Republicanism (the european kind)

Sign me in lol.

 

I'm split on the issue. The Netherlands is a monarchy.
On the one hand I oppose a monarchy that has actual political and executive power and vast wealth. On the other hand, the past years the monarchy has been stripped of it's power and it's income reduced.
IMO, as long as the monarchy has no power and a modest income, I don't oppose it.
It's virtually the same as a president only non-elective.
I do freely admit I am biased in this due to my romantic nature and nostalgia of having grown up in a monarchy.

 

A monarchy always has some kind of wealth (be it vast or limited), otherwise it will be forgotten. What I'm really opposed to it the status of royalty, which somehow makes some people above you and gives them privileges.

 

I think many of those priviliges can be removed though.

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2013 at 01:58 PM ----------

Also the monarchy has to have an income to support themselves.
The Dutch monarchy does do things for the country however, so it's not like they're given cash just for their name.

 

I am very much a Republican.

I just want the ability to pick my head of state, not have to put up with idiots like Charles and Camilla, the absurd amount of media coverage following Kate's Bump (ITs a Baby, Women have Babies, nothing special in the slightest)

Royality is a throwback to the past, we don't need them anymore. Well to be honest we never needed them .

The Windsors are simply Human, nothing more nothing less. Why do they have to be different from us "commoners" its complete nonsense really, they had to give Kate's family "Non Common titles" before the wedding.

 

I'm very apolitical about this. However, I'll be in if the monarchy becomes a tyranny or he/she is useless (remember Marie Antoinette and King Louis?).

Honestly, I don't see the point of a monarchy. Many queens and kings in the word are pretty much figureheads. For example the Queen of England.

 

Getting rid of the British monarchy would require quite a rewriting of the British constitutional documents (considering it's not in one) if the President were to be à la America and France. I suppose it could work if we had a German style president, though, a president that is basically a king/queen that gets voted in. It would have the same significance. But then who would we vote into it? People who have made an outstanding contribution to British society? There are hundreds and hundreds, how would we decide? Would they be ex-PMs? Lords? I would really hate for the post to become politicised even when it has no bearing on the actual government - knowing the political apathy of half the country, 30% would end up voting and we'd have King Nick Griffin.

The Monarchy, whilst being a bit antiquated and a bit old fashioned, keep the role of Head of State apolitical, in my opinion, which I think is a good thing. It means that we have a head of state that doesn't affiliate herself with one or another politics when she does official state visits, and although the Prime Minister can be pally with whomever he wishes on his own visits, we're still just as represented by the Queen. Were the Royal Family constructed à la the UAE and Qatar, where Emirs and unelected Princes get the power, as well as all the wealth, then I would take issue. However, they largely don't (even if they do cost a bit - which is brought back in tourism revenue and diplomatic service), so I think we have better ways to spend our money at present than on widespread Constitutional Reform when there is nothing LARGELY at issue - we could always have a pop at those unelected bankers that play Craps with our money in the big leagues instead...? :rolleyes:

 

Well I would like to see the Lords go as well, and having an elected upper house. There is nothing from stopping us from making rules in the Constitution to discourage career politic, limited terms etc.

 

But we've seen the low turnouts for these sorts of things, and even in the General Elections. Whilst there is a greater proportionality and a strength in democracy, it would mean that more of the government is controlled by populism, thus it would be much easier for parties such as UKIP and the British National Party to get a stronghold in Parliament, as many of them are starting to in councils and the European Parliament (which of course does nothing of much democratic note :bang. The entire reason for the Lords existing is to give expert legal advice on bills passed to them by the Commons; now that they are almost totally non-hereditary peers, rather life peers who are chosen mostly on the grounds of their wide-reaching expertise on their chosen field, their role is important and beneficial to make sure that all sides are being considered from legal and other points of view. Making a second chamber would fundamentally change the Lords, would now become party-politicians adhering to whips, unlike now when, despite being affiliated with their party such as Baroness Boothroyd and Lord Lawson, can make much more rational and independent decisions because their positions aren't reliant on populism to get them through. I fail to see how political apathy would change just because they have another thing to vote for; the far right will use it to gain an advantage because most people won't see it as 'important enough'. :bang:

 

The Lords hardly give expert legal advice, they just go against public opinion and is a realm for washed up politicians. Look at how Lords are obsessed with throwing out the equal marriage laws.

