You can understand the frustration of Buddahists in some Western Democracies then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Printable View
You can understand the frustration of Buddahists in some Western Democracies then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Note that I just have qualms, but that I also said I would support changing to it. I'm sure racists will use whatever nationalist badge they can get regardless of what the flag is changed to (except probably the Aboriginal one).Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
why do buddhists get het up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I assume he is referring to the swastika.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
ah, same as the finns then.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
well yes, i do understand and i live in a country that rightly decided not to outlaw the use of such symbols.
I can say from personal observation that they do, at least in my country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
So, using your own analogy, you never stop at a road before crossing it? Standing still forever can generally be regarded as counter-productive, but there are often times when standing still does have a purpose and achieves a goal (e.g. not getting yourself killed). Now, you may argue that what I call standing still is what you'd call slow progress but, as you say yourself, progress is a constant process. If you stop that process, even for a short time, it is no longer constant and therefore can't be defined as progress using your own definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
On the topic at hand, it is of course up to the Australians on who they choose to be Head of State, but I would make a similar argument which others have. If you just want to swap one figurehead for another, is it really worth it in terms of increased cost, etc (and for the record, the UK monarchy cost the British taxpayer just £35 million last year, try to find me a President of a similarly sized country who costs significantly less)? If you want an active President then are you unhappy with the Parliamentary system you have? If you feel the current system works and the country is making progress in other areas (economic, social, etc) is there a need to force political 'progress' too when it may not make any difference and could have adverse consequences?
I still don't get to pick and that, by its very defenition, is undemocratic.
que?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Actually royal power is exercised is ever day in Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand. You see the position of Prime Minister has many perks, not the least of which is the right to use royal prerogative. Or as you would call it, executive power. What the Queen and her GG's over the globe have (along with many presidents) is reserve powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Our GG was told to use ond such reseve power by that slimey weasel Harper around new years.
Actually, the Crown Revenues go directly into the Coffers of the Treasury, in exchange for which the Treasury funds the Civil List, irrc the Revenues are about double the List, so the Treasury makes a very tidy profit. The 60p per tax-payer goes on the upkeep of Royal Residences, those which are not private property.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
As tibilicus mentioned, these would need to be maintained in the event of a Republic and one would probably become the Presidential Residence. You seem to be under the illusion that "crowns, thrones, and palaces" are things regularly bought, the Crown jewels are hundred of years old, and Buckingham Palace is in serious need of repair. I doubt any president would be as tollerant as the Queen is regarding the dillapidated state of her official residence.
How much do you suppose the US president costs? Or the French president?
Furthermore, the Queen is much wealthier than any potential president, and so she buys her own clothes.
Rather like the arguments to scrap part of Trident: "if 4 subs costs 2 billion, then scrapping one will save 500 million"...
A President, elected by the people has not only the Right to spend the money as s/he sees fit, but a limited length of time to do so. better get cracking!
~:smoking:
Well, technically all English (or even British?) soil is property of the crown. People who say "I own a house" are just tenants, technically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I assume that when you Brits speak of the Queen's personal property, you mean those possessions of wich she personally, i.e. not in the capacity as queen, "owns"? Otherwise, this whole line of reasoning is disingenuous.
Don't tell me about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Ha the good memory :beam:
Slimy beaver is more appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
It wasn't a slimy move at all, or at least was considerably less slimy than the other alternative.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
There's no logical justification for any Monarchy at all. Neither for Dictatorships. But then, they have always existed someplace or another because "people want to be led" is an axiomatic statement.
The British Kingship de facto has no political value or weight ever since the XIX century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Our president is cheaper and is only a figurehead who functions in a role very like your Queen it is largely ceremonial and the Taoiseach (prime minister) is the real power. Problem solved and the roles of state hardly change which is good come on Australia chuck out those Germans.
Heard on the radio this morning:
Ray Martin has joined a group that is against the Union Jack in our flag.
Interesting...
