Queen to abdicate?

[Countdown]

International tourism rankings......

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_ranki...

[anonymous-user]

HarryW said:

breaders, don't disagree that as a constitutional monarch she cannot get directly involved politics, nor should she, there are enough idiot politicians without adding another layer. How about thinking of her as the ultimate diplomat then. That at the end of the day is what you want from your countries representative, no?
Yes she reads speeches that are prepared for her, as is her duty, but if you think she has no say in the wording then I think, whilst you are obviously better formally educated than her, you may be a bit more naive The weekly 'chat' with the prime minister is confidential, which works against her in the position you are trying to make, you merrily assert but she cannot reply. However I think there are enough memoirs quoted out there that show, barring the horse racing tips! that she does offer guidance if only in a sage and diplomatic sense to all PM's. She is recognised as the most well informed diplomat, i'd wager she would get a doctorate x10 in that subject if only she craved the validity of a formal educational certificate you seem to resent her not holding.
Don't get me wrong I am not a 'royalist' in the true sense, with me I'll give you the respect you've earned and not before, but I've yet to see a better alternative for the no1 diplomatic post for the UK.

You mentioned decisions, but you cannot identify a single decision of importance that the Queen makes. You believe that in her little chats with PMs the Queen gives them guidance. That is by its nature implausible. Why on Earth should the PM take advice from a woman who has even less experience of reality than he has? If she does give advice and PMs do take it, that is a constitutional outrage and we should be lining the barricades, as this woman has no mandate to interfere in government. We need not start mixing Molotovs, however, because she doesn't interfere. You say that the Queen is a diplomat, but we have professional diplomats. Name one treaty that the Queen has negotiated, or identify one diplomatic development that depended on her. You can't, because there are none. You are falling for a cosy fiction. Her role is symbolic.

[anonymous-user]

HenryJM said:

Really? Do you not see how different the structures are? How the UK system does not get the lock between the President and the Congress that exists in circumstances like this? The Current UK mechanism doesn't put us in that situation.

Why assume that a Republican U (non) K would follow the US? We would not have to design a system in which the legislature and the executive might represent different political factions. We could stick with pretty much the system we have now, simply deleting the redundant element (the Monarch) and modernising the second chamber.

[anonymous-user]

I am now going to biff the Internet (well, mostly) for Xmas. Merry whatevers, yuh all y'all.

[HenryJM]

Breadvan72 said:

Why assume that a Republican U (non) K would follow the US? We would not have to design a system in which the legislature and the executive might represent different political factions. We could stick with pretty much the system we have now, simply deleting the redundant element (the Monarch) and modernising the second chamber.

Well just before that we had

Ayahuasca said:

The USA manages fairly well.

So my comment related to the USA method.

[HarryW]

Breadvan72 said:

I am now going to biff the Internet (well, mostly) for Xmas. Merry whatevers, yuh all y'all.

OK have a good one, don't forget to stand to tune in at 3.00pm for the queens speech.

[DJRC]

Breadvan72 said:

DJRC said:

Breadvan72 said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I have even less of a clue why you want an elected head of state

As you agree ultimate power rests with parliament

I want an elected legislature and an elected executive government. Don't you? I would like to see the upper chamber elected. I don't see any need to separate the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. One person can be elected do both jobs, for a limited time.

As for the money, if the Revenue from opening a small part of Buck House to tourists is X, why wouldn't the revenue from opening the whole of it, plus other former Royal enclaves, be much more than X? France does pretty well in extracting tourist income from its monarchical and imperial past.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 20th December 09:01

?? - but it doesn't. Nobody goes to France (or Paris, as its the only bit that anybody knows - oh OK then, just Versailles and that is only just in Paris) to mooch about its Monarchist history.

Yes they do. Versailles is a major tourist draw, as are Napoleonic sites such as Les Invalides, and to a lesser extent Second Empire sites, and to quite a large extent former royal and aristocratic palaces and chateaux in the Loire and elsewhere. France makes a decent tourist whack from the fact that it used to have Kings and Emperors, and from its Revolutionary history also.

Versailles is a major tourist attraction *once* you are there and only then if you are a largely non European tourist. It isn't however *why* the tourist has gone to France on holiday in the first place. Les Invalides predates Boney by 100yrs and is famous due to being the first institution of its type. Let me guess - you were thinking it was famous for it being Boneys resting place? Ah if only you knew your Louis and Churchill! Now if you had tried to argue it was part of Monarchist history I'd be more inclined to grant you a point. No-one visits the Loire for its Monarchist chateaux either, they visit and stay in them because almost all have been reinvented as rather lovely hotels and museums in general. Or in the case of my local one a stunning restaurant. Oops I forgot to mention living there, silly me. Still, I'm sure you do aswell to know such things.

I'm more than happy to discuss more of tourist France if you wish, including a domestique v etranger breakdown with specific reference of comparison between France/England & Paris/London.

Actually I lie, I wouldn't. It's dull.

