Attention, Lurkers...

[clocker]

My arse, look at how they behave.

So far, your arse seems to be behaving acceptably, but we'll keep a close watch and let you know if it crosses the line.

[manker]

With apologies to the other entrants.

Clocker has rather been thrust into position but I'm sure they will accept, at a stretch.

[Rat Faced]

I said I believed in Constitutional Monarchy...

This means an Elected Government would rule, we are therefore in agreement on that point.

I have also stated that i do not believe that too much power should be in one mans, or even one parties hands...

The Monarchy (or any Head of State), to me is the balance that stops a Government overstepping the mark.

Any State that lets the Head of Government also be, de facto, the Head of State.. congregates too much power in one place, whether (s)he be elected or otherwise.

This is a fact in the USA and a de facto fact here... the US President can virtually do what he likes, irrespective of the Senate or Congress via "Executive Order". The Prime Minister in the UK can do likewise with the "Royal Perogative"... this is wrong. By using these powers they are not accountable to anyone.

Saying "They can vote them out" after the bloodshed does not bring back the dead, or stop the Higher Courts being overturned, or give people back their homes...

They should be two seperate functions balancing each other.

The fact that I prefer my "Head of State" to be the Monarchy rather than another Politician is the only point in issue that i can see. The Monarchy is, in theory, above politics; Politicians live for it. Other countries have both positions filled by elections, and i can see no improvement on the system and appears to be more crap sometimes.

I quite agree that there needs to be a lot of weeding of the useless and work done to modernise the Monarchy... but i would not want to get rid of it, i'd rather Modernise it and give it some teeth.

I'd also agree that there are times when the Prince of Wales is not fit to sit on the Throne.. I hope that Charles is never King and it goes directly to William (who is a bit of a brat, but appears to care about the people)..

As I said, it needs weeding and Modernising, not demolition.

[Rat Faced]

They've all been done by the PM using the "Royal Perogative"...

If he couldnt use it, these things would have had to be voted upon in the commons and made accountable to Parliament and the UK people.

[Rat Faced]

You have to have something like the Royal Perogative or the Executive Order, otherwise a country cannot react quickly enough to some events.

Its the misuse of these powers that i object to.

ie: The concentration of too much power in one persons/parties hands.

The Head of State should be a Titular Position, with no real power other than being able to force an election and react to events threatening the nation...

Governing should be left to the Prime Minister and Parliament.. accountability, although much slower. To give the PM the powers of the Head of State too, which he currently employs.. means that he can bypass Parliament when he feels like it. Just like GW does in Washington with his Executive Orders.

Your way, is basically electing an Absolute Leader for a period of time... I dont like Absolutes.





Hope it appears in the correct thread this time...

[Snee]

I post when I'm here I never lurk bu tid f I did I'd post.,

[hobbes]

i read the first paragraph. :gheyeyerollingsmiley:

sorry to go off topic...

the other day me and my dad were talking about americans blind faith in george bush and their unwillingness to question him...

his theory is george bush=head of state so to americans it's like speaking ill of our queen to question him, unpatriotic if you will.

Words are simply redundant in this case.

[Rat Faced]

What do you mean my way, when did I describe what my way entailed. I wanted rid of the pointless monarchy. That does not mean I would not have something else. For example an elected President (just as an example).

Ok... I was making an Inferance that you wished to get rid of the Monarchy and not replace it with something else.

If that something else has no teeth, then its as useless as the Monarchy, without the knock on effect to the economy of Tourists... granted that on foreign tours they will be embassadors of British Industry, just as the Royals are now.. I dont think that the term "President" has the same effect as "Queen" or "King".

Just look at how the society Americans and Industrialists drool when they visit there... you think that they would be so quick to crawl to a British President?

Blair doesnt have that effect, and he's popular over there


If it has got teeth, then why not just give the Monarchy the teeth to start with... instead of having even more Poltics involved.

It's also more expensive to have a "President"... (assuming that we prune the usless Royals, as i've suggested)

[vidcc]

dependent on how one looks at it the royals may have a more "priviledged" life as far as luxuries are concerened but who would like to swap the other aspect.... less freedom...

Look at how the debate is going about if Charles should be allowed to Marry who he wishes...would anyone of us stand for that?
The monarch has no real say in how the country is run and is skewered for daring to make public statements about it.
The house of lords should be removed, they are unelected and have influence on the way the country is run. The monarchy (in britain at least) is nothing more than a puppet that receives its instructions from "below".

[Rat Faced]

Anyone who seeks power, are the ones i would be reluctant to give it to..

That rules out all politicians

Besides, they shouldnt have any powers other than those i've listed anyway..

The Elected Government are, rightly, the rulers of this country.


I'd have no problems with an elected upper house by the way.

I may be Pro-Monarchy, but im not Pro-Aristocrat in general