Queen Camilla?

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:
However, to put it into perspective, the £20M over the last ten years that was quoted works out at approximately 10p per household per year.

And how much blood sweat and tears has been spilt over the generations as their ancestors built up their fabulous wealth at the expense of the rest of the population?

Anyway, why do we have democracy? We weren't consulted.
I think Charlie should be allowed to marry Peter Mandleson.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
Democracy isn't perfect - we generally get the politicians we deserve. But you advocate not having it because the people who attain office aren't perfect?

Stephen,

I absolutely DO NOT advocate not having democracy. I'm a firm advocate of freedom for the individual and it happens that all of the societies where people are free are democracies of one sort or another.

I would not allow the people to vote on each individual issue by referendum. I'd rather they elected a government to govern, as in most practical democracies.

Nor do I support proportional representation as the best way to run a country.

Democracy is not a 'one size and type fits all' form of government. I happen to prefer a monarch and an unelected second chamber (although I'm in favour of them being appointed and not hereditary).

Despite our system, I believe that Britain is generally considered to be a democratic country and it's certainly a free one.

Regards
Steve M

7V said "However, Blair overruled the House of Lords when he couldn't get his anti-hunting legislation through and, whatever the pros or cons of that particular issue, that was a no-no to me"

Then you don't understand our constitution under which the House of Lords acts as a scruitinising and amendment counter-balance to the primary legislature that is the House of Commons. In exceptional circumstances it can ask the Commons to think again and send a Bill back but it has no rights to veto Commons approved legislation at all as explicitly legistalted in the Parliament Act of 1911.

With regard to the hunting law this is actually the third time this government had used the act -- previously it had been used to allow PR in European elections and to equalise the age of consent for homosexual sex. It was also used by the previous Conservative government to pass a law that allows Nazi war criminals t be tried in UK courts.

In all cases, the refusal of the Lords to enactteh democratically expressed wishes of Parliament (after sending it back, discussing concsesssions, amendments, etc) is far more unconstitutional than a government reluctant use of the Parliament Act.

Matthew

God help us all if the upper house was elected, it would be a complete waste of time. The Upper house acts as a QA department on the government, and like all QA departments needs to be independent from the processes it is QAing. The fact that there is a high proportion of ex-Judges and business leaders is a good thing in my book, these guys have an huge amount of relevant experiance.

More Democracty isn;t always better, That's why the Law is independent from (and above) the government, the government cannot break the law (though obviously it can change the law ;-)).

On the Charles issue. Much of the money he makes from the Duchy (about 50%)is spend directly on official Royal business. And about 50% of the rest is spent on Staff costs (and they do pay tax on this money). So if his income was taxed all that would happen is he would take from teh Civil list (he doesn't do this at the mo) to fulful his duties, we'd probably all be worse off. I guess he just can't win.

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
And how much blood sweat and tears has been spilt over the generations as their ancestors built up their fabulous wealth at the expense of the rest of the population?

TomK,

No blood sweat and tears then in the French revolution, the US march to democracy and independence, India's democratic journey, democracy in Germany or Japan, the emerging democracies in the ex-Soviet Union, or the embyonic democracies in Afghanistan or even Iraq.

Where has freedom been bought cheaply?

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by greeny:
God help us all if the upper house was elected, it would be a complete waste of time. The Upper house acts as a QA department on the government

Usually on the Labour government.

quote:

I guess he just can't win.

Yes he can . He abdicates, fights to abolish the monarchy, settles down with Drusilla in a small tenant organic farm and lets the people have his extensive fortune and lands.

It's not difficult.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by matthewr:
Then you don't understand our constitution under which the House of Lords acts as a scruitinising and amendment counter-balance to the primary legislature that is the House of Commons. In exceptional circumstances it can ask the Commons to think again and send a Bill back but it has no rights to veto Commons approved legislation at all as explicitly legistalted in the Parliament Act of 1911.

