Originally Posted by nebapneb

now on to more important topics
camilla, would you?

After a few strong ales the answer is yes!

swearing an oath of allegiance to Gordon Brown or 3million? The latter i think...

Originally Posted by Tubbyboy

Originally Posted by billybongo

It would be good to see a coherent argument that puts the case for a monarchy as opposed to a democracy.

Right back atcha!

I would like to hear a coherent argument that puts the case for a Presidential system.

By the way, having a constitutional Monarch does not preclude this being a democracy.

This is one argument where neither side will persuade the other but you will tend to find that most of the members of this site will be pro-monarchy rather than traitorous rebels like your good self :D

Tubs

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

Originally Posted by billybongo

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

I like having a constitutional monarch as it lends a non-political head of state. Something non-partisan that can act as a head of state for everyone. Long serving for stability. Probably bring in more cash in aditional tourism than it costs to have. Why do you dislike that and what better have you to offer? More politicians I can do without. Even just 1 more is too much.

Can you name a current politician and family who has done as much for their nation? Lets see.
The Queen and her sister drove ambulances in London during WWII.
Her husband served in the RN during WWII.
Her eldest son comanded a ship.
Her 2nd son piloted a helicopter in the Falklands war.
A grandson served as a TAC in Afghanistan.

What political family compares to that?

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by billybongo

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

I like having a constitutional monarch as it lends a non-political head of state. Something non-partisan that can act as a head of state for everyone. Long serving for stability. Probably bring in more cash in aditional tourism than it costs to have. Why do you dislike that and what better have you to offer? More politicians I can do without. Even just 1 more is too much.

Can you name a current politician and family who has done as much for their nation? Lets see.
The Queen and her sister drove ambulances in London during WWII.
Her husband served in the RN during WWII.
Her eldest son comanded a ship.
Her 2nd son piloted a helicopter in the Falklands war.
A grandson served as a TAC in Afghanistan.

What political family compares to that?

And her third son didn't - yet he is nearer to being head of state than any of us. I assume by your comments that you think that some service in the forces gives an individual poitical insight and an ability to play the part of a statesman on the international stage? That service is not peculiar to the Windsors. Tony Benn, Edward Heath, Enoch Powell and et al served in the forces and thereafter went on to serve their country - you may not have liked their style or politics but one of the joys of a democracy - the electorate gets rid of them once their usefulness is run. Fortunately we don't have political families (despite Blair's best efforts), so I'm not sure where your point takes us?

Long serving doesn't necessarily bring stability - the two are not intrinsically linked.

For me there is a very simple reason why a democratic system is inexorably preferable to a monarchy. I don't want to live subservient to a monarch that is there by accident of birth, who is virtually unaccountable and has the inexorable right to remain in power regardless of the will of the people. I like the idea of having a say (albeit very small) in how my country is run at all levels.

Originally Posted by billybongo

Originally Posted by Tubbyboy

Originally Posted by billybongo

It would be good to see a coherent argument that puts the case for a monarchy as opposed to a democracy.

Right back atcha!

I would like to hear a coherent argument that puts the case for a Presidential system.

By the way, having a constitutional Monarch does not preclude this being a democracy.

This is one argument where neither side will persuade the other but you will tend to find that most of the members of this site will be pro-monarchy rather than traitorous rebels like your good self :D

Tubs

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

You still posit no better solution than what we have currently. You blather on about being 'ruled' by an anachromism called 'monarchy' - and yet, the monarchy have not 'ruled' us for some considerable time. Our elected representatives have done so.

Wonder why this country is financially ruined? Our democratic system.
Wonder why we still have a poverty-stricken underclass that stays that way from cradle to grave? Our democratic system.
Wonder why we go to war illegally, with the flimsiest of 'moral' justifications? Our democratic system.
Wonder why so many soldiers needlessly die in such conflicts, when a few pounds more might have meant the difference between life and death? Our democratic system.
Wonder why the public is so disgusted with our leaders at the moment? Our democratic system.
Wonder why our sovereignty is being sold down the river for nothing, without the vote of the people, despite a massive majority wanting it? Our democratic system.

