Do you approve of the United Kingdom?

[Frazers]

As a nation we have created the greatest net good for mankind and we can be eternally proud of that. Doesn't hurt that we're still maintaining our standards.

What are you talking about? The British Empire is the reason you have dance songs in Jamaica with lyrics about murdering gay people. The British Empire is the reason there are no living full-blooded indigenous Tasmanians.

And on balance those pale into insignificance compared to the good achieved. That is why net good was stated

[Ostroeuropa]

I am disappointed in the UK.
It could be so much better.

9/10ths of the land is undeveloped because middle class people want to have greenery they wont look at but by god it's important that it's there, the super rich control too much, the paleocons and hysterical sex-negatives are trampling rights underfoot, the state is centralizing and solidifying power, and our politicians are an array of empty suits mechanically feeding us statistically pleasing one liners and blatantly bending the truth.

(as an example, though actual figures may differ, Gordon Brown refered to "Investing" in the economy 733849843843 times, and to "Spending" twice.
The former when waffling about his plans, the latter when debunking the enemies. BOTH SIDES DO THIS.)

These Islands succeed in spite of their government, not because of it. Better that we were an anarchy than this shitshow.
The temperament of the British people tends toward liberalism. Were we rid of the idiots in westminister we might see the Islands finally unhinge from conservatism altogether in a huge orgy of legalizing ALL THE THINGS.


The people are great.
The institutions are corrupt and in need of a purge.

A competent government willing to tell the greenbelters and paleocons to fuck off could have this country back on it's feet again.
Unfortunately those two demographics are also the loudest and throw the most hysterical shitfits over any proposed change of course.

We proved with the landslide gay marriage issue that paleocons are just overrepresented in the media.
That should change.
Why are we giving bigots airtime?
Fuck em.
The tories should go Neocon. So should republicans come to mention it.

[Socialist Tera]

I don't like the UK, they need to get rid of the Queen, the UK needs to become a republic.

[Risottia]

I don't like the UK, they need to get rid of the Queen, the UK needs to become a republic.

I fail to see a big difference between Britain and your average parliamentary republic.

[Ostroeuropa]

I don't like the UK, they need to get rid of the Queen, the UK needs to become a republic.

I fail to see a big difference between Britain and your average parliamentary republic.

I see one.
Nationalism is seperated from politics thanks to an apolitical head of state who acts purely as a mechanism to enforce the constitution.

I'm a fan of that model compared to elected heads. You don't get the stupid shit like people declaring criticism of the PM is unpatriotic. Or a president being blatantly biased and political.

You could ditch the monarchist aspect, and provided the top job remains a functionary rather than a political one, i'll be happy.

[Beniaminia]

The shithole of Europe.

[Old Tyrannia]

I am disappointed in the UK.
It could be so much better.

9/10ths of the land is undeveloped because middle class people want to have greenery they wont look at but by god it's important that it's there,

I find your contempt for the environment... Disturbing.

the super rich control too much,

Welcome to the entirety of human history. Have a free balloon.

the paleocons and hysterical sex-negatives are trampling rights underfoot,

Are they? I must have missed that. And, seriously? "Paleocons?" What are you, a yank?

the state is centralizing and solidifying power,

I, too, mourn the passing of feudalism, but alas we now live in the era of the nation-state.

and our politicians are an array of empty suits mechanically feeding us statistically pleasing one liners and blatantly bending the truth.

You hate politicians? Well done, you're still a little bit British underneath it all.

(as an example, though actual figures may differ, Gordon Brown refered to "Investing" in the economy 733849843843 times, and to "Spending" twice.
The former when waffling about his plans, the latter when debunking the enemies. BOTH SIDES DO THIS.)

Both major political parties twist words to fit their agenda? Who knew.

These Islands succeed in spite of their government, not because of it. Better that we were an anarchy than this shitshow.

I take it you've never visited Somalia, then?

The temperament of the British people tends toward liberalism.

If that's so, why are we so conservative?