Move to a republic and don't pay your rates, see how long you last before they kick you out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
If money were the only issue then there wouldn't be a debate at all, she doesn't cost us a cent.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
You should all be grateful for having a free monarch.
The Crown Estates are those of which the Queen is Tenent in Chief, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
“How much do you suppose the US president costs? Or the French president?”
Irrelevant as the Queen has no “real” function, she is only a symbol.
She is the equivalent of Marianne. And Marianne cost not a penny…
How much for the Prime Minister, on the top of the Queen? This has to be included in the pricing...
French and USA President have to power to go to war and to push THE button…
Then the expenses stop at the President and wife. It doesn’t extend to sons, daughters, cousins and so on.
You don’t have to protect the President’s heir, as you don’t know who it will be…
except................... that the British people seem quite happy with their monarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Terribly Harmful Name
Virtues of Propaganda. The Monarchy were at a high-time low when Diana was alive, due to the fact the monarchy kept trying to distant iself from her, and make her look bad, when she was the "Princess of the Britain's Heart" and was seen as a real threat. This is why there is a bunch of conspiracy theories as to why Royal agents assassinated her, due to these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
She's much more than that, she's an apolitical Head of State. That is very valuable both domestically and internationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
We already pay for the Prime Minister, and that isn't going to change unless we get rid of parliamentary democracy.Quote:
She is the equivalent of Marianne. And Marianne cost not a penny…
How much for the Prime Minister, on the top of the Queen? This has to be included in the pricing...
The Queen is useful as the ultimate source of power, because she can reserve it, she is obstructive. As to expenses; you only have one Queen and her family to protect; but you have to protect every former president. The Ryal family also aren't security risks the way former presidents are.Quote:
French and USA President have to power to go to war and to push THE button…
Then the expenses stop at the President and wife. It doesn’t extend to sons, daughters, cousins and so on.
You don’t have to protect the President’s heir, as you don’t know who it will be…
Monarchy has always had highs and lows. Victoria was not always well received. His Toniness came up with the People's Princess, a nauseating addition to the pseudo-egalitarianism he was preaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
The Lords was stopped from being based on Hereditary Peers as they are Bad. Instead we've got in some nice new ones which cost more and are far more likely to tow party lines. Great...
The Queen doesn't have to be looking at the ratings this week, or Be Seen To Be Doing Something as voting is about to start / is trying to be re-elected. The monarch can take the long view.
Personally I think the monarchy has too little power. E.G. all parties stated there would be a referendum on the EU. I believe the Queen should have refused to sign the legislation until there was one - holding the government to account as the Commons definitely doesn't.
~:smoking:
Close, but not entirely what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Would the queen be able to give Buckingham palace to charity? Would she be able to transfer it to InsaneApache or Furunculus in her will, so that while Prince Charles would be king, he'd have to live in a measly appartment in London?
I think she can't. I think that the Monarch is the tenent in chief (i.e. actual owner) of those goods and not the person wich happens to fullfill that position. She's tenant of those good ex officio. In that sense, they're not her private property, but the property of an "office" of state.
I'm not an expert on British constitutial law (i.e. the workings and formalities of the state) so if I'm wrong, please correct me. If the above is correct though, the claim that the Royal House pays their own bills is simply false.
Buckingham Palace is not part of the Crown Estate, which is why it is payed for out of the Treasury, it's a government building. Balmorral, however (irrc) is private property.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The Palace doesn't produce money though, the point is that the monarch makes a net contribution to the Treasury via the Crown Revenues, and she pays income tax.Quote:
I'm not an expert on British constitutial law (i.e. the workings and formalities of the state) so if I'm wrong, please correct me. If the above is correct though, the claim that the Royal House pays their own bills is simply false.
not meaning to be rude; but i'm really not surprised that a nation of 4.5 million people, and little in the way of global influence or responsibilities, has a presidency that is cheaper to run than the Royal Family.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy