Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Most of the people here take republicanism for granted, being that you live in the US and you sent the British packing a few centuries ago. I don't have that luxury but I still peruse the same ideals. Abolition of the constitutional monarchy in favor of a country run by the people. A republic.

Now we can go into the guts of it if you want, why should inherited privilege be allowed to exist in a supposed democratic country? The corruption the house of lords has at the same time as making parliament undemocratic itself. Or I can just gloss over it and ask a simple question.

If your one of them. What goes through your head you damn flag waving subservient sheep? I'm looking at you any Brit on this forum who actually doesn't mind auld lizzy that much. I would even pay the NHS more money for you all to get your heads checked.

Republic =/= Democracy. A republic just means that there is a senate which supposedly represents segments of the population, it doesn't even mean they will be elected.

At 6/5/12 05:30 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

If your one of them. What goes through your head you damn flag waving subservient sheep? I'm looking at you any Brit on this forum who actually doesn't mind auld lizzy that much. I would even pay the NHS more money for you all to get your heads checked.

Instead of insulting the vast majority of Brits who support the monarchy, why don't you actually provide arguments for why the monarchy should be abolished?

At 6/6/12 04:17 AM, Dogbert581 wrote:

At 6/5/12 05:30 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

If your one of them. What goes through your head you damn flag waving subservient sheep? I'm looking at you any Brit on this forum who actually doesn't mind auld lizzy that much. I would even pay the NHS more money for you all to get your heads checked.

Instead of insulting the vast majority of Brits who support the monarchy, why don't you actually provide arguments for why the monarchy should be abolished?

He did though, the problem though is that the monarchy has no real reason other than arbitrary culture to be so influential in government. The Monarchy as it stands is more like a pop culture icon, a family of celebrities, than a serious government figure and so the rest of their power should be taken away. They deserve pretty much the same status as say Kim Kardashian or Joan Rivers because they don't actually do anything.

At 6/6/12 04:50 PM, Warforger wrote:

He did though,

OP consisted of one paragraph saying 'I want a republic like what you have got in America'; one paragraph of 'I could tell you why I think this would work, but instead I'm going to ask you a question' and one paragraph of insulting people who support the monarchy

At 6/6/12 04:17 AM, Dogbert581 wrote:

At 6/5/12 05:30 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

If your one of them. What goes through your head you damn flag waving subservient sheep? I'm looking at you any Brit on this forum who actually doesn't mind auld lizzy that much. I would even pay the NHS more money for you all to get your heads checked.

Instead of insulting the vast majority of Brits who support the monarchy, why don't you actually provide arguments for why the monarchy should be abolished?

Pssh speak for yourself, most people in my neck of the woods think it's an anachronism and they're all inbred and unduly privaleged. It is an institution stuck in the past with as much relevance to the modern UK as witchtrials and the Domesday book.

I don't care so much about abolishing them, but I used to, and I could never support them. If they make me richer rather than poorer it's a good thing, otherwise it's a bad thing. But I could never fully agree with someone who is the head of state and fucking rich by virtue of who their parents were and most people I know agree with me and are more passionate about the issue than I am.

At 6/7/12 06:29 PM, Earfetish wrote:

Instead of insulting the vast majority of Brits who support the monarchy

By the way, fuck the vast majority of Brits who support the monarchy right in their fucking Cavalier arseholes. The French had the right idea a few centuries ago.

At 6/5/12 05:30 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Most of the people here take republicanism for granted, being that you live in the US and you sent the British packing a few centuries ago. I don't have that luxury but I still peruse the same ideals. Abolition of the constitutional monarchy in favor of a country run by the people. A republic.

I agree with your views that the monarchy should be abolished but it seems to come across that you are being slightly aggressive in your stance. I admit that when stuff like this jubilee nonsense comes around and we have to fork out for it I can get a bit annoyed but I think that they should be removed in a way that shows the people standing up and saying "we don't need you anymore, leave!" as opposed to something along the lines as the riots but 10x worse.

