Dissovle the monarchy and have a President - The Queen (2006) Discussion

[–] Mercader79 15 years ago

I sort of agree. The PM effectively does most of the Queen's job anyway.
I think we'd lose a lot form tourism though.

reply

[–] XxblackrainbowsxX 15 years ago

"I think we'd lose a lot form tourism though."

Not necessarily- after all, places such as the Palace of Versailles still get millions of visitors, and France haven't had a monarchy for hundreds of years.

"I'm actually 40% papier mache"
-------Morrissey

reply

[–] Gwasgray 15 years ago

There are countries like Germany that just have figurehead Presidents while the head of Government makes all the real decisions, which probably doesn't make any more sense than still having a Monarch. I mean many people can probably name the German Chancellor but how many outside of Germany can name the German President?

One of the main, rather cynical arguments for keeping the Monarchy is it's a big tourist attraction. To many foreigners, Britain probably wouldn't be the same Britain without a King or Queen. And about the cost of the Monarchy to the taxpayer, yes the Royal inner circle do live in extravagant luxury but to the individual taxpayer it's a very, very small percentage of the income tax they have to pay. This is what everyone forgets when they self-righteously go on about "taxpayers money", if you got rid of the Royal Family or unemployment benefit or all of the little government blunders, an individual taxpayer wouldn't really be any better off in terms of how much of their earnings they get to take home.

reply

[–] Mercader79 15 years ago

Good points Gwasgray. Am not sure getting rid of unemployment benefit has anything to do with it though. Nobody's suggesting that.

reply

[–] The-Last-Prydonian 15 years ago

"There are countries like Germany that just have figurehead Presidents while the head of Government makes all the real decisions, which probably doesn't make any more sense than still having a Monarch. I mean many people can probably name the German Chancellor but how many outside of Germany can name the German President?"

That is probably true which doesn’t cancel out the need for the UK merely having a President elect as is the case with the United States. He it would seem is the primary political figure head in the country. Why pay 67p of our tax towards a Royal family who already amass a significant fortune of about 100 million pounds if you believe the estimate that has been reported.

"One of the main, rather cynical arguments for keeping the Monarchy is it's a big tourist attraction. To many foreigners, Britain probably wouldn't be the same Britain without a King or Queen. And about the cost of the Monarchy to the taxpayer, yes the Royal inner circle do live in extravagant luxury but to the individual taxpayer it's a very, very small percentage of the income tax they have to pay. This is what everyone forgets when they self-righteously go on about "taxpayers money", if you got rid of the Royal Family or unemployment benefit or all of the little government blunders, an individual taxpayer wouldn't really be any better off in terms of how much of their earnings they get to take home."

I don’t see how we are better or worse off with a monarchy. I’ve heard it argued that would we rather be like the US where no-one would wish to be right now. But look at the state the UK is in. It has one of the highest numbers of assaults and has the highest rate of burglaries in Europe. Not to mention high rates of car theft, robbery and pick pocketing. Our prisons are becoming overpopulated meaning more have had to been built. The UK is also the number 1 country in Europe with Its rate of underage pregnancies. Not to mention the highest when it comes to single parent families. There's rising poverty. Our NHS is a joke as is our education system. If I had a family tomorrow I don't think I'd want them living in the UK. Frankly, as you have mentioned the Queen is no more than a figure head who receives a vast salary for a position/job which isn’t particularly demanding when compared with the relatively high yet lower income made by Doctor’s for example who are in arguably more stressful jobs which require even greater intelligence and skill.

As for the small amount that you speak of, it still all adds up to an immense sum. You say that we wouldn’t be any better off without paying the extra 67p. That might sound rather cynical although politicians have a habit of bumping up their own wages or misspending tax payer’s money. But never the less there is the potential for our tax money being better spent. While I hasten to add that I find the compassion towards the tax money that the royal family receives to unemployment benefit a tad unfair. I personally don’t see the royal family as a real necessity. While unemployment benefit etc (which I will concede has been shamefully abused by certain members of the unemployed who sadly comprise of alcoholics, single mums, asylum seekers etc.)to some degree has its necessity. Let’s not forget that the UK is currently in the middle of a rather large recession. Arguably more so than the previous one, there’s people who want to work and get it because the job’s aren’t available. And this also goes even deeper.

