NationStates

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Monarchs are unifying figures?

Ah yes, when we all rise up against them perhaps

7 of the 11 full democracies are monarchies and a non-politically biased monarch is more than a boon to the protection of democracy, in contrast to elected presidents who - even when ceremonial - are elected based on popular vote, which can be wrong. Presidencies like in America attract power-hungry people unlike monarchies.

No, instead you have a figurehead that does literally nothing other than absorbing millions of dollars/euros for no reason, to the detriment of everybody else.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:That would be like North and South America uniting into one country.

It’s stupid, I’m happy with the living standards in my nation, and I don’t want them to get worse because other more corrupt nations get mixed with mine.

Did you just dish out your neighbors. Not nice.

While I don't live in Europe, I voted for option 6 - No, Europe should never unite. I think getting the support of all member states is impossible for Europe. I support Europe as a Union of European Nations not as a USA of Europe.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Monarchs are unifying figures?

Ah yes, when we all rise up against them perhaps

7 of the 11 full democracies are monarchies and a non-politically biased monarch is more than a boon to the protection of democracy, in contrast to elected presidents who - even when ceremonial - are elected based on popular vote, which can be wrong. Presidencies like in America attract power-hungry people unlike monarchies.

Yes, but you just said that you want to give the monarch power to dismiss elected figures. Would they still be considered full democracies then?

And, at least where the Netherlands is concerned, it is turning back the clock several decades of governmental history.

Greater Miami Shores wrote:While I don't live in Europe, I voted for option 6 - No, Europe should never unite. I think getting the support of all member states is impossible for Europe. I support Europe as a Union of European Nations not as a USA of Europe.

Based

Latvijas Otra Republika wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
7 of the 11 full democracies are monarchies and a non-politically biased monarch is more than a boon to the protection of democracy, in contrast to elected presidents who - even when ceremonial - are elected based on popular vote, which can be wrong. Presidencies like in America attract power-hungry people unlike monarchies.

Why should people who get lucky on birth be handed such power and responsibility. That’s a ludicrous concept.

The monarch should ideally be chosen from amongst the most capable of a monarch’s offspring. Presidential elections attract the power-hungry, the greedy and self-absorbed. If someone is raised for the position in a proper manner, then they’re not motivated by personal greed or desire for power. That’s why I support a monarchic EU, as to counter the kinds of people attracted by power through election.

Vivolkha wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
7 of the 11 full democracies are monarchies and a non-politically biased monarch is more than a boon to the protection of democracy, in contrast to elected presidents who - even when ceremonial - are elected based on popular vote, which can be wrong. Presidencies like in America attract power-hungry people unlike monarchies.

No, instead you have a figurehead that does literally nothing other than absorbing millions of dollars/euros for no reason, to the detriment of everybody else.

The British monarch in particular brings in more money for the British economy than what a presidency would. Besides, it’s not like a president would live modestly. That kind of financial boon would be good for Europe.

Political unions between European nations can only be achieved between nations that have a similar language, culture and economy. So any political union is really out of the question. Economic union is ok. A military union is possible.

And why not cut up Europe via nations that are economically and culturally similar. Thus it would be divided into three or four super mini states.

Latvijas Otra Republika wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Why can't a united Europe be better, independent, and free?

Europe is not a monolith, it never was.

Nothing ever was until the first time it is.

It’s not a continent of a singular assimilated language, culture or ethnicity.

None of the countries within Europe, except maybe the microstates, are monoliths of a single language, culture, or ethnicity. And even if they were right now, that would eventually change, as languages, culture, and ethnicities always do.

The reigns of power would be placed in the West, all power wielded would be by the Germans or the French. The end result would be massacre and war.

I don't see why a united Europe would have to work like that.

Handing over power to an elite in Brussels brings no human benefit,

Is the problem that the elites with power over us are in Brussels and not some other city? Or that there are elites with power over us at all?

European politicians leave their national/regional positions after a scandal or not enough pay to go work there. Whole thing is meant to make a quick buck and rub shoulders with other EU coffee makers.

Yes, many governments are corrupt. It's something we should really get a handle on.

---

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Sounds like you want some people to receive unequal and improper treatment. Which sounds bad.


And ignore our heritage abolishing the monarchy in favour of democratic republics?

What people? All Europeans should be treated equally.

You tell me what people you are excluding when you talk about specific cultures being treated equally and properly.

