To want a Republic?

[StrictlyOogieBoogiePumpkin]

That it really. I cannot stand this 'joy' at a Royal Wedding that will cost a fortune and all to welcome in someone else who will now never EVER get a real job.

Would is really be so bad to join the rest of the modern world and ditch them? We could have an ELECTED President, we could just have our elected Parliament.

The Palaces would still be there for the tourists. The President can welcome the Heads of State (but only for a fixed term)

Would it be so bad to not pay for her cousins to live in Palaces?

Can we not just give it a go?

"YABU. Any head of state - especially a President - would cost as much, or more, than the Royals. Just look over the Channel to see how expensive Sarko is."

But we wouldn't have to pay for both them and their extended family. Also I'd rather pay for someone I could vote or perhaps even get the chance to be voted into the position by other people should I so chose rather than pay for someone whose only qualification for the job is who their parents are.

"I would hate a president."

You could just follow our lead and give them a role with no power and a fancy house.

YABU.

The economic case for the royal family is overwhelming.

Not just that but China, Russia, the USA are now the dominant world powers and weirdly our royal family seem to be one of the few things that stop Britain blending into euro-oblivion on the world stage. Castle, Weddings, Ceremonies - the world cares!

I know they're annoying. I agree, but it is worth putting up with them.

I do think a living, breathing monarchy is of more interest (even if marginal) to tourists than a monarchy long ago.

Anyway, from next year the Royal Family will pay for themselves out of the income from the Royal Estate. No more taxpayer funding except on official occasions.

YANBU.

Yes many presidents the world over can be described as knob ends yaddah yaddah. But none are as big a knob end as Prince Phillip.

yabu
I would rather have a queen like ours anyday than a president
president Cameron, no thanks

But we've got him anyway 2Shoes

YADNBU

Scrap em, and while we're at it, lets reclaim all the land stolen from common people by the aristocracy, as common land to be farmed and enjoyed by us all.

fibilou, it's not an either/or situation! you make it sound like a choice between dole scroungers and super rich dole scroungers! Let's put our resources towards ensuring that only those in need recieve taxpayers money.

Why would we need a President? We already have a PM to welcome foreign dignitaries; It's not compulsory, you know.

American blogs are already drowning under the weight of posts about the wedding. I imagine the same is true around the world.

I hope we make them all feel very welcome next year. Tourism in Britain can be a bit of a rubbish experience - we are often very overpriced and not as welcoming as other places. Hopefully the weak pound will help.

Nah, too expensive! Let's keep them

i don't see how it's expensive; kick em out, tell them to get on their bikes and find work like the rest of us.

I MUCH prefer having a King or Queen as our Head of State than a bloody self-serving politician.

Imagine President Blair - how feckin' awful would that be! And Cherie would be our First Lady - aaaarrrrrggggghhhh!

It is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT more expensive to have a presidency.

And at least President Blair wouldn't be followed by President Blair Jr (unless he was elected) and so on.

The arguments against a presidency are soooo thin.

We had President Blair, we had First Lady Blair. I don't get what you're saying, that because we have a Queen, we don't haveto put up with annoying politicians and their wives??? Eh??

And don't forget when we tried it 360 years ago women didn't have the right to vote (actually neither did most men but that is beside the point).

Yes, YABU.

Er...I think you'll find that Tony Blair was the Prime Minister PuppyMonkey - it's not the same thing.

No it's not the same thing, but the point remains the same - we don't have him anymore! He was the choice of the people and those same people were then able to replace him.

The hereditary principle belongs in history books not a 21st century democracy.

it's not the same thing.

Pity no-one told the Blairs that!
(which I think was Pup's point)

He did the same thing as a President.

Of course YANBU

There is no place for them. Will copy and paste this again from the wedding thread:

Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

Oh and on the President Blair thing:

So many people argue against a republic by saying they don't want president Blair or president Thatcher it is safe to assume that we wouldn't get either.

Democracy is about the people getting what they want. If the people are overwhelmingly against the idea of former Prime Ministers becoming president then you wouldn't get former Prime Ministers as president.

Ultimately it's for the people to decide. If you don't want them, don't vote for them and you won't get them. If you do want them, do vote for them and you will get them.

If they were elected then that would be the people's choice. That's democracy. So the question really misses the point. We're not campaigning for a particular president, we are campaigning for the right of the people to decide. Simply put, if we don't want them we won't get them, and if we get them, then don't like them, they can be voted out.

On the finance and 67p a year thing:

The monarchy is very definitely not 'value-for-money', as you can see from Republic's Royal Finances page.

The monarchy does not cost each person 67p a year, as the palace claims. This figure is part of the official spin. It is reached by dividing £40m (a woefully inadequate figure) by 60m people, which includes every man, woman and child in the country (rather than just every taxpayer).

Let's repeat the important point here: this is blatant spin. No other public expense is justified by dividing it among the total population. If it were then almost any government expenditure could be spun as 'cheap'.

The key figure is £150m, the estimated total cost for the maintenance and lifestyles of one family: 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency, 17 times the cost (per person) of members of parliament and without any return on our 'investment'.

To test whether something is 'value-for-money' we need to judge what we get for our money and whether we can get something better for less. The monarchy completely fails this simple test.

YANBU, I would love the UK to become a republic..... I can't bear all the deference paid to people aka the Windsors who have not earnt it and do not deserve it.

Republic Royal Finance Page