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
Britain should consider ditching monarchy, says UN
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy,-says-UN.html
Good old UN, eh?
This will go well with some...
Good old UN, eh?
This will go well with some...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Also Sri Lanka? They are well know for having great human rights... and like we want to lose the tourism money those old codgers make us.
Also: Go sling your hook somewhere else. The reason we DON'T have such a stupid document is because, after a while, it loses relevance to the current climate. Times change, and things must adapt to them. Does the USA really need a "right to bear arms" today? Does every citizen still need a gun? Most of the world seems to do well without it - but at the time the US wrote it's bill of rights, there WAS a need - with half the country being a wasteland and bandits all over the place.
Times change. As such, having a firm, solid constitution is a bit daft. Failiute to adapt to situations has crushed many an empire.
There's some evidence to suggest constitutional monarchies are more stable and less vulnerable to tyranny... There's also a lot of stuff in support of codified (written) constitutions. Then there have been republics (with codified constitutions too) that have experienced enormous strife... And then there's NZ and the UK, both constitutional monarchies without written constitutions - and both are stable and vibrant democracies... In the UK there is very little separation of powers (The Prime Minister also usually leads the biggest party in the Commons), by contrast in the US there's a very rigid set of checks and balances/separation of powers.
The UK and NZ have a very different political infrastructure to the USA and France - and the (relative) success of the UK/NZ show that both models can work...
A UN Human Rights council involving the USA is not to be taken seriously... at least Cuba is honest about itself... when Cuba tried to ask the US about Guantanamo in the UN they were quickly silenced and no furthur comment was made.
I read the summary of some Norwegian report, claiming that monarchies tended to turn out as the best democracies. The basis of the research were several monarchies in Europre versus several republics.
Even better than many republics. I don't have a translation here now, but if I do find it again, I'll translate a few sentences and publish it here
?
Someone hasn't got their priorities straight. I wouldn't worry about an unaccountable figurehead with no powers when we have an unaccountable media organisation with the power to imprison people.
As you say, you're still learning.
However, if they want to definitely get me on their side, they should start publishing reports demanding that we elect our Prime Ministers, insisting that they have to fight, and fight hard, in order to get the top prize in politics. Say what you like about Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, but at least we knew they fought a long, gruelling campaign in order to be nominated as a presidential candidate. In our country, Macavity - he'd be our utterly pathetic, useless, spineless joke of a Prime Minister - just bullied mercilessly anyone who threatened to stand against him. Gordon didn't have to fight for the top job, and look at just how awful he really is in the job. Not even Tony Blair was this bad. Blair may be a serial liar with the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands, but at least you knew where you stood with him. With Macavity, nobody knows what he thinks. Why did he abolish the 10p tax band, for example? He has never explained himself - would such a thing honestly be tolerated in a country which was a real democracy? He wouldn't last five minutes!
Don't be ridiculous, they don't have any powers.
I know this and thanks i have no claim which you wanted to make indirectly.
Secondly whatever i wrote was quite simple, why country like Britain has monarchy?? Queen is not from heaven, so why they should be given such protocol.
And when it comes to removing monarchy or some other form of it in other countries, they will impose war on them in the name of giving "freedom", destroy the whole country and kill innocent people.
But if that country has no policy against them like sudia arabia, Japan, they just dont do anything on that, because these are in their benefit.
So my request to British politicians is that first remove the monarchy in your own country and then think of removing it from other countires, please leave the whole world on its own and dont destroy it for your FUCKING short term materialistic benefits.
I hope Teagan now you may get what i wanted to say.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of legal documents. A Bill of Rights is mostly a legal protection against those in power. (The right to bear arms in the US is a right to bear arms against the Government).
Your Bill of Rights was enacted in 1688, and has had very few alterations in the subsequent three centuries. To the best of my knowledge it has never been repealed.
We don't actually, technically, have one. The last thing that would even be considerable as one is the Magna Carta which is over 100 years ago.