Monarchs are unifying figures that work best with parliamentary systems of government and can use their royal powers to dismiss elected figures that are threatening to the democratic institutions of a united Europe. Monarchs should be protectors of democracy when the people are too charmed to realise their mistake.

Monarchs are embodiments of inequality that serve to highlight that some in the nation are born with incredible advantages and some are born with nothing. What use to a nation is a bejewelled crown when its people are hungry?

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
7 of the 11 full democracies are monarchies and a non-politically biased monarch is more than a boon to the protection of democracy, in contrast to elected presidents who - even when ceremonial - are elected based on popular vote, which can be wrong. Presidencies like in America attract power-hungry people unlike monarchies.

Yes, but you just said that you want to give the monarch power to dismiss elected figures. Would they still be considered full democracies then?

Of course not. Monarchies are a barrier to true democracy by being fundamentally against the equality before the law.

The Blaatschapen wrote:And, at least where the Netherlands is concerned, it is turning back the clock several decades of governmental history.

Here we were scammed twice by reactionary forces so we are still stuck with a monarchy whose only achievement is stealing millions through dubious projects in Saudi Arabia then hiding them in Switzerland.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
7 of the 11 full democracies are monarchies and a non-politically biased monarch is more than a boon to the protection of democracy, in contrast to elected presidents who - even when ceremonial - are elected based on popular vote, which can be wrong. Presidencies like in America attract power-hungry people unlike monarchies.

Yes, but you just said that you want to give the monarch power to dismiss elected figures. Would they still be considered full democracies then?

And, at least where the Netherlands is concerned, it is turning back the clock several decades of governmental history.

The monarch of most of those countries (Canada, Australia, NZ) has those powers and has used them. Dismissing elected officials to protect democracy and institutions is a good idea. Would you disagree with a Kaiser dismissing Adolf Hitler, a Tsar dismissing Putin or such?

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Latvijas Otra Republika wrote:Why should people who get lucky on birth be handed such power and responsibility. That’s a ludicrous concept.

The monarch should ideally be chosen from amongst the most capable of a monarch’s offspring. Presidential elections attract the power-hungry, the greedy and self-absorbed. If someone is raised for the position in a proper manner, then they’re not motivated by personal greed or desire for power. That’s why I support a monarchic EU, as to counter the kinds of people attracted by power through election.

Vivolkha wrote:No, instead you have a figurehead that does literally nothing other than absorbing millions of dollars/euros for no reason, to the detriment of everybody else.

The British monarch in particular brings in more money for the British economy than what a presidency would. Besides, it’s not like a president would live modestly. That kind of financial boon would be good for Europe.

You can have all the monarch tourism money without a monarch.

Versailles and Schönbrunn are doing quite well.

Also, in the grand scheme of things, it's a little extra money, on the whole economy, a monarch's touristic attraction shouldn't be big. Or else your economy is just shit.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Latvijas Otra Republika wrote:Why should people who get lucky on birth be handed such power and responsibility. That’s a ludicrous concept.

The monarch should ideally be chosen from amongst the most capable of a monarch’s offspring. Presidential elections attract the power-hungry, the greedy and self-absorbed. If someone is raised for the position in a proper manner, then they’re not motivated by personal greed or desire for power. That’s why I support a monarchic EU, as to counter the kinds of people attracted by power through election.

Vivolkha wrote:No, instead you have a figurehead that does literally nothing other than absorbing millions of dollars/euros for no reason, to the detriment of everybody else.

The British monarch in particular brings in more money for the British economy than what a presidency would. Besides, it’s not like a president would live modestly. That kind of financial boon would be good for Europe.

The Palace of Versailles brings in quite a bit of money to France and they, perhaps you've heard, chopped the heads off their monarchs.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Yes, but you just said that you want to give the monarch power to dismiss elected figures. Would they still be considered full democracies then?

And, at least where the Netherlands is concerned, it is turning back the clock several decades of governmental history.

The monarch of most of those countries (Canada, Australia, NZ) has those powers and has used them. Dismissing elected officials to protect democracy and institutions is a good idea. Would you disagree with a Kaiser dismissing Adolf Hitler, a Tsar dismissing Putin or such?

What did the Italian monarch do to stop Mussolini?

Edit: I'd also argue that Hitler wasn't elected to be the Chancellor. He was appointed by Hindenburg.

