Poll: How would you vote in a referendum to abolish the monarchy?

[Blackjack Davy]

You are comparing them to politicians. The president doesn't need to be and shouldn't be political so why would it be a politician. Can we really not find a citizen who could serve for 5-7 years who the country respects? If so it doesn't say much about this country.

But they are look at Macron or Trump or canada. Apolitical presidents aren't the norm. And more often than not it splits the US politically when the ruling party is the opposite to that of the president and results in complete paralysis aka Obama. And who on earth in this country in public office is going to be respected for 5-7 years?! Boris couldn't even manage two before being universally loathed. Cressida Dick who isn't a politician didn't last much longer.

 

[a1ex2001]

But they are look at Macron or Trump or canada. Apolitical presidents aren't the norm. And more often than not it splits the US politically when the ruling party is the opposite to that of the president and results in complete paralysis aka Obama. And who on earth in this country in public office is going to be respected for 5-7 years?! Boris couldn't even manage two before being universally loathed. Cressida Dick who isn't a politician didn't last much longer.

Who are these non-political people who will want to spend 5-7 seven years swanning around as head of state and then retire back to the normal life they lead before? or will this be like a reality TV contest 'Britain's Next Great President' decided over 12 weeks or public voting following open auditions..... or maybe it will be a celebrity enter stage right president Beckham..... or a lottery tonight's lucky winner is ....

 

[a1ex2001]

Ireland elects its president and the president is largely ceremonial and acts very much like our monarch.

Except the current holder of the post is a life long politician and former leader of the national labour party who spends most of his time talking about socialist ideals, while he may have no real power he certainly has influence and is using his position to push a political point of view. For the most part it seems to be a retirement post for old politicians, let us all for imagine President Tony Blair as head of state and the face of the country while Cameron took office or President Kinnock while Tony was in office. It's not broke, the Royal Family are harmless and pretty cheap.

 

[Nasher]

Right now, keep. I think the Queen does do a good job representing the UK. Having someone who is above politics and money can be a good thing.

I think opinion will change once she is gone though.

 

[rhobbyh]

old bid? get rid.

 

[LCG-xyz]

Previously I'd always thought they were harmless, a boon for tourism etc...

That was until the queen decided to keep prince philip's will secret for 90 years, they lost me at that point.

When you factor in Princess Diana, Harry and Megan, Prince Andrew and the fact they're all German anyway, they can jog on.

 

[deuse]

The UK gov alone can not kick the royal family out.
I hope people know this.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

But they are look at Macron or Trump or canada. Apolitical presidents aren't the norm. And more often than not it splits the US politically when the ruling party is the opposite to that of the president and results in complete paralysis aka Obama. And who on earth in this country in public office is going to be respected for 5-7 years?! Boris couldn't even manage two before being universally loathed. Cressida Dick who isn't a politician didn't last much longer.

America isn't a parliamentary democracy. Its executive is the president. Canada has a PM like us, the queen is their head of state, god knows why they've stuck with that. Boris isn't respected because he's a compulsive liar with the morals and ethics that would make some criminals blush. The fact we elected him and gave him a huge majority shows what idiots the general public are. Its not like we didn't know what he was before.

Its almost like people think there is no possibility of another person in this country that could do it so lets stick with the bloodline version. If you were setting up a country would you chose to place one family above all others for ever? You'd have to be mad to do that.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Except the current holder of the post is a life long politician and former leader of the national labour party who spends most of his time talking about socialist ideals, while he may have no real power he certainly has influence and is using his position to push a political point of view. For the most part it seems to be a retirement post for old politicians, let us all for imagine President Tony Blair as head of state and the face of the country while Cameron took office or President Kinnock while Tony was in office. It's not broke, the Royal Family are harmless and pretty cheap.

That isn't the point. Its a ceremonial position. The fact the population of Ireland decided to elect him is on them, maybe he is very popular there. He has no more power than our head of state.

 

[chroniclard]

Previously I'd always thought they were harmless, a boon for tourism etc...

That was until the queen decided to keep prince philip's will secret for 90 years, they lost me at that point.

When you factor in Princess Diana, Harry and Megan, Prince Andrew and the fact they're all German anyway, they can jog on.

What exactly was wrong with Diana, Harry and Megan.

 

[Moley]

Apart from the fact that we have unelected individuals that hold power, what I want is a democracy.