 

I'm actually in support of an American monarch.

You Europeans really don't understand what a monarch does for you: he lets the people who actually hold power do their job. The president of the USA spends most of his time in ceremonies instead of actually presiding over the nation, and a monarch allows your president or prime minister or whatever to not attend ceremonies. Believe me, that's worth giving a few people undeserved wealth and fame.

 

most european nations are without monarchies as it is.

 

That's simply not true and is quite a misconception. If the Lords were not happy with same sex marriage at all, then they would have drastically changed the bill, but they did not. Not even the Lords Spiritual had THAT much say in it (although I admittedly bet they had quite a say on the lack of religious recognition in England and Wales). I do believe the Lords Spiritual should be expelled, there is no place for religion in politics, in my opinion. But I do believe in most cases, the Lords are beneficial in our political system, and have limited rights which mean that they are able to advise the Commons on the legalities and the practicalities of what is being proposed, but they can't actually shoot things down (particularly to do with budgets - as in the 1911 Act that prohibited them from changing that, nor anything that was specifically outlined in their manifesto). Of course, you have silly Lords, such as those that are ex-MPs throwing their weight around about Europe, but I still think it is a considerably lesser evil than career politicians and fringe parties which could install itself into an elected second chamber.

 

Buuuuut playing Devil's Advocate here...when the King of Spain restored the monarchy after the death of Franco, he symbolised the modernisation and the democratisation of Spain. He was fundamental in getting Spain on the right track. And now, Spain is one of the more liberal countries of Europe - despite its bad track record with racism. And just because Germany has a non-executive president, doesn't mean there isn't a class system/system of wealth distribution of such an ilk.

 

The president knows what he is doing he is probably qualified.

A monarch is only head of state because they were born into a family. They are better than us because of a simple name.

The US were very quick to get rid of a monarch

 

Interestingly, this has been a debate in Norway for a few years, whether or not we should stay a monarchy. Thing is, a president would cost us just as much as our royal family does today. And our royal family might not make a lot of decisions (though they have the power to veto if our government makes decisions that they feel go against certain values), but they represent our culture, our history. They might be figureheads, but they do some good work. Our will-be-queen is helping FN collect charities for important causes, like combating the spread of HIV and AIDS in U-lands. She wasn`t very respected when she got married in (a single mother with a child and a wild past) but she`s gained a lot of respect and acceptance over the years. Generally, our royal family is a symbol of tradition, our nationalism. So, the few voting rounds they have had, most have voted for keeping our monarchy.

Personally? I don`t want a president, I feel our government consisting of several parties do the job of governing the country fair enough. And why not keep our traditions, it`s not like it`s a problem. If it ain`t broke, don`t fix it, that`s the general Norwegian attitude. Or, technically, for some on the debate forums (norwegian ones) it seems to be; if you think it`s broke, whine about it a little anonymously, then go get a beer and forget about it until you`re reminded, then whine some more. God, I guess that`s a bit universal, people whining under the debate section of news articles, lol

---------- Post added 24th Jun 2013 at 11:25 AM ----------

I guess my point was, the choice doesn`t have to be between a monarch and a president. Our monarchy could disappear today, but our government would still be able to lead the country just fine without a president. A coalition of different ideologies is in my opinion better than everything being decided by one guy, or one guy having enter diplomatic negotiations every day with his own people. At least with different parties being forced to cooperate, you get some balance, in my opinion. But this is all just my view on things, and I am in no way an expert on politics. I guess I am a bit patriotic, because I truly believe in the system we have were I am, and I am a bit afraid it will change one day.