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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Personally I think we should dissolve a certain amount of power to the seperate nations; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whilst keeping a common defence policy and other 'federal' laws.
Something akin to Germany or Spain.

Who should be the Head Of State?
I don't know.
I have mixed feelings about The Royal Family.
They are an anachronism and serve no real purpose other than being a focal point and unifying symbol in times of distress and need.
They have done me no harm, unlike countless elected officials, yet I would resent it if they tried to exert any real influence on the running of the country.

I think we have more urgent problems that need addressing first, like extensive electoral and parliamentary reform replacing the out dated and unrepresentative party system that has failed this country and Union so miserably!




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by theoneeyedman
Absolutely, the UK should become a republic. In a supposedly egalitarian age why the hell am I the Queens', or anybody's, subject? There is NO justification for the monarchy whatsoever.

PLEASE read this if you think otherwise.
edit on 13-1-2011 by theoneeyedman because: typo


Egalitarian age??? Where is it manifesting. The rich get richer and the poor poorer. English law has evolved with the monarchy. they also bring in income and are a counterbalance to the kind of government we seein the USA.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
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.


That's a rather uneducated post, yet you call us slaves?

Do you have any understanding of how the monarchy works, or whom runs the country?

From what i just read, i don't think you do.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 


Good thread for opening debate.

My opinion is this

MONARCHY

I think it was a good thing in Victorian times and Pre Victrian times but today, as an equal society i think it should be aboilished. Yes it makes us British but there is more to Britain than the Royals. They are a huge drain on our society, money which could go elsewhere. I strongly believe that the 2million pounds or so that Prince Charles spends on his travel costs per year could be better spend on those with low incomes or reducing the taxes on the population.

REPUBLIC

Well i dont really care to be honest. British politics at this moment are a disgrace. The coalition is a joke so if it improves things then i'm for it. I DONT think staying in the EU s in our best interests, yet again its a waste of money.

I would far rather Scotland was granted its independence and we became a country of our own. We basically run our own country as it is, except the money we generate goes to London, then its given back, however, we only recieve some of it back.

Each UK country can fund itself ad thats the route i think should be taken.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I like the UK as it is, and to say the monarchy has no real power is ridiculous! although the monarchy transferred a lot of power to ministers, it still holds a wealth of power, some includ:

dissolve parliament
declare war
take over or give up territory
recognise foreign states

The Queen can, appoint whomever she wants as Prime Minister. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions
while the Queen only exercises her powers at the behest of Her Parliament - as part of the democracy we enjoy, in theory, the queen could opt to use Her Absolute Powers to: deploy her armed forces where she would, to dissolve parliament or simply to refuse the Royal Assent to a piece of legislation.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


And if she tried to exercise any of the rights she would find herself out of a job and out of a home very, very quickly!

Now Charles is arrogant enough and so far out of touch that he may just try it...I think he might go the same way as his namesake!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


No she wouldn't, you need to read up and do some research, use facts instead of your opinion.

Kind regards.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


Why wouldn't she?

If she acted out of convention she would be trying to exert her will on the country and there would be quite a few pissed off people if she tried to do that.

What is there to read up on?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 

I can understand the sentiment of a Scot wishing to Govern their own affairs, but as you state you pretty much govern yourselves as it is. Now i dont want to go down the who subsidies whom debate and i dont think its that important, because i have seen some SNP arguments putting a strong point forward, and ive seen other statistics showing it working in Scotlands favour. But i've not seen any part of the U.K lose out to the tune London does. (im not from London, so im not bias on that point) So it's swings and round abouts so to speak.But do you really think Scotland could exert more influence on its own? Could it really survive in tough times on its own, without the rest of the U.K or E.U? I myself believe it would be a mistake and a big shame! I think were better together.

As for the Monarchy, i can appreciate some people feel it is archaic and no longer relevant in a modern society. But i promise you they are very good value for money, generate vastly more money than they cost you and i. Are as cheap or more than likely cheaper to run than an office of a President of a country of equal size. I did see a figure for the office of the Polish president and its runing cost's are about 5 million more a year than the U.k's. Monarchy. Now no disrespect to Poland but i think we have a bit more to do on the international stage than them.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by EricLintScD
 


And if she tried to exercise any of the rights she would find herself out of a job and out of a home very, very quickly!

Now Charles is arrogant enough and so far out of touch that he may just try it...I think he might go the same way as his namesake!


I'm not so sure.. if she walked into Parliament next week, and told the MPs to get out and not come back until they had a plan that didn't shaft her subjects.. then she might (and I do stress might) get away with it..

But the chances of her doing anything that is of real benifift to us with her powers is about same as me winning the first prize on the national lottery.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


LOL you ar kidding! Any Monarch wouldn't dare, besides i dont think Charles is as bad as people make out, his charity work is immense, he has long championed causes that are only recently being given any serious note (global warming), and if he had his way no one would have to live on a "estate" in the U.K. You should look at the village he's built in cornwall. It is really nice and you would never be able to tell who lives where, if all the U.K was like that it would give people with little some pride back.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


If she walked into Parliament and actually had a viable alternative then she may, just may, get away with it but if she was just to leave us in limbo or assert her own authority then I think she'd get short shrift.
But she is far too wise to do that.
Her son is a different proposition again and is arrogant and stupid enough to try it.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Again i ask you to think again man, check my previous reply to that assumption, i think you bought into a little to much MSM (no offence), he isnt really that bad check out some of the work he does, he is a real credit to this country just gets a lot of bad press.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 


Not being disespectful but that's all nice and twee but who is going to do all the crappy jobs in urban environments?

The reality is that we can't all live idyllic, rural existences.

Charles is as removed from the reality that the vast majority of people in this country face as anyone possibly could be.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 

The way it is now, it does not really matter and it depends entirely on the will of the majority of British citizens. Trust me, should the majority ever feel that the monarchy has to go, it will go. See, there is really no difference whether you have a queen or a king as head of state or a president, like we do in Greece. The President of the Hellenic Republic has very little power; his role is mainly representative and signing laws that have passed through parliament or presidential decrees that have been proposed by ministers. I might be wrong, but I think the Queen has similar duties and similar diminished political power.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


If she walked into Parliament and actually had a viable alternative then she may, just may, get away with it but if she was just to leave us in limbo or assert her own authority then I think she'd get short shrift.
But she is far too wise to do that.
Her son is a different proposition again and is arrogant and stupid enough to try it.


Perhaps we need someone to try something new, take some risks..
tho I'm not sure if Charles is the right person to do it. maybe William is?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Why?
What gives them the right to 'try something new'?
If they comre up with a viable alternative form of government which the people of this country agree to then ok, otherwise they have no more right than you or I.

I am as proud an Englishman and Britain as anyone but I would genuinely rather die than meekly submit to their will just because of some alleged, ancient birthright!
edit on 15/1/11 by Freeborn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman1
 


If I was swallowing MSM bilge then I think I would be a Royalist wouldn't I?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Calm down, clam down lol. look all i is saying is that i think he gets a lot of really bad press when infact he does do a lot of good work. He could just go around opening shops and hospitals etc etc but he chooses to try and do things to help people, Princes trust, Duchy of cornwall range etc etc.

www.youtube.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.princes-trust.org.uk...

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Trust

www.royal-deeside.org.uk...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by WalterRatlos
 


Quite right, but we dont have to settle for a political formula that has already been tested. I myself have not formed any new radical political idea, and have no manifesto to change the lives of millions but someone may and it may be the future.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join