[mybrainhurts]

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

[loafer123]

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

OK. I'm sorry. I didn't spot the fatal flaw in my argument.

[mybrainhurts]

loafer123 said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

OK. I'm sorry. I didn't spot the fatal flaw in my argument.

Just keep a sense of proportion next time...

[anonymous-user]

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

OK. I'm sorry. I didn't spot the fatal flaw in my argument.

Just keep a sense of proportion next time...

So do you reckon we'll bomb France or not then?

[mybrainhurts]

desolate said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

OK. I'm sorry. I didn't spot the fatal flaw in my argument.

Just keep a sense of proportion next time...

So do you reckon we'll bomb France or not then?

Second on the list when I take over, after the firing squads.

I shall exile the French to Scunthorpe, then we can move over there.

[anonymous-user]

mybrainhurts said:

desolate said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

OK. I'm sorry. I didn't spot the fatal flaw in my argument.

Just keep a sense of proportion next time...

So do you reckon we'll bomb France or not then?

Second on the list when I take over, after the firing squads.

I shall exile the French to Scunthorpe, then we can move over there.

And there is my point in a nutshell.

Even YOU are better than the current mob.

[mybrainhurts]

desolate said:

mybrainhurts said:

desolate said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

mybrainhurts said:

loafer123 said:

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

And what, in the name of the Holy Rodent of Rotherham, is wrong with bombing France..?

OK. I'm sorry. I didn't spot the fatal flaw in my argument.

Just keep a sense of proportion next time...

So do you reckon we'll bomb France or not then?

Second on the list when I take over, after the firing squads.

I shall exile the French to Scunthorpe, then we can move over there.

And there is my point in a nutshell.

Even YOU are better than the current mob.

Whoah your rush....

I shall be keeping Her Maj on. Decorum, old boy.

Chuck will need to be re-educated, though. Nothing that six months in a strait jacket can't cure....

[Ayahuasca]

HenryJM said:

Breadvan72 said:

Why assume that a Republican U (non) K would follow the US? We would not have to design a system in which the legislature and the executive might represent different political factions. We could stick with pretty much the system we have now, simply deleting the redundant element (the Monarch) and modernising the second chamber.

Well just before that we had

Ayahuasca said:

The USA manages fairly well.

So my comment related to the USA method.

Our 'head of state' now is so completely useless that when there was a threat to break up her state she did and said absolutely nothing. Our 'head of state' is simply a figurehead that serves no useful purpose.

[davepoth]

Ayahuasca said:

Our 'head of state' now is so completely useless that when there was a threat to break up her state she did and said absolutely nothing. Our 'head of state' is simply a figurehead that serves no useful purpose.

She stops us from having President Blair. That's a very good reason indeed.

[RobinOakapple]

SilverSixer said:

RobinOakapple said:

SilverSixer said:

RobinOakapple said:

I'm going to guess that what Oakey is getting at is that there is no alternative. If there's any question at all of voting then there is going to be an awful lot of people who won't get the candidate of their choice. Better to have no choice than to feel that some people got who they wanted, but that you didn't.

No alternative? How on Earth would we know that unless we ask people to stand?

Sorry, what I meant was no practical alternative, no alternative that would meet the various conflicting requirements. Of course if we could come up with someone who would suit everybody, that would be great. But that wouldn't happen.

Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that I believe it would be better to have someone chosen by over 50% of the electorate than have someone imposed upon us all with no say. Whoever that turns out to be. The principle for me is the important thing.

But it wouldn't be over 50% of the electorate (which in any case is making the obviously false assumption that all the electorate would vote).

What would happen is that voters would be given the opportunity to choose from one of a few people who had managed one way or another to get themselves onto the ballot.

I can't be bothered to look up the actual figures, but I can assure you that 'more than 50% of the electorate' didn't vote to put Cameron in no 10.

[HenryJM]

Ayahuasca said:

HenryJM said:

Breadvan72 said:

Why assume that a Republican U (non) K would follow the US? We would not have to design a system in which the legislature and the executive might represent different political factions. We could stick with pretty much the system we have now, simply deleting the redundant element (the Monarch) and modernising the second chamber.

Well just before that we had

Ayahuasca said:

The USA manages fairly well.

So my comment related to the USA method.

Our 'head of state' now is so completely useless that when there was a threat to break up her state she did and said absolutely nothing. Our 'head of state' is simply a figurehead that serves no useful purpose.

Exactly, exactly what she should be (not) doing. Wouldn't want the 'head of state' to actually be doing anything, that's the whole point!

[Blue Oval84]

I had to google for this but I knew I had read somewhere that the queen has not actually been acting simply as a figurehead but has consulted on, and in some cases blocked laws that Parliament wished to pass...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-p...

[Claudia Skies]

HarryW said:

OK have a good one, don't forget to stand to tune in at 3.00pm for the queens speech.

Wassat then? The Graham Norton Christmas show?