Matthew,

Thanks for that explanation. As I said, I'm no expert on the UK system of constitution. It kind of restores my confidence in Mr. Blair.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
And how much blood sweat and tears has been spilt over the generations as their ancestors built up their fabulous wealth at the expense of the rest of the population?

TomK,

No blood sweat and tears then in the French revolution, the US march to democracy and independence, India's democratic journey, democracy in Germany or Japan, the emerging democracies in the ex-Soviet Union, or the embyonic democracies in Afghanistan or even Iraq.

Where has freedom been bought cheaply?

Regards
Steve M

You're comparing the fight against tyranny and dictatorship with the fight to have your family in succession to the throne?

Goodness

I don't think the royals ascendancy to power had anything to do with anyone’s 'freedom' but their own.....





Stephen

This appears to have exercised quite a few of you out there!

But no-one's telling me what they feel about the prospect of a Queen Camilla. Maybe I was right and that you just don't give a toss?

G

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
This appears to have exercised quite a few of you out there!

But no-one's telling me what they feel about the prospect of a Queen Camilla. Maybe I was right and that you just don't give a toss?

G

I'm very happy that Charles has a chance to be happy.

Now he can make me happy by following this simple suggestion in an earlier post of mine.

quote:

He abdicates, fights to abolish the monarchy, settles down with Drusilla in a small tenant organic farm and lets the people have his extensive fortune and lands.

Then we are both happy!



Stephen

But is he allowed to keep an extensive staff of butlers to pick up the five chages of clothes that he drops on the floor daily or to hold the glass when he needs to give a urine sample?

I mean, we do want the poor chap to be happy on his organic tenant farm!

And when will we get the results of a DNA test on the wretched ginger git Harry Hewitt?

G

quote:

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
And how much blood sweat and tears has been spilt over the generations as their ancestors built up their fabulous wealth at the expense of the rest of the population?

TomK,

No blood sweat and tears then in the French revolution, the US march to democracy and independence, India's democratic journey, democracy in Germany or Japan, the emerging democracies in the ex-Soviet Union, or the embyonic democracies in Afghanistan or even Iraq.

Where has freedom been bought cheaply?

Regards
Steve M

Sorry Steve I don't understand your point here. You're not trying to say that our royal family's accumulation of outrageous wealth and privilege on the backs of the masses over the centuries has been part of some sort of noble struggle for freedom are you? Please tell me you're not.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
...The bloody church won't even recognise their marriage!!

That's weird. Wasn't the church of England first conceived because a royal wanted to have his second (or third, or fourth, or whatever) marriage recognised by the curch?

Cheers,

Edo

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
And when will we get the results of a DNA test on the wretched ginger git Harry Hewitt?

G

William can't be his either surely? He doesn't have any of the , er, family physical traits. Wont all you royalists insist he is proven a Windsor before you fawn all over him if he's crowned king?



Stephen

Rasher: Maybe Charlie Boy could get the Pope to give them a blessing! That'd be a hell of a laugh.

Edo: You're being too logical. The king you have in mind was a Tudor. The bunch we're saddled with currently are a bastard mixture of German and Greek. Not that I have anything against Germany or Greece, but how did we get conned into having this bunch of cuckoos in our nest?

G

Because most of us are stupid, thats why!!
oldie.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
You're comparing the fight against tyranny and dictatorship with the fight to have your family in succession to the throne?

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
Sorry Steve I don't understand your point here. You're not trying to say that our royal family's accumulation of outrageous wealth and privilege on the backs of the masses over the centuries has been part of some sort of noble struggle for freedom are you? Please tell me you're not.

I was merely making the comparison between the evolution of the current British democratic system with the emergence of democracies elsewhere.

Regards
Steve M

Putting aside the arguments as to whether the Royal Family gained and maintained power by supping on the blood sweat and toil of the working classes (historically when democratically elected bodies have had the opportunity to do other than plump for a monarch they have not taken the opportunity - see 1660 when an elected House of Commons, albeit not by universal sufferage, voted to re-instate Charles II), we need to consider the alternatives to the present situation.

