UN: Should Britain scrap Royals? (News)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080613/tuk-un-should-britain-scrap-royals-dba1618.html
"The United Nations has said that the UK must consider whether they should keep the Royal Family.
The UN's Human Rights Council said the Government should 'think' about holding a referendum on the issue, to see if people would prefer to live in a Republican state with a written constitution.
The monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year - but even groups representing taxpayers said there was no case for getting rid of it.
The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka.
It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy.
But a Royal spokesman has said the public haven't haven't displayed any appetite for a referendum.
The UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan.
Syria accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination."
Ouch.
There was no need for that, in my oppinion. I fully don't support a referendum - I fully support voting No in a referendum to scrap the monarchy - and I think the Royal spokesman hit the nail right on the head when it says there's no feeling in Britain to call a referendum at all. Sure, there are a few who may favour a constitution or a republic, but not a large sector and barely anyone that I have spoken to.
And I do hope the international community don't put pressure on us to have a referendum, actually.
[Something as concrete as a referendum, when it's likely we'll only have one, will make some people think and there may be propaganda about how much it costs us etc, so people will unseeingly vote against the monarchy for that reason without considerring any of the negetive qualities of a republic. I think it would cause a lot of unrest in the country, when it's just not needed. As I say, there ISN'T unrest about the monarchy in the country right now. I think a referendum will create it. If there WAS a lot of unrest I would be fully behind a referendum, but there isn't, so I'm not. I'm really not for it.]
I AM in favour of an amendment to the parliamentry system, where every law would be reviewed and voted to be either kept or scrapped every 100 years. I mean every hundred years they go through the entire list of laws of our land and keep, update or scrap them, in one big session. I don't mean that any law passed is only valid for a hundred years, although that is also a possibility.
Just to take account of social changes in the country, etc. And it would most definately simplify the laws, so that they would be more understandable and transparent to the average man or woman of this country. I'm thinking, after the initial clear out, there would be volumes produced that contain all the laws that people can take out of the library or purchase for their own homes if they wanted to. Or maybe delivered to every household, on the princicple that if the gov't wants people to keep the laws, the least they can do is bend over backwards to make sure that people KNOW the laws. And take a much more sensible approach and filing all of them by CATEGORY, rather than date. Eg., all car driving regulations together, all traffic regulations together, all copywrite laws for various different mediums put together, etc etc, rather than filing by date, as I think they do now.
This is how I'd run Katie-land, if it came to that, and what I think is a perfectly sensible method for tackling politics in this country. But anyway, I do realise that it's ended up actually being not at all connected to the original topic.
My initial thoughts were that there was no need to scrap the monarchy even if the system I outlined above DID happen, which it won't, or is very very unlikely to.
I firmly believe that monarchy is a much better governmental system than republicisation. The inbuilt advantage that it holds is that as the job is inherited, the prince, the next in line, has been learning how to do the job since the day he was born. He knows what to expect, and therefore he doesn't have to "muddle through", learning the ropes as he goes. There's much less room for error that way. Assuming of course that the father trains his son correctly, rather than being a bad father, etc.
And it means that the people in charge will be there because they are good at being in charge, rather than because they are greedy for power. (Can we ever truly know if the position is not thrust upon someone?)
Also, a monarchy DOES cost less than a republic. I mean yes, you do have international visits for both the monarch and the PM (I don't think we're at the point of scrapping the PM, and that would cause outrage). But, because the queen ISN'T as involved in the day to day running of the country, on all her international visits, she generates a lot of income for the country. Currently, this is actually her primary function, other than having a veto over any British law that Parliament approve of. Secondly, there's the cost of NATIONAL SECURITY. Currently, we pay for lifetime security for the monarchy. For the PM and all the other officials, we only pay for that security whilst they are in office. I don't know about all countries, but the USA, which presumably would become our model for a republic, pays for LIFETIME security for EVERY president, AND their families, which obviously would be more.
[As an aside, this (National Security) is actually the primary reason that the Dutch voted to keep their monarchy, rather than convert to a republic, when they faced the decision several years ago - so says my friend who is half dutch :-) ]
I don't currently pay taxes, but I for one would quite happily pay more than double 62p pa in order to keep the monarchy as it is. I would take it to the queen personally if she had the time to see me, or to take it to the designated collection point. I personally thought it was higher than that and I am willing to pay much much more... .
I also want to make more of the point that I hope the international community do not pressure us to hold a referrendum on the monarchy. Really, it has nothing to do with them, not even in the slightest, I don't think. Well, maybe a little bit, perhaps. If it really was the people's desire to have a republic (which it isn't), AND the current gov't were not listening when British people said this, then YES, by all means, international community, get involved!! But really, it isn't there yet, and not by a long shot either.
Now, over to you: Please tell me your thoughts!
I especially welcome comments from non-UK citizans as well please, to tell me what you think of the monarchy as an outsider. TIA
Mood: Vemhenent. I probably got a bit too 'into' this!!