British Republicanism

[Khytenna]

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



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

already been mentioned about ten pages back.

right, must of missed it, but its up again just incase

[Aesthetica]

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



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

already been mentioned about ten pages back.

Yes, mentioned as what that text clearly states it is, a Trust Fund managed by trustees. Not property of the Pointless Republic, so seizing it is still sequestration, government theft, and a bad precedent to set.

[The UK in Exile]

already been mentioned about ten pages back.

Yes, mentioned as what that text clearly states it is, a Trust Fund managed by trustees. Not property of the Pointless Republic, so seizing it is still sequestration, government theft, and a bad precedent to set.

can you sequester yourself?

[Tagmatium]

already been mentioned about ten pages back.

Yes, mentioned as what that text clearly states it is, a Trust Fund managed by trustees. Not property of the Pointless Republic, so seizing it is still sequestration, government theft, and a bad precedent to set.

Heh, then just slap a compulsory purchase order on it.

[Nadkor]

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.

And why couldn't the same happen in a system where the PM was also head of state?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a terrible idea and a terrible system, but in it's operation it is the one we have now.

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).

As far as I'm aware the "make the PM head of state" idea isn't exactly one that's taken off anywhere. Generally, I think, the idea is for an elected head of state to replace a hereditary one - there is no need to alter the head of state's powers. Look at, for example, Ireland to see how it could be done.

[Nadkor]

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.

Since the PM evolved organically out of nothing in the first place it is impossible to say that the PM is "meant to be" anything. It just always is what it is.

This is much the same for most of the UK's system of government - without a written, codified, constitution it is very difficult to say with any certainty what anything is "meant to be". It just always is what it is.

[Nadkor]

already been mentioned about ten pages back.

Yes, mentioned as what that text clearly states it is, a Trust Fund managed by trustees. Not property of the Pointless Republic, so seizing it is still sequestration, government theft, and a bad precedent to set.

It is the property of the Crown (i,e. the State), it is managed by the trustees.

What's so difficult to grasp about that?

[Khytenna]

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



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.

it does and it doesn't. as far as i am aware; with the assention of the monarch to the throne is asked to surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant (as in surrender to the Crown Office) but no monarch would ever not do it, so it more of a ceremonial tradition rather then a genuine question.

however, the Estates are not the reason why I would want to keep the monarchy so, meh.

[Aesthetica]

Yes, mentioned as what that text clearly states it is, a Trust Fund managed by trustees. Not property of the Pointless Republic, so seizing it is still sequestration, government theft, and a bad precedent to set.

can you sequester yourself?

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.

It's a Trust Fund, not government property, and the arrangement whereby the profits go to the Treasury is conditional on the Treasury paying the Royal Family money via the Civil List, which will stop when your 'republic' kicks in.

Break the deal, and the statute for this arrangement falls apart, and the Estates return to their original owners, the Royal Family, the Crown Estates started out as personal property of the Monarchs, the Estates and Manors from which the Monarchs derived their personal income before creating this setup in the first place.

Lawyers will have a field day as to who eventually get the land, but until that statute is repealed, one thing is legally clear. Crown Estates do NOT belong to the government or the state as a whole.

Trust fund with independent Trustees.

[Khytenna]

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.

Since the PM evolved organically out of nothing in the first place it is impossible to say that the PM is "meant to be" anything. It just always is what it is.

This is much the same for most of the UK's system of government - without a written, codified, constitution it is very difficult to say with any certainty what anything is "meant to be". It just always is what it is.

i agree with you, its just my opinion that it should be more of a chairman role, again different thread different discussion

[Nadkor]

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.

it does and it doesn't. as far as i am aware; with the assention of the monarch to the throne is asked to surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant (as in surrender to the Crown Office) but no monarch would ever not do it, so it more of a ceremonial tradition rather then a genuine question.

The Crown owns the Crown Estates and the income thereof. The individual who happens to hold the Crown is therefore entitled to the income from the Crown Estates. Voluntarily the right to this income, which exists by virtue of holding the office that owns the Estates, is surrendered to the State. This does not mean that the individual who happens to hold the Crown also holds the Crown Estates as their personal property.

This isn't complicated stuff.

[Khytenna]

can you sequester yourself?

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.

It's a Trust Fund, not government property, and the arrangement whereby the profits go to the Treasury is conditional on the Treasury paying the Royal Family money via the Civil List, which will stop when your 'republic' kicks in.

Break the deal, and the statute for this arrangement falls apart, and the Estates return to their original owners, the Royal Family, the Crown Estates started out as personal property of the Monarchs, the Estates and Manors from which the Monarchs derived their personal income before creating this setup in the first place.

Lawyers will have a field day as to who eventually get the land, but until that statute is repealed, one thing is legally clear. Crown Estates do NOT belong to the government or the state as a whole.

Trust fund with independent Trustees.

