Monarchies 34 replies

Please wait...

Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,876 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#11 8 years ago

Keyser_Soze;5395341i live in the UK, which is the textbook example of a constitutional monarchy, and in reality, the monarch has no power whatsoever. theoretically, the queen could refuse to sign a bill, but this would likely bring about the end of the monarchy for reasons of democracy, so it's not going to happen. all power in the UK is in the hands of the house of commons- the unelected elements (monarchy, house of lords) don't wield massive amounts of power and are heavily restricted for reasons of democracy. i personally wouldn't care one way or another if the UK became a republic or not, as it wouldn't change anything- most likely, the title of head of state would be put on to the prime minister and little would change.[/QUOTE]

Your quite badly wrong there. The House of Lords wields a massive amount of power, and thankfully they use it quite frequently.

In the house of commons, a bill is almost always passed on party lines. In the house of lords, this is quite rare simply because a significant portion of people are unelected, unaffiliated with any party and completely independent. This means that bills are actually debated, and ones with serious flaws get sent back to the lower house with suggestions for ammendments. If the lords don't like the amendments they simply refuse to pass it and it cannot go to the monarch for her signature.

Every time laws have been enacted that have affected something i'm interested in it's been the House of Lords that has actually represented my interests, not the house of commons.

Personally, from my experience with the political system i'd be happier abolishing the house of commons.

'Dreadnought[DK;5395871']The role of the monarchy in a modern world (i.e. the constitutional monarchy) is indeed ceremonial and you can indeed argue that those duties can be handled by the elected leaders of a country.

However, you're forgetting one important thing. A president or prime minister is elected on a political platform and they are the focal point for a certain political agenda. What this means is that a political leader inherently represents a particular ideological view. Thus whenever the leader appears at a gathering it becomes a political event, even though it might not be intended as such. Consequently, you can't avoid having a 'democratic' president meeting with the 'conservative' prime minister - even if it isn't necessarily supposed to be a political event.

:nodding:

The UK has a very good relationship with Saudi Arabia because of this. It's all based on the relationship between the house of Windsor and the house of Saud. Politicians change every couple of years and simply can't begin to do such a good job comparatively to a permanent head of state unless their dealing with another elected head of state.

Frankly, the best advert against an elected head of state is who those people would be. An overwhelming majority of people in the UK would have disliked the idea of having a President Blair or President Brown.

[QUOTE='Dreadnought[DK];5395871']Yes, we can discuss they outrageous spendings, their somewhat 'aloof' demeanour, and excessive lifestyle. However, you are very wrong when you say they don't server any purpose.

I live in one of the oldest monarchies in the world and I wouldn't want to see it go. It is just as much part of a national history and identity as the language, the flag, or the 'democratic tradition'.

Likewise.

However, the UK monarchy costs peanuts compared to the house of commons. We easily recover anything the monarchy spends through tourists coming to gawk at them.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,240 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,015 Posts

6 Threads

#12 8 years ago

I don't mind if people want to have a monarch. As has been said, they can be helpful with diplomatic efforts. What I don't like is that their position is hereditary and not based on achievement.




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#13 8 years ago

A president in a parliamentary system can fulfill the role of a monarch just as easily. Likewise, surely it is better to have relations between nations based on social and economic exchanges.

As for partisanship, you could have a president elected by the parliament with 75% of the vote - or even require presidents to be politically neutral (as a civil servant).




Dreadnought[DK] VIP Member

Grumpy Admin

202,715 XP

7th March 2003

0 Uploads

19,294 Posts

0 Threads

#14 8 years ago
MrFancypants;5395878What I don't like is that their position is hereditary and not based on achievement.

That's sort of the point. If they were elected to be monarchs, they wouldn't be any different from politicians because they would have to prove themselves one way or the other to get 'the job'.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,240 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,015 Posts

6 Threads

#15 8 years ago
'Dreadnought[DK;5395890']That's sort of the point. If they were elected to be monarchs, they wouldn't be any different from politicians because they would have to prove themselves one way or the other to get 'the job'.

There are more ways to test the competency of a person than his performance in an election. You could appoint monarchs or examine their knowledge of politics. The point of herediatory monarchies is to keep power and a privileged position for one family. That is an outdated practice, just as the idea of nobility, even if a side effect is that the monarch behaves less like a politician.




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,876 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#16 8 years ago

masked_marsoe;5395889A president in a parliamentary system can fulfill the role of a monarch just as easily. Likewise, surely it is better to have relations between nations based on social and economic exchanges. [/QUOTE]

Surely. However, i'll take the fact that we do plenty of business with Saudi Arabia because of the relationship between our monarchs than not doing any because our politicians made some comment about how primitive Saudi society is at some point earning them the lasting enmity of the Saudi monarch.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5395892]There are more ways to test the competency of a person than his performance in an election. You could appoint monarchs or examine their knowledge of politics. The point of herediatory monarchies is to keep power and a privileged position for one family. That is an outdated practice, just as the idea of nobility, even if a side effect is that the monarch behaves less like a politician.

There is indeed. However, personally i'm quite happy with the existing system. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"




Commissar MercZ

Notable Loser

300,005 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

27,113 Posts

0 Threads

#17 8 years ago

Personally I hold more republican views, though I'm not really confident in representative politics. At any rate I think monarchies seem to mix the worst aspects of national pride and religious fervor. Republicanism isn't immune from nationalist energy but I think it fits better in our times.

This doesn't prevent the head of state from being incompetent and idiotic, though at least in a republican system there's a better method of replacing and choosing heads of state.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,655 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,168 Posts

6 Threads

#18 8 years ago

Successful political systems are based upon a balance of power that stops an elected party just passing whatever they like. Without that democracy is just choosing between a selection of tyrants you know nothing about. Personally I believe the increasing complexity of modern society and the information systems that have arisen over the past few decades have upset the balance of power. However, I don't think the solution is to dispose of our balances altogether.

In the UK it's not unusual for one party to have an absolute majority in the House of Commons. The monarchy is where the House of Lords - one of the few remaining balances to the ruling party - derives its 'constitutional' power from. If the monarchy goes, and we become a republic, I do not think the Lords would long endure. I would interpret any attempt to dissolve the monarchy as an attempt by the then ruling party to subvert the political process in their favour.

Although I realise technically the UK doesn't have a written constitution; and there are lots of legal debates over whether our implied constitution is more or less stable than a written one.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#19 8 years ago

IMHO Monarchies only exist because the people want it there. Case in point some people see the UK Royal Family as a money grubbing sink hole of wealth that would be better served spending that money on the people while to others the Royal Family is seen almost as a national treasure and beloved. Guess it kinda goes back to the Royalists or the Parliamentarians.

Exception being the Middle East who seem to run their Kingdom's with something of a Iron thumb and any dissent is ruthlessly crushed.




Freyr VIP Member

A2Files Staff

46,876 XP

6th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#20 8 years ago

Anlushac11;5397588IMHO Monarchies only exist because the people want it there. Case in point some people see the UK Royal Family as a money grubbing sink hole of wealth that would be better served spending that money on the people while to others the Royal Family is seen almost as a national treasure and beloved. Guess it kinda goes back to the Royalists or the Parliamentarians.

Exception being the Middle East who seem to run their Kingdom's with something of a Iron thumb and any dissent is ruthlessly crushed.

Some mathematically illiterate people do see the monarchy as a "money grubbing sink hole of wealth", however this would be based on a narrow view sponsored by republican propaganda, and ignoring the fact that the Royal Public Finances annual report states that Head of State support for 2009-10 was £38.2 million (including VAT of £1.9 million) where as the profits on the Crown Estates (paid to the treasury) were £210.7 million.

I think that demonstrates quite conclusively that parliament is actually being subsidised by the crown to the tune of 172.5 Million.