You may note that in none of those statements does how head of state HM or her family figure. Do you need me to explain why that is?

Oh, ok, as you seem to fail to grasp the basics - HM has no power to rule, make laws, change laws, or meddle with the system. These powers were removed so that our democratic system. could take prescendence.

So, HM and the Monarchy take very, very little in terms of money, and yet they deliver so much more to the financial coffers than they take AND they pay taxes. They are cheaper, due to the reasons stated by others than a 'President' might be. So, financial argument well in favour of our Monarchy.

They don't make the rules, and they don't break them. Our elected representatives do that. So, constitutionally, they are no threat, and they sure as hell don't make us LESS democratic - only our elected representatives in our democratic system do that by giving our sovereignty away to the EU. HM and the Monarchy would do no such thing.

So, HM and the Monarchy do not diminish our democratic system. Our elected representatives do. That demolishes your rubbish about being ruled by a Monarchy.

For all the ills in this land of ours, we need look, not at Buckingham Palace, but at The Houses of Parliament and our democratic system.

America sure as hell doesn't have a decent democracy, with its Republicans and its 'President' and its illegal wars, and its massive poverty, and its massive crime levels, and its huge corruption, huge drug problem, huge gun crime levels, its promotion of terrorism, its involvment with the Mafia (Kennedy) . . . . the list goes on and on. Its not what I'd call a shining democratic example. This shining beacon of light in the democratic world was still segregating negroes on buses this century, and having huge race riots less than 20 years ago.

It recently had a president who liked getting sucked off in the oval office. That's the sort of 'elected' leader this country needs. Maybe we could have Berlusconi!

I'll say it again - give more power to those who do their job for DUTY not greed and vanity. Yup - that's Her Majesty or HRH Prince Charles. give them the power that they need in order to act as guardians of this democracy in the face of the assaults to it by Labour and other parties. Give our Monarch the power to defend democracy from itself - ironic, but it would work. Why won't it be allowed? Because those that abuse our democracy also run it and make the rules.

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by billybongo

Originally Posted by Tubbyboy

Originally Posted by billybongo

It would be good to see a coherent argument that puts the case for a monarchy as opposed to a democracy.

Right back atcha!

I would like to hear a coherent argument that puts the case for a Presidential system.

By the way, having a constitutional Monarch does not preclude this being a democracy.

This is one argument where neither side will persuade the other but you will tend to find that most of the members of this site will be pro-monarchy rather than traitorous rebels like your good self :D

Tubs

Love the traitorous bit !! Of course, traitorous depends which side you are on and i would rather betray a single family than a nation. Fortunately there are those of who do think and care about democracy and there are those lemmings happy to be subservient to a parliament which is partly unaccountable and not as democratic as it could be.

But fear not lemmings - change isn't all that scary.

You still posit no better solution than what we have currently. You blather on about being 'ruled' by an anachromism called 'monarchy' - and yet, the monarchy have not 'ruled' us for some considerable time. Our elected representatives have done so.

Wonder why this country is financially ruined? Our democratic system.
Wonder why we still have a poverty-stricken underclass that stays that way from cradle to grave? Our democratic system.
Wonder why we go to war illegally, with the flimsiest of 'moral' justifications? Our democratic system.
Wonder why so many soldiers needlessly die in such conflicts, when a few pounds more might have meant the difference between life and death? Our democratic system.
Wonder why the public is so disgusted with our leaders at the moment? Our democratic system.
Wonder why our sovereignty is being sold down the river for nothing, without the vote of the people, despite a massive majority wanting it? Our democratic system.

You may note that in none of those statements does how head of state HM or her family figure. Do you need me to explain why that is?

Oh, ok, as you seem to fail to grasp the basics - HM has no power to rule, make laws, change laws, or meddle with the system. These powers were removed so that our democratic system. could take prescendence.