A republic? Are you fucking kidding me? If I had my way I would proclaim myself as Head of State and King of Australia if Australia ceases ties with the British Monarchy.

Oh, and by the way, America is heading towards the right, somewhat into the "We will make children kill each other in the future" territory. Like The Hunger Games, but scarier.

At 6/10/12 04:47 AM, joe9320 wrote: Oh, and by the way, America is heading towards the right, somewhat into the "We will make children kill each other in the future" territory. Like The Hunger Games, but scarier.

No, athletes are not given more money for college than pure intellectuals. That was a baseless argument.

At 6/6/12 04:50 PM, Warforger wrote: He did though, the problem though is that the monarchy has no real reason other than arbitrary culture to be so influential in government. The Monarchy as it stands is more like a pop culture icon, a family of celebrities, than a serious government figure and so the rest of their power should be taken away. They deserve pretty much the same status as say Kim Kardashian or Joan Rivers because they don't actually do anything.

Indeed I did and I'll expand a little in a second. But I don't like the new trend of calling the celebrities. Their not! You can choose to support a celebrity by buying their merchandise and attending their concerts etc. The royal family are kept and the money to keep them comes from the tax payer. There is no point in arguing that they bring in tourism etc and oh the people who are their servants that means they are creating jobs.

No, I've absolutely no choice in it. We will never know how much they actually get out of the treasury because they are not entirely accountable for their expenditures. Yet here I am and so is every other tax payer, forced to fund their life style without a say in it.

At 6/6/12 05:07 PM, Dogbert581 wrote: OP consisted of one paragraph saying 'I want a republic like what you have got in America'; one paragraph of 'I could tell you why I think this would work, but instead I'm going to ask you a question' and one paragraph of insulting people who support the monarchy

I never said I want what America has. I said I wanted the ideals America has, because lets face it, America and the ideas it was founded on were sound, freedom and equality. But yous are slowly fucking it up, restricting peoples freedoms, creating positions of power and letting them exploit that etc.

But you want some more on Britain, alright. So the quen is the head of state, people argue she fulfills a symbolic role these days, ok sure but she still has the final say. Move on, where dose she make her speech each year? In the house of lords. This signifies her position within parliment but then you think about the house of lords itself.

Nobody in the house of lords is elected.
They do not need to give up their positions.
They have a say on what happens in the house of commons (lower house of parliament that the elected politicians debate etc)
Not only that we the tax payer have to fund the house of lords as well.

Now you tell me, dose a group of un-elected individuals (traditional people who inherited their peerage) who don't need to give up their positions and have a say what happens withing the elected parliament, dose that sound like a good idea?

Definitely not in my opinion. I remember a few years ago some mobile company owed the British government around 7-8 billion in tax money. But some how this was just written off and they were allowed not to pay it. Now you tell me if you've ever known someone who has owed the government some tax money what would happen to them? Doubt they would be let off the hook just like that.

Never mind the expenses scandal.

At 6/7/12 06:29 PM, Earfetish wrote: Pssh speak for yourself, most people in my neck of the woods think it's an anachronism and they're all inbred and unduly privaleged. It is an institution stuck in the past with as much relevance to the modern UK as witchtrials and the Domesday book.

They must have no problem with auld lizzy "reigning over them" although if they pictured here raining over them in frankie goes to hollywood singin relax golden shower kinda rain.... They might be affronted haha it is what shes essentially doing! I know for a fact every time shes waving and then wipers into the dukes ear, shes saying. Look all these idiots still buy it!

I don't care so much about abolishing them, but I used to, and I could never support them. If they make me richer rather than poorer it's a good thing, otherwise it's a bad thing. But I could never fully agree with someone who is the head of state and fucking rich by virtue of who their parents were and most people I know agree with me and are more passionate about the issue than I am.

For every pound the government gets in tax, I've heard the royals get about 16p of that but thats an estimate. I could be wrong. But the fact that happens mean they are and will always be an expense to you, me, everyone else and their is nothing we can do about it.

