"This house believes that the United Kingdom should become a Republic"

[Vampyrelord]

For: Nathan (A)
Against: M-50 (B)
Judge: Fect

Format: A, B, A, B

[Vampyrelord]

Britain remains an incomplete democracy, in which the people are not fully represented, and a medieval system is still used to select the holder of the highest office of state - the ruling monarch.

I am not proposing that we reform the monarchy (to have an elected monarch or anything like that), I am proposing that the outdated institution be abolished.

Why?

The continued existance of the monarchy encourages and propagates outdated values of elitism; the idea that not everyone is equal, that an individual's character is irrelevant in deciding where in society they should stand. Queen Elizabeth II is queen because she is the eldest child of King George VI, not because she is the best person for the position, or has been fairly elected.

Essentially, it is a continuation of the "Divine Right of Kings" - she's queen because she's queen, it's the will of God, and a miserable peasant like you or me deserves no say in the matter: a clear mockery of democracy.

So where does the monarch's power come from? In a democracy, position and power come from a clear popular mandate (i.e. winning an election), not from "God" (we're supposed to be a secular state) or through ancient ancestry.

No family in the country enjoys the unconditional wealth, privilege and influence of the Royal Family, so how can we call ourselves a fair, meritocratic country (the idea that people are judged by their worth and character, not their class or ancestry). And indeed, how can a monarch reflect and represent the people if he or she comes from such a unique background?

Allow me to summarise: Britain's absurd political system gives unconditional wealth, power and influence (around £30 million is paid to the monarch annually) to a handful of unelected, inbred aristocrats who could never, by any stretch of the imagination, fairly understand and represent the common people of the country.

Worse still, the continuation of a medieval system in the modern world means the continuation of medieval values in a modern world; things like a religious government (since the monarch is the head of the Church of England), rule by right of succession, sexism (male heirs have precedence over female heirs, suggesting that males are better), the idea that some people are born superior to others etc - all of which are in direct conflict with the principles of a modern democracy and are completely outdated and out of place.

[M-50]

The UK is a privileged country in many respects. We have wont he cricket world cup, the football world cup, the ruder cup and have many celebrities, but we have something which many countries do not. A monarchy.
This monarchy in symbiosis with democracy has resulted in the great country you see today. This very monarchy which is so famously known worldwide in connection to the last Czar of Russia, Nicholas II, brings millions of people to the streets of London to see Buckingham palace and to hear her annual speech. We have visitors from India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Korea both North and South, Thailand, Singapore, America, Australia and from mainland Europe. This results in a metropolitan of visitors.
As you may have guessed by now, I am opposing the removal of the British Royal Family, B.R.F.
for short, as, metaphorically speaking, it would be like removaing a kidney. You can live with 1 but it is infinitely better to have two. Realistically speaking, it would be as if England was violated.

Britain remains an incomplete democracy, in which the people are not fully represented, and a medieval system is still used to select the holder of the highest office of state – the ruling monarch.
Britain may be all of those things, but it is still a great place to live in and it works. This cannot be said for many countries that do not have a monarchy. So to change it would result in its completeness, disintergrating before our very own eyes. Also are you implying that our incomplete democracy is the result of the mutualistic relationship between the Houses of parliament and The B.R.F.?

I am not proposing that we reform the monarchy (to have an elected monarch or anything like that), I am proposing that the outdated institution be abolished.
As I have professed earlier I am against this.

The continued existance of the monarchy encourages and propagates outdated values of elitism; the idea that not everyone is equal, that an individual's character is irrelevant in deciding where in society they should stand. Queen Elizabeth II is queen because she is the eldest child of King George VI, not because she is the best person for the position, or has been fairly elected.
Even nowadays, all people are not equal. They are not represented equally, they are not living equally, they dont even pay equal amounts of tax. You still have the uber-rich, the very rich, the rich, the medium classes, the working classes, the semi-poor, the poor and the homeless. Just saying that the monarchy is still a symbol for this injustice does not qualify the removal of a national icon. One may I add that few countries can still say they have. We should be pround of having kings and queens because of the prestige and pride it gives to a person to live in a country where they still have monarchs.


And indeed, how can a monarch reflect and represent the people if he or she comes from such a unique background?
How can politicians be expected to do the same if their salary is around £200,000, 7 times the average?

So to end my first post, I am against abolishing the monarchy because it is an iconic symbol that represents the UK.

[Vampyrelord]

The UK is a privileged country in many respects. We have wont he cricket world cup, the football world cup, the ruder cup and have many celebrities, but we have something which many countries do not. A monarchy.

A subtle but dishonest technique is being employed here. You are attempting to link the existance of the monarchy to the various sporting and social successes you mentioned by mentioning it alongside these things, as though it were somehow relevant. A technique commonly used in advertisments, in fact (want to sell alcohol? Put a seductive woman in the ad).

It is obvious that the continued existance of the monarchy has nothing whatsoever to do with the British successes you mentioned.

These successes are the achievments of the British people, NOT the British crown, and clearly it is the people who should rule and represent Britain, not the inbred descendants of a royal family that isn't even British!

There are many countries with celebrities and sporting achievements (Brazil, Germany, America, France etc...) none of which had (or needed) a monarch.

This monarchy in symbiosis with democracy has resulted in the great country you see today.

The definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/symbiosis) of symbiosis is:

"symbiosis - the relation between two different species of organisms that are interdependent; each gains benefits from the other"
(Emphasis mine)

Please explain how the Queen benefits the Democratic process, as you have claimed.

