truman Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 An elected President. . With what remit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 It's all about heritage, tradition and history for me. As a nation we can't offer the rest of the world glorious beaches, a hot sunny climate and warm blue seas as an attraction to tourists. What we can offer them is our history, tradition and heritage, something the Americans in particular can't get enough of. Even many of the architectural delights in this country are linked in some way with the Royal Family. The amount of money royal weddings and similar events generate for this country must run into the hundreds of millions of pounds. The young man born yesterday is a continuation of that heritage, tradition and history and I for one celebrate his birth as a royalist. Regards Doom The US although has a history it is no way compatible to the UK yet it's tourist industry does very well I thank you. When the fawning monarchists get a little tired of fawning they get on a plane and head for Disney land. We could Disneyfy our heritage without plowing millions into a few individuals who dump no differently to you or anyone else. Monarchy or not, our history will not evaporate overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doom Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Nope. The House of Commons is democratically elected. The government is formed out of that pool, without our involvement. Nobody voted for a coalition, for example. Secondly, the monarch has the power to suspend Parliament. The monarchy may have power to suspend the Parliament, but they don't. As far as I'm aware the law still exists that all men over the age of 14 years should spend two hours a week practicing their longbow......All because an ancient law exists, doesn't mean it's actioned. It's the Government that makes all the decisions that effect our day to day lives, whether that be taxes, spending, laws, going to war etc........and the coalition are the democratically elected Government. Regards Doom ---------- Post added 23-07-2013 at 11:51 ---------- The US although has a history it is no way compatible to the UK yet it's tourist industry does very well I thank you. When the fawning monarchists get a little tired of fawning they get on a plane and head for Disney land. We could Disneyfy our heritage without plowing millions into a few individuals who dump no differently to you or anyone else. Monarchy or not, our history will not evaporate overnight. I disagree. Whenever there's a big royal event the tourism in this country increases significantly. The money that generates more than pays for the few millions that the royal family cost us every year. To my mind much of our history is based around the royal family.....Take that away and we have far less to offer the rest of the world. Regards Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 With what remit? I don't know. Does that weaken my argument? I'd have a written constitution for the people too, splitting church and state. The monarchy may have power to suspend the Parliament, but they don't. That's nice of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 I don't know. Does that weaken my argument? As I don't know what your argument for a President is I can't tell if it's weakened or not ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebrmm Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 It's a simple enough question. Why do royalists think that the the baby born today is more special than any other born today? What has it done differently from any other baby? Why is one born into a life of luxury, whereas the other might be dead in a week..why do you care about the rich white one but not the dead black one? It's all bizarre to me.....why do you only care about the richest baby born today, but couldn't give a damn if thousands of others died? because they are where are all the communist country,s now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 With what remit? Good question. Why do people think another politician (also on a big money and the trappings that go with it) is a good idea? President Blair (he'd love that!!!) ? No thankyou. I'd thin back the royal family or at least those on the payroll, but another lieing cheating politician only to be replaced by another one 5 years down the line isn't s great improvement. What would he do that the pm or even boris Johnston wouldn't do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Good question. Why do people think another politician (also on a big money and the trappings that go with it) is a good idea? Because, for all their faults, people vote for politicians. It's better than giving people a job based on which womb they popped out of. King Blair - Imagine that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebrmm Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 This baby is the ultimate embodiment of celebrity worship. It hasn't done anything at all yet, but people are sucking up to it like gibbering morons. my background born in 1938 lived on Penistone Rd till 1962 worked as a builder got rich went bust went into the steel works in the winter if I got the chance we got f.all in the building trade for bad weather .saw the brothers at work no wonder England is on its knees I am a tory whats your back ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Because, for all their faults, people vote for politicians. It's better than giving people a job based on which womb they popped out of. King Blair - Imagine that! What would the president do that would be different? Why would it need to be a politician? If it's a party politician then you could bet that most people wouldn't have voted for him/her anyway...they would be put there by a minority of the electorate..is that fair? Just genuine questions. .not knocking your idea just want you to put some flesh on it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.