It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLL - Should the UK monarchy now be abolished ? Y/N - all ATS members please contribute

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
No. Because I'm American and don't really have a say in this matter, to be frank, but if I did, I'd still say no. The British government has been built around that system for a thousand years or more. Maybe there's a reason that it's lasted as long as it has.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Yes



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: midicon

Who's to say the monarch will represent the will of the people?- As "Head-of-State", thie Head-of-State is REQUIRED by THE LAW to carry out the will of the people. In alot of types of Democracies aside from "Goverment"- the enactors of The People's will, there is a Head-of-State- President/ Monarch, who will ensure that The Government carries out the will of The People and conduct the business of "Government" within the accepted Law of The Land. In our Constitutional Monarchy, this role was ment to be the Monarch's.

When has the monarch ever stood up for the will of the people?- Because of clever maneuvering by Parliment (over centuries), the Government has successfully gained controll (Lawfully) of the very checks that were ment to be in place to prevent it acting AGAINST The People's will. The Monarch is now UNABLE TO; and has been so for a very very long time.

What with all this austerity and financial skulduggery and ad infinitum...where's the monarch? - Again, see above. The UK Government HAS TO BE APPLAUDED (he sneers)!!! It has manipulated itself into being one of the most powerful DEMOCRACIES (politically speaking when weighed against The People). It runs itself AND it's own legal counter measure!

Seeker7



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Yes following HM's recent intervention in the continued subjugation of the Scots.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
None of my business as An American. USA citizens like to make ( demand, extort, force, ) others be like them. This needs to stop. Let The citizens of the country decide. We have a congress and a presidency. They have a house of commons and a queen. Queen is just not elected. If it is ok for them, it is not up for me to decide.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: bigyin The Scots had a free vote, and if any fell prey to the opinion of the monarch then more fool them. Only got themselves to blame so I say quit yer bitchin' because there were no mean looking troops at the polling places influencing votes.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigyin
Yes following HM's recent intervention in the continued subjugation of the Scots.
I didn't know that the Queen having an opinion about something meant continued subjugation.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle I just want the british monarchy the hell out of Canadian affairs so we can turn this place into a country (preferably a republic), rather than the colony that it is and has been since its inception.

Cheers - Dave

That would require an entirely separate vote (in Canada).

Although held by the same family, the Canadian Monarchy is a distinct and separate entity from the British Monarchy.

Dissolution of one does not mean dissolution of the other.

An interesting though experiment is what happens if the British Monarchy is dissolved, and the Canadian Monarchy is not...what happens?


In answer to that question, I would hope at least pitchforks, some kind of organized dissent. Personally, I would like to see canadian politicians and their handlers tried for treason and if found guilty by a jury of common people, hung. I am old, but I can still dream ;-)

BTW, in canada, as much as harpernista would like it, we do not have a separate monarchy. What we have is a corrupt feudal oligarchy which is striving, much like the US, for corporatism (re. mussolini's ideas) or a corporate form of government control based on fascism. Guess what? All governments are now corporations, in the west anyway, right down to local and municipal governments. Someone has to explain to me why we would have democracy in a government corporate environment when we don't have it in any other corporate environment.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 1/26.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite
Abolish-yes


edit on 26-1-2015 by igloo because: actually spelled abolish wrong



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I gave my views on another thread but I grow more uncertain about this setup now that I'm exposed to Englishmen and women and their views on ATS. The real minds and power figures rest in Parliament in commonwealth countries even though we all technically swear a bunch of oaths to the queen/ She doesn't get a penny from her subjects outside of the UK. If I was in the UK I'd be a little peaved that they are allowed so many luxuries while the common person lives in a tiny 200 square foot apartment/flat.

