In our new Brexit world do we still need a monarchy

[prwales]

If corruption is the abuse of public office for personal gain, how can we say the monarchy isn’t corrupt? The royals demand public money for private travel, accommodation and security. They demand levels of secrecy that would make the CIA blush. They get legal protections and privileges written into our laws and expect full access to government papers and ministers.

When the Royal Household comes in for criticism – like when they received millions of pounds to fix Buckingham Palace late last year – people are quick to deflect that criticism away from the Queen. Yet the Queen is head of Monarchy PLC. She has been for 65 years. She is responsible for the royals’ consistent failure to live up to even the most basic standards of public life.

When Prince Andrew vandalized property and escaped prosecution, that’s on the Queen. When Prince Charles abuses his position as Duke of Cornwall to demand more cash from tenants, the Queen and Charles share the blame. Royal pressure on ministers in Westminster and Holyrood for greater secrecy came with the Queen’s blessing. As did demands from the palace for a new financial deal in the form of the Sovereign Grant.

Yet we can’t lose sight of the fact that the monarchy should be brought down on its own terms – because it is not fit for purpose. It is corrupt and secretive, it falls well short of the standards we should all expect of our national institutions. Republicans will continue to make the broader case for a parliamentary republic – and we’ll continue to challenge and expose the royals.

 

[LostKiwi]

Yes we do (and I'm not even british).

 

[bembo449]

brings in a lot of revenue so even if for just that reason

 

[prwales]

brings in a lot of revenue so even if for just that reason

Thats simply untrue, [IMO] a fallacy sponsored by royalists, the actual cost is approaching £350m a year that includes transport, security, accommodation and the loss to the public purse from the Duchy of Cornwall's revenues

Both views are set out here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html

 

[BryanC]

YES.

 

[C350Carl]

But if there was no Monarchy you wouldn't have anyone to complain about Mr W!

 

[AMGeed]

Comrade Wales should move to Russia and enjoy his life living under a dictatorship.

The United Kingdom clearly isn't working for him.

 

[V6Matty]

And another establishment bashing thread oh joy

 

[Frontstep]

Comrade Wales should move to Russia and enjoy his life living under a dictatorship.

The United Kingdom clearly isn't working for him.

Nope Russia is no good,
Putins cronies demand public money for private travel, accommodation and security. They demand levels of secrecy that would make the CIA blush. They get legal protections and privileges written into their laws and expect full access to government papers and ministers.

They also have you killed,
the Queen does not appear to be covered in blood well unless you count a few pheasants.................

What about moving into the Socialist republic of Islington with Jeremy and Laura ?

 

[Craiglxviii]

Yes. Our complete system of government is based on it. Without a monarchy we would become a republic, which is what you of course really want. Note how well it worked for us the last time.

Next question?

 

[Craiglxviii]

Comrade Wales should move to Russia and enjoy his life living under a dictatorship.

The United Kingdom clearly isn't working for him.

It's more an oligarchy than a dictatorship.

North Korea is a dictatorship. With no royal family. Communist too.

Fancy living there anyone?

 

[Taffy7hfa]

Nope Russia is no good,
Putins cronies demand public money for private travel, accommodation and security. They demand levels of secrecy that would make the CIA blush. They get legal protections and privileges written into their laws and expect full access to government papers and ministers.

They also have you killed,
the Queen does not appear to be covered in blood well unless you count a few pheasants.................

What about moving into the Socialist republic of Islington with Jeremy and Laura ?

Apart from princess Dianna's.

 

[Chrishazle]

Oh dear God, here goes the forum again. We must be thankful that we have a constitutional monarchy and an elected parliament rather than the "lets change things every 4 years" (or 2, if you include senate/congress) in USA, or other less palatable versions of government around the world.

If you do not agree with how we do things in UK, please leave to somewhere more agreeable to you - and relieve us of your witterings.

 

[Painter16]

It's more an oligarchy than a dictatorship.

North Korea is a dictatorship. With no royal family. Communist too.

Fancy living there anyone?

No thanks don't think I would be allowed to drive me sl over there and would be killed for laughing at his hair cut

 

[SL63 Mark]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the question, why would Brexit mean we wouldn't need a monarchy ? In what way are the two things connected ?

Monarchists would argue the monarchy is more essential after Brexit, becausef we would be an independent Nation state once more.

Personally I am not convinced of the need for a monarchy, however getting rid of one head of state means you need to replace it with something like an elected President which would be more expensive, as he or she would require all the trappings of government like POTUS. Thankfully the Royals do not have any real political power, and what influence they do have looks set to diminish once QEII leaves the harbour. So they at best an irrelevant tourist attraction.

 

[Xtractorfan]

I have to say I tend to agree with the Monarchy. My only beef is that there are wayy too many of them. Even Pikeys turf 'em out when they reach adolescense.

 

[Craiglxviii]

I have to say I tend to agree with the Monarchy. My only beef is that there are wayy too many of them. Even Pikeys turf 'em out when they reach adolescense.

Look on that as a feature, not a bug. It means that there is always a very clear and viable line of succession. That might not sound important but legally it really, really is. Look at the efforts other countries have to put into securing their LoS (physical efforts). We, in effect, replace all of that with a really big family that is dispersed all over the world.

 

[Craiglxviii]

I don't understand the reasoning behind the question, why would Brexit mean we wouldn't need a monarchy ? In what way are the two things connected ?

Monarchists would argue the monarchy is more essential after Brexit, becausef we would be an independent Nation state once more.

Personally I am not convinced of the need for a monarchy, however getting rid of one head of state means you need to replace it with something like an elected President which would be more expensive, as he or she would require all the trappings of government like POTUS. Thankfully the Royals do not have any real political power, and what influence they do have looks set to diminish once QEII leaves the harbour. So they at best an irrelevant tourist attraction.

The two things are not connected except perhaps by the OP. He is a self-avowed republican and he has mentioned before that he would like to see the Crown gone. That's fine, it's his opinion after all but as to how it links to our breaking with the EEC, that doesn't exist.

In terms of the HoS vs HoG issue, well the US has both a double-easy and double-difficult system, POTUS is both at the same time. That complicates things. France might be a better analogy as there is clearly a Prime Minister and a President of the Republic. Please NB how much the French PM makes the news in relation to the French President...

The Monarch does have real political power. It is in the Monarch that resides the right to make or dissolve governments (actually in any country that he or she is HoS of... see Australia!), appoint Prime Ministers, make war and peace, command the armed forces and most importantly to regulate the Civil Service. That is not to be taken lightly; in its own way it is the ultimate arbiter of power (as in, which political party is appointed to wield the power). Remember who the Oath of Allegiance is sworn to and who issues Commissions, Warrants, Offices of Constable and so on. There are very real reasons why that is so. There are also other very real reasons why we have the oldest, most stable modern system of government around, and one that does not rely on any one specific person. That is because it works and, despite what everyone might think subjectively, when viewed objectively it works well. It doesn't matter whether it's Lizzy II, her grandmum (about whom many said the same thing, at the time remember) or Mad King George on the throne. The Monarch still holds those duties and Parliament still maintains the same relationship.

 

[prwales]

Yes. Our complete system of government is based on it. Without a monarchy we would become a republic, which is what you of course really want. Note how well it worked for us the last time.

Next question?

1649- The English Commonwealth, it had a few faults but was better than what it replaced...yes, I would like a republic but with a ceremonial President.
I do not want the French, Russian or American type of elected "king".
Ireland, Germany, Italy, Austria and Israel all have ceremonial elected presidents which for us would leave our Parliamentary Democracy intact. Don't get too sentimental about it though we have only had democracy since 1928.
When Australia kicks out the monarchy my best guess is they'll choose the Irish Presidency as their role model...we could do worse than follow suit

 

[Yugguy]

An alternative question.

Who here has their lives materially affected or influenced by the monarchy?

I don't really see the need to drive for a republic.