Get ready for the Jubilee

[frankiej]

(07-06-2012 07:47 AM)bemore Wrote:  The queen has to sign into agreement a lot of things the goverment brings into action..... Like the welfare reform bill etc etc.

Why????

Is it all just down to tradition she has to sign it........ what happens if she refused to sign...... would this stop the goverment in there tracks on that particular project and if that is the case then she has more power than we are being led to believe.

They would just punch her in the face and sign it in her blood.

[FSM_scot]

(07-06-2012 07:11 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Just watch the damn video
The parliament is only able to make money from the royal lands due to an agreement several monarchs back that they would pay the monarch a salary in exchange for the proceeds of his land. Unless you intend to strip the royals not only of their title but of their land, you'll be 160 million pounds in the hole due to this decision. That's the amount that parliament makes from the royal lands, minus the royal salary.

I did watch it. But if we got rid of them we would still make the same money without them at no cost as we don't need to waste money paying them.

Its not like they deserve the land, no doubt it was taken through bloodshed in their past.

[FSM_scot]

(07-06-2012 07:47 AM)bemore Wrote:  The queen has to sign into agreement a lot of things the goverment brings into action..... Like the welfare reform bill etc etc.

Why????

Is it all just down to tradition she has to sign it........ what happens if she refused to sign...... would this stop the goverment in there tracks on that particular project and if that is the case then she has more power than we are being led to believe.

They would find another way to pass the law by bypassing her or changing it so that she has no part in the process. She has no real power its just more symbolic bullshit that we don't need.

[Hafnof]

(07-06-2012 12:18 PM)FSM_scot Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 07:11 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Just watch the damn video
...

I did watch it. But if we got rid of them we would still make the same money without them at no cost as we don't need to waste money paying them.
Its not like they deserve the land, no doubt it was taken through bloodshed in their past.

If all you care about is how deserving people are of their wealth, then I'll take yours and you'll take mine. Sorry, but in civilised society we operate under the rule of law. Arguing that you can steal someone's property - anyone's property - one the basis that "they don't deserve it" is to abandon the rule of law. Why not imprison them as well? Why not exile? Why not "get rid of them" permanently? Is that what they are to you?

The royals are a silly legal throwback, and don't deserve their legal position. Don't confuse this with their right to be treated equally under the law.

[FSM_scot]

(07-06-2012 06:26 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  If all you care about is how deserving people are of their wealth, then I'll take yours and you'll take mine. Sorry, but in civilised society we operate under the rule of law. Arguing that you can steal someone's property - anyone's property - one the basis that "they don't deserve it" is to abandon the rule of law. Why not imprison them as well? Why not exile? Why not "get rid of them" permanently? Is that what they are to you?

The royals are a silly legal throwback, and don't deserve their legal position. Don't confuse this with their right to be treated equally under the law.

I never said anything about stealing their land or jailing them.

But if the figures in that vid are accurate. And we really make hundreds of millions from their land. Then why not buy the land from them. They may even be willing to give some of it up freely. If we are making that amount of money from the land then the cost of the purchase would be offset by the profits as its a one time cost. After that it's pure profit as the money is gained plus nothing is lost to the royals meaning that extra Tens of millions could be spent where it's needed schools, hospitals, police etc.

Getting rid of them for a one time cost makes more financial sense in the long run. And It also removes an outdated relic of the the past. Something which is long over due.

[earmuffs]

(06-06-2012 08:02 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  

(06-06-2012 06:54 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  WTF!

How can you'll hate that sweet old lady!?

Where's the national pride? The Monarchy/Royal Family is tradition.
It's what makes Britain, Britain.
They're a symbol of greatness.

I for one am happy to have her as my head of state.

Tradition for the sake of tradition is pointless.
A symbol of greatness? how?. Being born into a rich family that managed to kill enough people in its past to gain power is hardly an achievement.

The monarchy is a remnant of the past that should have been buried long ago.

Why are you happy to have an unelected head of state that has very little to no power?. That has to do what ever the government tells them to do. Essentially they are absolutely pointless.

Tradition and tourism are the only two excuses ive ever heard for keeping the monarchy. Please if you guys have any good reasons that don't stem from mindless loyalty feel free to share.

No it's not pointless.

Tradition is a countries heritage, a countries history.
That is not pointless, history is not pointless and especially your own history.

Why am I proud to have her as my head of state? Because without British colonial-ness there would be no New Zealand as it is today. I would be speaking Dutch right now.
Britain is part of my history, it why I am where I am today. My parents parents parents parents etc.. came on ships from England and Scotland (Mothers, Fathers) to New Zealand.
Its history.

It's the same as Americans learning about their history, in fact America wouldn't be America as it is today if Britain didn't colonize New England (or where ever). All the yanks would be speaking Spanish or French right about now.


It's not about, "she was only born into it she doesn't deserve it", who cares if she was born into it. I (and all of you) were born into the position you are now, what makes you more deserving of your position then some starving dieing children in Africa or where ever?!? And no that's not different, it is EXACTLY the same thing. So don't give me that "she was born into it she doesn't deserve it" dribble.

It's a bit sad that I have defend a countries history to all of you'll.

[FSM_scot]

(07-06-2012 09:49 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it's not pointless.