Were we rid of the idiots in westminister we might see the Islands finally unhinge from conservatism altogether in a huge orgy of legalizing ALL THE THINGS.

This post is in the time-honoured tradition of people legitimising their views by claiming everyone really thinks that way except the horrid people in power.

The people are great.

That's quite the sweeping statement. I think Terry Pratchett- not someone I agree with on absolutely everything, but definitely a clever chap- sums up my attitude to "The People" very well in this quote from the book Night's Watch:

“There were plotters, there was no doubt about it. Some had been ordinary people who'd had enough. Some were young people with no money who objected to the fact that the world was run by old people who were rich. Some were in it to get girls. And some had been idiots as mad as Swing, with a view of the world just as rigid and unreal, who were on the side of what they called 'the people'. Vimes had spent his life on the streets, and had met decent men and fools and people who'd steal a penny from a blind beggar and people who performed silent miracles or desperate crimes every day behind the grubby windows of little houses, but he'd never met The People.
People on the side of The People always ended up dissapointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people.
As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn't measure up. What would run through the streets soon enough wouldn't be a revolution or a riot. It'd be people who were frightened and panicking. It was what happened when the machinery of city life faltered, the wheels stopped turning and all the little rules broke down. And when that happened, humans were worse than sheep. Sheep just ran; they didn't try to bite the sheep next to them.”

The institutions are corrupt and in need of a purge.

Which institutions? What sort of "purge"?

A competent government willing to tell the greenbelters and paleocons to fuck off could have this country back on it's feet again.

What, by paving over the countryside with concrete? Sounds like a desirable world to live in. Not. I like my greenery, thanks. Enough of the countryside has been sacrificed on the altar of economic growth already; too much, even.

Unfortunately those two demographics are also the loudest and throw the most hysterical shitfits over any proposed change of course.

Not any proposed change of course. Just proposed changes of course which we disagree with. Which happens to include yours. I'm not entirely sure what your political views actually are, but based on this post alone I don't think I'd like to see your Utopia come to be. Forgive me if I exercise my right to free speech by expressing my contempt for your viewpoint, and continue to vote for parties which at the very least pretend to care about the countryside.

We proved with the landslide gay marriage issue that paleocons are just overrepresented in the media.

In the British media? They're not represented at all, because they all live in the US.

That should change.

To what?

Why are we giving bigots airtime?

What bigots? And why do you think we should only give "airtime" to people you judge as kosher?

Fuck em.

I'd rather not, thanks.

The tories should go Neocon. So should republicans come to mention it.

You mean they haven't already? What was it that Thatcher was doing, then?

Anyway, I don't deny for a moment that my glorious homeland has it's fair share of problems. Environmental issues, a fast-growing population, economic woes, debates over immigration, sectarianism, secessionism, corrupt and incompetent politicians, and a foreign policy over-dependent on the United States all come to mind. But at the end of the day, how many countries in the world would you rather live in than the United Kingdom, putting aside for the moment any purely patriotic feelings? "Not many" would be most people's answer, considering the 200 or so nations in existence. Most have just as many, if not more, problems and most lack the relative stability, wealth and rich history and culture of the United Kingdom. At the end of the day, I don't think that we're doing too badly, at least compared to the rest of the world. I don't always approve of what the government does- hell, I hardly ever do- but do I approve of my country? Of course. I love my country, and not just because it's mine. I love it because it's a wonderful country.

[Socialist Tera]

I don't like the UK, they need to get rid of the Queen, the UK needs to become a republic.

I fail to see a big difference between Britain and your average parliamentary republic.

I rather not spend tax payers money on a figure head and her family, who's only reason to keep her around is keep the country "stable".

[Sebastianbourg]

I don't like the UK, they need to get rid of the Queen, the UK needs to become a republic.

No thank you.

[Sebastianbourg]

I fail to see a big difference between Britain and your average parliamentary republic.

I rather not spend tax payers money on a figure head and her family, who's only reason to keep her around is keep the country "stable".