Yes trying to Claim the Crowned estates in the name of Grand new Republic of 'fairness' and 'justice' would only result in a massive legal battle and a load of very rich and very happy lawyers

[Angleter]

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.

Do you have that naïve a view of international relations that you think countries would be any more willing to listen to Britain if it abolished the monarchy? Even if we accept (and this is a stretch) that the moralising about democracy and human rights is any more than a facade for national and bloc interests, everyone knows that Britain (and this goes for Canada, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, etc.) is one of the world's most modern and democratic states.

As regards making the PM Head of State, here'd be the legislative process:

Prime Minister (and Cabinet) => Commons (where the PM usually commands a majority) => Lords (can be bypassed) => Prime Minister.

This is a system adopted by a very small number of countries indeed, most likely because of the flaws in said process.

[Aesthetica]

As far as I'm aware the "make the PM head of state" idea isn't exactly one that's taken off anywhere. Generally, I think, the idea is for an elected head of state to replace a hereditary one - there is no need to alter the head of state's powers. Look at, for example, Ireland to see how it could be done.

And so we skip back about 20 pages...

I'll ask again since none of you bothered to answer...

What is the benefit of replacing an hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead, especially as the elected version will have all that corporate pr campaign bribery and corruption.

Is it so much better being sneered at by some rich twat who bought his position, than one who inherited it?

What benefit to Britain and the British from a pointless and expensive change for the sake of change.

[The UK in Exile]

As far as I'm aware the "make the PM head of state" idea isn't exactly one that's taken off anywhere. Generally, I think, the idea is for an elected head of state to replace a hereditary one - there is no need to alter the head of state's powers. Look at, for example, Ireland to see how it could be done.

And so we skip back about 20 pages...

I'll ask again since none of you bothered to answer...

What is the benefit of replacing an hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead, especially as the elected version will have all that corporate pr campaign bribery and corruption.

Is it so much better being sneered at by some rich twat who bought his position, than one who inherited it?

What benefit to Britain and the British from a pointless and expensive change for the sake of change.

ok, the answer is we reject this strawman arguement.

[Nadkor]

It's a Trust Fund, not government property, and the arrangement whereby the profits go to the Treasury is conditional on the Treasury paying the Royal Family money via the Civil List, which will stop when your 'republic' kicks in.

Break the deal, and the statute for this arrangement falls apart, and the Estates return to their original owners, the Royal Family, the Crown Estates started out as personal property of the Monarchs, the Estates and Manors from which the Monarchs derived their personal income before creating this setup in the first place.

Lawyers will have a field day as to who eventually get the land, but until that statute is repealed, one thing is legally clear. Crown Estates do NOT belong to the government or the state as a whole.

Trust fund with independent Trustees.

I'm afraid I can't continue to discuss with someone who shows such a blatant disregard for the factual and legal realities of the situation. I can only assume that, as the correct position has been pointed out several times, your are ignorant of the accurate position either willfully or because you are incapable of understanding it.

Hoping that it's the former, I'm not going to bother continuing with you.

[Nadkor]

As far as I'm aware the "make the PM head of state" idea isn't exactly one that's taken off anywhere. Generally, I think, the idea is for an elected head of state to replace a hereditary one - there is no need to alter the head of state's powers. Look at, for example, Ireland to see how it could be done.

And so we skip back about 20 pages...

I'll ask again since none of you bothered to answer...

What is the benefit of replacing an hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead, especially as the elected version will have all that corporate pr campaign bribery and corruption.

Is it so much better being sneered at by some rich twat who bought his position, than one who inherited it?

What benefit to Britain and the British from a pointless and expensive change for the sake of change.

You have made the mistake of assuming that at any point I have admitted to being either a republican or a monarchist, or that I intend to admit to either position.

I'm a lawyer, albeit involved in teaching rather than practicing, and primarily a constitutional one at that. I'm pointing out inaccuracies, not taking sides.

[Aesthetica]

I'm afraid I can't continue to discuss with someone who shows such a blatant disregard for the factual and legal realities of the situation. I can only assume that, as the correct position has been pointed out several times, your are ignorant of the accurate position either willfully or because you are incapable of understanding it.

Hoping that it's the former, I'm not going to bother continuing with you.

Will you accept that the Crown Estates Board knows the situation better then anyone on this thread?

Read the quote from their website, the one that says clearly in black and white, that the Crown Estates are NOT owned by the government...

Simple, direct from the qualified experts in this matter.

Or are they ignorant of the 'correct position' also.

[Adaptus]

And so we skip back about 20 pages...

I'll ask again since none of you bothered to answer...

What is the benefit of replacing an hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead, especially as the elected version will have all that corporate pr campaign bribery and corruption.

Is it so much better being sneered at by some rich twat who bought his position, than one who inherited it?

What benefit to Britain and the British from a pointless and expensive change for the sake of change.