Greater Miami Shores wrote:While I don't live in Europe, I voted for option 6 - No, Europe should never unite. I think getting the support of all member states is impossible for Europe. I support Europe as a Union of European Nations not as a USA of Europe.

"Should" and "can" are two different words.

Something may be desirable, yet impossible.

Ifreann wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
What people? All Europeans should be treated equally.

You tell me what people you are excluding when you talk about specific cultures being treated equally and properly.

Monarchs are unifying figures that work best with parliamentary systems of government and can use their royal powers to dismiss elected figures that are threatening to the democratic institutions of a united Europe. Monarchs should be protectors of democracy when the people are too charmed to realise their mistake.

Monarchs are embodiments of inequality that serve to highlight that some in the nation are born with incredible advantages and some are born with nothing. What use to a nation is a bejewelled crown when its people are hungry?

All cultures native to the European continent. I am against foreign cultural enclaves, but that’s another matter. The Rusyns should be as equal as Frenchmen or Germans or Swedes.

That is for the elected government to deal with and for the people to elect as their government. The monarch’s duties is to represent the nation, foster goodwill and mutual respect between the nation and others, and to protect democracy.

Vivolkha wrote:Of course not. Monarchies are a barrier to true democracy by being fundamentally against the equality before the law.

I do not consider that to be the case.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
The monarch should ideally be chosen from amongst the most capable of a monarch’s offspring. Presidential elections attract the power-hungry, the greedy and self-absorbed. If someone is raised for the position in a proper manner, then they’re not motivated by personal greed or desire for power. That’s why I support a monarchic EU, as to counter the kinds of people attracted by power through election.



The British monarch in particular brings in more money for the British economy than what a presidency would. Besides, it’s not like a president would live modestly. That kind of financial boon would be good for Europe.

You can have all the monarch tourism money without a monarch.

Versailles and Schönbrunn are doing quite well.

Also, in the grand scheme of things, it's a little extra money, on the whole economy, a monarch's touristic attraction shouldn't be big. Or else your economy is just shit.

The money is just a bonus to the monarch’s duties and value to the protection of democracy.

Ifreann wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
The monarch should ideally be chosen from amongst the most capable of a monarch’s offspring. Presidential elections attract the power-hungry, the greedy and self-absorbed. If someone is raised for the position in a proper manner, then they’re not motivated by personal greed or desire for power. That’s why I support a monarchic EU, as to counter the kinds of people attracted by power through election.



The British monarch in particular brings in more money for the British economy than what a presidency would. Besides, it’s not like a president would live modestly. That kind of financial boon would be good for Europe.

The Palace of Versailles brings in quite a bit of money to France and they, perhaps you've heard, chopped the heads off their monarchs.

Which was admittedly justified but years of tyranny is preferable to the Reign of Terror. The House of Orleans would be my choice for a French monarch were a monarchic EU to come true.

The Blaatschapen wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
The monarch of most of those countries (Canada, Australia, NZ) has those powers and has used them. Dismissing elected officials to protect democracy and institutions is a good idea. Would you disagree with a Kaiser dismissing Adolf Hitler, a Tsar dismissing Putin or such?

What did the Italian monarch do to stop Mussolini?

Edit: I'd also argue that Hitler wasn't elected to be the Chancellor. He was appointed by Hindenburg.

The incompetence of the House of Savoy is acknowledged by myself. Like all humans, monarchs can make mistakes. It so happens the Savoyards made a lot and a big, big mistake.

Yes, forgive my forgetfulness. However, ideally he would’ve been dismissed by his monarch had he come to power.

When it comes to Spain's monarchy. I did hear a report mention that the old monarch has an undisclosed amount of money in Switzerland. Also, that it seems he liked to cheat on his wife. They say the Spanish press never really questioned him on those things. It seems they are in the monarchies pocket. The new monarchy is so far squeaky clean but they still mention that the press seems to be in there pocket.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The Palace of Versailles brings in quite a bit of money to France and they, perhaps you've heard, chopped the heads off their monarchs.

Which was admittedly justified but years of tyranny is preferable to the Reign of Terror.

Not really no.

The House of Orleans would be my choice for a French monarch were a monarchic EU to come true.

As a direct descendent of the House of Orleans however I would be happy to take charge of the European throne. Not for me of course but someone must make the sacrifice.

