British Republicanism

[Keronians]

Someone did in this thread. I'm asking them why.

I know most republicans probably don't advocate nationalising the Crown's estates.

AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH

Do you ignore reality on purpose, or are you just not capable of paying any attention to it?

[Keronians]

Someone did in this thread. I'm asking them why.

I know most republicans probably don't advocate nationalising the Crown's estates.

you mis-understand abolishing the monarchy and nationalizing the crown estates could occur after the monarch dies, they wouldn't be bankrupt.

Alright, so what's the justification of stripping Charles (who'd also be pretty old by the time old Lizzy dies) of his inheritance?

[Nadkor]

AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH

Do you ignore reality on purpose, or are you just not capable of paying any attention to it?

That was a serious question, because when you still apparently genuinely believe something that is entirely wrong despite having had the correct and factually accurate position relayed to you on a number of occasions those become the only two possibilities, really.

[Keronians]

That was a serious question, because when you still apparently genuinely believe something that is entirely wrong despite having had the correct and factually accurate position relayed to you on a number of occasions those become the only two possibilities, really.

What's this "wrong" thing that I believe?

[The UK in Exile]

you mis-understand abolishing the monarchy and nationalizing the crown estates could occur after the monarch dies, they wouldn't be bankrupt.

Alright, so what's the justification of stripping Charles (who'd also be pretty old by the time old Lizzy dies) of his inheritance?

that the crown estates are the legal property of the crown, which is a office of the state. the lands are not the monarchs, whoever they may be, legal property and that once once no-longer monarch they are not entitled to them. which has already been argued to death. just accept thats what we believe.

[Keronians]

Alright, so what's the justification of stripping Charles (who'd also be pretty old by the time old Lizzy dies) of his inheritance?

that the crown estates are the legal property of the crown, which is a office of the state. the lands are not the monarchs, whoever they may be, legal property and that once once no-longer monarch they are not entitled to them. which has already been argued to death. just accept thats what we believe.

Alright, but you realise I disagree.

[Aesthetica]

Real Republicanism replaces a political system that is based on Hereditary, Aristocratic, and Traditional mechanisms, with Democratic Meritocratic and Logical mechanisms. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but Republicans believe the latter is better for modern government.

Personally, I'm a Republic purist, and to me, that means replacing our system with a Platonic Republic, or rather one that represents Platonic mechanisms.

But for you, it might be something different.

I really find it sad that Republicanism these days is bundled down to getting rid of a monarchy and replacing it. That's not a Republic. That's just a small part of a wider picture.

You are the first 'republican' to actually suggest which of the myriad forms of bad government labeled 'republic' you actually want, in this thread, after a mere 33 pages...

As for Plato's republic, I was never impressed with it, no more than I was with that fool Aristotle. Both of them were working on the assumption that the 'political class' would be prosperous landowners who could afford to sit on their backsides all day thinking deep political thoughts, not 'ordinary people' who had to work for a living.

And even if you accept these 2500 yr old philosophical ideals as 'more modern', you still have the problem of fixing the 'voter apathy' and 'corporate pr campaign' corruption problems.

Unless you're planning an unelected body based on competitive exams in 'political science' in which case you are simply replacing a constitutional monarchy with a less than perfect elected parliament, with a pseudo-intellectual oligarchy, which is no improvement at all.

[The UK in Exile]

that the crown estates are the legal property of the crown, which is a office of the state. the lands are not the monarchs, whoever they may be, legal property and that once once no-longer monarch they are not entitled to them. which has already been argued to death. just accept thats what we believe.

Alright, but you realise I disagree.

as long as you realise you are disagreeing with the law.

[Socialist Great Britain]

The Monarchy is utterly pointless and is comprised of disgusting individuals. It is a relic of a dark past and for Britain to gain any form of respect it must be abolished. I think we should retain the parliamentary system and make the prime minister head of state.

[Keronians]

Alright, but you realise I disagree.

as long as you realise you are disagreeing with the law.

The whole system of the UK is built around the Crown BEING the state...

I would also imagine that a concession the Queen would demand in exchange of abdication is the estates being her property.

[The UK in Exile]

as long as you realise you are disagreeing with the law.

The whole system of the UK is built around the Crown BEING the state...

I would also imagine that a concession the Queen would demand in exchange of abdication is the estates being her property.

ah, but the queen is not the crown, thats the rub. and no-ones suggesting abdication.

