Stupid royal wedding

Post Reply New Topic

Well, they're the band of nutters that people would most commonly think of - 'Andy' Choudary and his mob.

We also have 'anarchist' loons and dissident Irish republicans in the running too.

Nowt will happen.

I don't see anything wrong with the Commonwealth, personally. I don't see why we need a 'Governor General'- it seems more like a courteous thing to the royals than anything. I like the Commonwealth and the nations that are a part of it. Perhaps it needs to be reorganized sans-royal rhetoric, or perhaps abolishing the monarchy should not automatically mean one doesn't desire membership

Some Irish politicians have publicly mooted rejoining the Commonwealth, perhaps as part of a United Ireland deal.

I am a proud republican.

If people want to subsidise an elite while their society crumbles for want of equitable distribution of the accepted nessasarys of life then so be it... muppets...

peace j

I'm not that aware of Irish politics... but I don't know if there is anti-Commonwealth sentiment in Canada that is that strong. A lot of us Canadians are proud of our support of the Commonwealth in the World Wars. Some say our identity began then. I think there are few countries that contributed equally (proportionally speaking) to the Dominion of Canada in the Second World War- out of a population of ~11 million, ~1 million men served in the armed forces, we built the third largest navy in the world, and a good proportion of the remaining population was committed in some way to the war effort. All for Great Britain

I'd be game for it if we had non-£9000 fees, no asbo's, and no anti-free speech laws, but it'd never happen, ever. ever. Virtually no-one would want to join.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDnXkFVEQ0Y[/youtube]

The Queen isn't as nice as the media likes to portray her.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 88179.html

Why, do you think the British Army will be driving down the M1 to retake Dublin or something if you rejoined? Just like they're currently occupying the likes of India, Canada, Pakistan, Australia et al? Very little would realistically change. You'd still be bound to the EU and their diktats in any case.

Last edited by Tequila on 28 Apr 2011, 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MMM how many poor OAP's who rightfully should get that fund would die of cold just to keep Brenda, Keith, Brian & the rest of the family warm?

It's now official I have imposed a media blackout, my home is a wedding free zone

Sure, we'd have "come for the scenery, stay for the 80 billion deficit" on the roadsigns for them

I know it would make little difference, but Irish/Commonwealth relations have been strained, to put it very lightly. Although modern Britain is a very different place to Imperial Britain, most people would distrust the idea. EU is still king, as you rightly said, so it makes little difference.

I think that Canada, for one, has been very well served by its constitutional monarchy.

I have no objection to a discussion of constitutional reform, but no one has yet demonstrated to me what we could replace the Crown with that would be superior.

Do we need a Head of State? I think the answer to that question is a resounding, "Yes!" The Prime Minister's use of Royal Prerogative in twice proroging and once dissolving Parliament when it was convenient for him demonstrates that there should be someone to whom the Prime Minister should have to go cap-in-hand. While the Governor-general did not deny him on these requests, what about if he winds up with a plurality on Monday and then loses a vote of confidence on his Throne Speech? Should it be up to him alone to decide whether to have another election hot on the heels of this one?

So if we need a Head of State, what is the method of selection? In the vast majority of Parliamentary democracies (India, Germany, Israel, Italy, etc.) the President is indirectly elected by Parliament or an electoral college. Such a Head of State has, like the Queen or the Governor-general, no political mandate. But we have replaced one type of élitism with another, slighty less objectionable one. But what have we gained thereby?

A Head of State directly elected would cost far more than the Governor-general, and would have a political mandate that was greater than the Prime Minister's. This latter is an intolerable position in a Parliamentary democracy and would require a complete reevaluation of our constitutional structure. Would Ministers be answerable to Parliament or to the elected Head of State?

I'm all for a constitutional debate on the subject--but I do not believe that the case has yet been made that change is needful.

A direct House of Commons vote on the manner of "GG" is fairly inexpensive and ensures the Head of State is accountable to the Lower Chamber.

I did intend to rant about both monarch and royalty, too bad I couldn't explicitly mention the two. I guess you could explain monarchy, but royalty is just dumb.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 28 Apr 2011, 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pretty much indistinguishable and both equally and disgusting classist.

http://johannhari.com/2011/04/15/this-r ... ass-us-all

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#42769929

Most people in Britain aren't stuck in your far-left Imperial timewarp though Master_Pedant. Most people really don't care. They'll watch the Royal Wedding or not. They'll support the Royal Family and the Queen as head of state or not. It's an issue that is irrelevant to most people, apart from royalist and republican obsessives. Most people aren't Daily Express-reading, Diana-loving royalist obsessives but neither are they Queen-haters. Some people are for monarchy, some are against.

It's really a shrug of the shoulders type response for many here. Indifference on a grand scale.

The case hasn't been made for republicanism and until it has, we'll stick with what we know.

Monarchism, to me, generally means supporting the status quo - i.e. the Royal Family and the Queen as Head of State. It's a cultural tradition we've had for centuries in this country.
Royalism is more about things like Princess Di, the Royal Wedding and treating the royals like some sort of celebrity freakshow.

I like the constitutional settlement and see no reason to change it. Especially when republican lefties use their tactic of calling it every '-ism' under the sun. That tactic has long stopped working here.

Good point
I think there could still be a 'powerless' official who is head of government. Perhaps the current office of 'Prime Minister' could become 'President' and the office of Governor General (most of it, anyways) could become 'Prime Minister'. Thus there could still be votes of no confidence, etc, just no more Queen, no more Governor General, just Canadian offices. The Prime Minister would have authority to dissolve parliament if the issue of a no-confidence vote comes up. I don't even suggest changing much about our current system. Perhaps this is a bad idea, but I dunno, just talking off the top of my head I suppose



Absolutely.