The one you refer to isn't enacted or treated as a final, unchangeable thing - many US citizens don't want any ammendments or change to the original bill - we are free to update ours as we see fit over time. Or more recently, ignore it entirley and give hte government stupid powers all because of convenient terrorist excuses. We have NEVER fought terrorism before, obviously.
You know when you can write in complete sentences, people might actually listen to what you have to say, but until then, i don't think anyone will really care what you say.
But in answer to your point... at what point has Great Britain actually waged a war to remove a Monarch? I mean... Since Napolean who was not even a king or Monarch but a self-Imposed military Dictator, because i can not think when we have waged war to remove a Monarch at all lately, so your point is mute.
Also, our Monarch has no powers, her position is ceremonial and our Government acts of its own accord, so what is your problem with it?
Finally, to the UN can simply fuck off, it is an unneccessary failure that is totally ridiculous and pointless and has no value in the modern world.
OK people who did 7/7 bombing and 9/11, if they say "we are sorry" now lets move on, but since UK and US have power why they accept this sorry, they just destroy the whole country.
Now come to my problem with Monarch of UK, this is the country who called them so called "CIVILIZED" and advocate of so called "DEMOCRACY", what kind of civilized and democratic country this is who has people in power without any democratic method. UK monarchy has power or not is not a question here, question is why it is?? when they teach others not to have such thing??
Yah UN has no place in this world now, because UK and US only use it for their own needs and when it don't serve their purpose they just fuck it.
I'm pretty sure the advertising and extra tourism they generate for the UK is a lot more then 62p per adult.
There's very few reasons I can think people from abroad would want to come visit the UK, all the stuff related to royalty is one of the few things the UK has that most countries don't.
Perhaps he is posting in a language that is not his native tongue? :chin:
Just wondering what this mean??
but otherwise i also say fuck the UN in this instance
qft
There's no such thing as an entirely democratic country, and it would be a pretty shitty place if there was. In fact the vast majority of the people who end up with power over you in a democratic country will always be unelected (police, judges, tax inspectors, etc - some countries do elect some of these to a certain extent). But there is far more to freedom in a country than electing your government. That's a small part of it sure, but as we all know, it certainly isn't the makings of a democracy in a place like Zimbabwe where they hold elections, but anyone who votes for the "wrong" candidate or speaks out against the current government is arrested, harassed, beaten up, or worse. In the UK, along with the other states in the EU with a monarchy, such as Norway, Spain, Sweden, Holland, Belgium and Denmark, I can happily speak out against the monarchy, and campaign to have it abolished without even the slightest risk of harassment from the authorities (this isn't the case in other countries, like Thailand, but even less so in a lot of countries who don't have a monarchy, and yet claim to be democratic). This is a far more valuable aspect of a "free" country than the right to vote, and why we all laugh at George Bush when he claims that elections in Afghanistan and Iraq are some sort of indicator of a "liberated" country. If you knew what the role of the monarchy is in the UK, you wouldn't have any reason to go on such a rant about it. You would have every reason to go on a rant about the House of Lords though, and I would join you in every word.
I think it's an absolute joke that in 2008, we still have people who haven't been elected being allowed to vote on policy. But if this was a genuine attempt to critique the UK system, the UN would've mentioned the Lords, because they're clearly a more pressing concern for the democratic process. As it is, it's clearly just a dig at the UK from countries that don't like it. After all, where are the comments saying that Spain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Luzembourg, Japan, Thailand, Canada, Australia, Nepal, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papau New Guinea, Lesotho, Belize, Greenland, and a number of smaller island-nations throughout the world should give up their monarchy? And they're just the ones where the monarchy has no political power. I haven't even started on the ones that monarchs actually rule.
:yes:
I think 'aboylearning' envisages our old Queen huddled over a map, deciding which Muslim countries she wants to destroy next.
aboylearning, our monarch has nothing to do with the decisions of government. Constitutionally, she is part of the legislative process of her Realms. In practice, much of her role in the legislative process is ceremonial, as her reserve powers are rarely exercised. If you want to point a finger, do so at Tony Blair and his governemnt.