So, HM and the Monarchy take very, very little in terms of money, and yet they deliver so much more to the financial coffers than they take AND they pay taxes. They are cheaper, due to the reasons stated by others than a 'President' might be. So, financial argument well in favour of our Monarchy.

They don't make the rules, and they don't break them. Our elected representatives do that. So, constitutionally, they are no threat, and they sure as hell don't make us LESS democratic - only our elected representatives in our democratic system do that by giving our sovereignty away to the EU. HM and the Monarchy would do no such thing.

So, HM and the Monarchy do not diminish our democratic system. Our elected representatives do. That demolishes your rubbish about being ruled by a Monarchy.

For all the ills in this land of ours, we need look, not at Buckingham Palace, but at The Houses of Parliament and our democratic system.

America sure as hell doesn't have a decent democracy, with its Republicans and its 'President' and its illegal wars, and its massive poverty, and its massive crime levels, and its huge corruption, huge drug problem, huge gun crime levels, its promotion of terrorism, its involvment with the Mafia (Kennedy) . . . . the list goes on and on. Its not what I'd call a shining democratic example. This shining beacon of light in the democratic world was still segregating negroes on buses this century, and having huge race riots less than 20 years ago.

It recently had a president who liked getting sucked off in the oval office. That's the sort of 'elected' leader this country needs. Maybe we could have Berlusconi!

I'll say it again - give more power to those who do their job for DUTY not greed and vanity. Yup - that's Her Majesty or HRH Prince Charles. give them the power that they need in order to act as guardians of this democracy in the face of the assaults to it by Labour and other parties. Give our Monarch the power to defend democracy from itself - ironic, but it would work. Why won't it be allowed? Because those that abuse our democracy also run it and make the rules.

No system of government is perfect I grant you, but would be delighted to see a sensible, rational debate that seeks to find a democratic system that suits this country. A representative democracy emancipates and offers dignity to the individual. It also offers a system that is more transparent, fair and accountable.

Emotional rhetoric hinders the debate and is uneccesary. It is also possible, of course, to imagine the opposite scenarios of the quaint pictures that you paint. The debate is about principles not individuals.

Monarchy and plutocracy served us well for many years.

Stop all these benefit scroungers and reintroduce strip farming, give them an acre of land and a cow instead.

Could probably even get some a CAP subsidy.

Originally Posted by billybongo

No system of government is perfect I grant you, but would be delighted to see a sensible, rational debate that seeks to find a democratic system that suits this country. A representative democracy emancipates and offers dignity to the individual. It also offers a system that is more transparent, fair and accountable.

If you want an easy answer to that, how about you have a squizz at the democracy that is Switzerland. It's a democracy that is hated by those Swiss MPs who suffer from vanity and greed, as it ties their hands. It ties the hands of those who would sell Switzerland out to the EU, as EVERY major decision, and EVERY consitutional change requires a referendum. It's a beautiful system in which the electorate really does hold all the power. Switzerland is happy, democratic, free, wealthy . . . . and it's a democracy as the very principle or ideal of democracy was intended.

Who protects this democracy from those who might subvert it from within? The people; the people who are pretty much all armed, and for whom ANY change would lessen their democratic franchise.

Originally Posted by billybongo

Emotional rhetoric hinders the debate and is uneccesary. It is also possible, of course, to imagine the opposite scenarios of the quaint pictures that you paint. The debate is about principles not individuals.

The principles at stake are incredibly important, to everyone who is 'subject' to democratic systems. We fought communism for 60 years with this ideal of the 'freedom' provided by capitalist democracies, and it cost the lives of millions. What freedom is it when our democracy is subverted to the European cause - a system that is LESS representative of democracy than that which we have currently in the UK - and when that subversion is at the hands of the very people we are obliged to choose between at national elections? The same people who would then deny us the choice of whether we keep as a nation the powers we franchise to our chosen representatives! This is a matter that does generate emotion, as all important debates do.

As quaint as you might think it is, it is still a functioning system, and yes, it can be improved upon.

I believe we have two choices:

1. Give more power to the Monarchy that serves us so well in every other part of its role - faultlessly one might say. Give them the role, with teeth, of guarding our democracy - ensuring it's continuity, or change with our consent only.