As I see it these are two fold:

1. Elect a political head of state with executive powers as in France and the USA. This has a number of drawbacks. For example it would involve re-writing the constitution totally taking special pains to balance the power of the executive president and elected body. In these circumstances there is a considerable risk of enfeebling the government of the country particularly when the executive president and the elected chamber are of a different political hue. This has happened on occasions both in France and the USA.

Additionally you have a situation where the armed forces, the judiciary etc swear allegiance to a political figure rather than a titular head of state. Not ideal in my view.

2. We elect a figure head president on the Irish model. Some of the candidates suggested for this role do not exactly fill me with anticipation - Richard Branson? Additionally, this establishment is possibly going to cost as much if not more than the core monarchy.

Overall therefore I am with Steve on this one. Whilst I am not an out and out royalist it seems to me that the system works satisfactorarily from a constitutional point of view at present amd the alternatives are not particularly palatable.

The democracy question is simple. Anyone who exercises power should be answerable to those they exercise power over. No exceptions. If you don't believe that you're not truly a democrat. As for the royal family, it serves no purpose other than for tourism, and should quite clearly have no constitutional role.

-- Ian

Simple answer to it all is to unlock the main gates at Glamis Castle.

They were locked after Bonnie Prince Charlie departed on his road south and were next to be opened when the Stewart king arrived.

The English won, the Germans took over and the rest was destined to history !

It's all the fault of the English Army at that time.......................

<exits into bunker - nowhere near Culloden >

I know nothing of this "Constitution" you speak of. Where is this paper kept?

Howard

Brussels?

If they love each other they should marry. Really, who cares. Then all the Royals should be audited, relieved of their trappings, given a modest sum to see them through the first year of difficult adjustment followed by a Royal news blackout for say the next 200-300 years.

I was over in Ireland last year and from what I could see their model seems hugely better than the British. Their recent Presidents, I'm thinking Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, are smart, modern and focussed on their jobs as national ambassadors. Both these ladies have done nothing but enhance the profile of Ireland and their office on the world stage and enjoy huge support and admiration domestically. Contrast this with this deadbeat bunch fo royals with their scandals, trappings of huge ostentatious wealth, enormous expenses and their social disconnect from the people they're meant to represent.

If a small country like Ireland can elect such Presidents I think it's a depressing statement to say that a fine country such as Brtain is incapable of finding people of at least a similar calibre. I must be out of touch I thought Branson was a standup guy.

I don't know who the core royals are but for the purposes of the debate surely it must include any that get money from the state, tax breaks or get income that derives from their position, i.e. the Duchy of Cornwall. I would be amazed if the cost of the Irish presidency was any more than a fraction of the cost of maintaining these core royals, not to mention as above their tax breaks and the value of the assets acquired by them through their position.

Howard is correct in that the British constitution is of course unwritten.

Because the British constitution is unwritten in an absolute form does not mean it does not exist in the Common Law, Acts of Parliament, Magna Carta etc. To suggest otherwise is pure semantics.

In any event get rid of the Royal Family and you sure as hell are going to have to write one.

The democratic argument is fine given that the person being elected has executive and political power. What executive or political power does the Queen have? She is a figurehead no more no less but for all that an important one for the reasons I stated previously. Ian if you are sold on the democratic argument (and that is your point of view which I wholly respect) then you need to go to option 1 in my previous post. Would you be in favour of electing judges?

I guess my view is if it ain't broke, don't fix it and in constitutional terms (written or not) it ain't. OK Harry have your smart modern focussed president (as long as it's not Branson) but in terms if the well being of the people of the UK I don't believe it matters a jot. BTW Core Royals to me are the Queen and the immediate succession - I agree the rest are just hangers on.

Just in my view of course!