Anti Monarchy Protects

[JuliesBicycle]

The anti-monarchy protests seem to be increasing. They are appearing regularly at events Charles attends. This one happened only yesterday.

twitter.com/i/status/1635304322052534274

The protests are still too small to make any major difference, but they are slowly growing. And importantly Elizabeth did not face these types of protests. I wonder if they will continue to grow.

If the FBI had wanted Andrew to be interviewed in the UK that could have been easily arranged

Except it couldn't because....diplomacy.

The late Queen Elizabeth was the best argument for a hereditary monarchy.

How?

She stuck two fingers up to public opinion showed her support for her disgraced and morally bankrupt favourite son on numerous occasions.

She lobbied for and gained exemption from laws affecting her own interests including FOI requests.

She was happy to hide the financials behind a myriad complex of smoke and mirrors. and suppressed a TV documentary that showed the royals in an unflattering light.

No 'best argument' there...

I don't see how democratic it is for politicians to be dictating who the candidates, who are politicians, will be. It's not open to allcomers. It's just a small coterie of people. I don't want Sunak and Starmer to give us one person each and we have to choose. What's the blinking point of that?

Andrew did not cooperate with the FBI

@MarshaMelrose Have you any suggestions as to who (other than the current requirement for nomination in Ireland) should select the candidates?

It's a genuine question and one I don't have an answer for, since that is the way their constitution is framed AFAIK.

If the FBI had wanted Andrew to be interviewed in the UK that could have been easily arranged

Except it couldn't because....diplomacy.

Who have the FBI interviewed in the US without any problems of leaving their own borders? Why would they pursue PA when they have bigger fish at home?

I dunno. It's not me saying how great the democratic process of electing a president is in Ireland. How they can choose. When actually sometimes there's only one person.
If people want to elect a president, I'd think its up to them to find a decent process. In fact, surely they would already have figured that out? How can you vote on abolishing the monarchy if there's no plan on how you'll replace it? Im sure Republicans must be more on the ball than that. 🙄

Who have the FBI interviewed in the US without any problems of leaving their own borders?

Well, no-one (unless Dershowitz maybe?) which begs its own questions.

Why would they pursue PA when they have bigger fish at home?

They're not now. Prince Charmless has escaped with a £12m bound.

No, your assertion is not true. Andrew has offered to cooperate three times. He's refused to be interviewed. But he has offered to answer any questions they have in writing.
He's willing to cooperate but the FBI want his cooperation on their terms and not his. That's their problem, not his.

Giveen that it's all hypothetical, why on earth would there be a plan?

I read somewhere it would take at least ten years to untangle everything if the Monarchy were to go. The process for a system to elect someone would be way way down the line.

Don't worry I'll get working on it if there is a hint of this happening
As it is, it won't be happening in my lifetime, nor my DCs probably

We are arguing principle here the process which would be devised would be as inclusive and as undivisive as humanly possible, within reason. There would no doubt be an open slate subject to some threshold benchmark. But the elephant in the room the notable absence of HMTLQ has already arrived.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/02/queen-monarch-modernise-heir-inheritance

Ahead, we look destined for three old or ageing kings: Charles, William and George, all likely to accede in their 60s or 70s in this long-lived line. Is there never to be a pause for thought? Boris Johnson has shown how easily a rogue prime minister abuses an unwritten constitution, with an unelected and symbolic head of state obedient only to that prime minister. Elected presidents, as in Ireland’s distinguished choices, have a formal role as guarantors of constitutions. A Labour party constantly challenged to prove its patriotism will never turn republican until the public gets there first. We need a constitutional convention to reform our political system’s deformities, above all electoral, but also its warping by the monarchy.

Today, enjoy the pomp and spectacle, but remember the infantilising influence on Britain’s political psyche of babies born to rule. “Modernise” it as much as her heir may try, the whole fandango of inheritance helps keep this country unequal and socially immobile, weighed down by the power of birth privilege.

Has MN refused to link YouTube now?
I had linked the video of the FBI saying they tried to contact him via his lawyers and did not get anything.

VG lawyers even sent a yellow bus to go around to try and get him to co operate.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-refused-to-speak-to-us-about-epstein-says-fbi-k6zvdhbb6

They've interviewed no one as far as i know - I very much doubt such a well-renowned lawyer like Dershowitz would do a voluntary interview with the FBI.