Look at me for instance. I’m 32 years of age and up till recently I was diagnosed with dyspraxia, a little known condition which is a clinically recognised learning difficulty. I’ve been in and out of jobs for most of my working because of it. And have been only been able to hold down one job out of sheer luck as I was willing to be very flexible with my availability on a part time contract. I’ve now been unemployed for the past two years since my last job and am now striving to get myself sorted out and in to full time employment which realistically may not be for a while. If it weren’t for unemployment benefit I don’t know where I would be right now.
Fact is, the necessity of a monarchy is rather dubious where as there are certain public services ie. The NHS, police, fire services which are necessary and to which I’d rather see our money being spent on than continuing an outdated, hierarchal institution.

"Good points Gwasgray. Am not sure getting rid of unemployment benefit has anything to do with it though. Nobody's suggesting that."

I agree with you on the unemployment benefit having nothing to do with the arguement ChrisHallam.

reply

[–] Mercader79 15 years ago

I'm 32 and a diagnosed dyspraxic too. It's a small world - most people haven't even heard of it.

reply

[–] macfilm 15 years ago

The reason that having a President instead of the Monarchy would be more expensive, at least for the U.K.

1) You would have to change the name of the country. It would, obviously, not be the "United Kingdom", any more, would it?

2) You would have the cost of an election every 4 or 5 years.

3) You would have to pay the President a salary. The Queen gets no salary.

4) You would, probably, have to set up some sort of pension system for "retired" presidents.

5) You are still going to have all the annual expenses of the 'head-of-state' regardless of what title that person has: a residence, living expenses, security, foreign visits, staff, ceremonies, etc. That's probably about 80-90% of the current annual costs

6) There would have to be some sort of negotiation about the ownership and revenues of the "royal estates". Right now, at the beginning of each reign, the monarch assigns all the profits to the government in exchange for the gov't funding the cost of the monarchy. The gov't gets about 5 times more profit from the royal estate that it costs to fund the monarchy. A nice deal for the taxpayer.

(If you think the Queen wouldn't get to keep at least some of that, you should look up how well, for example, Constantine of Greece, Simeon of Bulgaria, and Alexander of Yugoslavia have done when they took their respective republican gov'ts to the European courts to retrieve seized property.)

So, there are some good arguments for the U.K. becoming a republic, but "saving money" isn't one of them.

reply

[–] Virginiana 15 years ago

you make some terrific points, macfilm. I think the most critical is #5.

If Britain were declared republic tomorrow, would Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle be torn down? Would Holyrood House be turned into a hotel? Of course not. The government would certainly want to maintain these important historic buildings, no matter to what purpose they put them (offices, museums, residence for an elected President or anything else). The savings in money would be nothing; in fact, in the long run it could cost the taxpayer more because the constant use of these buildings as royal residences rather forces the ministry in charge of their upkeep to deal with maintenance issues quickly before they turn into big and expensive problems.

Not sure if #6 follows, though. The Crown Estates aren't the private property of the Sovereign, but hers (or his) by virtue of her position as Monarch. When Edward VIII abdicated, he had no further claim on the income from the Crown Estates; that passed intact to the new King. So an ex-King or Queen of a British republic should not theoretically be able to claim those revenues as his or her personal income, should they?

A murkier issue is that of physical property -- works of art, jewelry, fine furniture, etc. Does the personal gifts received by the sovereign (like, say, the jewelry Prince Albert gave Queen Victoria 150 years ago) the personal property of their descendants, or does it belong to the State? What about gifts given to the Queen ceremonially by other heads of state? Issues like this would be very, very difficult to sort out.

reply

[–] leonfairhurst 15 years ago

I think, if I remember correctly, that gifts to the Monarch from other Heads of State are Crown Property and would belong to the state, they being part of the Royal Collection, other things as, for instance, the jewelery belonging to the Tsar's that old Queen Mary bought, at a knock down price, are personal belongings of the Monarch.

Cry God for Harry, England and St George

reply