Reply to: Royals, Yes or No

[wendigo100]

One Mars bar a year, or a Queen!!! I know which i'd rather have.....

For she's a Queen,
and such are queens
That your laughter
is sucked in their brains

[Ardesco]

Ooo best get rid of them them, I mean 10p i was happy with but a whole 67p a year!!!

I could buy a... erm well i could always get um... I know I could get a Mars bar for that. One Mars bar a year, or a Queen!!! I know which i'd rather have.....

[Clippy]

More fuel for the anti royalists

The article also mentions that the Queen costs each person £0.67 per year.

[Old Greg]

The aquaduct
Sanitation
The roads
Irrigation
Medicine
Education
And the wine
Public baths
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

Yeah, remember what it used to be like.

[Kyajae]

What have the Romans ever done for us?

The aquaduct
Sanitation
The roads
Irrigation
Medicine
Education
And the wine
Public baths
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

[Old Greg]

So we should do what ?

Share it out amoungst the people ?

Sell it off to pay off some of the national debt (kind of the same thing).

[Ardesco]

It sounds like we may be in some kind of agreement as to how they came to own what they do, but not about what to do about it?

So we should do what ?

Share it out amoungst the people ?

[Old Greg]

Well all the armed forces (myself included) pledged the oath the the queen and not the PM!

She could just organise a takeover.

You may pledge an oath to the queen but who exercises the power of commander-in-chief on her behalf? The PM.

If you want the queen in power, then logically you accept the hereditary priniciple so that when the monarch dies, all those powers pass to thei heir, who may be a fool, psychopath, criminal etc. - and who cannot be removed at the next election.

[Sockpuppet]

Well all the armed forces (myself included) pledged the oath the the queen and not the PM!

She could just organise a takeover.

[Old Greg]

Same. I like to think there is a higher power (other than a religous vision) that could keep gordo in check.

Feck it we should dissolve the parliment and go back to the queen ruiling the world.

The problem with the higher power argument is that the royal perogative is exercised by the prime minister on behalf of the monarch - one of these powers being the right to declare war - good summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Perogative
As things stand, there is no democratic mechanism to check the prime minister's executive powers, and this is a hangover from the days of absolute monarchy. BTW, I'm not saying that this is in itself an absolute argument for abolishing the royal family, but it does cause real problems.

[Sockpuppet]

Very pro royalist here, what does everybody else think.

Same. I like to think there is a higher power (other than a religous vision) that could keep gordo in check.

Feck it we should dissolve the parliment and go back to the queen ruiling the world.

[Old Greg]

That is how people came to own property a couple of thousand years ago. It still happens today.

We stole a large chunk of land from the middle east and called it israel and gave it to the jewish people.

America stole huge chunks of land from the native americans and built up a superpower.

Every war over territory is essentially stealing land for personal gain and for money.

It sounds like we may be in some kind of agreement as to how they came to own what they do, but not about what to do about it?

[Ardesco]

I know my history a little. The land and money was essentially stolen for personal gain. Different from taxation in a democracy for public spending (whatever we may think of the government and their taxation and public spending policies).

That is how people came to own property a couple of thousand years ago. It still happens today.

We stole a large chunk of land from the middle east and called it israel and gave it to the jewish people.

America stole huge chunks of land from the native americans and built up a superpower.

Every war over territory is essentially stealing land for personal gain and for money.

[Old Greg]

Well a couple of centuries ago.....

Come on you know some history. they got thier money by running the country and taxing the people in the country much like the government of today does now. Does that make our government parasites? (hmm i'm probably not helping my argument here...)

I know my history a little. The land and money was essentially stolen for personal gain. Different from taxation in a democracy for public spending (whatever we may think of the government and their taxation and public spending policies).

[Ardesco]

But where did they get the family get their money from in the first place? You can be pretty sure it wasn't an honest day's work - not that any of us would know much about that.

Well a couple of centuries ago.....

Come on you know some history. they got thier money by running the country and taxing the people in the country much like the government of today does now. Does that make our government parasites? (hmm i'm probably not helping my argument here...)