At 6/7/12 06:31 PM, Earfetish wrote: By the way, fuck the vast majority of Brits who support the monarchy right in their fucking Cavalier arseholes. The French had the right idea a few centuries ago.

Touche

At 6/10/12 04:00 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

Nobody in the house of lords is elected.
They do not need to give up their positions.

I am actually in favour of the new proposals of electing 80% peers for 15 year terms. Why 15 years? Because the role of the Lords is to advise and use their experience to look at long term picture. Let's face it, every MP only votes for bills based on how it will help his reelection campaign (even more so if theres only 1-2 years til next election). With appointed peers/peers elected for long terms you remove the problem of supporting issues just to gain votes.

Why 80%? Because a lot of members of the Lords are appointed after successful careers in different branches outside politics (eg Senior Judges, retired Heads of Armed Forces). These specialist roles need to be maintained. As I said before, the main role of the Lords isnt to introduce new legislation, its to review, advise and amend legislation introduced by the Commons. Who would give better advice on a bill concerning the military? A career politician who doesn't even know what the RAF is or the ex Chief of Defence Staff?

They have a say on what happens in the house of commons (lower house of parliament that the elected politicians debate etc)

They only have a right to advise and reccomend changes on certain bills (they're not allowed to touch finance bills). The Commons don't have to accept reccomendations and the Parliament Act 1911 ensures the supremacy of the elected Commons. (For those unsure the Parliament Act means if the Lords delay a bill for a year or 3 readings the Commons can overrule them and pass the bill anyway)

Not only that we the tax payer have to fund the house of lords as well.

The tax payer would have to fund the upper house whether it was appointed, elected or selected via a fight to the death

(traditional people who inherited their peerage)

Hereditary Peers were all but removed by Labour. Nowadays there are only 92 Hereditary Peers in the Lords out of 788 Lords. The rest are appointed either because they have experience in different branches outside politics (Law, Defence etc as I mentioned above) or because they give money to one of the major parties (I'll admit the second one is a problem)

Never mind the expenses scandal.

Even though the vast majority of the abuses occured in the Commons

yes, having a monarch WOULD speed the process of republic to fascism, if it weren't for the fact that our current monarch only has power of veto and never uses it anyway.

Actually, the monarch is just a more expensive version of an important part of Republic. If anything, we should get rid of her for doing too little! I would cut off ties to the common wealth and lose the Queen in favour of a more local governor general who gets paid less, knows what he is doing (not saying the queen doesn't, she just does... nothing) and actually uses his power of veto when a purposed law violates the constitution.

I wouldn't trust a British person to decide what is and what is constitutional in our country anyway, the UK government is even more authoritarian and invasive than the American government!

At 6/11/12 04:15 AM, Dogbert581 wrote:

Never mind the expenses scandal.

Even though the vast majority of the abuses occured in the Commons

I honestly don't see elected lords coming into play. I get the argument that they are supposedly an a-political check and balance system because they are not supposed to be affiliated with a particular party and as such don't need to toe the party line.

I don;t think the house of lords should exist that's why I don't want to pay for it. The final mention of the expenses scandal while true it mostly happened in the commons the fact it happened at all shows the system is open for exploit. Cash for honors again more specifically about the house of lords but essentially the same thing.

Money changing hands and select individuals benefiting. And this has only recently been discovered. I seriously doubt for what was discovered that all that happened. And your talking about centuries of politicians lining their pockets right their.

I don't like that a tiny wee bit. I'm no really a fan of central government if I'm honest. Republicanism for what it is would just be a move towards something more open IMO thats what I'm more about. Personal freedom to do what ever you want. I don't really strictly subscribe to the political theories that most do :)

At 6/5/12 05:30 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Most of the people here take republicanism for granted

I don't.

If power lies with the people, it lies with the institutions that disseminate information, meaning that there's no chain of command. If there's no chain of command, there will be war to set one up. Think succession disputes, except permanent. I'm not particularly fond of war, especially the hand-wringing barrel of horseshit and lies that this one has turned out to be. (Another fun thing about democracy: propaganda.)