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

[Cosimo]

Keep the monarchy!

 

[helpimcrap]

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.

This.

 

[J.T]

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.

+1

 

[Diddums]

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.

Well said.


I find that those who dislike the monarchy are generally very poorly educated and / or unsuccessful in life. This isn't aimed at anyone, it's just an observation.

 

[Mak3R]

As far as I know they generate more money in tourism etc than they cost to fund. Also they have no, or at least exercise no powers of authority that I'm aware of so let them have at it.

 

[fatiain]

Send them back to Germany!

The Queen was born in Mayfair.

 

[PlacidCasual]

One of the things that makes the UK an attractive place to do business is constitutional stability.
Unlike practically every other country in Europe if not the World we have had no revolution since 1688. The power of the Monarch has been long diminished and the rights of the common people have been incrementally improved and extended.
The nominally flow of sovereignty from the Monarch to Parliament which wields the Monarch's power on behalf of the country provides an implicit and flexible safety valve against establishment and populist extremes.
The example of the King threatening to create sufficient Lords to enforce the Liberal manifesto of 1911 is an excellent example. In the future should a Parliament or Government act outside the will of the people it is theoretically legally possible for the Monarch to dismiss the Government and appoint a new PM or hold an election. It would never be done unless the excess of Parliament could justify it as to do so would almost certainly end in the removal of the Monarchy, it's existence however is a constitutional safety valve.

Our system works, I'm and engineer the practical man in me says if it isn't broken don't fix it. Our stability has been one of our greatest strengths, you only need to look at the mess New Labour created with its amendments to our constitutional arrangements to see the danger in not heeding this.

 

[Cleisthenes]

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.

Bloody hell Tom, that was coherant!

 

[wildman]

no pancake option ?

Poll does not deliver..............

 

[G-MAN2004]

I'm not massive fans of them but can see the benefits that they bring to the country. Plus they are a big part of its history. I'd vote to keep.

 

[Dark Light]

Never said anything about getting rid of them, they just wouldn't have any power, we can just keep them as a tourist attraction.

 

[Amp34]

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

Democracy is great, but having a house generally full of experts on a range of subjects, not influenced by the next election is also great. Abolishing the monarchy would almost certainly also mean abolishing the House of Lords (as an unelected house at least) and I'm against both.

The current system in the House of Lords is certainly not perfect, but a fully elected house is certainly worse. What we really need is to remove the political influencing in the lords so the government of the day cannot fill it with cronies and old politicians. Perhaps a cross party nomination and vote based on ability and experience in subjects, with a skew to certain sectors depending on what is lacking at that vote time (I.e. If there aren't enough people with a detailed inderstanding of medicine due to a death then a new medical specialist gets elected with rows party support).

 

[dowie]

At the moment I'm in favour of keeping them simply because they're excellent for diplomacy and it is part of our heritage. I think Prince William is going to be absolutely fine as a Head of State.

I think if they did start to interfere in politics or if we got a wrong un who couldn't be controlled then things could change rather rapidly - but for the moment I'm in favour. I guess in some ways it could be slimmed down if needed - fewer state owned residences, trim the % of the crown estate income handed over and trim the number of working royals + the associated security that goes with all of that.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

One of the things that makes the UK an attractive place to do business is constitutional stability.
Unlike practically every other country in Europe if not the World we have had no revolution since 1688. The power of the Monarch has been long diminished and the rights of the common people have been incrementally improved and extended.
The nominally flow of sovereignty from the Monarch to Parliament which wields the Monarch's power on behalf of the country provides an implicit and flexible safety valve against establishment and populist extremes.
The example of the King threatening to create sufficient Lords to enforce the Liberal manifesto of 1911 is an excellent example. In the future should a Parliament or Government act outside the will of the people it is theoretically legally possible for the Monarch to dismiss the Government and appoint a new PM or hold an election. It would never be done unless the excess of Parliament could justify it as to do so would almost certainly end in the removal of the Monarchy, it's existence however is a constitutional safety valve.

Our system works, I'm and engineer the practical man in me says if it isn't broken don't fix it. Our stability has been one of our greatest strengths, you only need to look at the mess New Labour created with its amendments to our constitutional arrangements to see the danger in not heeding this.

Very nicely put.

Have a +1.

 

[Tunney]

You'll all be changing your tune when Charles is King.

 

[Dark Light]

You'll all be changing your tune when Charles is King.

Hopefully one day soon.

 

[Cosimo]

no pancake option ?

Poll does not deliver..............

Pancake option would be getting locked up in the tower... You really wouldn't like that.

 

[Tute]

One of the things that makes the UK an attractive place to do business is constitutional stability.
Unlike practically every other country in Europe if not the World we have had no revolution since 1688. The power of the Monarch has been long diminished and the rights of the common people have been incrementally improved and extended.
The nominally flow of sovereignty from the Monarch to Parliament which wields the Monarch's power on behalf of the country provides an implicit and flexible safety valve against establishment and populist extremes.
The example of the King threatening to create sufficient Lords to enforce the Liberal manifesto of 1911 is an excellent example. In the future should a Parliament or Government act outside the will of the people it is theoretically legally possible for the Monarch to dismiss the Government and appoint a new PM or hold an election. It would never be done unless the excess of Parliament could justify it as to do so would almost certainly end in the removal of the Monarchy, it's existence however is a constitutional safety valve.

Our system works, I'm and engineer the practical man in me says if it isn't broken don't fix it. Our stability has been one of our greatest strengths, you only need to look at the mess New Labour created with its amendments to our constitutional arrangements to see the danger in not heeding this.

This.

 

[stewski]

Well said.


I find that those who dislike the monarchy are generally very poorly educated and / or unsuccessful in life. This isn't aimed at anyone, it's just an observation.

I find that those who make sweeping generalisations, based on nothing but casual evidence, are stupid. This isn't aimed at anyone just an observation

Abolish.

 

[stewski]

One of the things that makes the UK an attractive place to do business is constitutional stability.
Unlike practically every other country in Europe if not the World we have had no revolution since 1688. The power of the Monarch has been long diminished and the rights of the common people have been incrementally improved and extended.
The nominally flow of sovereignty from the Monarch to Parliament which wields the Monarch's power on behalf of the country provides an implicit and flexible safety valve against establishment and populist extremes.
The example of the King threatening to create sufficient Lords to enforce the Liberal manifesto of 1911 is an excellent example. In the future should a Parliament or Government act outside the will of the people it is theoretically legally possible for the Monarch to dismiss the Government and appoint a new PM or hold an election. It would never be done unless the excess of Parliament could justify it as to do so would almost certainly end in the removal of the Monarchy, it's existence however is a constitutional safety valve.

Our system works, I'm and engineer the practical man in me says if it isn't broken don't fix it. Our stability has been one of our greatest strengths, you only need to look at the mess New Labour created with its amendments to our constitutional arrangements to see the danger in not heeding this.

Can you point me in the direction of the constitution of the UK?