Centrallonia wrote:When it comes to Spain's monarchy. I did hear a report mention that the old monarch has an undisclosed amount of money in Switzerland. Also, that it seems he liked to cheat on his wife. They say the Spanish press never really questioned him on those things. It seems they are in the monarchies pocket. The new monarchy is so far squeaky clean but they still mention that the press seems to be in there pocket.

I think that's a part of why Juan Carlos I abdicated in favour of his son, no? As for his extramarital affairs, eh, who cares about what folks do in their personal lives, if it doesn't pertain to governance?

Centrallonia wrote:When it comes to Spain's monarchy. I did hear a report mention that the old monarch has an undisclosed amount of money in Switzerland. Also, that it seems he liked to cheat on his wife. They say the Spanish press never really questioned him on those things. It seems they are in the monarchies pocket. The new monarchy is so far squeaky clean but they still mention that the press seems to be in there pocket.

Some members of a unified European monarchy would need to be kept in check, no doubt, they’re human after all. I just simply would be less supportive of a republican EU than one with a crown.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You tell me what people you are excluding when you talk about specific cultures being treated equally and properly.


Monarchs are embodiments of inequality that serve to highlight that some in the nation are born with incredible advantages and some are born with nothing. What use to a nation is a bejewelled crown when its people are hungry?

All cultures native to the European continent.

What counts as being native to the European continent?

I am against foreign cultural enclaves, but that’s another matter. The Rusyns should be as equal as Frenchmen or Germans or Swedes.

I don't really want a government that's only going to treat people equally if they're members of some arbitrary "native European" group. That sounds like a bad idea. Let's just treat everyone equally.

That is for the elected government to deal with and for the people to elect as their government. The monarch’s duties is to represent the nation, foster goodwill and mutual respect between the nation and others, and to protect democracy.

We can elect people to do those things if we need them done. No need to pick one family and give them enormous wealth and power.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The Palace of Versailles brings in quite a bit of money to France and they, perhaps you've heard, chopped the heads off their monarchs.

Which was admittedly justified but years of tyranny is preferable to the Reign of Terror. The House of Orleans would be my choice for a French monarch were a monarchic EU to come true.

The Blaatschapen wrote:
What did the Italian monarch do to stop Mussolini?

Edit: I'd also argue that Hitler wasn't elected to be the Chancellor. He was appointed by Hindenburg.

The incompetence of the House of Savoy is acknowledged by myself. Like all humans, monarchs can make mistakes. It so happens the Savoyards made a lot and a big, big mistake.

Yes, forgive my forgetfulness. However, ideally he would’ve been dismissed by his monarch had he come to power.

The great thing about a well functioning democracy is that we can get easily rid of a bad leader(see Buchanan of the US). Including a bad head of state. A bad monarch, either it is bloodshed time(see France) or waiting it out(see king William III of Netherlands).

Oh, or let them be a massive murderer somewhere else (see Leopold II of the Belgians).

With great power comes great accountability. Monarchs have little of the latter, thus should have little of the former.

Ifreann wrote:

The Islands of Versilia wrote:
All cultures native to the European continent.

What counts as being native to the European continent?

I am against foreign cultural enclaves, but that’s another matter. The Rusyns should be as equal as Frenchmen or Germans or Swedes.

I don't really want a government that's only going to treat people equally if they're members of some arbitrary "native European" group. That sounds like a bad idea. Let's just treat everyone equally.

That is for the elected government to deal with and for the people to elect as their government. The monarch’s duties is to represent the nation, foster goodwill and mutual respect between the nation and others, and to protect democracy.

We can elect people to do those things if we need them done. No need to pick one family and give them enormous wealth and power.

If the culture originally rose within Europe. To me, Europe ends at the Urals, Bosporous Strait and Strait of Gibraltar.

Cultural enclaves generally aren’t supported by me if they’re not native, sorry.

If anyone can be elected to such a position of power it’ll only attract the power hungry, the corrupt or the idealistic - the lattermost of which would never make it to power in the current world order.

The Islands of Versilia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The Palace of Versailles brings in quite a bit of money to France and they, perhaps you've heard, chopped the heads off their monarchs.

Which was admittedly justified but years of tyranny is preferable to the Reign of Terror. The House of Orleans would be my choice for a French monarch were a monarchic EU to come true.

Or they could just carry on not having a monarchy, nor tyranny, nor a reign of terror.

Fuck no