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

[Blue160]

I voted keep. They cost us less than £1 a year each and it's a bigger deal than a lot seem to think getting rid of them.

The idea of President Boris is not a pleasant one.

 

[Freefaller]

I voted keep. They cost us less than £1 a year each and it's a bigger deal than a lot seem to think getting rid of them.

The idea of President Boris is not a pleasant one.

On that note I agree.... I'd rather not have president Boris!

 

[martin363]

On that note I agree.... I'd rather not have president Boris!

In many countries, Greece, Italy for example the president is appointed by the parliament. The government of the day nominates an individual and the parliament votes them into the job.

The situation as in the US, where the President is voted for by the people is unlikely, as the Prime Minister would remain in charge in the UK, that said, give me The Queen or Charles any day. How often would some corrupt ex-prime minister, or god forbid John Bercow etc. be in the frame!

I agree that many people who call for a republic do so without thinking about what that alternative will likely look like, and assume that the costs to the public purse will be significantly reduced, they wont be.

 

[Freefaller]

In many countries, Greece, Italy for example the president is appointed by the parliament. The government of the day nominates an individual and the parliament votes them into the job.

The situation as in the US, where the President is voted for by the people is unlikely, as the Prime Minister would remain in charge in the UK, that said, give me The Queen or Charles any day. How often would some corrupt ex-prime minister, or god forbid John Bercow etc. be in the frame!

I agree that many people who call for a republic do so without thinking about what that alternative will likely look like, and assume that the costs to the public purse will be significantly reduced, they wont be.

I was born in a republic, and grew up in numerous republics - so for me it's fairly normal. Despite being in the UK for 20+ years, I'm still not used to the royal family or the whole thing. I just hate Bozo!

I doubt the UK will ever abolish the monarchy - as I said, it doesn't bother me, but I don't care about it at all and have no interest or respect for it.

 

[martin363]

I was born in a republic, and grew up in numerous republics - so for me it's fairly normal. Despite being in the UK for 20+ years, I'm still not used to the royal family or the whole thing. I just hate Bozo!

I doubt the UK will ever abolish the monarchy - as I said, it doesn't bother me, but I don't care about it at all and have no interest or respect for it.

I am actually no fan of the Royal family, though I do respect the Queen and her service to the country. What I support is the current constitutional model on which the government of the UK is based. I do not see reason to change it, or indeed why a President would be any better for the country as a whole. Many people seem to crave change, but change is not always the right course of action in every situation.

Though a Brit who grew up in Windsor, so I saw the Royal Family a lot, I now live in Greece, a republic, and they often look back longingly to the days of their Royal Family, not as Leaders, but as a defining Head of State to represent the identity and interests of the country.

 

[SonicSW20]

I agree that many people who call for a republic do so without thinking about what that alternative will likely look like, and assume that the costs to the public purse will be significantly reduced, they wont be.

As long as the head of state is elected and Lords is reformed to have some sort of election process, I'd be happy. The cost side of the current structure vs any alternative is not really a factor for me.

 

[martin363]

As long as the head of state is elected and Lords is reformed to have some sort of election process, I'd be happy. The cost side of the current structure vs any alternative is not really a factor for me.

in reality though, That is unlikely, even if the country transitioned to a Republic. It is much more likely to be a position appointed by and voted on in parliament only. That is the modern approach to republics.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

The monarch owns about £15B worth of assets in the UK designated as the crown estate. The money you claim the royal family gets from the state actually comes from the monarch's own assets. She gives 100% of the income from those assets to the state and the state gives her 25% of it back.

So you have two choices:

1) Don't seize all their assets and have the state (i.e. us) eat the increased cost (plus the costs of a new head of state, plus the costs of previous surviving heads of state).
2) Seize all their assets. Or at least almost all of them, i.e. the crown estate. Probably some more too.

I'm betting you're in favour of seizing their assets. Probably dishonestly by pretending that they don't own them. So my question still applies - where would you draw the cutoff point for the state seizing privately owned assets by force? Only for people you don't like? How do you plan to gain the dictatorial power required to do that? Or would you impose a value limit? If so, how much? How would you deal with assets being transferred to another country? That would obviously happen if your asset seizure plans were implemented. Dodging taxes is a large industry. Dodging asset seizure would be even more so because at least taxation doesn't take everything.

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. The family have enough wealth stashed away in banks, I'm sure we can come to a deal where they've got enough money to keep a generation going and they are either careful with it or the following generations do what most people do, work. No dictatorial powers are required if the population want it to happen, sadly we aren't there yet but hopefully we will be soon. Clearly you are in favour of a monarchy, fair enough but many people would like to move away from such an antiquated system.