*cough*CGP Grey*cough*

[Socialist Tera]

I don't like the UK, they need to get rid of the Queen, the UK needs to become a republic.

No thank you.

Great reason to keep her around, golly good show chap.

[Sebastianbourg]

No thank you.

Great reason to keep her around, golly good show chap.

Give me one reason to motivate us to rebel against the Queen?

[Risottia]

I fail to see a big difference between Britain and your average parliamentary republic.

I rather not spend tax payers money on a figure head and her family, who's only reason to keep her around is keep the country "stable".

If you think that the Quirinale comes for free, you're damn wrong.

[Socialist Tera]

Great reason to keep her around, golly good show chap.

Give me one reason to motivate us to rebel against the Queen?

Waste of taxpayers money
Does little to improve the country
Is based off birthrights instead of ability
Is feudalistic and backwards
The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.
The monarchy interferes in our day-to-day political life.
The Monarchy causes class problems.
Makes separation of church and state impossible.
Undermines business and is bad for tourism.
Lacks accountability.
Promotes gender and ethnic discrimination.
Devalues achievement and intellectualism.
Is against equality.

[Old Tyrannia]

I rather not spend tax payers money on a figure head and her family, who's only reason to keep her around is keep the country "stable".

If you think that the Quirinale comes for free, you're damn wrong.

That's what the Italian state gets for stealing from the Pope.

Give me one reason to motivate us to rebel against the Queen?

Waste of taxpayers money

The Treasury actually makes a profit from the Crown Estates.

Does little to improve the country

Is involved in numerous charitable endeavours and helps to draw attention to good causes as well as providing a non-partisan figure to rally around.

Is based off birthrights instead of ability

And the most commonly proposed alternative, an elected Head of State, is based off of popularity rather than ability.

Is feudalistic and backwards

Monarchy existed long before and long after the rise and fall of the feudal system. Democracy has its origins in ancient Athens, but we don't consider it backwards, do we?

The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.

A power only ever exercised on the advice of Her Majesty's Government and which could potentially serve as a valuable constitutional check against an over-ambitious Prime Minister in the future.

The monarchy interferes in our day-to-day political life.

If only they did, they couldn't possibly do a worse job than our elected "representatives."

The Monarchy causes class problems.

No it doesn't. Support for the monarchy is high across class divisions.

Makes separation of church and state impossible.

And yet the UK is still more religiously tolerant and free than "secular" America and France.

Undermines business and is bad for tourism.

Bizarre claim with no supporting facts.

Lacks accountability.

Is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and the general public.

Promotes gender and ethnic discrimination.

Doesn't do either of these things.

Devalues achievement and intellectualism.

A society which emphasises achievement above all else would quickly become a Randian social darwnist dystopia, and as far as intellectualism goes I understand HRH the Prince of Wales is quite the intellectual. I have one of his books.

Is against equality.

So am I and all of human civilisation.

[Normandy and Picardy]

Give me one reason to motivate us to rebel against the Queen?

Waste of taxpayers money
Does little to improve the country
Is based off birthrights instead of ability
Is feudalistic and backwards
The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.
The monarchy interferes in our day-to-day political life.
The Monarchy causes class problems.
Makes separation of church and state impossible.
Undermines business and is bad for tourism.
Lacks accountability.
Promotes gender and ethnic discrimination.
Devalues achievement and intellectualism.
Is against equality.

Although she does have political power she never uses it. Also, what do you mean bad for tourism? If anything, the royal family is the main reason people visit the UK. The monarchy does not intefere whatsoever and how does our queen promote gender and ethnic discrimination; she's a woman. Don't you know what "queen" means? She is in no way a waste of taxpayers money. God save the queen!

[Luminesa]

Hello Nationstates General. Today I have another question. Do you approve of the United Kingdom? The United Kingdom follows the United States on its tours around the world, always by its side. It is also a critical component in NATO. However, it has recently taken unpopular actions, like ignored radical Islam for fear of being labeled as a racist country. Or if the UKIP party wins, and it looks like it is, it will leave the European Union. But still, on the other hand, it is sending troops to Estonia to help prepare Estonian troops. It was the country that has given birth to the most influential powers around the world. I.E Australia, Canada, United States, New Zealand. So my question is, do you approval or disapprove?

