PoliticsUK Jubilee Debates: Monarchy V Republic Debate Part One

Welcome to PoliticsUK Monarchy V Republic Debate.

To mark the end of the Jubilee, PoliticsUK will be holding a Monarchy V Republic Debate tonight at 8pm on this thread.

Our guests are

Pro-Monarchy
British Monarchist League representative - David Soutter
Deputy Chairman of th British Monarchist Society - Scott Pepe
Philip Fairweather
Mick Constable

Pro Republic
Joe Gleeson
Jack Barker
Ashley Welsh I'm Chair of Republic in the Midlands.
Richard Fraser

This format is that the first hour, the questions will come via PoliticsUK and ONLY our guest will be able to answer.

From 9pm the thread will be opened to PoliticsUK users so that they can join in the discussion.

Please do NOT comment on the thread before 9pm as your comment will be deleted.

Monarchy V Republic Debate

Yesterday at 20:00 at Politics UK Wall

- Politics UK PoliticsUK would like to welcome our guests for tonight.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Good evening everybody, thank you very much for having us on!
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Ashley Walsh - Chair for Republic in the Midlands.
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Hello I'm Philip Fairweather, a 39-year-old musician, actor and Royal History enthusiast from Devon...
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Good evening all, Joe Gleeson - paid up republican who talks far too much about politics for his own good :D
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker Good evening everyone. I am a 26 year old Republican who has recently emigrated to Vancouver Island, Canada. I am looking forward to tonight's debate- I really feel there is a need for a proper debate on the Monarchy & the future of the UK so let's go!!!
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter David Soutter non party political Monarchist supporter
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Still here David Liz Soutter
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer Hi I'm Richard Frazer - I am a political activist and will be devils advocate on behalf of the Republicans
  17 hours ago ·
- Politics UK First question: Did you enjoy this weekend’s Jubilee Celebrations? Was it money well spend?
  17 hours ago ·
- Politics UK Mr Mick Constable will be standing in for Joel Zumokuta Hall.
  17 hours ago
- Mick Constable Is that an open or a directed question
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Most enjoyed having four days from work. Despite this, the extra public holiday will probably prolong the recession until 2013. Since we're the ones that'll suffer from this consequence, lobbyist at Buck House have some answering to do.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Help am i in the right place >>>
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Thanks for that Question. Members from the BMS attended all the events from the flotilla on sunday right through to balcony appearance this afternoon. We were amazed and if we're honest a little surprised that 1.2 million people turned out to see the flotilla in the rain and then 1.5 million people went to London today. Baring in mind the Jubilee celebrations were largely privately funded, and seeing the joy and unity amongst the hundreds of thousands that turned out it was absolutely worth it! How good was the concert as well? A truly remarkable weekend that we can be proud off.
  17 hours ago
- Philip Fairweather I thoroughly enjoyed this weekend's celebrations...I've been in London on the fringes of the events doing pretty much my own thing...Too busy to see much of the main action, but lots of people were out enjoying the events from many different backgrounds and agegroups...That much was evident and a joy to behold...
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer Good question. The short answer is yes it was enjoyable for its entertainment, but it was a joke on the political level and an insult to those who do not feel the monarchy represents the people. The long answer is sadly it is a celebration of a person who has never been elected keeping a job for 60 years without any real chance of being sacked, advertising to the world we do not have a modern democracy. There is a sizable chunk of the people who do not believe in the monarchy. It was a fun entertainment but it was not money well spent. It was a piece of mass propaganda.
  17 hours ago ·
- Mick Constable I too think it worth enforcing the fact that most of the funding for this came from private sources although security was state funded
  17 hours ago
- Jack Barker Well I haven't seen any celebrations in Canada yet, despite living in what is commonly known as "Canada's most British city" (Not the reason I chose this city- there's so much more to it than that). Everytime I have turned on the tv to see the celebrations in Britain, I can't help getting that face-flushing, stomach churning embarassment that you get when you see lots of people behaving in a deeply weird way in a public place. Therefore I propose that with millions of pounds being spent on the jubilee, an equal amount should be spent distributing anti-nausea pills across the UK.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter The question was did we enjoy the celebrations............very much so. Did they provide value for money........I heard the figure of £4,000,000 quited by a republic supporter and saying Lomdon had to pay the bill. Well it was money well spent. There is no nation on earth who could rival that national Event
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society That's interesting you say we don't have a modern democracy. Do you consider Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark or Japan non-modern democracies?
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson I've never been into the whole 'pomp and ceremony' thing myself in all honesty, it seemed a little cruel to have an octogenarian lady and her 90 year old husband stood up on a boat in the freezing cold and pouring rain to me! In all seriousness, I can understand people taking the excuse to celebrate with street parties and so on, but it would be untrue to say we couldn't still have these kinds of celebrations in a republic, look at 4th July in the US and Bastille Day in France! I do, however, object to the extended bank holiday - by all accounts it has cost the economy billions, which is unacceptable in a time where people are losing their jobs left right and centre, and (and I feel able to comment here, having many friends in the situation) with young people finding it almost impossible to get a job at all. It's also disgraceful that you have things like this happening:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed?newsfeed=true. It should have been far better managed, and there's no way it should have been a bank holiday.
  
