Royal Wedding Today! - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By B0ycey
#14917246
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Here's the challenge, B0ycey: You make the case for a republic without resorting to platitudes, straw men and irrelevancies, keeping in mind real world outcomes of constitutional monarchies and republics in Europe. If you keep diverging into non-issues like climate and responding to imaginary arguments, I'm going to take this as a concession that you just don't have a case and that, as I posited at the outset of our discussion, republicans always come to this debate with lots of very strong convictions but ultimately empty-handed.


I have already told you. I don't believe in born privilege and consider the whole issue undemocratic. That alone means a Republic is better. Now please explain why a Monarchy, or even a constitutional Monarchy if you will, is better than a Republic without me needing to copy and paste everything I have already written and for you to shout out "strawman" as if you are a victim.

The EU is the risky experiment, although this is hardly ever acknowledged, and as such constitutes the polar opposite of stability and continuity.


When everyone said the EU would collapse after Brexit, continental Europe has never been so united than it is today. So where is the evidence that it is unstable and has no continuity? If anything it is progressing and becoming a truly great global player. Hence why the haters can't stop hating. They fear the end of American Imperialism. That being so, under your own logic the UK should remain in the EU.
#14917265
I'm not sure how becoming a republic would end what you call born privilege. You only have to think of the Roosevelt, the Kennedy and the Bush families to see how well that's likely to turn out.

They all became highly influential and had power over the lives of ordinary Americans.

Because they had money and were corrupt. All of them.

Well, sod that for a game of soldiers.

I don't agree that it was coal that saved Britain from a revolution. It was more likely to have been our class system had never hardened into a caste system, as was the case in France for instance. Our revolution has been far more slow growing and gentle and harmed nobody. That's got to be good?
Well, the first world war had a lot to do with it, and that certainly harmed a lot of people.

My own view is that eventually Britain will slide into becoming a republic, but it will be insitigated by the royals themselves who will decide they've had enough of it, take what's theirs and get out.

Might even be Prince George's generation. You may even live to see it, Boycey.

You never know what you have until you've lost it.
#14917277
Sivad wrote:All I'm saying is that the institution is irrelevant to the success or failure of modern states. The societies that retained monarchy would have gotten along just as well without it.

They are not critical, but that doesn't tell us anything about what's optimal. At any rate, the onus is on republicans to show that a republic is superior and the evidence does not support them.

Zamuel wrote:I agree it is a great experiment and I think it serves as a step into the future. Britain, I would say, belongs in it. They are right about the immigration issue though, member states should retain autonomy on this. I don't think EU was intended to homogenize culture and tradition.

Strictly speaking, due to free movement there can be no autonomy on immigration for EU members, and with further integration the means they have to restrict EU migrants is likely to decrease. There are really only two paths for the EU in the long term, it either consolidates and centralises or it breaks up. In neither case is it desirable to be an EU member, as the former means the UK will cease to be a sovereign nation state and the latter carries significant risk of upheaval and violence, especially if integration is much more advanced than now. As far as I can tell, most people seem to delude themselves about this.

Zamuel wrote:The constitutional monarchies have one advantage that is well worth the cost, stable leadership. The population, and the business communities have a constant role model to follow. In the US this changes every 4-8 years. It's very distinct. Under Trump we now see all authority shifting to position themselves as mini totalitarians, from the manager at the local supermarket to the CEOs in their boardrooms. Even those who oppose him subconsciously shift to the NEW paradigm. The ethics and morality of a new leader set the scene for his duration in office.

The Constitutional Monarchies put a lot more pressure on their Kings and Queens to maintain decency and fairness and having established themselves, a monarch can maintain the standards they set for a lifetime, then hand them off without radical adjustments. There is great value in this. Good leadership simply can't be bought. But of course stable ethical values limit the opportunists amongst us and they dissent. In their hearts, they want power they are denied.

Zam :borg:

I agree that this is an advantage, although the US president also has the role of PM (or equivalent). That's quite different from the predominantly representative and ceremonial functions of a head of state in constitutional monarchies which I think lend themselves to a stable long term office. Another advantage is that they are apolitical.

