If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Queen may be scrapped from UK passports...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
...as part of the European Union's incessant drive towards unitary super-statehood:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/nqueen109.xml
Our EU overlords did see it fit to allow us to keep using imperial measures mind. Who says they're a culture wrecking bunch of tossers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/nqueen109.xml
Our EU overlords did see it fit to allow us to keep using imperial measures mind. Who says they're a culture wrecking bunch of tossers.
0
Comments
Mind you changing the wording is bloody stupid and serves no real purpose apart from making us good little European clones. I'm a subject of the HM The Queen - I am not a citizen of the EU (OK I am, but I don't want to be)
The Queen is no part of my national identity.
When will we get too sick of it
presumably the same reaction as the Republicans when they realise they're even less popular.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200204290016
No not the same reaction. One reaction is to come up with a genuine argument about the effects of allowing unelected people to have power, and the other revolves around rhetoric about national identity and other bullshit ideas that don't really mean anything, without (based on the arguments I've heard) any concrete arguments for their existance (read a bit of Chomsky for a more detailed argument about bullshit sayings that don't mean anything like "do you support the troops?" which really means "do you support our policy?" but results in idiots being sucked into it based on national pride). I'd rather an elected European government have a say in our affairs than an unelected British government. But to be honest, I think the Lords is a far more important issue, because as pointless as the queen is, at least she doesn't actually make any day-to-day decisions. Plus to be fair, might as well let her finish her term.
People are not islands - they belong to wider societies than just their family or local community. These wider societies (or countries as you will) have history, tradition and common cultures and most people (to a greater or lesser extent) feel a sense of belonging and allegiance to these societies. When these societies fracture and there become large groups who no longer feel a sense of belonging or allegiance bloody violence is often let loose (and I've seen this first hand).
Now I'm not saying that getting rid of the monarchy will lead to civil war, but reducing the ties that bind us without a viable alternative (and the EU is not a viable alternative) may not, in the longer term, be a clever move.
And yet the worst violence in history has always been a result of people feeling united under one common cause. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Japanese Emperor in WW2. The only thing that compares is the numerous civil wars in Africa.
Removing the monarchy will do fuck all, except free up a bit of cash. Many of the most patriotic nations have no monarchy. I think history has proven the dangers of having unelected leaders who's shit does stink, far more than it has proved the opposite.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/12/do1201.xml
That article is so surreal and unintentionally funny it has to be made up
On to a couple of things said here...
If you think Britain's identity resides on what it says on a passport (or the currency you use for that matter, an argument which is often use by those against the euro) then Britain must be a very culturally and historically poor nation indeed.
What makes you think he's wrong? Perhaps your definition of support is different from mine but I support the British troops: I want them to come out of there alive and don't wish them any ill whatsoever. I however don't support the nauseating war and illegal occupation of a sovereign nation they have been ordered to parttake by the government.
In fact, in the case of Iraq you could say that the only people who actually support the troops, be British or American, are those who oppose the war and wish for them to return immediately. And that it is those who were in favour of sending perfectly decent human beings to commit crimes on their behalf and get killed simply to further certain economic and geopolitical interests who are the ones not supporting the troops in any way concievable, other than to cheer from the comfort of their armchairs when they see images of another hellfire missile hitting its target.
No I don't think all of British identity resides in a passport or the currency we use. Obviously. But they are part of it. The process is cumulative. That's why I mentioned imperial measurements and wrote 'gradual destruction' and 'incessant drive'.
You do realise that the European Commission, the lot who think up pointless things like this, aren't elected right?
They can only initiate legislation, they can't pass it. That goes through the Parliament which is elected.
There's also the argument that as each member of the Commission is a representative of the elected government, then you sort of are voting for them already.
They're appointed by each member state, in the same way that all of the top civil servants are in this country. Don't like their selection, then vote the government out for someone who will replace them with someone else. That's not the same as lifelong power by appointment, by religion, by donation or the worst of the lot, by accident of birth. It's certainly another method of selection up for debate, (as is the selection of top civil servents and judges while we're at it), but it's incomparible with something like the Lords which is power for life with zero public accountability.
So why is that? Are the citizens of nation in Europe other than Britain stupid or blind to the destruction of their nations' identity? Is that they actually don't care about it? Or could it just be that sections of the British population are paranoid and making a bit deal out of nothing?
Is there something wrong with that?
That isn't what that passage says though,, is it?
It's about HM Govt holding other Govts to "account for your safety etc whilst you are a guest in their country. It's effectively saying that you are under the protection of HM Govt and that they expect your hosts to treat you in a "decent" manner.
The EU cannot afford you the same protection because they have no way of backing that assertion up.
Anyone who thinks that this isn't another step in the relentless and incessant undemocratic shift towards a European federal state is deluding themselves.
Let's look at the "suggestions" coming out of the commission (and please correct me on innaccuracy:
1. EU Defence Force
2. EU Foregin Policy
3. EU member of UN
4. EU passport
5. No borders between EU states
6. EU currency
7. EU bank
8. Increased EU governance over national laws...
How can that not sound like a shift towards federalism and away from nation states? And at what point have the UK citizens voted for any of these shifts?
English Civil War killed more of the population as a proportion of England and Scotland than any other war. The bloodiest war in history (in terms of population engaged) was the Taiping rebellion (about half the Chinese population dead). In modern terms civil war, rebellion and unrest has been much more common and deadly than wars between states, eg Rwanda, Congo, fall of Yugoslavia and even minor 'wars' such as Northern Ireland. Even the rise of Mao was caused by a breakdown of an established social order which had previously been characterised by the Emperor.
About 63p per person per year if I remember.
And what's that got to do with anything? My point isn't that every country needs amonarch, but that every country needs some sort of national identity and in the UK the monarchy is part of ours.
Great I agree dictatorships are bad, though history never prooves anything except we don't learn from it. However, the monarchy is not a 'leader' anymore - its a symbolic figurehead and I think history also suggests that when enough people cease to feel allegiance to the county and countrymen nasty things often result.
You seem to agree with me - supporting the troops is perfectly possible without supporting the political purposes for which they're used
.. and the impression given in the question is that a President would be free...
Funny how many cry foul, for instance, about the possibility of an EU defence force while having no complaints about NATO. In fact, it usually turns out that the most vocal critics of the EU proposals are actually ardent supporters of NATO and indeed of other alliances and subjugations that undermine the sovereignty and independence of the UK in far greater measure than the EU could possibly achieve.
As for the other measures, most of them make sense to me, I don't see those that don't as an attempt to create a federal superstate and destroy national sovereignty. You might agree or disagree about the wisdom of having a European Central Bank (though the way things are starting to turn out, it is not such a daft move at all) but rather than a masterplan to create a federal state I see an attempt to streamline and simplify financial transactions and trade amongst a club of nations.
The EU has a small army force, though nation state's are not obliged to pledge troops.
Technically there are no borders between nation states.
Euro.
Already have a bank, the ECB.
Hmm, security, transport and everything else for the entire royal family plus the Prime Minister, or the same costs for one person. The maths does itself.