The monarchy is an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.
It does this is in a variety of ways:

Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

[Nadkor]

It's a Trust Fund, not government property, and the arrangement whereby the profits go to the Treasury is conditional on the Treasury paying the Royal Family money via the Civil List, which will stop when your 'republic' kicks in.

Break the deal, and the statute for this arrangement falls apart, and the Estates return to their original owners, the Royal Family, the Crown Estates started out as personal property of the Monarchs, the Estates and Manors from which the Monarchs derived their personal income before creating this setup in the first place.

Lawyers will have a field day as to who eventually get the land, but until that statute is repealed, one thing is legally clear. Crown Estates do NOT belong to the government or the state as a whole.

Trust fund with independent Trustees.

Yes trying to Claim the Crowned estates in the name of Grand new Republic of 'fairness' and 'justice' would only result in a massive legal battle and a load of very rich and very happy lawyers

No, it wouldn't. The only way that would happen would be if the lawyers in question were as misinformed as you. This is a clear cut question, one of very few that exist. The Crown Estates are the property of the Crown not the Queen, the office not the officer, and are therefore the property of the state. It's really as simple as that.

[Nadkor]

I'm afraid I can't continue to discuss with someone who shows such a blatant disregard for the factual and legal realities of the situation. I can only assume that, as the correct position has been pointed out several times, your are ignorant of the accurate position either willfully or because you are incapable of understanding it.

Hoping that it's the former, I'm not going to bother continuing with you.

Will you accept that the Crown Estates Board knows the situation better then anyone on this thread?

Yes, and they agree entirely with me.

Read the quote from their website, the one that says clearly in black and white, that the Crown Estates are NOT owned by the government...

Simple, direct from the qualified experts in this matter.

Or are they ignorant of the 'correct position' also.

I can't believe this needs pointing out, but...

HM Government =/= the Crown.

[Adaptus]

And so we skip back about 20 pages...

I'll ask again since none of you bothered to answer...

What is the benefit of replacing an hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead, especially as the elected version will have all that corporate pr campaign bribery and corruption.

Is it so much better being sneered at by some rich twat who bought his position, than one who inherited it?

What benefit to Britain and the British from a pointless and expensive change for the sake of change.

The monarchy is an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.
It does this is in a variety of ways:

Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

[Aesthetica]

And so we skip back about 20 pages...

I'll ask again since none of you bothered to answer...

What is the benefit of replacing an hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead, especially as the elected version will have all that corporate pr campaign bribery and corruption.

Is it so much better being sneered at by some rich twat who bought his position, than one who inherited it?

What benefit to Britain and the British from a pointless and expensive change for the sake of change.

ok, the answer is we reject this strawman arguement.

It is not a 'strawman'

What is the benefit of an elected figurehead over an unelected one, if they are both just figureheads...

How do you prevent an elected position being effectively bought by corporate sponsorship, just like every other elected position in government.

What have you 'fixed' by changing one for another. What is the benefit from your proposed change.

You want to convince people to support republicanism, so convince them, basic sales technique, "Features & Benefits"

Feature : Elected Ceremonial Head of State
Benefit : ?

[Khytenna]

Yes trying to Claim the Crowned estates in the name of Grand new Republic of 'fairness' and 'justice' would only result in a massive legal battle and a load of very rich and very happy lawyers

No, it wouldn't. The only way that would happen would be if the lawyers in question were as misinformed as you. This is a clear cut question, one of very few that exist. The Crown Estates are the property of the Crown not the Queen, the office not the officer, and are therefore the property of the state. It's really as simple as that.

The Crown Estates office is not owned by the state, its owned by the Crown which is independent of the government.

it only surrenders profit to the state, this doesn't mean that its owned by the state (unless i am completely mistaken)

my happy lawyer quote was only a remark because of my bad running s with lawyers in the past, and not a dig at you, just to let you know

[The UK in Exile]

I'm afraid I can't continue to discuss with someone who shows such a blatant disregard for the factual and legal realities of the situation. I can only assume that, as the correct position has been pointed out several times, your are ignorant of the accurate position either willfully or because you are incapable of understanding it.

Hoping that it's the former, I'm not going to bother continuing with you.

Will you accept that the Crown Estates Board knows the situation better then anyone on this thread?

Read the quote from their website, the one that says clearly in black and white, that the Crown Estates are NOT owned by the government...

Simple, direct from the qualified experts in this matter.

Or are they ignorant of the 'correct position' also.

no they are correct, the crown estates are owned by the crown estates. (suprise!)

therefore were the monarchy to fold the government, the crown estates are owned by the crown estates.
therefore were the government to fold the monarchy, the crown estates are owned by the crown estates. this is what republicans are suggesting.

the leadership of the CE board is appointed by the crown. from a list of government approved candidates. once the queen is gone, the new head of state appoints them.