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.

 

Should The United Kingdom Become a Republic?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
After a heated debate about the British Monarchy on ATS, i would be very interested in the opinions of other Brit's on where they think the future of our Democracy lays. Are you in favour of a President of the United Kingdom? Would you like to see a elected Monarch? Or are you happy with the current institution?
Most British i speak too, of whichever home Nation are opinionated about this subject. Most i find are indifferent because of strong feelings of disslike of politics viewing it as a lesser of two evil's, some anti monarchy and some pro. Myself i am Pro, i believe they do a lot of good work for Charity,Tourism and are one of the few easily identifiable things about being British. I have other factors in my belief.

But what to my fellow Briton's feelings about where we should be headed. Are you infact of the opinion that the U.K is dead and the E.U is the future! Let the debate begin.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Rocketman1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
We've accidentally made the discovery that having a non-political Head of State is a stabilising influence, and very valuable in a democratic state.
If we replace the monarchy with a president, we would have to elect him, somehow. How do you keep politics out of an election?
Stay as we are.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Not only that it has removed Religion from modern politics which is a massive plus in my books.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 


The Euro zone is dead, within 2 years the Euro will have collapsed. I believe focus should be given to cooperation with our EU allies but not in terms of currency.

We need to let go of this "special relationship" with America and give countries close to home more attention, we should be moving forward to build a stronger, more unified Europe in the face of economic crisis.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Crutchley29 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I do not understand how you can support a monarch? Is conditioning that strong? A family manipulates and controls the future of you country? Who care if they give a few pennies away to look good. You are SLAVES to the will of the aristocratic noble bloodlines.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


....Do you know ANYTHING about the monarchy in the UK?...they have no governing power. at all.

They simply exist as an archaic tourist attraction, a novelty of sorts.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
crutchley are you of the opinion we should be pushing for a more slim line E.U, that is not so much about takeing powers away from national Parliaments.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I.m going to guess (and it is only a guess) that the Royals bring in a lot more cash in the way of tourism than they actually cost in upkeep. This along with the clear cut line between religion and state they represent probably outweighs any negative impacts.

Doesnt mean I like the scaly buggers though!



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 


Definitely. Especially in terms of immigration law, the quota system is ridiculous.

Euro cooperation should not be unilateral but progressive; we should be making decisions together on issues such as military, financial and environment but not infringing on each other’s domestic laws in the process.

We need our independence back.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Yes

I want to be a citizen and NOT a subject.

I wan't to be able to own land and that land be mine and not merely leased from the crown.

I would never as much as bow to the queen or her rotten over priverliged family either as they are no more than me as all are equal in the eyes of God. They are there by accident of birth which does not entitle them any dominion over me as I am a free man and not owned by the state.

And on that, I have no king or queen on this earth.

The queen also has betrayed her oathes she made to the people of this country by not defending the faith, allowing her country to be ruled from europe, allowing successive governments to rape this countries wealth bringing a recession and much pain.

She could have disolved parliament at any time, but no, she let them carry on.

She also watched as governments allowed the very fabric of british society erode and traditions dissapear by labour social engineering that has made the indigenous population loose out on their culture because of rabid pc doctrines, jobs taken by forigners and public services pushed to the limit.

To be honest.

I want them ALL gone.

Including all of those currently sat in government.

A clean slate.

Replaced by honest commoners not ruled by interest groups.

A common sense government.

That

Or Yeshua comming back.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Yissachar1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crutchley29
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


....Do you know ANYTHING about the monarchy in the UK?...they have no governing power. at all.

They simply exist as an archaic tourist attraction, a novelty of sorts.


that's a lie, the monarchy allows its subjects to govern themselves. but when politicians start gettting ahead of themselves they are reminded by buckingham palace who the real power is.

if you're british, ask yourself this question, if you ever met the queen would you bow, or have the balls not to.

you would bow because as a british subject she is your queen and ruler and you are her servant, like it or not.

even if the servants squabble amongst themselves on who gets to clean the streets for her, or who gets run her banks etc.

the queen is head of state and will always be above the government, she also has final approval on all major issues and can veto any government decision.
edit on 13-1-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


I am a 'British subject' by law and of course I would NOT bow. How ridiculous.

She is a figurehead. Hell she has even less power in the UK than Obama has in the US.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 




The governments involvement with the palace is done so out of tradition, not requirement, the stated powers of monarchy have not changed for generations and they have not needed to as the Monarchy have had little need to interfere with state policy.

Realistically, aside from respect and tradition, the real issues of importance would be decided whether or not the Queen gave her blessing.

The Monarchy is the UK specifically is constitutional, This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected parliament.

They have next to no REAL power.

edit on 13-1-2011 by Crutchley29 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Crutchley29
 


This would be a much better E.U, certainly on the millitary side of things we need much more co-operation.
The U.S gets much more bang for their buck than we do purely because they are buying in much larger numbers.
I have long thought that the smaller E.U nations should pool in with the larger ones Millitarys to form groups. i.e French led group compriseing of France and the low land countries.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


She does have certain constitutional powers but these would never be used, they are their purely incase of a emergency at which point the elected government can advice her to use them. look at what happened to her uncle! he was for the people too vocally and they made sure he was removed.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Well we had a crack at it, and it didn't seem to work out the way people wanted it to... the thought of President Tony Blair is a scary one.. heck even Charlie is preferable to that option..

I go along with the overall system we have now, just not the players, whips, party politics and whatnot.. we need a clean slate in that regard.. but the overal gist I prefer..

I also prefer first past the post, I vote for a person, and their politics, not a group or a party line..

It happens I vote for Norman Baker who happens to be liberal.. but, I vote for his stance against things the killing of Dr Kelly, but since he has given up his views for party politics I won't be voting for him again..

I like Europe and am happy to work with my neighbours, who I have a high regard for, however I do not want to one with them..
edit on 13/1/11 by thoughtsfull because: edit to remove rubbish



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Would your new system incorporate a devolved english government. i think this would be a good option as well as bringing in more London styled mayors.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Crutchley29
 



This is not strictly true. The Queen still has power of royal assent meaning the crown must sign off on any law passed in the UK. If there was something she didn't like, she has the power to reject it whether parliament voted for it or not. Unfortunately though the Queen is too lazy to use this veto power and simply lets her ministers do whatever the hell they like with the country. As far as I'm aware she also still has the power to disolve parliament. So yes, the Queen does have power, she just never uses it.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman1
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Would your new system incorporate a devolved english government. i think this would be a good option as well as bringing in more London styled mayors.


On my more radical days I would probably go a bit further adding Cornwall too the list
but then again on those days I lean towards moving the capital to Winchester


But yes, I agree with an devolved English Government, as I hope that might end some of the bickering that goes on.

edit on 13/1/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
reply to post by Crutchley29
 



This is not strictly true. The Queen still has power of royal assent meaning the crown must sign off on any law passed in the UK. If there was something she didn't like, she has the power to reject it whether parliament voted for it or not. Unfortunately though the Queen is too lazy to use this veto power and simply lets her ministers do whatever the hell they like with the country. As far as I'm aware she also still has the power to disolve parliament. So yes, the Queen does have power, she just never uses it.


I dont think this is being lazy, for a long time the Monarch has been removed from party politics, and to veto laws made by the elected Government of the people would certainly bring about the demise of the monarchy.
I think the only time the Queen or Monarch would be wise to do so would be in extreme situations of civil unrest.
Charles the second dissolved Parliament and Cromwell happened,ahh!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join