I see you again couldn't resist pretending that the monarchy has something to do with our status as a "great nation". The achievements you mentioned (sporting achievements and celebrities, wealth etc) have all been surpassed by (for example) the USA, a country which has been a Republic for more than 200 years.

This very monarchy which is so famously known worldwide in connection to the last Czar of Russia, Nicholas II, brings millions of people to the streets of London to see Buckingham palace and to hear her annual speech. We have visitors from India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Korea both North and South, Thailand, Singapore, America, Australia and from mainland Europe. This results in a metropolitan of visitors.

Ahem. Realism please.

Nobody would take a 20 hour flight from the Far East for that speech; it's just half an hour long and is simply her listing all the bills the government wants to pass. Hardly inspiring stuff. In fact, ALL the Queen's speeches are on TELEVISION, they're all very boring, and there are never crowds in the streets (the few people who are watching are doing so at home, on television, probably because nothing else is on).

People come from around the world to see tourist attractions like Cambridge University Colleges, or Buckingham palace. In fact, getting rid of the monarchy would probably increase tourist revenue, since private Royal palaces and galleries would be able to be opened to the public entirely, all year round. Various tourist-attracting ceremonies like the changing of the guard do not require a monarch's presence and could still be held without one.

It's also worth mentioning (again) that there are many cosmopolitan (that was the word you meant, I assume) nations which do not have a monarchy, such as America or France.

for short, as, metaphorically speaking, it would be like removaing a kidney. You can live with 1 but it is infinitely better to have two. Realistically speaking, it would be as if England was violated.

I don't think there's any realism here at all. A kidney serves a clear and important function, and the monarchy? It's an outdated institution, it serves merely to hold reserve constitutional powers which in almost every other country in the world are held by an elected President. It is entirely replaceable.

Britain may be all of those things, but it is still a great place to live in and it works. This cannot be said for many countries that do not have a monarchy.

A very misleading argument. Just about every country in the world does not have a monarchy, so obviously that will include some countries which are worse off than we are.

It's also worth noting that there are many wealthy and succesful nations like us, or better, that do not have a monarchy (America, Germany etc).

Also are you implying that our incomplete democracy is the result of the mutualistic relationship between the Houses of parliament and The B.R.F.?

Mutualistic means both organisations benefit. This is an assertion, not an argument, until you can explain how the Monarchy benefits our democractic process in a way an elected President could not. If anything it detracts from it, since the monarch is unelected!

Even nowadays, all people are not equal. They are not represented equally, they are not living equally, they dont even pay equal amounts of tax. You still have the uber-rich, the very rich, the rich, the medium classes, the working classes, the semi-poor, the poor and the homeless. Just saying that the monarchy is still a symbol for this injustice does not qualify the removal of a national icon. One may I add that few countries can still say they have.

These differences in wealth are caused by the nature of the capitalist system. NO ONE is guaranteed wealth by the system...except the monarch.

If our "national icon" is one which represents medieval values of elitism and feudal inequality it undermines the core values of the democratic system - you might as well say Tony Blair's eldest son should become PM after him!

We should be pround of having kings and queens because of the prestige and pride it gives to a person to live in a country where they still have monarchs.

You mean you're actually proud to live in a nation so backwards they haven't moved on since the dark ages? I'm certainly not!

A true patriot wants what is best for their country, and for all the reasons I have already mentioned (and will repeat shortly), a Republic is what is best for our nation.

How can politicians be expected to do the same if their salary is around £200,000, 7 times the average?

Rubbish. Only the Lord Chancellor is paid that much. Non-cabinet MPs (about 620 of the 646, i.e. the overwhelming majority) are paid about £60,000 a year. It's also worth noting that the PM (who earns about £160,000) and the other MPs actually EARN it, as a job, like everyone else.

I agree, it's not ideal, but it's vastly better than being born into power and wealth and privelidge. That, and £160,000 per year as PM is far less than the £30 million which is paid to the Queen by the government, PLUS their private income.

So to end my first post, I am against abolishing the monarchy because it is an iconic symbol that represents the UK.

No, it does not represent the UK - only an outdated system. A President, on the other hand, would be elected to represent the UK...which is why it's called "representative democracy".

To summarise, we should abolish the monarchy because:

a) It is quite clear that the existance of the monarchy has nothing whatsoever to do with our relative success as a nation - there are several countries in the world just as successful as us, or more successful, which do not have a monarchy. The monarchy does not encourage a cosmopolitan society, neither does it aid our economy (it's a drain on public funds), nor does it contribute to sporting successes or our democratic system.

b) There is no way, by any stretch of the imagination, that an unelected aristocrat (raised from birth in incredible wealth and privilege) can represent the nation better than an elected President.

c) If we accept the continued existance of the monarchy, we are also accepting medieval values of elitism, which undermine the principles of democracy.

You might as well say that the Prime Minister should always be the eldest son of the last Prime Minister! I suppose young Euan Blair will be next in line to the Premiership, then...

d) By abolishing the monarchy we would actually be able to make more money from tourism, since we could spend the money we usually spend on the Royal Family on tourist projects, and we would be able to open private Royal palaces and gardens and galleries to the public (the Palace of Versailles in the Republic of France gets more tourists per year than Buckingham Palace does, by far).

[Fect]

Could I get a post from M-50? Please?

[Vampyrelord]

I've given up trying.

[Fect]

Winner: Vampy by default.