that was the duty, she is acting against it!

I don't care if she 'represents' me (which is clearly does not, since she doesn't hold my views). Gordon Brown supposedly 'represents' me too. The idea that we can have representatives who are chosen by birth or who are chosen by tyranny of the majority (democracy) is naive and absurd.

Don't dare tarnish me with your sick collectivist ideology. I am what I make myself, not because some person wearing a funny hat lives five hundred miles away from me. I am not part of some collective, some uniting body. I am an individual who is free to make their own decisions and create their own lot in life. The fact that government uses violence and force to steal from us or to force certain ideologies upon us does not change this - the moral law is still the greatest guiding compass and no matter how many church leaders, governments or groups continue to deny the moral law does not make it false. People who do so reveal their own immorality in the process.

I need monarchy like I need a brain tumor...

I have no need for this sizeable government and I have no need for your collectivism.

Don't ternish me with your pathetic liberal, idividualist fancies! YOU LIVE in a REAL WORLD not your own little individual community in your mind. You are a part of society, your not the only person in the worl smidgey, I have tried being nice and pacive but your far to stubborn. You obviously do not believe in anything. You just only believe in your self. Community is what we are for! "All men are made for the sake of eachother!" we humans are born to work together, to have out own person lives and views and thought but still we have a duty to our fellow humans to contribute to society. And even if I am wrong it will never change from that. SO FACE IT! and for God's sake STOP THINKING ABOUT YOURSELF and do something communicative my firend! I rest my case on this with you because you are FAR to stubborn to change your quixotic views on life.

"All men are made for the sake of each other, so either teach or tolerate!" In this case I have tried to teache but now I can only tolerate.

Smidgey · 15-12-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

Don't ternish me with your pathetic liberal, idividualist fancies!

Wanting to be free is pathetic? Thank goodness you're not in charge.

Quote:

YOU LIVE in a REAL WORLD not your own little individual community in your mind.

You're right, I do. The real world needs to be changed, since it is ethically bankrupt. We must return to a position of absolute individual liberty.

Quote:

You are a part of society, your not the only person in the worl smidgey, I have tried being nice and pacive but your far to stubborn.

I never denied that I was a member of society. I have nothing wrong with society. It is the state I have a problem with. I can interact with society as a free individual, without the state controlling my everyday actions.

Quote:

You obviously do not believe in anything.

Come now, just because I don't believe what you do doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.

Quote:

You just only believe in your self.

So I do believe in something?

Quote:

Community is what we are for! "All men are made for the sake of eachother!" we humans are born to work together, to have out own person lives and views and thought but still we have a duty to our fellow humans to contribute to society.

I'm not a Kantian for no reason. I agree with everything you have said here. A duty to be moral - of course, but to be forced to be moral, is no longer morality, but state theft. I don't agree with the 'all men are made' part though. I think I grew.

Quote:

And even if I am wrong it will never change from that. SO FACE IT! and for God's sake STOP THINKING ABOUT YOURSELF and do something communicative my firend!

I have plenty of friends and I often interact with the community. I just try to stay out of the states way as much as possible (for example, I refused to sign up for a charity since it recieves state funding, I refused to register my new address with the council when I moved into my student flat - resulting in several angry letters and them threatening me with violence). There are many examples of me refusing to compromise with the state, although I always end up having to, since they will always end up threatening me with violence, because they are immoral thugs.

Quote:

I rest my case on this with you because you are FAR to stubborn to change your quixotic views on life.

Right back at you.

Quote:

"All men are made for the sake of each other, so either teach or tolerate!" In this case I have tried to teache but now I can only tolerate.

Hmm, I know my university has a good teacher training school. That could be useful.

noachian · 15-12-2007, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

Wanting to be free is pathetic? Thank goodness you're not in charge.

You're right, I do. The real world needs to be changed, since it is ethically bankrupt. We must return to a position of absolute individual liberty.

I never denied that I was a member of society. I have nothing wrong with society. It is the state I have a problem with. I can interact with society as a free individual, without the state controlling my everyday actions.

Come now, just because I don't believe what you do doesn't mean I don't believe in anything.

So I do believe in something?

I'm not a Kantian for no reason. I agree with everything you have said here. A duty to be moral - of course, but to be forced to be moral, is no longer morality, but state theft. I don't agree with the 'all men are made' part though. I think I grew.

I have plenty of friends and I often interact with the community. I just try to stay out of the states way as much as possible (for example, I refused to sign up for a charity since it recieves state funding, I refused to register my new address with the council when I moved into my student flat - resulting in several angry letters and them threatening me with violence). There are many examples of me refusing to compromise with the state, although I always end up having to, since they will always end up threatening me with violence, because they are immoral thugs.

Right back at you.

Hmm, I know my university has a good teacher training school. That could be useful.

It has come to my immeidate attention, that .....I may be wrong.....no time to explain...but please except my most humble apologies

Individualism is supreme to collectivism and alligence to the State. However I remain loyal to the United Kingdom's Monarchy and Government as a form of protecting my rights

However bad they may be at it at the moment.

Now let us rest this on-going arguement, we are both human brothers and political idealologies or religious anittation should not get in the way of the brotherly love we must have for one-another

View Poll Results: United Kingdom or United Republic?
The British Monarchy/Kingdom	26	78.79%
REPUBLIC! Abolish the Monarchy	4	12.12%
Not really bothered	3	9.09%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

15-12-2007, 07:26 AM	#52 (permalink)
rjt Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Aldershot Posts: 5,292	I support the status quo and I would point out that HMQ already has very high approval ratings, I do not want to see a monarch involved in politics in any way. __________________ Mr Delors said that he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the community, The Commission to be The Executive and The Council Of Ministers The Senate. NO! NO! NO! (Margaret Thatcher 30 Oct 1990) Ignore List: The Prophets of ST Al the Unelectable.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/43457-united-kingdom-united-republic.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
British Democracy Forum (& UKIP)	This thread	Refback	23-10-2007 09:05 PM