[Adaptus]

You are the first 'republican' to actually suggest which of the myriad forms of bad government labeled 'republic' you actually want, in this thread, after a mere 33 pages...

As for Plato's republic, I was never impressed with it, no more than I was with that fool Aristotle. Both of them were working on the assumption that the 'political class' would be prosperous landowners who could afford to sit on their backsides all day thinking deep political thoughts, not 'ordinary people' who had to work for a living.

And even if you accept these 2500 yr old philosophical ideals as 'more modern', you still have the problem of fixing the 'voter apathy' and 'corporate pr campaign' corruption problems.

Unless you're planning an unelected body based on competitive exams in 'political science' in which case you are simply replacing a constitutional monarchy with a less than perfect elected parliament, with a pseudo-intellectual oligarchy, which is no improvement at all.

I have to admit my beliefs are a lot more complex then that. And I'm not really prepared to write a thesis on NS about my own personal beliefs.

I'm just trying to clear up the misconceptions about Republicanism.

[Nadkor]

That was a serious question, because when you still apparently genuinely believe something that is entirely wrong despite having had the correct and factually accurate position relayed to you on a number of occasions those become the only two possibilities, really.

What's this "wrong" thing that I believe?

That the Crown Estates are the personal property of the Queen, and that by abolishing the monarchy we would be stripping her of her personal property and bankrupting her.

The Crown Estates are the property of the Crown, not the Queen, and are therefore owned by the office not the officer.

The Duchy of Lancaster, on the other hand, is the personal inherited property of the Queen, in the same way as the Duke of Westminster's landholdings are his personal inherited property, etc. In the 2009-10 financial year it made a profit of £13.382m.

[Nadkor]

that the crown estates are the legal property of the crown, which is a office of the state. the lands are not the monarchs, whoever they may be, legal property and that once once no-longer monarch they are not entitled to them. which has already been argued to death. just accept thats what we believe.

Alright, but you realise I disagree.

You can disagree all you want, but the problem with that is that you're wrong. You're disagreeing with reality. You are actively engaged in denying reality and substituting it with your own.

[Socialist Great Britain]

I am a Socialist and thus opposed to hereditary positions, I am even opposed to too much power in those in power by democratic means. I believe in a collective government comprised of the population. I believe that a large regulated society is the best way to prevent tyranny. People should be chosen on their abilities and all pointless occupatios which damage society should be abolished.

[Tagmatium]

as long as you realise you are disagreeing with the law.

The whole system of the UK is built around the Crown BEING the state...

I would also imagine that a concession the Queen would demand in exchange of abdication is the estates being her property.

And, undoubtedly, they wouldn't be give.

As they were property of the Crown, but not the Queen.

[Aesthetica]

The Monarchy is utterly pointless and is comprised of disgusting individuals. It is a relic of a dark past and for Britain to gain any form of respect it must be abolished. I think we should retain the parliamentary system and make the prime minister head of state.

Fuck no...

The PM is the leader of the parliamentary party with the most seats...

The voters don't get to choose the PM, that's reserved for the MP's, so we replace an hereditary figurehead with a power crazed unelected arsehole, who can only be replaced, if he really fucks up, by his own followers in the party, not by the people, not forgetting we have fixed term parliaments now thanks to Duke Dave and the ConDems.

We vote in the purple party, they get 40% of the votes, and 60% of the seats, then they stage a backbench revolt and remove PM Nice Guy, and replace him with PM Arsehole without asking us, and we're stuck with the corrupt power crazed fucker for 5 yrs.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Welcome to "North Korea Mk 2" off the coast of Europe...

[Nadkor]

The Monarchy is utterly pointless and is comprised of disgusting individuals. It is a relic of a dark past and for Britain to gain any form of respect it must be abolished. I think we should retain the parliamentary system and make the prime minister head of state.

Fuck no...

The PM is the leader of the parliamentary party with the most seats...

The voters don't get to choose the PM, that's reserved for the MP's, so we replace an hereditary figurehead with a power crazed unelected arsehole, who can only be replaced, if he really fucks up, by his own followers in the party, not by the people, not forgetting we have fixed term parliaments now thanks to Duke Dave and the ConDems.

