Rioting students attack Royal car

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Then she will win the election and you should want that, as it will be irrefutable proof that she is deemed qualified.

---

urhg, i don't want or need elections, i am perfectly content with the system as it is, until someone demonstrates that a republic would be a significantly and unambiguously a better outcome.

p.s. where is your cost benefit analysis...............?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

urhg, i don't want or need elections

---

You have lots in common with some of your more radical new countrymen then.

EDIT: oh, and the cost-benefit:

Wages and costs for the supreme court: none, as they are already paid. Thus, everything spent on the royals is counted as a saving.

No longer being represented by inbreds: priceless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Then she will win the election and you should want that, as it will be irrefutable proof that she is deemed qualified.

---

No the person with he best spin doctor would win.

Anyway I quite like the prime minister having to go to the Queen (or King) to form a government it should put them in there place so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You have lots in common with some of your more radical new countrymen then.

EDIT: oh, and the cost-benefit: Wages and costs for the supreme court: none, as they are already paid. Thus, everything spent on the royals is counted as a saving.

---

how so, being conservative is an old and honourable tradition in Britain?

oh, there i was thinking you were going to come up with figures that demonstrate that the german presidency cost no more than a round of weissbeers for the boys and a hearty meal of snitzells................ i'm disappointed. :(

I've always been of the opinion that at a protest turned violent there are two sides up for a fight. One has weapons, tactics and the law on their side. The other has sticks and bottles. I know which one I'm most concerned about.

The Cossacks.
They had weapons, tactics and law on theirs side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

how so, being conservative is an old and honourable tradition in Britain?

oh, there i was thinking you were going to come up with figures that demonstrate that the german presidency cost no more than a round of weissbeers for the boys and a hearty meal of snitzells................ i'm disappointed. :(

---

No need for that when the high court is completely free.

I see you've stopped arguing back though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I've always been of the opinion that at a protest turned violent there are two sides up for a fight. One has weapons, tactics and the law on their side. The other has sticks and bottles. I know which one I'm most concerned about.

---

The ones with the weapons they aren't allowed to use, bottle ad head hurts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No need for that when the high court is completely free.

I see you've stopped arguing back though.

---

i have never considered the supreme court to be a valid alternative.

but just to be sure; you are framing this argument in economic terms, right?

Here's summat for the royalists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz8r...yer_embedded#!

Does bring a lump to the throat though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i have never considered the supreme court to be a valid alternative.

but just to be sure; you are framing this argument in economic terms, right?

---

Economic terms, democratic teerms, principal terms, human rights terms, fairness terms, social justice terms and probably a few terms I've forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Economic terms, democratic teerms, principal terms, human rights terms, fairness terms, social justice terms and probably a few terms I've forgotten.

---

But you know what all those things lack? Good ol' British tradition. Rule Britannia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i have never considered the supreme court to be a valid alternative.

but just to be sure; you are framing this argument in economic terms, right?

---

Being born isn't that difficult, hardly remember any of it but I did it. Some are really good at it and win all sorts of awards, yeah I support them.

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

---

But since the last few posts HoreTore has been arguing for outright abolishing them and not replacing them with anything, since the High court already rules as a Supreme Court as such. So in other-words, there is still a parliamentary democracy, just no Queen/King and there is no president. Since afterall, the Monarchy are a relic of the past and nothing more than a figurehead, we could simply replace them with a statue of Britannia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

---

In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Economic terms, democratic teerms, principal terms, human rights terms, fairness terms, social justice terms and probably a few terms I've forgotten.

---

yes, nice laundry list, but put figures against them, demonstrate a REAL case for change.

and please don't forget that most important of characteristics; effectiveness, the Royal Family have been an excellent head-of-state, demonstrate that the alternative would be unambiguously and substantially an improvement...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

But you know what all those things lack? Good ol' British tradition. Rule Britannia.