  Unemployed bussed in to steward river pageant
  www.guardian.co.uk
  Coachloads of jobless people brought in to work unpaid on river pageant as part of Work Programme
  
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson David, why would we not be able to replicate that on the anniversary of our becoming a republic?
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society What day would British People celebrate in a Republic? Republic Day? When fewer than 1 in 5 people support the idea of republicanism I can't see it being a very successful national celebration!
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Incedentally, I found it interesting that, given the palace's apparent love of charity, they didn't even bother to charge a tender for the concert tickets which could have been donated to UNICEF. Just a thought.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter The million people on the ground on each day and the 6-8 million in the country at registered events and the millions more like myself who parties with friends........would disagree...........the political point was the politicians where untill today not to be seen apart from Boris represneting London on the Thames..........thats the whole point it is an invisible break on those with huge ego's and political carerrs
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer It seems clear to me that the monarchy seems intent on increasing the pomp and ceremony seeing the success of the wedding and the 60 years events. They will attach themselves to the Olympics and many other events going forward as it makes them look popular and stops the media focusing on the weaknesses of a system that makes people subjects and not citizens. Subject of the Queen means she owns us.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Obviously when we become a republic it will have majority support, BMS...
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Mick's right about the funding situation...Most of the events were privately funded and the largest public expenditure would have been on security...
  17 hours ago ·
- Politics UK Moving on...
  According to the Royal Household, the Royal Family cost the UK £32.1 million per year. According to the Republic Campaign it was £134-£184m. Who is correct and is the Royal Family worth the expenditure?
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Joe have you heard of the Diamond Jubilee Trust? You may find a lot of money from the jubilee finds its way there!
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Joe because it is non political I know Labour and Conservatives who where out with Boris because the event was non pol,itical
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson I can guarantee you that, should England achieve the impossible and win the euros, the celebrations will be several times larger. This was no expression of great love for the monarchy, it was largely people who lived in London anyway coming along to see a celebrity on a boat who lined the Thames.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter had it been the Olympics which seems horribly political they would have charged a fee and wasted it again on a ciause that we have no interest in
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Bastille Day has far more participating in France. 9,500 apps for street closures in a country of 60m+ is equivalent to one man and his dog.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Are we surprised Republic grossly inflated the cost of the Royal Family? No!
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Incidentally, the BBC was an absolute disgrace in its coverage. Typical fawning propaganda, no actual reporting whatsoever.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Three seperate side mudering each other with no interest in the people that was not the point.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Palace only gives the cost of the civil list, ignoring security, costs to councils and so on. Cost is largely irrelevent to a constitutional argument anyway, it's very rare that a republican actually brings it up in my experience.
  17 hours ago ·
- Mick Constable The republicans faile to add that the renevue generated by the crown estate far exceed even the figures they come up with.
  
  Estimate vary but all are on the plus side 0f £200m
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society We probably should point out to Ashley that more than one person attends a street party - unless it's Republic's one from last year :D
  
