Monarchy or Republic?

[Skanky Burns]

What does it matter, really? As PH said, the power is in the hands of parliament anyway, and we the plebs vote the parliament into power. What difference does voting a parliament into power who then choose a figurehead for the country versus having the figurehead born into the position?

Personally, I would prefer Australia to be a Republic so as to have an Australian head of state. However, I voted Monarchy in the latest referrendum due to the republic model they proposed. As well as changing wording in the constitution so that monarchy would be republic and prime minister would be president, they also decided that removing power from the senate and increasing power in the parliament were necessary. No thanks.

[C0ckney]

what was that about failing miserably...?

hang on a minute laz, you're the one who wants to change things, so lets hear your justifications. in short -

a) what's wrong with the monarchy; and

b) what's your (real...) alternative?

so far you've come with -

a) cos i don't like 'em, and;

b) ooh, ooh i know, lets just crown some dude who's done some cool things.

not good enough really is it.

[Provost Harrison]

David Attenborough, silly. Do you listen?

[TheStinger]

Who has done more the UK QE2( not a bad person but thats hardly a quality for being head of state) or David Attenborough a man who has Laz said has not only set up and run an entire TV channel but more importantly changed a generations views on nature and the environment.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Who didn't? At the time, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa, and Mugabe hadn't gone barking mad.

Well, I wasn't following int'l news in the mid '80s, but I've seen an interview with Foreign Ministry official from about the same time who was expressing grave concerns about developments there.

But the reason the Attenborough piece is so funny is it was shown to us in history class in 2000, and not to demonstrate the difficulty of prediction, but to convince us how much better off Africa is for having escaped the shackles of colonialism.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Winston
We have to do an awful lot of reminding you, don't we, Lazarus and the Gimp.

I would remind you of post #15 of this thread in which I already explained that, a post, I'll remind you, to which you already replied. Well sort of, anyway.

I'd blanked yours out of my memory because it was too offensively servile for me to contemplate. You really were born to follow, weren't you?

Can I take this opportunity to point out that, despite their "lifetime of preparation", an awful lot of monarchs still turn out to be complete ****. And, of course, even though they're ****, you're almost certainly stuck with them.

It should be viewed with incredulity that, in the Age of Reason, we still acknowledge heads of state purely on the basis that their whoppingly inbred father managed to lazily squirt two bollocks-worth of poshspunk up their congenitally imbecilic mother's slack crimson flue. Frankly I'd rather have you as my head of state, Winston, because at least there's less risk of you reproducing.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: what was that about failing miserably...?

Originally posted by C0ckney
hang on a minute laz, you're the one who wants to change things, so lets hear your justifications. in short -

a) what's wrong with the monarchy; and

They're undemocratic and unaccountable. I could level many, many other criticisms, but let's make it simple and stick with those.

Now explain why democracy and accountability are concepts to be avoided.

b) what's your (real...) alternative?

.........

b) ooh, ooh i know, lets just crown some dude who's done some cool things.

not good enough really is it.

Shall I point you back in the direction of the democratic elections I stipulated, and that you are pointedly overlooking?

Like I said- it's democratic and possibly even self-funding. Now tell me what's wrong with demoracy.

[Last Conformist]

It allows people like Winston to influence policy, for a start.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Who didn't? At the time, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa, and Mugabe hadn't gone barking mad.

Well, I wasn't following int'l news in the mid '80s, but I've seen an interview with Foreign Ministry official from about the same time who was expressing grave concerns about developments there.

But the reason the Attenborough piece is so funny is it was shown to us in history class in 2000, and not to demonstrate the difficulty of prediction, but to convince us how much better off Africa is for having escaped the shackles of colonialism.

Dude! Your teachers really sucked.

The African drought of 1983- 1985 killed millions across many nations. Zimbabwe was actually hit far worse by the drought than most other nations, but had no famine at all. In the mid-80's, at the time Attenborough was speaking, Zimbabwe was looking good. Mugabe was far from perfect, but certainly wasn't anything like the monster he is now.

[Last Conformist]

Make that "teacher", singular, but yes, she was pretty bad.

[Winston]

Democratic "concerns" are entirely irrelevant since a constitutional Monarch is an apolitical figure, which is precisely one of their strongpoints in modern society.

[Last Conformist]

An apolitical head of state is an oxymoron. The King may not have a party affiliation (tho everyone assumes he's rightwing), but that doesn't make him apolitical.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And who determines whether they are sufficiently apolitical?

And what if they prove not to be so?

[Gangerolf]

Well, I guess I'm pro republic. I'm also pro eternal world peace.

I don't know which is more probable.

The only pro-republic organisation in my country seems to consist of one guy up in Kirkenes near the Russian border. www.republikk.no He advocates the Finnish/Icelandic model.
I'd prefer the German model, where we won't have to endure any presidential campaigns. So I guess I'm on my own.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
And who determines whether they are sufficiently apolitical?

And what if they prove not to be so?

1) Tough titties

2) They'd quickly lose their public backing, and pretty soon your boyfriend David A. could be king of the hill. If that is indeed what the people would want - and not just some loony pipe dream as it would appear at this point.