 

[SonicSW20]

in reality though, That is unlikely, even if the country transitioned to a Republic. It is much more likely to be a position appointed by and voted on in parliament only. That is the modern approach to republics.

I'd still take that over a head of state thats there via bloodline, even if the role is effectively ceremonial in current times.

 

[martin363]

I'd still take that over a head of state thats there via bloodline, even if the role is effectively ceremonial in current times.

For me I would prefer the one who is born and trained into that ceremonial role, who has been scrutinised from the day they were born, and is patriotic and devoted to their country. If our politicians were of a different moral basis to reality, I would agree with you, but that are all power hungry and only those who are aggressive, manipulative and greedy succeed, some are also corrupt. Not a good stock to pick a Head of State from, and that is the group the Head of State would be chosen from, and by...

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

The cost of a new head of state and the process for electing them etc would likely be very similar and we would still be saddled with the bill for maintaining the royal palaces etc. Would you have a head of state with real power or just an elected figure head? Imagine president Boris….

No it wouldn't. Looking after a president and their partner and children, if they are still children, isn't going to cost the same as it does now. The palaces would raise income as they can be fully opened to the public, even rented out for events. Some state room in Buckingham Palace could still be used for state events. If anything it would likely increase tourism as rather than just stand at Buckingham Palace gates most days they could actually tour the palace. You can buy a tour now, see the changing of the guard, see some state rooms for £59. Its only around 5 days a month. Now change it to 300 days a year, open up most of the palace and charge £10, watch the money flow in.

We would have a president that is a figurehead, like our monarch is. No power, not in any way political. Other countries do it, why would it be so difficult here?

 

[martin363]

Other countries do it, why would it be so difficult here?

Have you read the above few responses? We could do it, just as other countries do, but why would it be any better than what we have at the moment? Change from a system that does work, with an individual who is trained, scrutinised from birth, and dedicated to the country, to one who is appointed, and likely from a group of little, or no moral fibre.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

in reality though, That is unlikely, even if the country transitioned to a Republic. It is much more likely to be a position appointed by and voted on in parliament only. That is the modern approach to republics.

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

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Have you read the above few responses? We could do it, just as other countries do, but why would it be any better than what we have at the moment? Change from a system that does work, with an individual who is trained, scrutinised from birth, and dedicated to the country, to one who is appointed, and likely from a group of little, or no moral fibre.

Haha yeah our royal family are just full of moral fibre

Sorry I don't believe one family should be placed above all others just because of a blood line. Its a ridiculous system in the 21st century.

 

[martin363]

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

I think Ireland has many reasons for not wanting a Monarchy. The Poll attached to this thread is strong than I expected, almost 4 to 1 in favour of a monarchy. History has effect and precedence in many constitutional situations.

 

[martin363]

Haha yeah our royal family are just full of moral fibre

The Queen?

 

[Freefaller]

I am actually no fan of the Royal family, though I do respect the Queen and her service to the country. What I support is the current constitutional model on which the government of the UK is based. I do not see reason to change it, or indeed why a President would be any better for the country as a whole. Many people seem to crave change, but change is not always the right course of action in every situation.

It would be better (IMO) that the head of state should be elected, but in this case (just like the Lords) it's all a nepotistic...

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I think Ireland has many reasons for not wanting a Monarchy. The Poll attached to this thread is strong than I expected, almost 4 to 1 in favour of a monarchy. History has effect and precedence in many constitutional situations.

Yeah maybe the treatment from the country that had a monarch has something to do with that The poll is from 2016

The Queen?

What a long list. I've no problem with the queen, she has served the country well. But she isn't long for this world and the rest of them aren't dripping with moral fibre. Its a hard pass from me.

 

[martin363]

Compare Charles or William to any Prime Minister of the last 30 years, and I would define them as also having moral standing in comparison. No one is perfect, after how many of us have been divorced etc, but the Royal Family endure scrutiny like no other individual, including politicians, who seem to get away with most things. Andrew, yes, likely a Nonce, but not in line to the throne and if he was, wouldn't be now. Every large family as some history or black sheep idiot, it is just most of them become successful politicians.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Compare Charles or William to any Prime Minister of the last 30 years, and I would define them as also having moral standing in comparison. No one is perfect, after how many of us have been divorced etc, but the Royal Family endure scrutiny like no other individual, including politicians, who seem to get away with most things. Andrew, yes, likely a Nonce, but not in line to the throne and if he was, wouldn't be now. Every large family as some history or black sheep idiot, it is just most of them become successful politicians.

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.