I don't like what the British have done in history and I don't get a sense of pride from it, and neither do descendents of the English, I've yet to really speak with an intellectual who boasts about the British empire, this is old news my friends. They cherish royal lineage yet they destroyed the Mughal empire, and now we have nuclear holocaust waiting to happen between India-Pakistan. They cut deals with zionists and gave them Israel while leaving the Kurds hanging high and dry, stateless and pushed around by Arabs and Iranians. Sykes-Picot has proved to be a massive disaster of Biblical proportions, look at how they chopped up the Ottoman territories to only cause more war down the road in ways that point to a calculated and sinister design. Looting the treasuries of sovereign empires and then hoarding their wealth in private royal holding companies is a disservice to humanity, and rather selfish. I can't see a single successful example of British colonization other than in predominantly English immigrant countries after wiping out the natives and losing hundreds of thousands of lives fighting the French or Americans.

In conclusion: Nes
edit on 26-1-2015 by Mehmet666Heineken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand
As a yes supporter it pains me to agree but you are right. The vote was fair (even if the campaign wasn't)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
As of this post the count is approx. 60% in favour of abolishing the monarchy! Interesting!
See what the count looks like tomorrow!!



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
In answer to that question, I would hope at least pitchforks, some kind of organized dissent. Personally, I would like to see canadian politicians and their handlers tried for treason and if found guilty by a jury of common people, hung. I am old, but I can still dream ;-)

I think you should go one further. I think you should go after the bastards that put all of them there...oh, wait...that's Joe Public...including myself.


BTW, in canada, as much as harpernista would like it, we do not have a separate monarchy.

100% separate. Even have our own crowns, thrones, legal titles, etc, etc. I understand that you don't want to believe that, but personal belief has very little bearing on actual law.


What we have is a corrupt feudal oligarchy which is striving, much like the US, for corporatism (re. mussolini's ideas) or a corporate form of government control based on fascism.

That perfectly explains why our government actually changes based on the whims of the population. It is not the government's fault when voter apathy sways that arrangement to an individuals dismay.


Guess what? All governments are now corporations, in the west anyway, right down to local and municipal governments.

Only when required to be. For example, Canada is not a corporation in Canada, but it is in the US. Why? Because it is required to be one to have our dollar traded in their stock exchanges.


Someone has to explain to me why we would have democracy in a government corporate environment when we don't have it in any other corporate environment.

Aside from the fact that Canada isn't a corporation inside Canada, many corporations have democratic leadership. Actually, I'm pretty sure that 100% of the publicly traded ones do. What do you think shareholder votes are for?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mehmet666Heineken
I can't see a single successful example of British colonization other than in predominantly English immigrant countries after wiping out the natives and losing hundreds of thousands of lives fighting the French or Americans.

I can think of a few that have done ok...
Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Bahrain, all former UK colonised lands, all with majority indigenous population, all rank higher than the UK in most country wealth/distribution lists these days.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

No.

Plus ATS is not a good representation of the general public in the UK.
This is one of the reasons ATS does not have a feature of a poll option.
85% of polls are BS.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: grainofsand
As a yes supporter it pains me to agree but you are right. The vote was fair (even if the campaign wasn't)
I thank you for your honesty, and genuinely do not take any pleasure from it...I know the tactics were dirty, but hey the stakes were high, what would we expect?
I am glad we still share the same island and country though, and it is interesting that the SNP intended to keep the queen as the head of state. I'm happy to lose the monarchy, but I want to live on an island that I can drive round without needing a passport, so I'm glad you guys stayed.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

In a word YES.

Rebel 5



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I say yes. But only because I want to see what happens now that its been mentioned.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

NO - definitely not



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Mehmet666Heineken
I can't see a single successful example of British colonization other than in predominantly English immigrant countries after wiping out the natives and losing hundreds of thousands of lives fighting the French or Americans.

I can think of a few that have done ok...
Brunei, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bermuda, Bahrain, all former UK colonised lands, all with majority indigenous population, all rank higher than the UK in most country wealth/distribution lists these days.


Meh....they are so homogenous and small they hardly make a difference. Good point though, I clearly didn't mention them but in some of those cases, the arrival of the British was a huge boost to their positions at the time, the British didn't slaughter their royal families and drag away their jewels because there was nothing there to begin with. Brunei is a tiny island, Singapore is a tiny island, same with Honk Kong and the Caribbean not to mention Bahrain. Those were strategic acquisitions with very little colonization.




top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join