My opinion of the U.K. and David Cameron depends on how I feel that day. However...

It sounded like Cameron took a harder stand against ISIS than President Obama did, when comparing their two speeches. I dunno, what do you think?

[Glasgia]

Lemme guess, PGS? Bedales? Yeah, I unfortunately have to live with twats holding those opinions down in southern Hampshire. Let's just ignore the fact that benefit cuts have left people literally starving. "poor people" aren't a collective. There's some that need benefits, there's some that don't. There's some that are unemployed, there's some that aren't. Amongst said unemployed there's some that need a kick up the backside to get into work, there's some that are desperately trying to get a job. Fortunately, the former of those two are a minority - Benefits are enough for some people, but very few prefer such a pitiful income to any kind of regular wage. This persistent belief amongst posh, uninformed, southerners that those on benefits are simply lazy is not only idiotic - It's actually lethal. You want benefits to get cut? Let's just keep in mind that what you're doing is cutting off people's lifelines, vital income for those who have been made redundant or thrown off the deck by an abusive economic system. "recognition" isn't what we should be seeking here. We should be seeking a fair wage to aid people back onto their feet, to drag the battered workers back into a workplace which needs to be made better for them.

No, neither. Comprehensive state school(s).

Huh, you should probably know better then.

Britain has a heavy welfare system. One of the most generous in the world. People don't starve in Britain (not saying they should.) - on the contrary - we are one of the most obese nations on the planet, and statistically the poorest on welfare are those who are the most obese. We're even one of the only (5?) nations who consider obesity a disability..

First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel like?

Meanwhile, the cheapest food is usually also the food most linked to obesity. You're actually highlighting a major problem, that people can't afford to eat healthily and therefore have to buy cheap shit that is incredibly unhealthy.

Pitiful income? Hardly. What are you expecting from a STATE welfare system? You want me to pay for your cinema tickets? holidays? credit rates for a new car?

As I've said before, I'd prefer a benefits system which actually provides the basic income to keep people alive and healthy, with enough to allow them to get back on their feet and seek work again.

Also, my cinema tickets? I usually pay for myself ta. You have an "us vs them" attitude, which no doubt contributes to your selfish and individualist beliefs.

Posh? Hardly. I guess anyone who lives in the South is 'posh' for you. Uninformed? Not at all. As someone who was on the system myself for a bit in my childhood, my parents didn't find it hard to live at all, even my first plasma was bought during that time. Fortunately they both found work after short-time unemployment.

No, I think people who are posh are posh. Sure, the south has more of those people than elsewhere but I don't wish to generalise. It's the persistence of classism in many southern communities, of economic discrimination particularly focusing upon benefit recipients. Who do you think watched shite like "Benefits Street"? I'm not applying the term to you necessarily - I have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, other than that you probably live in southern Hampshire. However, you share views with a certain group of the population and one that's not particularly pleasant.

There is already a fair wage for unemployed people in the UK. It is impossible to not survive on it. Whether you can live on it is another argument, but you're not supposed to live a life of luxury or middle class whilst on a welfare income.

Fucking hell, do I have to repeat myself? It's not impossible to die on it, because I've already provided an example of someone who did die.

With our demographics and economic structure, it is impossible to continue this generous trend.

Any proof for that, or just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?

Waste of taxpayers money
Does little to improve the country
Is based off birthrights instead of ability
Is feudalistic and backwards
The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.
The monarchy interferes in our day-to-day political life.
The Monarchy causes class problems.
Makes separation of church and state impossible.
Undermines business and is bad for tourism.
Lacks accountability.
Promotes gender and ethnic discrimination.
Devalues achievement and intellectualism.
Is against equality.

Although she does have political power she never uses it.