---

sure, we have a system that works VERY well, and no-one has demonstrated that any alternative would be substantially and unambiguously an improvement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

HoreTore you don't understand Britain when you are arguing with Furunculus about the election issue. We have our idea of parliamentary sovereignty, if the parliament is elected that is all that matters. The monarchs are nothing but a check on the parliament getting a bit uppity and ahead of itself (as democratic politicians often do). If they were elected like the other politicians, this would make them part of the democratic system, and in turn remove their purpose as a check on democratic leaders becoming populist tyrants.

---

quite, it is a very efficient and effective system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

But since the last few posts HoreTore has been arguing for outright abolishing them and not replacing them with anything, since the High court already rules as a Supreme Court as such. So in other-words, there is still a parliamentary democracy, just no Queen/King and there is no president. Since afterall, the Monarchy are a relic of the past and nothing more than a figurehead, we could simply replace them with a statue of Britannia.

---

he did that just after he challenged me to compare the cost of the monarchy to the german presidency:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, compare it to the head of state of Germany, for example.

---

please do; provide a cost benefit analysis between the costs and revenues of the two systems.......?

---

since which point we have been treated to blessed silence.

once again emotion and moralising, not to mention a little posturing, trumps cold hard demonstrable facts...................!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

But since the last few posts HoreTore has been arguing for outright abolishing them and not replacing them with anything, since the High court already rules as a Supreme Court as such. So in other-words, there is still a parliamentary democracy, just no Queen/King and there is no president. Since afterall, the Monarchy are a relic of the past and nothing more than a figurehead, we could simply replace them with a statue of Britannia.

---

But as I said we should not abolish the monarchy, we need it as a safeguard. The Lords is already weak enough, do you really want the Commons to have free reign?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

---

I believe that one particular political office is best kept hereditary, yes. Why on earth you presume that must mean it is despotic I have no idea.

In any case, I am open to alternatives for fulfilling the same role as the monarchy in safeguarding against overbearing politicians. I like the current solution with monarchy, since it is a) unelected b) hereditary. If this presidential alternative was elected, that removes his whole purpose in protecting against populist tyranny. If his position is not hereditary, that leads to all the power politics and other such nonsense and potential for abuse (like with what Putin did swapping positions in Russia and leaving his little puppet Medvedev, if one position was hereditary he coudln't have done that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

yes, nice laundry list, but put figures against them, demonstrate a REAL case for change.

and please don't forget that most important of characteristics; effectiveness, the Royal Family have been an excellent head-of-state, demonstrate that the alternative would be unambiguously and substantially an improvement...........

---

I've already done so.

High Court is already paid, therefore completely free. Everything currently spent on inbreds is now a savings. You could use it to pay off some of that massive debt you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I believe that one particular political office is best kept hereditary, yes. Why on earth you presume that must mean it is despotic I have no idea.

In any case, I am open to alternatives for fulfilling the same role as the monarchy in safeguarding against overbearing politicians. I like the current solution with monarchy, since it is a) unelected b) hereditary. If this presidential alternative was elected, that removes his whole purpose in protecting against populist tyranny. If his position is not hereditary, that leads to all the power politics and other such nonsense and potential for abuse (like with what Putin did swapping positions in Russia and leaving his little puppet Medvedev, if one position was hereditary he coudln't have done that).

---

Yes, the world has never seen a corrupt Monarch.



Oh wait, it was the other way around! The has never seen a Monarch that isn't corrupt, that was it yes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

In other words, you lot believe in a hereditary dictatorship?

Besides, how would a Supreme Court assuming the role of monarch change that? And why does your president have to be political?

---

you really struggle with basic concepts don't you:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/con...ional+monarchy

Quote:

---

constitutional monarchy
n.
A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation.

---

what i don't get is why you are so keen to change my life, i for one have zero interest in asking you to reform your political institutions.

is it insecurity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, the world has never seen a corrupt Monarch.

Oh wait, it was the other way around! The has never seen a Monarch that isn't corrupt, that was it yes....

---

That is because power corrupts. Monarchs were historically powerful, so they were corrupt. Democratic leaders are not immune from this. Just look at the political culture in the USA, it makes Britain look like a bastion of progressiveness and transparency.

