I follow most of the threads that j2 makes (and where there's j2 there's RF ), his thoughts are intersting (compliment) i dont post anymore on these threads because simply i don't want to get involved unless it's a major issue (and i mean big).
I follow most of the threads that j2 makes (and where there's j2 there's RF ), his thoughts are intersting (compliment) i dont post anymore on these threads because simply i don't want to get involved unless it's a major issue (and i mean big).
Jeff Loomis: He's so good, he doesn't need to be dead to have a tribute.
i find as my point gathers momentum other people's gather long words so i dont post here anymore. i just get very frustrated.
Originally Posted by cpt_azad
No im not...
Ah bugger
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
I am a Constitutional Monarchist, and think we should give the Monarchy more power to interfere in Government, without fear of retribution by the next Government elected.Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley
I think we've tried just about every type of Government in this country; Absolute Monarchy, Republic, Religious Dictatorship and finally settled on the best of the crappy bunch..
I do not want the Head of State to be the same person as the one in charge of the Government, it puts too much power in one persons hands.
Swearing allegiance to a Monarchy and getting paid by a Parliament, sets a nice balance against revolution..
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
What's wrong with having the British queen/king as figureheads ? they don't have any powers other than ceremonal and through tourism etc. they do bring in more money to the economy than they take out.
Having a pet Monarch doesn't hinder democracy
Perhaps there is the "why should they live in luxury ?" side of it but that's just the roll of the dice that life dealt them
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
No-one would visit the UK to see a monarch who lives in a semi in WolverhamptonOriginally Posted by vidcc
I quite agree tho' - while I laugh at the pomposity of the Royals, they do little harm to the democratic process so I see no reason to remove them because of democratic principles.
As to giving them more powers ... errr what! That was a little joke, I take it
a) occasionally, purely for entertainment
b) not yet (I have yet to see evidence of this ever happening here).
Last edited by Sid Hartha; 01-06-2005 at 06:50 PM.
Most tourists would consider it a big bonus if they actually got to see the queen.Originally Posted by JPaul
do you feel any ACTUAL freedoms are denied you at present that you would gain should the monarchy be abolished?
Descriptive terms not counting if the actaul reality has no difference in real life affect
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
@manker
No i do mean it.
What good is being able to sack the Government, if you lose the ability immediatly after using that power?
If they were allowed to actually use the power, then Thatcher wouldnt have caused as much crap as she did. In addition, Blaire wouldnt have been able to use the Royal Prorogative to take us to war etc..
At the moment, the "Powers" of the Royals are excercised by the PM... I do not like so much power ie: The Prorogatives and the Government, in one persons hands.
By giving the Royal stuff back to the Royals, Government becomes more accountable.
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
My apologies, Clocker-I actually mistook you for someone else.Originally Posted by clocker
Maybe Rat, or somebody...
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Bookmarks