2. Go the full hog and have a system like the Swiss - one where the electorate truly do wield the power, and no change happens without their express consent. If that was a bad system, then Switzerland would not be so succesful as a state. One only has to look at Daniel Hannan's 'The Plan' to appreciate that there are others for who the real ideal and meaning of democracy is that of allowing the people, not the executive to have the final say.

Our elected representatives should not have the power or franchise to go off and do what they please. They should administer to OUR needs, using the mandate WE give them, and, at the same time, answer to us properly.

If these things can be brought about, then we will finally have the ideal that was dreamed of over 2,000 years ago.

Given the changes above, do we need an elected 'President'? No. If we had an elected president, we might gewt someone like Sarkozi, Berlusconi or Clinton, or heaven help us, a barely literate recovering alcoholic monkey called Bush.

After all such changes - should we get rid of the Monarchy? Hell no! :D

It is an internationally respected and admired institution that brings loads of dinero and kudos to the UK. Let's keep them regardless.

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by billybongo

No system of government is perfect I grant you, but would be delighted to see a sensible, rational debate that seeks to find a democratic system that suits this country. A representative democracy emancipates and offers dignity to the individual. It also offers a system that is more transparent, fair and accountable.

If you want an easy answer to that, how about you have a squizz at the democracy that is Switzerland. It's a democracy that is hated by those Swiss MPs who suffer from vanity and greed, as it ties their hands. It ties the hands of those who would sell Switzerland out to the EU, as EVERY major decision, and EVERY consitutional change requires a referendum. It's a beautiful system in which the electorate really does hold all the power. Switzerland is happy, democratic, free, wealthy . . . . and it's a democracy as the very principle or ideal of democracy was intended.

Who protects this democracy from those who might subvert it from within? The people; the people who are pretty much all armed, and for whom ANY change would lessen their democratic franchise.

Originally Posted by billybongo

Emotional rhetoric hinders the debate and is uneccesary. It is also possible, of course, to imagine the opposite scenarios of the quaint pictures that you paint. The debate is about principles not individuals.

The principles at stake are incredibly important, to everyone who is 'subject' to democratic systems. We fought communism for 60 years with this ideal of the 'freedom' provided by capitalist democracies, and it cost the lives of millions. What freedom is it when our democracy is subverted to the European cause - a system that is LESS representative of democracy than that which we have currently in the UK - and when that subversion is at the hands of the very people we are obliged to choose between at national elections? The same people who would then deny us the choice of whether we keep as a nation the powers we franchise to our chosen representatives! This is a matter that does generate emotion, as all important debates do.

As quaint as you might think it is, it is still a functioning system, and yes, it can be improved upon.

I believe we have two choices:

1. Give more power to the Monarchy that serves us so well in every other part of its role - faultlessly one might say. Give them the role, with teeth, of guarding our democracy - ensuring it's continuity, or change with our consent only.

2. Go the full hog and have a system like the Swiss - one where the electorate truly do wield the power, and no change happens without their express consent. If that was a bad system, then Switzerland would not be so succesful as a state. One only has to look at Daniel Hannan's 'The Plan' to appreciate that there are others for who the real ideal and meaning of democracy is that of allowing the people, not the executive to have the final say.

Our elected representatives should not have the power or franchise to go off and do what they please. They should administer to OUR needs, using the mandate WE give them, and, at the same time, answer to us properly.

If these things can be brought about, then we will finally have the ideal that was dreamed of over 2,000 years ago.

Given the changes above, do we need an elected 'President'? No. If we had an elected president, we might gewt someone like Sarkozi, Berlusconi or Clinton, or heaven help us, a barely literate recovering alcoholic monkey called Bush.

After all such changes - should we get rid of the Monarchy? Hell no! :D

It is an internationally respected and admired institution that brings loads of dinero and kudos to the UK. Let's keep them regardless.

Let's start with the Swiss vsn of a representative democracy and improve on that.