Ok, I'll agree with you on that but:

Also, what do you mean bad for tourism? If anything, the royal family is the main reason people visit the UK.[/quote]

Any proof for that? Windsor Castle, with our current monarchy, attracts just 370,000 visitors a year; France's Versailles, with no current monarchy, attracts 10,000,000 visitors a year.

The monarchy does not intefere whatsoever and how does our queen promote gender and ethnic discrimination; she's a woman. Don't you know what "queen" means?

Only because she didn't have any brothers. Despite some small steps such as the Succession to the Crown Act, until all Commonwealth realms completely adopt absolute primogeniture succession, royal succession is male-preference cognatic primogeniture - Meaning men are preferred in succession to the throne.

She is in no way a waste of taxpayers money. God save the queen!

Despite the £202,400,000 cost to the taxpayer every year - Royal figures not including a number of important factors - you still believe she isn't a waste of money?

[Bandwagon]

No, neither. Comprehensive state school(s).

Huh, you should probably know better then.

Britain has a heavy welfare system. One of the most generous in the world. People don't starve in Britain (not saying they should.) - on the contrary - we are one of the most obese nations on the planet, and statistically the poorest on welfare are those who are the most obese. We're even one of the only (5?) nations who consider obesity a disability..

First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel like?

Meanwhile, the cheapest food is usually also the food most linked to obesity. You're actually highlighting a major problem, that people can't afford to eat healthily and therefore have to buy cheap shit that is incredibly unhealthy.

Pitiful income? Hardly. What are you expecting from a STATE welfare system? You want me to pay for your cinema tickets? holidays? credit rates for a new car?

As I've said before, I'd prefer a benefits system which actually provides the basic income to keep people alive and healthy, with enough to allow them to get back on their feet and seek work again.

Also, my cinema tickets? I usually pay for myself ta. You have an "us vs them" attitude, which no doubt contributes to your selfish and individualist beliefs.

Posh? Hardly. I guess anyone who lives in the South is 'posh' for you. Uninformed? Not at all. As someone who was on the system myself for a bit in my childhood, my parents didn't find it hard to live at all, even my first plasma was bought during that time. Fortunately they both found work after short-time unemployment.

No, I think people who are posh are posh. Sure, the south has more of those people than elsewhere but I don't wish to generalise. It's the persistence of classism in many southern communities, of economic discrimination particularly focusing upon benefit recipients. Who do you think watched shite like "Benefits Street"? I'm not applying the term to you necessarily - I have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, other than that you probably live in southern Hampshire. However, you share views with a certain group of the population and one that's not particularly pleasant.

There is already a fair wage for unemployed people in the UK. It is impossible to not survive on it. Whether you can live on it is another argument, but you're not supposed to live a life of luxury or middle class whilst on a welfare income.

Fucking hell, do I have to repeat myself? It's not impossible to die on it, because I've already provided an example of someone who did die.

With our demographics and economic structure, it is impossible to continue this generous trend.

Any proof for that, or just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?

Although she does have political power she never uses it.

Ok, I'll agree with you on that but:

Also, what do you mean bad for tourism? If anything, the royal family is the main reason people visit the UK.

Any proof for that? Windsor Castle, with our current monarchy, attracts just 370,000 visitors a year; France's Versailles, with no current monarchy, attracts 10,000,000 visitors a year.

The monarchy does not intefere whatsoever and how does our queen promote gender and ethnic discrimination; she's a woman. Don't you know what "queen" means?

Only because she didn't have any brothers. Despite some small steps such as the Succession to the Crown Act, until all Commonwealth realms completely adopt absolute primogeniture succession, royal succession is male-preference cognatic primogeniture - Meaning men are preferred in succession to the throne.

She is in no way a waste of taxpayers money. God save the queen!

