|
Mattyfisk
|
Frank wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 8:39pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 7:07pm: Frank wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 5:49pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 4:45pm: Frank wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 4:33pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 3:35pm: Auggie wrote on Dec 13 th, 2017 at 3:22pm: Quote:Our system is known as "responsible government". This is a system where the leader of the country - the PM - is popularly erected and appointed by the lower house of government - the House of Reps, not the Senate; the "people's house".
Government, therefore, is seen as "responsible" (or accountable) to the voters rather than the Crown, a president, or head of state. Yes, but don't you think that we the people should choose our head of government/head of state rather than the party machinery?? I haven't decided. There are definite advantages in having a monarch - look at the stability this has given countries like Cambodia and Thailand. Yeah, Cambodia and Thailand - how many government coups have they had in the last couple of decades?? The Danish, Swedish, Dutch, British, Norwegian monarchies and societies are, of course, much more stable and peaceful and politically settled. Not to mention Australia, Canad, NZ. These countries function in spite of their monarchies. Thailand and Cambodia in particular have had serious political upheaval. Thailand has coups like we have election cycles. Cambodia had Pol Pot. The Danish, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian societies aren't peaceful because they have monarchs. If anything, they're peaceful because they got rid of imperial powers. Constitutionally, do these monarchs have any function at all? In Thailand, the king has the power to overturn criminal convictions and sentences. I'm curious. What can the Swedish king do? Er... provides stability and is the living embodiment of the Kingdom: no coups in Sweden, Denmark, England, etc. A good job, no? No. These countries have political stability because people accept the results of erections. For much of their history, these countries have had coups by rivals and invasions by other monarchs. Some - England - have had revolutions. The British monarch has influence, and I think this brings real power. You're a country-shopping foreigner, but if you read our constitution, you would think the monarch has all the power. In WWII, there was a move for the royals to take power, Franco-style. A few less Spitfires, and that may well have happened if Hitler won the war. The British throne was important in the reconstruction, if only symbolically. Few other European monarchs have this role - Holland's royals are popular, but nothing like the soap opera of the Windsors. Europe's monarchs are redundant. Europe is now a bureaucracy, and this is not a bad thing. It is far preferable to the rest of European history. The place of the British royals is a main reason for their differences with Europe. This goes back to the French Revolution and 1840s revolutions, where the British bolstered and rallied behind their throne. They created social/political philosophies like conservatism to defend it. The crown is an important part of British culture. It has faded since the 1950s, surpassed by the power - and model - of the US president. Most independence movements did away with their thrones if they still had them. Cambodia and Thailand are two exceptions. The Middle East is another. The Cold War was not a good time for kings. Alas, old boy, Pakistan and India have done away with theirs. What would you prefer, old boy - tinted, ten-rupee presidents, or tinted old queens? Please explain. Very wide ranging load of bollocks, as usual. So much of a mish-mash of nonsense that it's impossible to untangle it. Taking each of your points it would be the easy way to show how none of this nonsense hangs together. If Europe's monarchies were redundant, for example, your supposed 'Europe as bureaucracy' would have done away with them. But they haven't because they aren't. The UK, Denmark, Sweden (used to be part of Denmark), Norway, Holland became or remained independent and did not do away with the monarchy - so Thailand and Cambodia are far from the exception. And so on. You are too blinkered, too stupid, too committed to the miam-miaming of sh!te to ever see your way clear of the swampy sociological nonsense you imbibed and simply cannot shake. Staying stupid is your way of validating your life as a fuddy-duddy, old 60s fossil. Maintain the nonsense, comrade. Ee-gad, is this you having a discussion? Come back when you've calmed down and had a chance to reflect, old chap. We're discussing the benefits of monarchs and their place in democracy. We don't have hissy fits here, dear boy, we're British.
|
Forum
Pages: 