I am by no means a stauch royalist, you may have noticed one of my favourite historical personalities is Oliver Cromwell. I am just aware that tyranny comes in many forms, and monarchs can be ideal safeguards against tyrants who may rise through the democratic system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

That is because power corrupts. Monarchs were historically powerful, so they were corrupt. Democratic leaders are not immune from this. Just look at the political culture in the USA, it makes Britain look like a bastion of progressiveness and transparency.

I am by no means a stauch royalist, you may have noticed one of my favourite historical personalities is Oliver Cromwell. I am just aware that tyranny comes in many forms, and monarchs can be ideal safeguards against tyrants who may rise through the democratic system.

---

What tyrant coming through the democratic system has a monarchy stopped, if I may ask?

Can't think of any, but I can certainly remember plenty of brutal dictators with royal backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What tyrant coming through the democratic system has a monarchy stopped, if I may ask?

Can't think of any, but I can certainly remember plenty of brutal dictators with royal backing.

---

We'll never know, since the balance in the system is what prevents such problems from ever arising. Certainly, Britain has enjoyed political stability that most other countries can only dream of, and notably, this was achieved around the same time we became a constitutional monarchy.

As for the royals that backed dictators, in almost every example I can think of these dicatotors were actually initially opposed, and were only later backed as the lesser of two evils (fascism over communism).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

We'll never know, since the balance in the system is what prevents such problems from ever arising. Certainly, Britain has enjoyed political stability that most other countries can only dream of, and notably, this was achieved around the same time we became a constitutional monarchy.

As for the royals that backed dictators, in almost every example I can think of these dicatotors were actually initially opposed, and were only later backed as the lesser of two evils (fascism over communism).

---

The UK has had more political stability than the US? Nonsense. No need to go that far though, you only need to look to the island to your west to find a republic with the same level of political stability. Or the island to your north. Or, if you want to look at a constitutional monarchy in political chaos, turn the clock back 150 years and look south. On the other hand, the "wonderously stable" Thailand(you know, the place with a yearly rebellion), whose corrupt PM bought :daisy: with his stolen money, is a constitutional monarchy.

Oh, and please: Spain's dictator, for example, was appointed by their monarch.

EDIT: Also, there's no stability bonus for a constitutional monarchy, you get a 2% prestige bonus. Bureaucratic despotism gives a stability bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

EDIT: Also, there's no stability bonus for a constitutional monarchy, you get a 2% prestige bonus. Bureaucratic despotism gives a stability bonus.

---

Yeah and you get a high amount of unrest in your aristocrats if you allow even a small amount of suffrage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I've already done so.

High Court is already paid, therefore completely free. Everything currently spent on inbreds is now a savings. You could use it to pay off some of that massive debt you have.

---

Plus, the High Court requires vast amounts of legal experience and you have to have a background cleaner than clean. So you would have some one with great legal experience on these matters overseeing the decision making process, opposed to a puppet-Queen/King who just rubber-stamps. This alongside a Constitution would prevent any tyranny, other than out-right Revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Plus, the High Court requires vast amounts of legal experience and you have to have a background cleaner than clean. So you would have some one with great legal experience on these matters overseeing the decision making process, opposed to a puppet-Queen/King.

---

Indeed.

The High Court actually has the legitimacy, insight and knowledge to interfere with politics gone wrong, something a muppet inbred will never have. Our courts are well known to lay down the law when our politicians tries something "smart", haven't seen many monarchs do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What tyrant coming through the democratic system has a monarchy stopped, if I may ask?

Can't think of any, but I can certainly remember plenty of brutal dictators with royal backing.

---

The Lord Protector.

When it came down to it, he was worse than the King he killed. We learned our lesson there and then. No more republics for Great Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

The Lord Protector.

When it came down to it, he was worse than the King he killed. We learned our lesson there and then. No more republics for Great Britain.

---

no the lesson was no more religious government.