  Joe, Define Reporting?
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Republican estimates are misleading because they fail to acknowledge that the Crown is actually the State and not the Monarch...The Monarch does not own the Crown Estates...All revenue from them is returned to the State and the burden of the fixed Civil List funding the Monarch recieves for her duties as Head of State is minimal in comparioson...
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society The British Monarchy is very good value for money for the British taxpayer as it contributes far more to the nation than it costs. For the year ending March 2011, the Crown Estate (which does not belong to the Government) surrendered £230.9 million revenue to HM Treasury; this is given to be spent for the good of the nation in exchange for the Government providing the Civil list and Grants-in-aid funding for the monarchy to ensure the important role and duties of Head of State can be carried out. In 2011, the total Head of State expenditure met from public funds was £36.2 million; this includes spending on salaries for staff, maintenance of palaces and travel costs. The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 replaces the civil list and separate grants with a single grant that will be based on 15% of the revenues from the Crown Estate which will result in a similar amount of funding as under current arrangements. It is also important to remember that in a republic there would still need to be expenditure for the Head of State, although in a republic this would include additional costs such as presidential salaries (the Queen does not receive a salary) and presidential pensions (the Queen will never retire), there would also be an election costing tens of millions more if the president was directly elected.
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer I actually don’t care which figure is right. Lets take the smallest
  £32.1 million goes to the Royal Family every year, courtesy of you and me via our taxes.
  That is £32.1 million a year of our tax money to keep a family in luxury forever during all the good and bad years.
  People are on the streets in the UK. There are people who work every day of their lives on minimum wage. Should they be investing in a whole group of people who have never known what it is like to live on the edge of existence.
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker Well to be honest no one knows the correct amount but £150m sounds about right. If so this is 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency. What we do know is that the Royal Family receives a lot of money to maintain its luxurious lifestyle, servants & extravagant holidays. Millions is spent to run & maintain their palaces. To test whether something is value for money, we need to judge what we get for our money & whether we can get something better for less. The Royal Family are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, having recently lobbied successfully to have itself removed from FOI laws- shrouded in secrecy, they should be subject to greater scrutiny.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter You where at a different event Jo, the boast where from all over the country and populated by peole from every corner of the country and from over the world. Republicans are scared of the sucess. I would guess if we can ever persuade Graham to divulge the real figures fro REpublic the numbers would be heavily weighted to London........and yet they could manage more than 200 ish on the big Thames day and less than 20 today
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Clearly, some of the security costs would remain in a republic (although I doubt we'll be paying for private bodyguards for the president's cousin's grandchild somehow!!), Republic has never denied that. And it's quite possible that they've overestimatd some of the costs. But it has to be an estimate because, for some strange reason which I've still not worked out, the royal family is exempt from the freedom of information act! We have no idea how much they're spending, or what they're spending it on! Unaccountable, undemocratic, and out of place. No other public body would get away with it.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson There were 1200 there in Sunday David, and that's ignoring the people turned away by the suspicious security guard who wouldn't tell anyone who he was working for...
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh BMS - Very true. But even if you allow for a margin of 100-200 attending street parties, the none of the above party will win hands down. It is an odd way to justify your existence with a few street parties every ten or twenty years under the guise of community cohesion.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Richard - did you know that presidents cost money too?! Michelle Obama's holiday cost American taxpayers $4,000,000 last year!
  
  Funny how people weren't queuing up to privately fund a politicians celebrations eh?
  17 hours ago ·
- Politics UK Is it an affront to our democracy that we have an unelected Head of State?
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer The royal family are not in their jobs through techinical specialisms or hard work. They are paid their money because their mum and dad were royality.
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Imagine if we had a President and several ex presidents to deal with...How much more would it cost to have potentially a dozen or so Royal Fmilies?
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Crown Estate myth can be dispelled with followinf facts. Palace aides lobbied those who compile The Sunday Times Rich List to discount Royal Art Collection. When Irish Free State was created, assets from Irish Crown Estate were handed back to the Irish people.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson I'm going to try to say this once and only once. THE WINDSOR FAMILY DOES NOT OWN THE CROWN ESTATES ANY MORE THAN CAMERON PERSONALLY OWNS 10 DOWNING STREET!!!!!!!!! Once upon a time the Crown was the government, then parliament became to government. The estates were transferred between branches of government, NOT between the government and private individuals. It is a malicious lie to suggest that we'd lose that revenue in a republic.
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer Would it not be better for a person to make decisions that effect your life to have had some chance of living a similar life and understanding the difficulties you have had. To have voted on who is in power. Even if you voted the other fellow you have had your say on who represents you.
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker Even if the Monarchy represents good value for money, which I don't believe it does, what I object to is the orgy of deference, snobbery & worship for the heredictory principle that it represents, but I'm sure we're going to get on that in a bit.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter The figures quoted about the cost are a fallacy from both sides. The real cost must be around £80/£100 million. Burt from that you have to take the £250 million that comes from the Crown estate. so it does actuaslly cost anything. Non of these figures take into account the invisible earnings from other things like tourism and trade
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Assets from the Crown Estate are paid to the treasury every year...far in excess of the civil list!
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer An unelected head of state is a dictator. They are an affront to the people who fought for freedoms against dictators in WWII
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Democracy and republics are not synonymous with each other, the United Kingdom is a Parliamentary Democracy with a Constitutional Monarchy that serves as a safeguard of our democracy. There are many institutions and individuals that are not directly elected but still play an important role in society such as the courts, police and civil service. These positions come with different degrees of power and influence, but none are elected and this is partly to ensure that they remain as neutral as possible. Having a monarchy allows us to have a neutral Head of State above party politics at the same time as having a democratically elected Parliament and Government which decide national policies and run the country. The monarchy continues to exist today because it has the overwhelming support of the people (as shown in opinion polls), and at the last General Election in May 2010 over 90% of the votes went to political parties that support the continuation of the monarchy. There would only be a democratic mandate to abolish the monarchy if a majority of the votes went to political parties and MPs that support abolition, and after a referendum was held with a majority of the population voting in favour of becoming a republic.
  
