James. Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Quite fancied a poll and this was the first thing I thought of. So should we all bow down before the royal family, continue to maintain their 'wipe your arse ma'am' lifestyle and hold our hands over our heart. Or should we abolish them, become the United States of Great Britain, strip their powers and lock them up in cages to poke fun and laugh at. Or do you not actually give a flying badger either way? Le opinions, sil vous plait...
cisono Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Keep If it ain't broke and all that I thought they were broke and broken?
cisono Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 How rude of you. Why? I haven't got my British passport yet (possibly because I haven't asked for one) so I don't think I am allowed to choose any other option...
Guest Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Seeing as most of them aren't allowed to sponge off of us, and for the tourism (which no doubt someone like Lemon Harpic will dispute) I would keep the Royals. I would rather have the Queen as Head of State than President Blair. Do we really want a system like the Americans and the French?
Dr The Singh Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Seeing as most of them aren't allowed to sponge off of us, and for the tourism (which no doubt someone like Lemon Harpic will dispute) I would keep the Royals. I would rather have the Queen as Head of State than President Blair. Do we really want a system like the Americans and the French? Agreed, atleast she brings in some cash, politicians just waste it!!!
Lord Nibblington Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Seeing as most of them aren't allowed to sponge off of us, and for the tourism (which no doubt someone like Lemon Harpic will dispute) I would keep the Royals. I would rather have the Queen as Head of State than President Blair. Do we really want a system like the Americans and the French? Very good point. Oh yes indeedy.
Daggers Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 If you are all going to keep them - then can they pay a proper rate of tax and stop being subsidised please?
The People's Hero Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 This is like a red rag to a bull. Or should I say a red rag to someone who speaks a lot of bull. Step forwards... LEMON HARPIC!
Suffolk_fox Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Many other countries really really envy us having the Royals. It sets us apart from the madding crowd, and also brings in lots of money, to boot. Also, it is nice to have a figurehead who represents many people, for example Prince Charles and his Green thinking etc Apart from tourism, the Royal family do alot of work. There is the Prince's Trust for one, and I know many a businessman who is thankful for help and support from that. The Queen is a really hard worker. There was a programme a while back which shadowed her for a while - for an Octogenarian (sp?) she packs in a full day! By the way, for the hard of thinking, I have voted 1...
Daggers Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 I'll give 'em one thing - she inspired a decent song
Guest Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 I'm 100% with Lisa's comment. Are you feeling ok?
Thracian Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Are you feeling ok? Like I'm snowboarding in the moonlight - it's a whole new experience!
Leonisco Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Definitely keep them. They're not hurting anyone, so why get rid of them?
l444ry Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 Seeing as most of them aren't allowed to sponge off of us, and for the tourism (which no doubt someone like Lemon Harpic will dispute) I would keep the Royals. I would rather have the Queen as Head of State than President Blair. Do we really want a system like the Americans and the French? That's one view of the medieval political system this antiquated country uses at the moment Lisa, but it's the powers which the Prime Minister accrues through the Royal Prerogative which should concern us all. Using crown prerogative, ministers can commit the nation to treaties of which no text may have been published, let alone debated in parliament. Using these procedures, the Attlee government committed us to nuclear weapons; American bases were established here without the sanction of parliament; Edward Heath committed us to membership of the European Community on the basis that parliament would agree later on. The honours system depends on crown prerogative. Not only do MPs have no say in the matter; they cannot even criticise the decisions taken in the name of the crown unless they put down a substantive Commons motion (and even then they cannot ensure that it gets debated). Except for the benches occupied by those hereditary peers who survived in the recent purge, the bishops and the law lords, seats in the Lords are filled on the say-so of Downing Street under crown prerogative Quite frankly, I can't see why anybody supports this ludicrous system of running a country.
Head Honcho Posted 31 January 2007 Posted 31 January 2007 That's one view of the medieval political system this antiquated country uses at the moment Lisa, but it's the powers which the Prime Minister accrues through the Royal Prerogative which should concern us all. Using crown prerogative, ministers can commit the nation to treaties of which no text may have been published, let alone debated in parliament. Using these procedures, the Attlee government committed us to nuclear weapons; American bases were established here without the sanction of parliament; Edward Heath committed us to membership of the European Community on the basis that parliament would agree later on. The honours system depends on crown prerogative. Not only do MPs have no say in the matter; they cannot even criticise the decisions taken in the name of the crown unless they put down a substantive Commons motion (and even then they cannot ensure that it gets debated). Except for the benches occupied by those hereditary peers who survived in the recent purge, the bishops and the law lords, seats in the Lords are filled on the say-so of Downing Street under crown prerogative Quite frankly, I can't see why anybody supports this ludicrous system of running a country. You're quite good at slagging off the present system but you fail to give a suitable alternative! We should be proud of our current system. Ok it's not perfect but it's a hell of a lot more stable and corruption free than most other countries.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.