We vote in the purple party, they get 40% of the votes, and 60% of the seats, then they stage a backbench revolt and remove PM Nice Guy, and replace him with PM Arsehole without asking us, and we're stuck with the corrupt power crazed fucker for 5 yrs.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Welcome to "North Korea Mk 2" off the coast of Europe...

You realise that is an essentially accurate description of the position the UK is in now? Well, it hasn't actually happened yet, obviously, but there is nothing preventing it happening.

So effectively you're scaremongering by using a scenario that is perfectly possible under the current system.

[Khytenna]

just to clear up all the Crowned estate stuff; here is the answer the Crown Estate website gives:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

and before anyone ask's, i am still a monarchist

[The UK in Exile]

just to clear up all the Crowned estate stuff; here is the answer the Crown Estate website gives:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

and before anyone ask's, i am still a monarchist

already been mentioned about ten pages back.

[Adaptus]

Just to add.

Should the UK ever become a republic, the royal family will most likely not have their assets taken.

Most likely they will be given an estate. Most likely Windsor, and be allowed to exist as a separate entity. Much like Monaco I'd suspect.

[Aesthetica]

Fuck no...

The PM is the leader of the parliamentary party with the most seats...

The voters don't get to choose the PM, that's reserved for the MP's, so we replace an hereditary figurehead with a power crazed unelected arsehole, who can only be replaced, if he really fucks up, by his own followers in the party, not by the people, not forgetting we have fixed term parliaments now thanks to Duke Dave and the ConDems.

We vote in the purple party, they get 40% of the votes, and 60% of the seats, then they stage a backbench revolt and remove PM Nice Guy, and replace him with PM Arsehole without asking us, and we're stuck with the corrupt power crazed fucker for 5 yrs.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Welcome to "North Korea Mk 2" off the coast of Europe...

You realise that is an essentially accurate description of the position the UK is in now? Well, it hasn't actually happened yet, obviously, but there is nothing preventing it happening.

You forget, I'm old enough to remember it going the other way, when some power crazed loon was deposed by a backbench revolt in her own party, and replaced with a compromise PM, on the basis that neither of the two power crazed would be successors could muster enough support in the party to be the next Tyrant, and nobody in the Tory Benches hated Major enough to vote against him as the "Meh" candidate.

This is what I meant by that republican-without-a-cause change-for-changes-sake thing...

Whole lot of trouble and expense for no actual benefit, plus we lose the only remaining safeguard, the monarchs ability to dissolve parliament (not that that is worth much, but it's still more than was just suggested by a republican).

[Khytenna]

Fuck no...

The PM is the leader of the parliamentary party with the most seats...

The voters don't get to choose the PM, that's reserved for the MP's, so we replace an hereditary figurehead with a power crazed unelected arsehole, who can only be replaced, if he really fucks up, by his own followers in the party, not by the people, not forgetting we have fixed term parliaments now thanks to Duke Dave and the ConDems.

We vote in the purple party, they get 40% of the votes, and 60% of the seats, then they stage a backbench revolt and remove PM Nice Guy, and replace him with PM Arsehole without asking us, and we're stuck with the corrupt power crazed fucker for 5 yrs.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Welcome to "North Korea Mk 2" off the coast of Europe...

You realise that is an essentially accurate description of the position the UK is in now? Well, it hasn't actually happened yet, obviously, but there is nothing preventing it happening.

So effectively you're scaremongering by using a scenario that is perfectly possible under the current system.

that's because of the role Prime minister has changed dramatical from one of a Chairman like figure (EG, Attlee) to more of a premier leader role (EG thatcher and Blair) this is not really what prime minister is meant to be, but that's another for another thread on another time.

[Nadkor]

just to clear up all the Crowned estate stuff; here is the answer the Crown Estate website gives:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.

To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

and before anyone ask's, i am still a monarchist

Which is precisely what everyone's been pointing out to Keronians: it's owned by the Crown, not the Queen. The office, not the officer. There are all ways of saying the same thing.

Yet he still somehow thinks that they belong to the Queen, and that if the monarchy was abolished she would be forcibly stripped of her property.

[The UK in Exile]

Just to add.

Should the UK ever become a republic, the royal family will most likely not have their assets taken.

Most likely they will be given an estate. Most likely Windsor, and be allowed to exist as a separate entity. Much like Monaco I'd suspect.

you are right. the arguement is over what those assets are. their personal land assets and the privy purse will go to the royals as it is their private property. the crown estates remain with the state, which will be represented by the government.