That's called the Civil Service and you can't remove them. The Monarchy hold no *real* power - the queens is only really ceremonial and she is *required* to sign all new legislation. If she refused she would either be abdicated rather fast or we would become a republic rather fast, so she continues to do the job. That plus she actually see's it as her solemn duty and so does what is required of her.

 

[a1ex2001]

That isn't the point. Its a ceremonial position. The fact the population of Ireland decided to elect him is on them, maybe he is very popular there. He has no more power than our head of state.

He has no more official power but he has a platform which in this country remains mercifully free from party politics. Surely you can see the difference?

 

[gary996]

I'm a royalist and have always been one

 

[martin363]

President Boris.

Definitely more reliable and trustworthy than the senior members of the Royal Family.

 

[platinum87]

America isn't a parliamentary democracy. Its executive is the president. Canada has a PM like us, the queen is their head of state, god knows why they've stuck with that. Boris isn't respected because he's a compulsive liar with the morals and ethics that would make some criminals blush. The fact we elected him and gave him a huge majority shows what idiots the general public are. Its not like we didn't know what he was before.

Its almost like people think there is no possibility of another person in this country that could do it so lets stick with the bloodline version. If you were setting up a country would you chose to place one family above all others for ever? You'd have to be mad to do that.

Only a tiny handfull of people voted for boris when he ran for MP in his constituency.

The only option i had was to vote for a few people, the top two being the labor and conservative candidate for my borough.

The correct thing for me to do is to not vote, because all options are bad. But some people have convinced themselves voting is good, so they vote for the lesser evil. I.e. Conservatives, which are only 90% communist, vs labour, which are 95% communist.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Only a tiny handfull of people voted for boris when he ran for MP in his constituency.

The only option i had was to vote for a few people, the top two being the labor and conservative candidate for my borough.

The correct thing for me to do is to not vote, because all options are bad. But some people have convinced themselves voting is good, so they vote for the lesser evil. I.e. Conservatives, which are only 90% communist, vs labour, which are 95% communist.

To deny people vote because of the party leader when they vote is dishonest. A lot of people don't even know the name of their MP and don''t care, I don't know the name of mine. They vote for the party and the leader of that party, the actual candidate in their constituency is almost irrelevant. I wish we had a different system where everyone's vote actually matters, mine didn't.

I can't tell if your 90% communist comment is serious or not. If it is serious then wow.

 

[Angilion]

Well if you're going to put it like that. If we no longer have a monarchy then the crown estates revert to the state as we have no monarch. [..]

As I expected:

[..] I'm betting you're in favour of seizing their assets. Probably dishonestly by pretending that they don't own them. [..]

The crown estate can't "revert to the state" because the state has never owned it. You're advocating seizing assets owned by an individual. Having the people seizing the assets declare that they already own them doesn't make it any less of a seizure. If I stole your car and declared that I owned it, that would still be theft.

I think you're just avoiding the question of how you would determine whose assets would be seized by force.

 

[Angilion]

You are comparing them to politicians. The president doesn't need to be and shouldn't be political so why would it be a politician. Can we really not find a citizen who could serve for 5-7 years who the country respects? If so it doesn't say much about this country.

That's impossible for a Prime Minster. Why do you think it would be possible for a <insert your preferred title here>?

May as well assign the position of head of state by lottery. That would be less open to corruption. If the position is deliberately made completely meaningless it doesn't matter who has it. If the position isn't made completely meaningless and it's not an inherited service to the country then it's political.

 

[Energize]

Get rid of the monarchy.

What we have now is a monarch who has the power to deny royal assent to tyrannical laws but chooses to approve them, the worst of both worlds.

The poll reflects how right wing the forum is in general.

Without the monarchy there would be one less thing stopping this country from becoming an utter, faceless ****hole with nothing to differentiate it from the rest of the world. I believe that having a monarchy is also very beneficial, it brings tourism, it promotes patriotism, it generates money.

Palace of Versailles says otherwise.

 

[Mr Jack]

But they are look at Macron or Trump or canada. Apolitical presidents aren't the norm.

A great many countries have apolitical presidents, look at Germany for example, but you rarely hear about these figures for precisely the reason that they're not politically important.

Although, actually, many presidents in apolitical roles are former politicians, they're just ones respected by all sides. For example, Germany's current president Frank-Walter Steinmeier was a former significant SPD politician but his apolitical role is not in doubt.

It's more about the power and expectations of the role than anything else.