  Republics around the world do not view the United Kingdom or other constitutional monarchies as “undemocratic” nations. Constitutional monarchies are amongst the most advanced nations in the world and occupy top positions in international rankings in these areas, including the 2010 Democracy Index which had 7 constitutional monarchies in the top 10 list of countries, including in position 1 and 3. Monarchy is clearly not a barrier to democracy and whilst there are many ways our own democracy could be improved, we do not need to abolish one of our oldest institutions that most people support and care about.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Ireland is not a good example for the republicans to use ...........the president is unknown as is the country largely....what however is what theyr are told they want
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker ‎Philip, the Crown Estate is national & state property!
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh We wouldn't have to pay for 24 hour police protection for a president.
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer Would an elected leader only represent one religion in a multicultural modern society? No
  Would an elected leader live in a palace and have others for weekends in a modern society? No
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather That's what I meant Jack...Just typing too fast to explain properly...!
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter All the heqads of state apart from the Americans who fought where dictators from Republics.........
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Would an elected politician be a member of a political party and this be inherently divisive YES! Would you want them politicising things like rememberance day? NO!
  
  Where is Graham Smith. This no show from republic is nearly as awkward as their 3 man protest outside St Pauls!
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson The very presence of a monarchy in our system makes the PM far too powerful. The PM is there because he owns the lower House. That wouldn't be a problem except the upper House has essentially no power at all. Even that wouldn't be a problem except the Head of State has no power either as they have no mandate to use their powers, which are therefore sucked into the Prime Minister's armoury! We have all branches of government invested in a single man (oh, and there's no constitution to check laws against either!!), who is not even directly elected. Think of the things that have gone through when NOBODY WANTED THEM!! Tuition fees, Iraq, the NHS Reforms... The PM is politically omnipotent, and the people can only change that every 5 years. We need a body directly accountable to the people who is not under the control of the PM, And the only way to do that is to elect a HoS with reserve powers such as calling referenda on controversial laws. Stick in a recall mechanism so it can't be abused and we have a working democracy.
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer That is the sad travesty of propaganda David. Even the monarchists know we are in a dictatorship. Just one with good control of the media.
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather ‎Richard Frazer...The main enemy in WWII was a democratically elected Head of State...IE. Hitler...Democractic election is no guarantee of liberty...
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter The Crown esatte is nioether mational or state property. It actually belongs to the monarch. It is surreneded voluntarily the income in exchange for a payment. Its a good deal for the country
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society If we had a Conservative President, I don't think Mr Cameron's progress would have been slowed down much!
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather I'd rather somebody born to do the job than just another political quango...
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Hitler wasn't democratically elected!! He got his goons to go round beating up the opposition! He was about as democratically elected as Gadaffi!
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter You mean the houses that all the politicians live in when in office.
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Power has to reside somewhere, and in Britain it comes from the Crown. Other republics have a constitution stating the mechanics and functions of different levels of government. Here, we may have elections, but they are discretionary and happen becuase parliament says they can happen. There was considerable debate about the Fixed Term Parliaments Act coming into existence as it would dimish the powers of the crown and set us on our way to getting a codified constitution. Until we have entrenched laws, any act can be repealed by parliament, so even without going into if the fact we have an unelected head of state, it is reasonable to say the gentlemans agreement some call an elective dictatorship is most certainly an affront to democracy.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Nobody is suggesting a political president. We're talking about an impartial leader directly accountable to the entire populous.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Uh oh Hitler is involved!
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society ‎'The election of a president is inherently a political event'
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker Indeed & our last Monarchy but one, Edward VIII actually conspired with Hitler to run the UK as a Nazi colony. Thank god he fell in love with a divorced American & quit the throne; that's the thing with the Monarchy: you get whoever squeezes out of the Royal vagina. It could be, just like Edward, a vicious enemy of democracy!
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Why is it an affront..........Vis the Americnas all want the Job and are prepared to spend billions getting there. Our Monrach prevents them from going to far. The break is invisible, but has showed politicans the door when they have over stayed their welocme and are trying to cling to powerr. Gough Whitlam, Ted Heath, Gordon Brown..............go your no longer in power
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Hitler was chancellor appointed by Von Hindenburg. Had Germany had the constitutional safeguards we propose, Hitler would not have been able to abolish the right to trial by jury as easily.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Joe show me anyone who is an impartial elected head of SAtate they are all ex politicians or even current ones.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Untrue, BMS. What would be political in an election between, say, Steven Fry and Hugh Laurie?
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Jack, do please point the BMS in the direction of evidence that points to Edward VIII conspiring against the UK?
  
