Lolcislaw said:
SciFiBoy said:
Lolcislaw said:
There are many benefits of Monarchy. The person of monarch is trained to become a head of state all his life, he is aware of what he can and cannot do, and he represents his country well. You dont get many gaffes from Royals, and look at Presidents around the World. Further Monarchs arent politicians they arent trying to be populist or popular they do what has to be done, there is no such thing as corruption etc. etc.c
They are icons that are able to unite a nation, again President is more of a politcian, uniting mainly those that have voted for him.
Monarch does not constipate the Political system, theoretically he has huge powers, but in Practice all the power lies with the Prime Minister, which is good , things get done and only one person has to be scrutinised. Head of State is not blocking Parliament, by vetoing.
|
the issue is the fact they are unelected, we get no say in who they are or anything and there is no accountability, we dont know what they stand for or when they might decide to interveen in govermnent affairs, which they do have the power to do.
better tax money goes to elected representetives of the people than unelected people looking out for there own intrests alone with no accountability if we dont like what theyre doing.
sure it may cost more to have a president, but atleast we get a say in who it is and we know what they stand for and stuff.
at the moment were wasting money on an unelected monarchy, i say we spend money efficently on having an elected, democratic, accountable head of state.
|
They simply cannot intervene in government affairs, powers of Royal Perogative are passed to the Prime Minister therefore he is accountable to the public, Monarch has no political power, and he does not politically represent country abroad. Even lordship is decided by the politicians in Westminster. Having strong power in Westiminster is better then have to centres of power of President and Prime Minister, especially when they would always fight for power. (look at issues beetween congress and US Presidents, for example clinton)
But i dont mind cutting spendings on the Royal Family to minimum, they have enough land and property to sustain themselves, with some staff reductions.
But i prefer a Uniting , non biased ,non political Monarch, then someone like that idiot that is now president of Poland.
|
im pretty sure they can intervene. but im not an expert on there power right now
if you think they should have no power at all, then why have them at all, essentially youre saying you want a head of state with NO power, NO opinion and NO accountabiliy, all youre advocating is having a pointless figurehead monarchy that takes taxpayers money, we may aswell ask the PM to burn £40m+ or whatever it is of taxpayers money, for all the use your system would be.
the house of lords is nonsense, these are people choosen based upon who there family are and who they give/gave money to, we get no say in who they are, and we cant vote them out if we think there decisions are stupid or wrong, much better to have an elected second chamber imo, that way we can hold them to account
