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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Currently work alongside.
If the history of the EU has shown us anything it's that goalposts move. It's an free-market trading partnership, so why does it need any of those aspects?
Lol, you do realise that practically everyone who ever killed anyone in a war or small scale conflict did so because of a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves? Whether this is a small tribe or a huge dictatorship makes no difference.
So yet again, no genuine positive reasons for the existance of the monarchy with a factual basis. Can I assume you have none?
You think tha tthere wouldn't be a Prime Minister, a "first family" successive security requirements for every surviving President/First Family?
Do we currently pay security for former prime ministers? If so, there won't be any difference. If not, then we shouldn't for former heads of state either.
It doesn't really, though, does it. Particularly as the Head of State and other senior members of Government would need to do twice as much work as they do now.
I don't understand the hatred of the monarchy, and to be quite honest, most people are still broadly in favour of the monarchy as head of state. Put it this way, I'd rather have unelected Charlie representing my country than I would Blair, Brown, Cameron or any of the other vote-grabbing nobheads.
You are crazy.
Prince Charles says more about what I agree with than any of the major politicans...
So just because you agree with him then he should rule unelected? You are crazy, thank fuck those days are behind us.
Go back and actually read what I said...
Ok, so you'd prefer an unelected leader to rule just because you agree with them than an elected leader that the masses have voted for? Take it you have no problems with dictators?
THe monarch hasn't ruled in the UK for - what? - 300 years?
It's there plain to see. And what has the monarchy not ruling for over 300 years got to do with it. Your intentions are clear, you'd rather a person to lead unelected just because you agree with them than someone voted in by the masses.
To be honest in NATO each nation has the right to go over any foreign commander and appeal to their national government, the EU Defence Force was suggesting taking that away. Within NATO the UK army remains different (training, doctrine, equipment) from the the Dutch (thank God). The EU Defence Force was aiming towards a unified force.
From the man who's argument veers more than a drunk on a bicycle I'm not sure that's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Your argument seems to be that unelected leaders are bad, but then you even admit that the Crown has no leadership powers
I am arguing from a practical basis that nation states exist and people identify with them. Things that weaken that identification tend to lead to violence, either in short or long term. I'm sorry if living in the real world, rather than pretending that we live in a perfect utopia, offends you.
If it helps I agree in a perfect world we wouldn't have any leaders or countries and we would all love our neighbours, ice cream wouldn't be fattening and Kirsten Dunst would believe in free love.
every time we leave the country?looks like you've got a bad run of things!
I haven't seen anything yet that suggests that might happen.
* I know I'm not British but there is a very similar situation in Spain- I'm speaking about the general concept of monarchy vs. republic.
I would far rather have a monarchy than a president. Do we really want our own version of Dubya in charge? Or maybe a corrupt old fool like Mr Chirac as our head of state? I wouldn't. The monarchy works well at present - however, when Her Majesty dies, we will need to look again at this.
As for the passports issue it's somewhat simple-minded to see it as a republican/royalist issue. It's about essentially a loss in the status for HM's government, what you think of the Queen doesn't really come into it. As far as the monarchy goes, it works. And not just for Britain; Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians aren't in any hurry to become republics. I'm not sure how becoming a republic would save money either, most French presidents have made the Queen look pretty frugal.
The Queen herself does an outstanding job of representing Britain and is incredibly well-informed... whilst Charles will have a hard act to follow the present system works and nobody has convinced me that we'll be better off by mucking about with it.
oooh, he loves it really!
Exactly.
You mean apart from the fact that the EU have legislative power, without the UK citizens having voted for it?
But in a modern constitutional democracy that can't happen. The monarch has no real power but acts as a figurehead, whilst the PM has the real power but none of the figurehead duties. But crucially the system is set up so that both parties are reliant on each other for power.
The cost of the monarchy is minimal, and to even think that the cost would be less with an elected President is ludicrous. At the very least the cost of the election itself would be more than the 63p per year we spend on the current monarchy, who do a perfectly good job, and probably do a better job than the elected leaders.
I certainly wouldn't see Two Jags Prescott in Cumbria fighting to keep a local pub open...
It pisses me off!
Balls.
We vote for our representatives. Same as our own courts tbh. I don't recall voting on Tuition Fees, do you? It's a moot point.