  And the idea that election imiediatley nullifies hereditary advantage is absurd. Look at our current PM, and his Deputy, And Blair, And Obama, and Romney. All born into well off families who can fund election campaigns!
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson David, Americans are intrigued in the system because of how ridiculous it is. Offer them a constitutional monarchy in place of their Constitution and they'll laugh in your face.
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer Democracy and Royalty do not mix. One is voted - one is not. One is of the people, one is not. One is accountable one is not.
  One creates subjects of the state one creates a state of citizens
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh The other two countries that made up the axis powers (Japan and Germany) were kingdoms. As were two thirds who signed to tripartite pact.
  17 hours ago ·
- Politics UK We apologise for any technical problem that you may be having on Facebook.
  Moving on...
  Following the Royal Wedding last year and this weekend’s Jubilee, is it not the case that Republicanism is being marginalised in the UK?
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson They find it fascinating that a 21st century Western country can still be so captivated by kings queens, princes and princesses, many probably wonder where the wizards and elves are too!!!
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Edward VIII is a good case in point...It shows that we have the the means to remove a bad monarch from office, just as was done with James VII/II in the late 17th Century....The marriage controversy was an excuse rather than the main cause...Senior Goverment officils had wanted to find something to trap him for a while...
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Joe Stephen Fry is a monarchist!
  
  This is always our favourite republican argument! That we would get Stephen Fry (monarchist) or (Sir) David Attenborough as head of state? What makes you think they would run? Can you name another republic that has a loveable TV host instead of a poltiican as president?
  
  please awnser
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Jack Ed VIII did not conspire with Hitler ..........he was a fool and coned by him. Like many on the right and the far left.........In fact the communist party and the left only wanted to go to war after Hitler attaced Russia........He was duped. Having gone through the First War he along with the appeasres was trying to stop a war the wrong way the left wanted to support the pact with Hitler and Russia get you history right and dont use such vulgar laguage its pointless
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Also, Stepehen Fry appeared in the Yes to fairer votes campaign supporting a switch to AV. Hardly neutral.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson A rather simple question. Republic has more than trebled its membership, Sunday was the biggest republican demo in history despite literally hundreds not being allowed onto the protest site because it was too full, polls show a steady increase for us - and this is whilst the most popular monarch ever is still incumbent!!
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson So, despite what the Beeb would have you believe, the actual facts show that republicanism is on the way up!!
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson BMS - most people in the world are starving, yet we manage not to. We are a fantastic, unique set of people in this country. We'd manage it.
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather Republicans shout louder than ever...If people wanted a Republic, we would have one by now and it would have happened a long time ago...The monarchy is getting stronger rather than weaker and has far more support than it did in the dark days of the early 90s...
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Republicanism as a force is a minority of a minority.........if one considers numbers.......yesterday was a swan song I fear. I think we need them ... we need them to remind us what a treasure we have in the Monarch and what a grim awful alternative they show us then they attach the instituion.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Polls absolutely do NOT show a steady increase! The recent one had you at 10%
  
  http://www.britishmonarchistsociety.org.uk/opinion-pollling/
  
  Opinion Polling | The British Monarchist Society
  www.britishmonarchistsociety.org.uk
  » Opinion Polling | Promoting, Defending and Protecting the Crown
  
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer The Royal Wedding was again a distraction to the political will of the people. It promoted a young lady that no-one had heard of into one of the most influential positions in the country.
  This person is going to influence the direction of democracy in the UK for years to come and will never at any point be under scrutiny as to whether she is doing a good job.
  The wedding itself was a incomprehensible cost to the UK and apart from the entertainment it provided it brought no benefit to a people who are struggling in a recessive market.
  A democratic republic would be accountable for this cost. It the president tried to put a cost like this for his son or daughter on the state he would have to go through expenses and probably imprisoned for it.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Could quite easily put a clause in the constitution saying ex-MPs can't be Head of State, no politico would touch it with a barge pole if the only real power was referral to referendum.
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker ‎"Can you name another republic that has a loveable TV host instead of a poltiican as president?" Democracy is about people who they want. I am not campaigning for a particular president, I am campaigning for the right of people to decide. There's an instinctive spasm of deference with having a Monarchy- "Don't trust them with picking the leaders- just make it an aristocrat constantly coming from the same family!"
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Jo the site was half empty and you could see that from the photos taken from City Hall
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Richard it's all very well saying all of this. But do you think it was a distraction these people's will? http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkf3mgIfSI1qze0z6o1_1280.jpg
  
  They seem to disagree with you
  
  http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkf3mgIfSI1qze0z6o1_1280.jpg
  ‎24.media.tumblr.com
  
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson GMTV/Mirror had it at 43% in 2008, funny that your graph doesn't represent that one.
  17 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Support for a republic has remained steady at around 20%. It hasn't really changed. What is changing is the diminishing support for Charles to become the next head with Camilla Parker-Bowles. The irony that so many monarchists argue that we'd get a partial and political head of state when we change should not be lost on anyone.
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer A political movement which is really to overthrow the current institutions will never be properly treated unless it can actually remove the present system. History only records the winners. So at the moment the Monarchists can shout they see nothing of the republicans.
  What do they want to see Cromwell style armies in the street? riots in the cities.
  Republic movement is going to take its time and educate people into understanding they are slave subjects and not free citizens. People will want change when they realise they canaffect change.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Who the people want? They can only make as good a decision as who the parties put on the ballot paper!
  17 hours ago
- Joe Gleeson Ashley is completely correct. Chuck is already renowned in westminster for meddling, and he's not even in office yet!!
  17 hours ago
- Politics UK This is the final question from this segment of the debate.
  
  Which is better – A Republic or a Monarchy. What are the advantages of each system?
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter The numbers are not increasing and if they where Graham Smith would have stood up to my challenge over the other events descibe as packed out like Manchester and |Bristol I was at both events and the kindess way of descibing them was one man and his dog. There should be more Repbulicans in London and yesterday was a prime day for you to prove your point.........60/100/even 300 was pitiful and with respect you know it. I think we are back to me offering my phone box for your meetings
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson David, the Beeb quite cynically took their film at 11.45 (you know, before the protest actually started!!) to make it look as if only 200 were there. You're a smart chap, you should have seen that one coming!
  17 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker It's not easy for Republicans to get their message across what with the government backing the monarchy & shielding it from genuine scrutiny, the millions spent on PR & publicity by the Royals, as well as the ridiculous tabloid media spin. We need to do more to get the facts out there. Having a monarchy harms our democracy, our society- the Crown ensures the central government & bureaucracy has enormous unchecked power. Government ministers use the privy council to bypass parliament. We need a new constiution where the people are sovereign, not the Monarchy!
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2012%2Fmay%2F24%2Fqueen-diamond-jubilee-record-support&h=ZAQGD9HSn
  
  Queen enjoys record support in Guardian/ICM poll
  www.guardian.co.uk
  Pre-diamond jubilee surge in royalism hides bad news for Prince Charles, with almost half wanting succession to jump to William
  
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society ‎'We need to do more to get our facts out'
  
  No. You don't. The people know the facts. They Disagree with you. Just because the general public disagree with you does not mean they are ignorant.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Monarchy as it is in the UK and the Commonwealth puts a true break on the politicians who see themselves as the answer to everything. They cant over stay theri welcome.............as a lady in the palce says go, you no longer have public support........Heath and Brown are the two best examples.
  17 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson BMS - 48% of those polled are REPUBLICAN BY DEFINITION!! They want to choose their next head of state!!!!
  17 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather A Monarchy...You get a politically neutral Head of State who is born to do the job and understands what is required of them from a very early age, acting as a figurehead and a uniting force for the nation, leaving the politicians to get on with their job and keeping the highest office in the land away from from their grasping reach and free of corruption...
  17 hours ago ·
- Mick Constable I believe the feet on the ground will have sent a strong message to the republicans, or it should have done
  17 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer A change to republic would mean:
  We are showing we mean to become a modern democracy.
  It will show that we mean to modernise our ancient political system
  It will allow us to have accountable leaders
  It will bring into public control the expenses of our heads of state.
  It will reduce the expenditure of our heads of state
  We will not represent one religion and separate once and for all religion from state.
  It will allow the society to move away from elitism
  It will mean that anybody can aspire to leader the country and change the country. The asperation will finally come down to ability to lead rather than being lucky enough to be born ruler over your slaves, capable or not.
  17 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society RE: The Prince Charles 'Issue'
  
