Republic.

truth seeker said:
She has not got this position by ability, she has got it by birthright, this is wrong and grossly offensive, and undemocratic. Most people are faced with all kinds of problems at work, like facing job worries and lack of income, this unelected woman has a job for life, for no given talent, its a ceremonial role, which costs over 200 million a year to fund. If the monarchy went tommorow it would not make an iota of difference in real terms.
Click to expand...

We live in a democracy, the Royals have no political power.

Her inherited position is much the same as any offspring of a billionaire, she got lucky (though I wouldn't want to do her job). Do you wish to implement a law whereby all inherited wealth passes to the state?

Cost - can I see your sums whereby you arrive at this figure of £200m?

"If the monarchy went tommorow it would not make an iota of difference in real terms." - What the **** does this mean? What are "real terms"? On what evidence do you base this assertion?



I think you're on the wind-up.
 
The 200 million is a figure that is worked out to be fairly accurate, because the figures that are officially released are riddled with omissions, such as they do not include grants, tax breaks, costs to local councils when these people visit places. The biggest omission is that personal security protection is also not included. Real terms means it would not effect people in a defintive way, only to some strange people who it would effect emotionally, no wind up sir. No political power, oh really. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation
 
Any evidence?

Any evidence?

That is a piss-weak story even by The Guardian standards. Did you see the recent one about the unemployed being forced to camp under a bridge and work for no pay? Turned out to be all lies...
 
irishgreen said:
Do you ****s know **** all ?

It's only called the 'union jack' when flown at sea, it's the unoin flag or the flag of the union on land.

FFS. It takes an Irishman to tell you that <doh>
Click to expand...

We're a nation of seafarers (or we were), so it's still the Union Jack, Jack, over land and sea.
 
When I originally posed the question, it was done with tongue firmly in cheek. But it's also tinged with some real concern as an Australian. We do not dislike the monarchy, we just don't want the final word on what we do here, to be placed in the hands of Liz. Of course it's just a formality, but the control of this countries decissions has to lie in hands of it's peoples, not the royalty of another.
 
cyclonic111 said:
When I originally posed the question, it was done with tongue firmly in cheek. But it's also tinged with some real concern as an Australian. We do not dislike the monarchy, we just don't want the final word on what we do here, to be placed in the hands of Liz. Of course it's just a formality, but the control of this countries decissions has to lie in hands of it's peoples, not the royalty of another.
Click to expand...

That's your prerogative. Although it may sometimes appear otherwise, we Brits have long since accepted that the age of empire is long gone. But there must be a reason why Australia, New Zealand and Canada still retain Betty as head of state. No one's forcing you.
 
We tripped over our own feet in the 1998 referendum. In the lead up to the vote, the polls were showing a win for the republicans. But the Prime minister of the time, a staunch monarchist, had the referendum couched in terms that make the process a really hard job. And to add insult to injury, the fervent support among the pro group, splinterd among several groups who wanted different models of the republic. It was a shambles.

As the population ages, the support for the cause is growing. One of the power bases for the monarchy was the aged of this country, which is understandable. But the feeling here is that it's just a matter of time.
 
Probably is a matter of time, mate. But don't you think maybe you retain your ties to a monarchy for the same reason we do, ie. it's too much trouble for too little gain to pass the legislation neccessary to replace it?
 
Is sort of different over here Archers. The queen is English, living in England, she's yours. If we had a monarch of our own, maybe that would be right. But as it is, it's like being a fully grown man who's no longer living at home, who has to ask his parent for permission every time he wants to make a valued decision. We stand on our own feet, we must be left to decide our future without seeking approval from a person from another country. It's demeaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back