Its beyond that. Dumpy keeps insisting that we would be "better off" and we, as a nation would save on a lot of costs... but has never proven anything to support the assertions. Instead we are left with an argument that boils down tradition vs a costly update to more modern values. Until a new solution is brought forward that can clearly show benefits that outweigh the negatives of revamping our system of gov't, this is a dead issue, regardless of some poorly worded polls that suggest some support for Dumpy's stance.
Is It Time For A Referemdum On The Monarchy?
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Its beyond that. Dumpy keeps insisting that we would be "better off" and we, as a nation would save on a lot of costs... but has never proven anything to support the assertions. Instead we are left with an argument that boils down tradition vs a costly update to more modern values. Until a new solution is brought forward that can clearly show benefits that outweigh the negatives of revamping our system of gov't, this is a dead issue, regardless of some poorly worded polls that suggest some support for Dumpy's stance.
Dumpy is a good name for him. I used to work with a few fellows like Dumpy, with them the glass is always 7/8 empty, there is nothing to hope for, nothing to cheer about, not even a scintilla of hope that things will imrove even one percent.
Whatsamatter Dumpy? Did they forget to send a congrats letter to your parents on the occasion of their 60th annniversary?
So you eliminate the Governor General's office; big deal. All you've done is eliminate one more fail-safe in our system of governance.
Monarchy, schmonarcy; it's a welcome distraction (relief) from all the rest of the worlds problems to see a bit of Royal "fluff" stuff on the news from time to time. You do know that hoards of people from all over the world flock here when they visit? All those little shops selling momento's & trinkets made in china would have to close up their wagons.
Traditions are important for stability and the reassurance the world can't force change onto you.
True democarcy's don't exist anywhere on this planet. Even the much vaunted sytem below the 49th has safeguards that are supposed to protect the minority (just not working at this moment) from a rabid majority all caught up in the current flavour of the month club.
Believe me when I say you don't want a pure democracy lest the majority decide all folks with aging issues, otherwise known as "youth deficit", be incarcerated or shouved off the nearest cliff.
Let's just stick with the current setup and live with the warts and wrinkles.
So you eliminate the Governor General's office; big deal. All you've done is eliminate one more fail-safe in our system of governance.
Monarchy, schmonarcy; it's a welcome distraction (relief) from all the rest of the worlds problems to see a bit of Royal "fluff" stuff on the news from time to time. You do know that hoards of people from all over the world flock here when they visit? All those little shops selling momento's & trinkets made in china would have to close up their wagons.
Traditions are important for stability and the reassurance the world can't force change onto you.
True democarcy's don't exist anywhere on this planet. Even the much vaunted sytem below the 49th has safeguards that are supposed to protect the minority (just not working at this moment) from a rabid majority all caught up in the current flavour of the month club.
Believe me when I say you don't want a pure democracy lest the majority decide all folks with aging issues, otherwise known as "youth deficit", be incarcerated or shouved off the nearest cliff.
Let's just stick with the current setup and live with the warts and wrinkles.
Last edited:
And innovations are important to inject fresh air in otherwise stagnating systems. Only good traditions are worth keeping.
I imagine this may come up when the Queen dies but I doubt it'll last long. If she's anything like her mother she still has a ways to go before that happens.
The Queen is our head of state independently of her role as head of state of the UK. They can change the rules if they want and it wont effect us just as we can do the same.
The Queen is our head of state independently of her role as head of state of the UK. They can change the rules if they want and it wont effect us just as we can do the same.
Dumpy- You are appear to be obsessed with this, even if I was to give it any thought it would still be 914th on my list of things to think about. :smile:
The article I read about the issue stated that every country where the Queen is head of state will have to agree to any changes in succession rules.
Because simpler govt is better govt in my opinion. Most people don't know or care about the intricate and abstract details of crown, governor general, head of state, head of govt, monarchy, royal family and how it all relates. I think less is more here, more democracy.
I can respect that point but the definition of "good" on something like this is subjective. I also think that Mr Cameron's proposed changes to the rules of succession are positive steps toward updating the office in line with the values of society. I realize that those who actively dislike the monarchy aren't going to think they are enough but they are progress.
The world is full of people who like simple solutions to complex problems, and it doesn't matter to them that the simple solutions tend to be wrong... :roll: