Will There Ever Be A Party

[trevhagl]

An unelected monarchy who have no power, therefore have fuck all to do with you're precious democracy. As figureheads of the nation, they bring in a lot of cash from abroad through tourism and many countries around the world have a hard-on for them. It makes more sense to keep them. It's a good selling point for Britain to export to the world.

i say let people like you PAY for the monarchy and then everyone's happy.

 

[greenman]

You have to laugh at these sorts who argue that the monarchy has no power and its main use will be "in an emergency crisis situation, where it will be the figurehead role, holding the country together". What they are basically saying is that if ever the country looked like it was really going to change, or there was any chance of the ruling class losing control to something approaching popular democracy, then we would have a military dictatorship headed by the monarchy! (Until their "democracy" - i.e. rule dominated by the capitalist class can be restored....) The Crown Forces in this country (the clue is in the name) do not pledge alliegance to the people or democracy, but the monarchy - similarly MPs are forced to pledge their loyalty to the Crown and all their heirs (albeit in some cases with fingers crossed behind their backs!)
So much for the "benign" monarchy....

 

[Azrael]

What they are basically saying is that if ever the country looked like it was really going to change, or there was any chance of the ruling class losing control to something approaching popular democracy, then we would have a military dictatorship headed by the monarchy!

No, what they're saying is that if a government ever tried to abolish Parliament, the monarch could step in and stop them, returning power to the people. Given that Parliament was happy to pass an Enabling Act in stasis, (Civil Contingencies Act, 2004), it's clear that MPs can't be relied on to do anything but grub their expenses.

Couldn't care less about tourist revenue myself. It's a fantastically weak argument to justify a head of state, and is trotted out so often because the solid political arguments for the monarchy are unfashionable.

The monarchy is good because it leaves the head of state impartial and apolitical, while vesting day-to-day power in the hands of elected representatives. An excellent separation of powers, stumbled on by accident, like many good things. Most arguments against it are symbolic and idealistic, so idealists tend to loathe the institution for proving them wrong.

 

[behemoth]

Whether we like it or not, most people support the monarchy.

 

[greenman]

Whether we like it or not, most people support the monarchy.

Correct. Who said differently?
However, come King Charles and Queen Camilla....
Republicans are used to waiting for conditions to mature, and whilst the individuals involved are irrelevant to the political argument, they are not irrelevant to the context of political possibility.

 

[Azrael]

If the monarchy can survive the antics of George VI and Edward VIII, it'll shrug off the blunders of an affable dodderer like Prince Charles with ease.