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.

 

Scrap the Monarchy's power

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
We should get rid of the last remaining remnants of the power of the monarchy quickly. Why? The Queen is still in command of our armed forces. (she is referred to as the commander-in-chief). She also has a RAF squadron of her own, the Queens Flight.

The Queens Flight is a waste of perfectly good aircraft. Its used to shuttle royals from golf course to golf course and wastes money. Its not like the royals are government anyway. They can stay and be oggled at by the tourists.

The re-organisation:

Put complete control of the military in the hands of the government, and declare the Prime Minister the commander in chief.

Sell the queen flight BaE jets and use the money to buy an A380 or A340 which can be used as a 'Blair Force One' in times of crisis and international trips.

This is a sensible idea. Why is the queen commander in chief when Tony Blair carries the nuclear arms codes?




posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
All hail President Blair !!

No thanks.

The Monarch doesn't have many political powers and it doesn't cost the UK tax payer any money. It's been shown that financially the UK gains more from the monarchy than it get's out.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Lets compromise and just scrap Prince Charles.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
All hail President Blair !!

No thanks.

The Monarch doesn't have many political powers and it doesn't cost the UK tax payer any money. It's been shown that financially the UK gains more from the monarchy than it get's out.


Dosnt the general population pay the monarchy "wages" ?
# I love one lines #

[edit on 20-9-2005 by xpert11]

[edit on 20-9-2005 by xpert11]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Why is a President so bad?

I'm not talking political power I'm talking military power. Its almost as if the military has two leaders.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Why does the prospect of a British president instantly have to mean a copy of the American system for us anyway?

I'd far rather keep our Parliamentary system with parties and a PM and have a European type President.

I would prefer that QE2 is the last British monarch.
I see nothing wrong with democracy and finally trusting the people (and having a replaceable head of state if they turn out to be a disaster).

[edit on 20-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
being a not Brit.

But I have always thought one of the strengths of the UK system was that the monarch can call early elections on a 2-week notice. (That's right isn't it? Been a long time since I took high school govt. classes!)

The US election cycle that is set in stone basically means that you get much better "service" from elected officials right before the vote. It also means that EVERY move a politician makes is geared for that calendar date in november.

If elections could be called with little warning, by a political outsider, it might stop some particularly American-style foolishness.

Just a thought. I'm sure y'all have given this a great deal more thought than I.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
The US election cycle that is set in stone basically means that you get much better "service" from elected officials right before the vote. It also means that EVERY move a politician makes is geared for that calendar date in november.


- Here we supposedly have 5yr terms but they usually gear things to go in 4yr cycles.
Same sort of deal really, it does nothing but encourage short-termism.

Every now and again you get a long run of one party in gov but they are usually so terrified of being ejected at the next election that long-term planning rarely happens and the opportunity gets wasted.


If elections could be called with little warning, by a political outsider, it might stop some particularly American-style foolishness.


- That's the strange thing about it, the moment the Monarch tried to interfere would probably see the end of the Monarchy here IMO.
The entire point of them being allowed to remain is that they don't ever actually exercise any of the powers they technically hold.

QE2 might get away with something in a time of 'national emergency' - might - but Charles 3rd? I doubt it.......and anyway what could they say that the (legitimately elected) others couldn't?


Just a thought. I'm sure y'all have given this a great deal more thought than I.


- I wouldn't (always) bank on that!


[edit on 20-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

The entire point of them being allowed to remain is that they don't ever actually exercise any of the powers they technically hold.



I know you were refering only to the current Britannic majesty, but I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the ultimate weakness of every constitution.

An American example is the office of Supreme Court Justice. They just got done grilling a Bush nominee, who was peppered with questions about whether or not he'd try to overturn court rulings legalizing various types of abortion in the US.

The nominee flat out said, that any grave change in the courts interpretation of law that marked a digression from the settled law of the land would lessen the court's authority.

The Supreme court here was originally the weakest and smallest part of govt. They got big by doing what the Federal Reserve (US Central Bank) has done--figure out which way the political winds are blowing, then hang out a Spinnaker and keep before it.

How much power do you really have, if you can never brave the tempest and do unpopular things???

If Kings, presidents, judges and bankers just do what opinion polls indicate, then we will end up with anarchy---the violent, senile sort.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
All hail President Blair !!

No thanks.

The Monarch doesn't have many political powers and it doesn't cost the UK tax payer any money. It's been shown that financially the UK gains more from the monarchy than it get's out.

Originally posted by xpert11
Dosnt the general population pay the monarchy "wages" ?
# I love one lines #


The Queen puts in about three times what the Royal Family actually take on her own so we earn money off of her.

However Royal Prerogatives give her a lot of power as do Orders-In-Council.



SourceAmong the powers theoretically possessed by the monarch in the United Kingdom under the Royal Prerogative are:

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
Clemency and pardon;
The awarding of dignities and honours;
The declaration of war;
The declaration of an emergency;
The granting of Charters of Incorporation;
The collection of tolls;
The minting of coinage;
The issuance and revocation of passports;
The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
The creation of new common law courts;
The creation of new universities;
The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
The printing of the authorised Church of England version of the Bible;
The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join