You have misunderstood the situation. VG took out a civil lawsuit against PA. Not criminal. Nothing to do with the FBI. She accepted money, (PAs lawyers say £3m not £12m) rather than proceed with the case. (Remember shecalso took out a lawsuit against Dershowitz. He refused to settle so she dropped the lawsuit and apologised.)
The FBI can still prosecute PA. Nothing has changed with the criminal case.

I read somewhere it would take at least ten years to untangle everything if the Monarchy were to go. The process for a system to elect someone would be way way down the line.

But that assumes that you've voted to abolish the monarchy without knowing what you're replacing it with. Why would most people do that? You could end up with the PM putting forward two candidates to choose from, Johnson and Ress Mogg for example. How is this an improvement?

No.

I'm talking about the lead up to it. There would be far more to discuss and sort out. Maybe it won't be a vote?
Maybe they will just weaken and go through abdication. We are talking about the hypothetical. You're probably younger than me, I'll rely on you to do the right thing

We are arguing principle here the process which would be devised would be as inclusive and as undivisive as humanly possible, within reason. There would no doubt be an open slate subject to some threshold benchmark. But the elephant in the room the notable absence of HMTLQ has already arrived.

But it was you that put forward the Irish presidency. How is that inclusive when politicians put forward their own to elect from and sometimes they just put forward one candidate so there's no choice whatsoever? That was your example of a greatcsystem not mine.

Principles are fine but where are the practicalities to back them up. My principle is that everyone should be paid a million pounds a year, regardless of what they do. That's inclusive, isn't it. And popular, I bet. But useless without defining where the money would come from, how it would affect the economy, how some would feel they deserve more than others who dont work, blah blah blah. If you want something as huge as a country's whole political ystem to change, surely you can put yourself out a bit to come up with a good replacement!

My principle is that everyone should be paid a million pounds a year, regardless of what they do. That's inclusive, isn't it. And popular, I bet. But useless without defining where the money would come from, how it would affect the economy, how some would feel they deserve more than others who dont work, blah blah blah

🔼🔼🔼 And here we have the current monarchy.

If you want something as huge as a country's whole political ystem to change, surely you can put yourself out a bit to come up with a good replacement!

It is ridiculous to expect posters to come up with a system for replacement in a completely hypothetical situation. When (or if) the time ever came, there will be years of discussion about possibilities for the future.

It won't suddenly be one day.... OK next Thursday 12th April you have to vote whether you want a Monarchy or not!

They've interviewed no one as far as i know

Quite.

Which as I said begs its own questions.

You have misunderstood the situation.

Not at all.

I've never claimed Prince Charmless could have been forced to face his accuser in a civil case. Unlike you.

The FBI can still prosecute PA

They won't.

@Roussette

Harry is the new brexit.

That's not what the clip said. The US Attorney said that they wanted to interview PA and he had not cooperated. But that's untrue. PA offered to cooperate, his lawyers said they'd contacted the FBI 3 times repeating the offer. But he won't do it through an interview. He's said if they tell him what they want to know, he'll give them the information in writing. That's not what the FBI want. They want cooperation on their own terms. However, no one in their right mind does a voluntary interview with the FBI. It's not going to happen.

The law is serious. VGs lawyer was more interested in publicity for himself than in his client.

Hopefully the ring leaders will realise their error and that we need the monarchy

Do we?!

PAs lawyers say £3m not £12m

£3m is still a substantial wad to pay to someone you've never met for something you've never done.

But you are advocating at this moment to abolish the monarchy. Your replacement would be...what? A black hole of no ideas.
What's your lead up to? A vote? How can you campaign without knowing what you're campaigning for? Do you not think you should sort it out before you start trying to tear up the constitution? Because if you can't think of an adequate replacement, and I'm sorry but the Irish one doesn't really cut it, how can anyone know how to vote?

Or are you advocating that the govt should agree to a referendum on the RF without knowing what would happen to them, their jobs, their roles, etc, after the vote? And if they did, then will you come up with the idea? What happens if the govt doesn't like that idea?

Come on. Your abolition idea is a non starter without coming up with an alternative better system. You know that.

But you're not wanting a hypothetical situation. You're wanting a real vote on a real situation. So you need real answers.
You want to get rid of the monarchy but you have no idea what to replace it with. Vera thinks the Irish presidency is the way to go. I don't agree but at least it's a concrete idea.
You can't ask people to support an idea (the election of alternative HOS) when you don't even know what it is.