Despite the £202,400,000 cost to the taxpayer every year - Royal figures not including a number of important factors - you still believe she isn't a waste of money?[/quote]
You are right. The UK (Especially Southern England) has become this monarchist, elitist piece of crap. As you said who watches Benefit Street and stuff like that. The average person in Hampshire or Kent or some place in London such as Chelsea or Kensington. And the Queen. What a waste of bloody cash! I think I have told you my point. And Southern Hampshire. Who are you voting for in May? Most likely the elitist club of the Tories.

[Putin the Bear King]

A pathetic descendant of a great nation, like a snobby brat inheriting from their better and confident father.

[Normandy and Picardy]

First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel
Despite the £202,400,000 cost to the taxpayer every year - Royal figures not including a number of important factors - you still believe she isn't a waste of money?

Check the cpg grey video on the cost of the royal family. http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

[Greater-London]

My favorite country in the whole damn world.

[Southern Hampshire]

Huh, you should probably know better then.



First of all, I have just provided an example of how people do starve - Do you wish to actually address my argument, or just the bits you feel like?

Meanwhile, the cheapest food is usually also the food most linked to obesity. You're actually highlighting a major problem, that people can't afford to eat healthily and therefore have to buy cheap shit that is incredibly unhealthy.



As I've said before, I'd prefer a benefits system which actually provides the basic income to keep people alive and healthy, with enough to allow them to get back on their feet and seek work again.

Also, my cinema tickets? I usually pay for myself ta. You have an "us vs them" attitude, which no doubt contributes to your selfish and individualist beliefs.



No, I think people who are posh are posh. Sure, the south has more of those people than elsewhere but I don't wish to generalise. It's the persistence of classism in many southern communities, of economic discrimination particularly focusing upon benefit recipients. Who do you think watched shite like "Benefits Street"? I'm not applying the term to you necessarily - I have no knowledge of your personal circumstances, other than that you probably live in southern Hampshire. However, you share views with a certain group of the population and one that's not particularly pleasant.



Fucking hell, do I have to repeat myself? It's not impossible to die on it, because I've already provided an example of someone who did die.



Any proof for that, or just trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?



Ok, I'll agree with you on that but:

Also, what do you mean bad for tourism? If anything, the royal family is the main reason people visit the UK.

Any proof for that? Windsor Castle, with our current monarchy, attracts just 370,000 visitors a year; France's Versailles, with no current monarchy, attracts 10,000,000 visitors a year.

The monarchy does not intefere whatsoever and how does our queen promote gender and ethnic discrimination; she's a woman. Don't you know what "queen" means?

Only because she didn't have any brothers. Despite some small steps such as the Succession to the Crown Act, until all Commonwealth realms completely adopt absolute primogeniture succession, royal succession is male-preference cognatic primogeniture - Meaning men are preferred in succession to the throne.

She is in no way a waste of taxpayers money. God save the queen!

Despite the £202,400,000 cost to the taxpayer every year - Royal figures not including a number of important factors - you still believe she isn't a waste of money?

You are right. The UK (Especially Southern England) has become this monarchist, elitist piece of crap. As you said who watches Benefit Street and stuff like that. The average person in Hampshire or Kent or some place in London such as Chelsea or Kensington. And the Queen. What a waste of bloody cash! I think I have told you my point. And Southern Hampshire. Who are you voting for in May? Most likely the elitist club of the Tories.[/quote]

Tories or Lib Dems.

Waste of money? The tourism revenue is much higher.

[Imperializt Russia]

inb4 Manisdog

Manisdog was strapped to a cannon and blown to smithereens by the British moderation authorities for promoting sedition within the Raj.

He's allowed back on the 29th.

http://gyazo.com/59cb8e60ca04e041db75bb33ed38a83e

Never said denying it wasn't a crime, and no they weren't risking arrest. The queen has no political power anymore, so there no reason why I cant speak out against her.

It doesn't matter if she has no political power.

Lèse-majesté. Offending the Head of State is a statutory offense.

When was the last time a person was charged and sentenced for committing that offence.

The shithole of Europe.

You're just jealous of all the sex our teens get.

[Sparunica]

I do not approve of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

U wot m8? I swear on me mum, ill give it ya!