|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Ok now add up all the years that the same family has been sitting on the crown with all of its rights and entitlements The money is totally not the point, it's irrelevant compared to one upper middle class tax avoider.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:The money is totally not the point, it's irrelevant compared to one upper middle class tax avoider. The big difference being that you're not nationally compelled to suck up to the upper middle class tax avoider, and thank him when his gamemaster beats you with a stick for not minding the royal hounds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Being monarchist because you don't want to have a president is the most idiotic poo poo imaginable. You already have prime ministers who basically do everything that presidents do, but you've got an entire family of parasites stapled on top of the state with a bolt gun leeching off of the government every step of the way. I'm not a monarchist, i think it's anachronistic and stupid, but the monarchy has been neutered to such an extent that they're a loving bauble, the cost is not significant, people are free to make fun of them, the national press is occasionally positive, but more often than not is gutter press stories and stalking. given the current political climate I would not want to see Tommy Robinson running for President of the UK. What actual difference would it make to have a UK President, with the exact same powers as the current monarchy? Especially given the british people are loving racist scumbags.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The big difference being that you're not nationally compelled to suck up to the upper middle class tax avoider, and thank him when his gamemaster beats you with a stick for not minding the royal hounds. Oh let's look at France where macron has his bodyguard beat protestors then? That's much better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:How come you guys haven't guillotined the nobility yet They love being subjects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The big difference being that you're not nationally compelled to suck up to the upper middle class tax avoider, and thank him when his gamemaster beats you with a stick for not minding the royal hounds. The police deal with that, and we kinda are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:Also surely Buckingham palace would be an even bigger attraction if you could actually go in It would take decades to clear out all the tiny skeletons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Oh let's look at France where macron has his bodyguard beat protestors then? That's much better. Yes, because Macron isn't going to be president for life. JFairfax posted:I'm not a monarchist, i think it's anachronistic and stupid, but the monarchy has been neutered to such an extent that they're a loving bauble, the cost is not significant, people are free to make fun of them, the national press is occasionally positive, but more often than not is gutter press stories and stalking. Except it's not just a bauble, the rights and duties to the crown structure the UK government in such a way that it's never really owned by the people, even to the extent that you have an entire house of parliament which is staffed only by the relatives of long established noble lines. Your medieval class society isn't a mere formality just because you have a powerful bourgeois.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Glenn Quebec posted:I remember voicing how ridiculous it is that there is still a monarchy in the UK when one of the princes got married and GBS turned on me with lame stats like uhhh they bring in more money than they spend and that the royalty is a source of stability i can't seem to find the original pro-monarchy video but who cares, show people this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:yeah but the monarchs don't actually do anything, I quite like having a head of state with no power. do you actually believe this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yes, because Macron isn't going to be president for life. I would take the current house of lords over the current US senate every day of the loving week
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I would take the current house of lords over the current US senate every day of the loving week Yeah because you're a peasant, lmao.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:do you actually believe this? erm yes, the monarchy is entirely symbolic and is queen is in public non-political. You do realise she doesn't write the Queen's speech herself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:They don't cost that much, the royal family gets around £45million from the public purse per year. The argument for this is that most of their money comes from "their own estate". Have the royals been working part time at tesco to buy that estate? There's a word for world leaders who find themselves in private possession of national wealth- we call them kleptocrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
I'm not a monarchist I just unconditionally support them because they provide stability against the chaos of republican rule is all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The big difference being that you're not nationally compelled to suck up to the upper middle class tax avoider, and thank him when his gamemaster beats you with a stick for not minding the royal hounds. Ceremonial presidency is not that much different. Its main purpose is to expose "apolitical" people when they start going about the mad respect they for some dried up retired vampire who they know nothing about outside the gushing adoration they see in yellow press headlines, about how cute his ugly dog was during some pointless photo-op or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah because you're a peasant, lmao. actually I am a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, but alright. If you actually know anything about the house of lords you know that over the last couple of decades they actually have been quite effective in providing scrutiny of the legislation that comes in front of them. Yes it needs more reform, but it is nowhere near as foul and corrupted as the horrific US senate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I do talk poo poo about the monarchy but corporate America is super scary. I am part of the problem. Trump's Davos overlords are upset with him. I'm sure a cabal of managing directors are sitting in a circle wearing True Detective Season 1 hillbilly animal skull costumes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:actually I am a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, but alright. Yeah it sure is a shame that an American senatorial republic is the only kind of republic you could ever possibly choose from. If only somebody could come up with some kind of republican government that didn't have a senate. Oh well, better keep paying the royal family so that their princelings can do Nazi cosplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:erm yes, the monarchy is entirely symbolic The Queen dissolved Australia's government in living memory, it was an explicitly political decision. Unless you think her representative did that without her knowledge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I'm not a monarchist I just unconditionally support them because they provide stability