  People will always have their own personal views on different individuals, but it is important to remember that in a republic the same thing will apply. Presidents of republics will often be disliked by many of the people, and will never have the unanimous support of the population. For example, America has a population of over 300 million yet only around 69 million people voted for President Obama to win the 2008 election, with 59 million Americans voting for his opponent. Since the election the popularity of the victor has inevitably declined – meaning a president can never claim to wholly represent the population. Prince Charles has been Heir to the throne for many decades, in that time he has carried out thousands of duties on behalf of the Queen and the nation, and gained a huge amount of experience and knowledge. In the year 2010-11 he carried out more engagements than the President of Ireland, despite not even being Head of State. He has also done a huge amount to help others through his numerous charities; including the Prince’s Trust which supports 10,000s of young people in the United Kingdom every year. Whilst Prince Charles regularly speaks out on matters such as the environment, he remains above party politics – as do all members of the Royal Family. He is not a member of a political party, he does not campaign for a political party and he does not even vote in elections. He clearly has unrivaled experience in the role of future Head of State, and a greater understanding of neutrality than any politician.
  17 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Joe your grasping at Graham Smith figures again..........where on Sunday and Monday and today where these seething masses clamering for change...........or was the 60/100/300 who may or may not have turned up. Or poerhaps the 35 today agianst the 500,000 on the mall and its surrounds
  16 hours ago ·
- Mick Constable Not sure who these slaves are Richard, but emotive talk will not detract form the plain facts, republicanism has a long road to travel to get anywhere, and could still end up losing thier way
  16 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Also, why do we have to 'show the world' anything? Who Cares what they think! As it happens, the viewing figures from the Jubilee and Royal Wedding show they like us the way we are!
  16 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker Simply put, the Monarchy is an archaic concept; reminiscent of medieval feudalism. An unelected head of state has the power to: choose a PM, dismiss ministers & governments, dissolve parliament, refuse to agree to legislation passed by the government, pardon convicted criminals, declare a state of emergency & raise a personal milita. In a Monarchy, transparency is limited & accountability is absent. The way citizens are expected to address members of the Royal Family, no matter how junior, is part of an attempt to keep subjects in their place!!!
  16 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Jack....instead of claiming the Monarchy is shiled from true scrutiny.why not just put your case to the people.satnd for office elect MP's and then vote for what you want....are you have tried that ?? and failed
  16 hours ago
- Ashley Walsh In an age where civil liberties, openess and transparency are becoming more cherished, it seems natural to move to a republic. Techniques in policing, surveillance and aquiring data etc are advancing with technology. Our constitution should protect the rights of its citizens. Problem is if we had a constitution, government and parliament would be able to ride roughshod over it, especially when you see the ministerial code being left in tatters. This is where an elected head of state acting as a guardian to a constitution would come into play.
  We'd also settle the debate about Number 10 petititons as well. When you consider some of the referendums that have been held in Europe, most - if not all - happened courtesy of an elected head of state.
  16 hours ago ·
- Mick Constable And they travel thousands of miles to see us and spend thier money as a consequence of our history and tradition, which remains unique
  16 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Ok, republic v monarchy. I was considering my answer to this one before, and was wondering which path to go down with it. Accountability, democracy, monetary arguments? Then I remembered that ridiculous 'speech' by Queenie this evening, where she said I think literally 2 sentences. And the number one argument hit me. When was the last time you ever heard the queen say anything inspirational? When have you ever listened to her speak and felt stirred and patriotic? Can you actually quote a single thing she's ever ever said (except for annus horriblis, perhaps)? We should be a republic for the simple fact that Britain deserves a global figure with actual gravitas, who can inspire a crowd, who can speak like Obama, Churchill, or MLK. Yu could argue she unites the nation, but only in the most mind numbingly obvious ways, like 'look after your family'! Where is the leader in Britain? 70% of the country hates Cameron, so it isn't him! Look at the difference (forgive me for using these examples) between 9/11 and 7/7. On 9/11, the whole of the USA united behind Bush, who went and stood on the rubble and inspired his countrymen. I can't even remember if the queen did anything on 7/7, I suspect Blair may have given some boring address. We need a universal leader. Hell, we deserve it.
  16 hours ago ·
- Philip Fairweather The Prince of Wales succession issue is a non story anyway...He WILL succeed to the throne however hard his his enemies in the popular media try to stir people up against him and he is doing exactly the right thing by standing his ground and not reacting to them...
  16 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer There is clearly a new generation of republicans that are not scared to step right up to the palace and protest. They are better connect than in the past and are very computer savvy. The protests will only increase.
  The volume of people involved will increase and the message will get out more.
  People will one day want to be represented by accountable people rather than rich elite. If you want a system where your leader has got the job from hard work and proven ability to represent you choose a republic. If you want a leader that has never ever been at risk in the job or has never had to decide if the job is for them choose monarchy.
  If you want to be a free citizen and influence the direction of your country choose republic. If you want decisions passed to you already decide choose subject of the realm.
  16 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
  