Tradition is a countries heritage, a countries history.
That is not pointless, history is not pointless and especially your own history.

Why am I proud to have her as my head of state? Because without British colonial-ness there would be no New Zealand as it is today. I would be speaking Dutch right now.
Britain is part of my history, it why I am where I am today. My parents parents parents parents etc.. came on ships from England and Scotland (Mothers, Fathers) to New Zealand.
Its history.

It's the same as Americans learning about their history, in fact America wouldn't be America as it is today if Britain didn't colonize New England (or where ever). All the yanks would be speaking Spanish or French right about now.


It's not about, "she was only born into it she doesn't deserve it", who cares if she was born into it. I (and all of you) were born into the position you are now, what makes you more deserving of your position then some starving dieing children in Africa or where ever?!? And no that's not different, it is EXACTLY the same thing. So don't give me that "she was born into it she doesn't deserve it" dribble.

It's a bit sad that I have defend a countries history to all of you'll.

It's a remenant of a now defunct ruling system. So why bother keeping it? Why should someone be givin power by birth? And not by election? What's the point in keeping what is basically a dead dictatorship for the sake of tradition? If the royal family is the only thing your country has to be proud of what does that say about your country?

You seem to be getting history and the monarchy confused. The monarchy had nothing to do with new Zealand and Australia. Any decisions to do with them had to do with the British government not the monarchy. As they have no power over policy making. Chances are you would still be speaking English without them.

But you are missing the point entirely. Why keep an unelected ruler who is born into the job? Why shouldn't we pick our leaders?. Why keep someone who's family gained power through bloodshed?
Tradition for the sake of tradition is another pointless thing. Times change traditions change. the monarchy has no relevance in a day and age when we can freely elect our rulers. A relic of a time when power was gained through birth and not through election from the public.

Aslong as we have a monarch we have a cheek to say we are a democracy.

[earmuffs]

(08-06-2012 06:48 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  

(07-06-2012 09:49 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  No it's not pointless.

Tradition is a countries heritage, a countries history.
That is not pointless, history is not pointless and especially your own history.

Why am I proud to have her as my head of state? Because without British colonial-ness there would be no New Zealand as it is today. I would be speaking Dutch right now.
Britain is part of my history, it why I am where I am today. My parents parents parents parents etc.. came on ships from England and Scotland (Mothers, Fathers) to New Zealand.
Its history.

It's the same as Americans learning about their history, in fact America wouldn't be America as it is today if Britain didn't colonize New England (or where ever). All the yanks would be speaking Spanish or French right about now.


It's not about, "she was only born into it she doesn't deserve it", who cares if she was born into it. I (and all of you) were born into the position you are now, what makes you more deserving of your position then some starving dieing children in Africa or where ever?!? And no that's not different, it is EXACTLY the same thing. So don't give me that "she was born into it she doesn't deserve it" dribble.

It's a bit sad that I have defend a countries history to all of you'll.

It's a remenant of a now defunct ruling system. So why bother keeping it? Why should someone be givin power by birth? And not by election? What's the point in keeping what is basically a dead dictatorship for the sake of tradition? If the royal family is the only thing your country has to be proud of what does that say about your country?

You seem to be getting history and the monarchy confused. The monarchy had nothing to do with new Zealand and Australia. Any decisions to do with them had to do with the British government not the monarchy. As they have no power over policy making. Chances are you would still be speaking English without them.

But you are missing the point entirely. Why keep an unelected ruler who is born into the job? Why shouldn't we pick our leaders?. Why keep someone who's family gained power through bloodshed?
Tradition for the sake of tradition is another pointless thing. Times change traditions change. the monarchy has no relevance in a day and age when we can freely elect our rulers. A relic of a time when power was gained through birth and not through election from the public.

Aslong as we have a monarch we have a cheek to say we are a democracy.

What are you going on about? You do elect your leaders, the Queen is not some all powerful dictator.
She is a symbol, tradition. And yes traditions change and you compensate accordingly but you don't forget about previous ones. And the Monarchy is one big tradition.

Quote: Why should someone be givin power by birth?

See my last post.

[FSM_scot]

(08-06-2012 08:43 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  What are you going on about? You do elect your leaders, the Queen is not some all powerful dictator.
She is a symbol, tradition. And yes traditions change and you compensate accordingly but you don't forget about previous ones. And the Monarchy is one big tradition.

We don't elect our head of state. Something which there is no excuse not to do in this day and age. It was also traditional to export our criminals to your end of the world. Should we have kept that going because its tradition?. Or how about forcing Christianity. you know it was tradition for thousands of years. Tradition purely for the sake of tradition is utterly pointless.

Symbol of what? how being born to the right family and living a life of luxury is something to look up to? To be from an inbred family? to have a family history filled with bloodshed and crimes against humanity, To have manipulated your way to the top in their history. To be the head of a religious movement? How are these good symbols and things to look up to?

(08-06-2012 08:43 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  See my last post.

You never answered that in your last post. Why shouldn't we have an elected head of state?

Your arguments seem to stem from mindless loyalty. They don't seem to have any real thought put into it. it reminds me of the way the religious people blindly accept religion as its tradition. Like how Catholics defend the pope as its tradition.

[bemore]

The jubilee celebrations cost an estimated 1.6 billion.

Just so hippocritical in all of this "austerity"