against the chaos of republican rule is all. I don't unconditionally support them, I think that over the hundreds of years of wearing down their power the UK has got them into a situation where they are controlled, non-damaging to the country and better than the alternatives, which speaks more to the potential downsides of the alternatives than the positives of monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah it sure is a shame that an American senatorial republic is the only kind of republic you could ever possibly choose from. If only somebody could come up with some kind of republican government that didn't have a senate. Oh well, better keep paying the royal family so that their princelings can do Nazi cosplay. I don't think the UK will be changing from a bicameral legislature anytime soon mate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:actually I am a member of the petit-bourgeoisie, but alright. You're talking about two different things. An unelected (directly by the people) house of lords I'm fine with, you'd better be drat good at whatever you do in life to get in though. The head of state and monarchy and subservience to them is a different problem, and needs to go. How? No loving clue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:The Queen dissolved Australia's government in living memory, it was an explicitly political decision. Unless you think her representative did that without her knowledge? the Queen would have been asked to do that by Australia's prime minister. It is in fact a great example the queen having ceremonial, but no decision making, power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:You're talking about two different things. An unelected (directly by the people) house of lords I'm fine with, you'd better be drat good at whatever you do in life to get in though. The head of state and monarchy and subservience to them is a different problem, and needs to go. How? No loving clue. well yeah, but they're two closely related things. and yes this is it, it's all well and good to say get rid of the monarchy, but what would we have instead? and would it be any better?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:I don't unconditionally support them, I think that over the hundreds of years of wearing down their power the UK has got them into a situation where they are controlled, non-damaging to the country and better than the alternatives, which speaks more to the potential downsides of the alternatives than the positives of monarchy. JFairfax posted:I don't think the UK will be changing from a bicameral legislature anytime soon mate. Yeah it's not going anywhere because you're a nation of peasant cucks who can't even imagine what you'd do without a royal family or nobility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah it's not going anywhere because you're a nation of peasant cucks who can't even imagine what you'd do without a royal family or nobility. I think you vastly over-estimate the importance and power the royal family have on the day to day lives of people in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:well yeah, but they're two closely related things. how about nothing, we just elect a head of state once every 5 years that has no powers but does the whole flag flying bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:how about nothing, we just elect a head of state once every 5 years that has no powers but does the whole flag flying bullshit. I don't think that would be such a good idea. e/ the british people can't be trusted to vote for things. ee/ and would you bar prince william from standing? because he'd probably win lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
plus what criteria for a vote? who would be eligible? Who would we stop? You best believe the loving far right would jump on that in a loving heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Saying "the queen has no decision making ability" is still avoiding the issue of the fact that monarchism creates a formal system in which one family has to ratify all the affairs of state, and all the other legalistic implications which flow from it. Saying over and over again that the monarch is ceremonial is avoiding the issue of medieval class power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Glenn Quebec posted:I do talk poo poo about the monarchy but corporate America is super scary. I am part of the problem. Trump's Davos overlords are upset with him. I'm sure a cabal of managing directors are sitting in a circle wearing True Detective Season 1 hillbilly animal skull costumes. Pretty sure there is a significant overlap between the folks who got rich while proclaiming themselves the nobility and the folks who are rich now because they are *checks dictionary* job creators.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:plus what criteria for a vote? who would be eligible? Who would we stop? The far right already controls the government you idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Saying "the queen has no decision making ability" is still avoiding the issue of the fact that monarchism creates a formal system in which one family has to ratify all the affairs of state, and all the other legalistic implications which flow from it. Saying over and over again that the monarch is ceremonial is avoiding the issue of medieval class power. yeah but who gives a gently caress? really it doesn't matter on a day to day basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:The only argument to keep the monarchy for any real time period is that writing a proper constitution would be a total shitshow like Brexit. I can't think of another one. If only there were other countries ruled by a British monarch that had written constitutions and whose governments worked functionally quite similarly to Britain who might be able to serve as a model
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:If only there were other countries ruled by a British monarch that had written constitutions and whose governments worked functionally quite similarly to Britain who might be able to serve as a model care to name some?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
BottleKnight posted:If only there were other countries ruled by a British monarch that had written constitutions and whose governments worked functionally quite similarly to Britain who might be able to serve as a model I was talking about us, we're not smart enough to copy them. I mean, seriously, Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:05
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah it's not going anywhere because you're a nation of peasant cucks who can't even imagine what you'd do without a royal family or nobility. You got rid of royalty and immediately replaced them with dynasties. Which have much more real power than our Royals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:care to name some? No. Hexyflexy posted:I was talking about us, we're not smart enough to copy them. I mean, seriously, Brexit. This is fair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:51 |
|
|
JFairfax posted:yeah but who gives a gently caress? really it doesn't matter on a day to day basis. Neither do dictatorships. It doesn't matter "on a day to day basis" that the government is controlled by a single guy and his clique, until the day you're black bagged and have starving rats shoved up your rear end on suspicion of being a pinko.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2019 20:07
|
|