  But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me, as I now invite you to do: I know that your support will be unfailingly given. God help me to make good my vow, and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it.
  
  - Queen Elizabeth II, 21st Aprill 1947
  16 hours ago ·
- Ashley Walsh Britain macelebrate its oddities, but I'd rather have 80% of my fellow citizens showing support for a republic courtesy of the ballot box than relying on viewers ratings watching Gracie Jones hoola hooping at The Mall.
  16 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker The Monarchy is an enemy of merit & aspiration; members of the Royal Family bolster their position with unearned symbols of achievement, such as the Queen's many honorary military titles of "Colonel in chief", regardless of her military experience. Royals are fast tracked to higher ranks in the army. Let's face it, this is more of a PR exercise than military service.
  16 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer I choose republic because I choose to be free
  16 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Jack a head of state who can do that but doent and can say to a PM Gordon Brown/Edward Heath time to go. Whereas a head of state with the power that say Hitler or Mussolini or Lenin caused a world war killing millions with no break..........excpet the constitutiom. that workled well. Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, all wars strated by elected heads of state
  16 hours ago ·
- Joe Gleeson Furthermore, I firmly believe that kids in this country should be able to aspire to be anything at all that they want to be. I want to tell my son or daughter that, if they're good enough and work hard enough, that one day they could be the First Citizen of this great country. I will never, so long as the monarchy is there, be able to do that.
  16 hours ago ·
- Richard Frazer Remember you don't choose to be a subject of another. You are simply that.
  16 hours ago ·
- British Monarchist Society Over 80% support the Monarchy though....
  16 hours ago ·
- David Soutter We are showing we mean to become a modern democracy.
  It will show that we mean to modernise our ancient political system
  It will allow us to have accountable leaders
  It will bring into public control the expenses of our heads of state.
  It will reduce the expenditure of our heads of state
  We will not represent one religion and separate once and for all religion from state.
  It will allow the society to move away from elitism
  It will mean that anybody can aspire to leader the country and change the country. The asperation will finally come down to ability to lead rather than being lucky enough to be born ruler over your slaves, capable or not
  16 hours ago ·
- David Soutter Richard tou sauid the above,
  16 hours ago · · 1
- Richard Frazer They do because that is the current state and the state is not giving another way.
  16 hours ago ·
- David Soutter why do we need to modernise the system
  16 hours ago ·
- Jack Barker Famous Republicans include Richard Dawkins, Colin Firth, Christopher Hitchens (RIP), Antony Hopkins, Glenda Jackson, Morrissey, Daniel Radcliffe, Will Self, Mark Steel & Peter Tatchell, plus many more. WE ARE NOT ALONE.
  16 hours ago · · 2
- Ali Soffe polls seem to remain steady over past 40 years of 10% in favour of republic
- Philip Fairweather ‎Jack Barker How can you say that the Monarchy is an enemy of merit & aspiration...The personal initiatives of the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, as well as other lesser-known royal scemes have given young people many great career boosts and encouragement that they are just not getting from any government...
- Richard Frazer We need to modernise the system always to move with the changes in society David. Society changes. Maybe in darker less educated times the serfs needed dominating. In educated times we need to be free citizens
- Politics UK PoliticsUK would like to thank all our guest tonight. Apologises to those who could not comment due to facebook not loading.
  
  This ends the first segment of tonights debate. This thread is now open for all user.
  
  *********************************************

PoliticsUK Jubilee Debates

Wednesday, 6 June 2012

Monarchy V Republic Debate Part One

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me