B0ycey wrote:I have already told you. I don't believe in born privilege and consider the whole issue undemocratic. That alone means a Republic is better. Now please explain why a Monarchy, or even a constitutional Monarchy if you will, is better than a Republic without me needing to copy and paste everything I have already written and for you to shout out "strawman" as if you are a victim.

I have always been specific and referred to constitutional monarchies. There was no ambiguity except where you chose to introduce it to argue one of your countless straw men (sorry, if my mentioning this offends you).

As support for a republic is pretty low and the popularity of constitutional monarchy high, I'd say that it certainly has democratic legitimacy in Britain. I suspect that the other constitutional monarchies also enjoy popular support, but I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. You have also yet to address my earlier points that constitutional monarchies are among the most democratic countries by any measure (e.g. free and fair elections, political participation, civil liberties, etc). You seem to be exclusively concerned with a single issue: that the ceremonial head of state in constitutional monarchies is not elected, and that's sufficient for you to ignore criteria that deal with the quality of democracies and measure what actually matters in the real world. That's the kind of superficial and rigid republican argument I was talking about in my first posts in this thread.

Regarding born privilege, as mentioned previously, it comes with responsibilities. As long as those are assumed and carried out well, which is certainly the case, they pretty much cancel each other out.

I might make my case for constitutional monarchies in a future post, but, as mentioned to Sivad above, I do not have to do this. The onus is on republicans to show that their preferred system is superior.

B0ycey wrote:When everyone said the EU would collapse after Brexit, continental Europe has never been so united than it is today. So where is the evidence that it is unstable and has no continuity? If anything it is progressing and becoming a truly great global player. Hence why the haters can't stop hating. They fear the end of American Imperialism. That Zbeing so, under your own logic the UK should remain in the EU.

Please see my first response to Zam above. The idea that my logic implies that the UK should have joined or remained in this massive and unprecedented political and social experiment does not make any sense.
By B0ycey
#14917281
snapdragon wrote:I'm not sure how becoming a republic would end what you call born privilege. You only have to think of the Roosevelt, the Kennedy and the Bush families to see how well that's likely to turn out.


Just to be clear, support for democracy isn't support for nepotism. I am not really a fan of a two party system either. True democracy is achieved under electoral representation and not FPTP.

I don't agree that it was coal that saved Britain from a revolution. It was more likely to have been our class system had never hardened into a caste system, as was the case in France for instance. Our revolution has been far more slow growing and gentle and harmed nobody. That's got to be good?
Well, the first world war had a lot to do with it, and that certainly harmed a lot of people.


There was real concern of revolution in the UK when France revolted. I suspect economics and improved voting conditions were the reason nothing happened actually. It wasn't lack of protesting I can assure you. The monarchy had to change its attitude to their subjects after Victoria. They became the Kardashians of Victorian Times. Don't get me started on that god awful home video of the Windsor acting as if they are just 'one of us'.

My own view is that eventually Britain will slide into becoming a republic, but it will be insitigated by the royals themselves who will decide they've had enough of it, take what's theirs and get out.

Might even be Prince George's generation. You may even live to see it, Boycey.

You never know what you have until you've lost it.


You cannot miss what you have never had. The Royal family do not affect my life in the slightest. They do however represent medieval views of a bygone era. Let them discover how popular they are. If they win an election for head of state, they have earned their status. Until then, it is born privilege.
By B0ycey
#14917283
Kaiserschmarrn wrote: You have also yet to address my earlier points that constitutional monarchies are among the most democratic countries by any measure (e.g. free and fair elections, political participation, civil liberties, etc).


I did actually. You just covered it over as a strawman as you didn't like the answer. I said that Europe being democratic has nothing to do with monarchies and was down to economics, values and living conditions. Evidence. Europe is not just nations of constitutional monarchies but a mixture with Republics as well.

You seem to be exclusively concerned with a single issue: that the ceremonial head of state in constitutional monarchies is not elected, and that's sufficient for you to ignore criteria that deal with the quality of democracies and measure what actually matters in the real world. That's the kind of superficial and rigid republican argument I was talking about in my first posts in this thread.


Good. I am proud of my democratic values and the fact I don't support born privilege.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14917289
Every person born to rich parents has born privilege, whether you like it, or not.
User avatar
By AFAIK
#14917295
I don't get why people focus so much attention on the monarchy when replacing it with a ceremonial presidency doesn't really change anything. I'd rather scrap the lords and replace it with a body elected by proportional representation. That would have a meaningful impact.
#14917314
On born into privilege:

I think inheritance is fine. As Godstud knows, the price of housing here is reaching the point of being impossible without help, and that's always been made easier if seniors leave something to the youngsters. Now, it's an absolute necessity. I don't want to leave everything I've worked for to some idiots in government to dispose of, full stop. There are far more Bushes than F Roosevelts.
#14917321
You cannot miss what you have never had. The Royal family do not affect my life in the slightest.


Exactly. You might miss having a head of state that doesn't affect your life in the slightest.

They do however represent medieval views of a bygone era. Let them discover how popular they are. If they win an election for head of state, they have earned their status. Until then, it is born privilege.



Well, no they don't represent medieval views in any shape or form.

They're bound by the constitution.

Abd please, not more elections.

It would be different if it was likely to be a case of the best person for the job winning.

Only it ain't.
By Sivad
#14917364
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:They are not critical, but that doesn't tell us anything about what's optimal. At any rate, the onus is on republicans to show that a republic is superior and the evidence does not support them.


All the successful so-called 'constitutional monarchies' are really de facto republics. They're about as monarchist as Cuba is republican.
By Rich
#14917380
Sivad wrote:All the successful so-called 'constitutional monarchies' are really de facto republics. They're about as monarchist as Cuba is republican.

They are more Republican. Stalin's Russia was far more of a monarchy than George V's Britain, and Britain today is far less monarchist than it was back then.
#14917407
B0ycey wrote:I did actually. You just covered it over as a strawman as you didn't like the answer. I said that Europe being democratic has nothing to do with monarchies and was down to economics, values and living conditions. Evidence. Europe is not just nations of constitutional monarchies but a mixture with Republics as well.

I called it a straw man because I did not claim that constitutional monarchies make a country democratic or more democratic and your response is therefore irrelevant to my point. What I'm saying is that they deliver what democracies are supposed to deliver at least as well as republics and that the way the ceremonial head of state acquires his/her position is of no consequence in terms of the quality of democracies and real world outcomes. The impact of this issue is negligible and can be safely ignored, unless one is some kind of purist.

I hope that clarifies things.

Sivad wrote:All the successful so-called 'constitutional monarchies' are really de facto republics. They're about as monarchist as Cuba is republican.

I wouldn't mind if republicans saw it that way, but they don't.
By Sivad
#14917411
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I wouldn't mind if republicans saw it that way, but they don't.


I think they mostly do see it as more of a cultural issue than anything else. The monarchs are formally vested with some minor powers, but nothing really outrageously undemocratic.
#14917423
Having a constitutional monarchy is like having a national flag that depicts a king raping a peasant. The flag has no power it's just fucking offensive.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14917425
Monarchs are vested with powers only to assure democracy, and to have checks and balances. They do not have powers that can be abused.

Canada has a Governor General, that is the Queen's representative in Canada. The last time she had to exercise power was several years ago when the 2 minority opposition parties wanted to form a coalition so they would have more power than the minority government. The Governor General stepped in and made it clear that this breach of democracy wouldn't fly, and the coalition dissolved as fast as it was conceived.

The Queen has no power outside of those that ensure a democratic government, and abide by the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Americans usually don't understand this, when they look at Constitutional Monarchies, and assume vast powers where there are none. Note: The Queen doesn't own parts of Canada. :lol:

USA has Congress, and the Supreme Court to do this, though, as we have seen, this can sometimes not work.
#14917933
Sivad wrote:I think they mostly do see it as more of a cultural issue than anything else. The monarchs are formally vested with some minor powers, but nothing really outrageously undemocratic.

Maybe, but they don't have evidence in terms of real world outcomes for their cultural arguments either.

In my view it's just a combination of personal dislike and narrow minded application of theoretical principles, which somehow turn into a feeling of moral superiority. Not dissimilar to the resistance in the US who imagine themselves fighting the Trump tyranny.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14917950
Oh yeah, sure. :D

I forgot all about it, :D It was, technically the 21st. I'd have noticed were I was working... but I'm not. :excited:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]

...Or maybe because there are many witnesses sayin[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]