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.

Have some of the posters on here learned nothing from Brexit.

you can’t abolish the monarchy without a detailed replacement system put to a referendum.

otherwise another shit show

But it's cheaper than going to court in the US, paying two teams of lawyers over there and over here, witnesses, discoveries etc. Amber Heard said her lawyer costs were over $7m. Depp had a better team and his were probably higher. Plus paying a top British firm as well.

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

He would have been forced into court if VG hadn't taken the money.

Until those against can come up with a better alternative. Not seeing much evidence of that yet.

you can’t abolish the monarchy without a detailed replacement system put to a referendum.

Well, you'd think.

Don't you worry, when it all gets talked about in decades to come, it will all become clear

If you think I'm going to stipulate exactly what I think should happen to be ridiculed by you, you'll have to think again

Have some of the posters on here learned nothing from Brexit.

you can’t abolish the monarchy without a detailed replacement system put to a referendum.

Absolutely. There's no guarantee that a republic would give the system you favour.

And yes Vera talks about Ireland, they seem to manage very well without a bloated antiquated monarchy.

And FWIW on many threads before I've put forward options like a rotation of Laureates but no doubt that would be dismissed by you because you want complete answers to a hypothetical scenario.

We didn’t have a constitutional monarchy in Ireland for centuries so a lot less to unpick.

our president isn’t interwoven into our systems of government.

it’s quite different really

I know, which is why I said it wouldn't be in my lifetime and could take ten years to unpick according to some sources

Our presidents main government role is to sign laws and to refer to the attorney general if he/she’s unhappy with the law’s constitutionality.

in many other things he largely copies the role of the monarch

There are loads of countries with other systems that work much better. I have seen them suggested again and again on this board. And yet it always comes back to...Boris Johnson.
As if we don't have Charles the man who accepts millions in cash suitcases. And is only an accident of birth that we do not have King Andrew whose friends are part of a sex trafficking network and Andrew himself has been accused of sex crimes.

Should read - sign bills into law

If you think I'm going to stipulate exactly what I think should happen to be ridiculed by you, you'll have to think again

I can't ridicule a good idea.

I'm not ridiculing the Irish presidency. I wouldn't insult other countries by dictatingwho their HOS shouldn't be.

I feel happy ridiculing someone saying that we need a democratic HOS that is elected by the people so we decide who rules us and we decide when they go. And it turns out that the system they're talking about has candidates that are politicians put forward by other politicians. And sometimes there's even only one candidate put forward so there's not even an election. So we aren't deciding anything in that system.

Which is why I haven't said that

But that's not what you all want. You want to elect your own HOS and not have someone foisted on you. In the Irish system politicians choose the candidates and sometimes they just choose one candidate. You're not electing anything. You're just stepping aside for yet another politician.

ok fine we have a monarchy, but why the HELL do they not have to pay inheritance tax on what they claim is their 'private wealth' - for eg all the non-Crown houses, like Sandringham? It stinks. Keep the king/queen, but there should be no public money at all for anyone who isn't in the direct line. King/queen can use their 'own' money to keep those folk going, if they so choose.

@MarshaMelrose so if we have another system does that mean we won't get someone who accepts millions in cash in suitcases?

But in the Irish system, you very well could end up with the same Johnson. Because the politicians decide who the candidates will be. They're always politicians. And sometimes there's just one candidate so you've no choice because there's no election just an inauguration.

However, if you've got a better system than the Irish, let's hear it. The republicans need.some good ideas.

@MarshaMelrose So we end up instead with a King who accepts millions in cash in a suitcase. And his brother who has been accused of sex crimes and whose mother paid out an alleged £12.5 million in a civil payout?

There are several reasons why, most based round the problems that occur if there were several deaths in very close proximity. It would very quickly decimate their private wealth.
Google it. It's easy to find and the.legal experts explain it better than I can.

I talked of a rotation of Nobel laureates and you completely ignored it. They are rich in British talent, science technology medicine and far far more

As I don't know what system you're proposing, how could I say. But I'd say, an ex-politician is more likely to keep a suitcase of cash than a multi-millionaire who doesn't need the money.

Six Nobel Prizes are awarded each year, one in each of the following categories: literature, physics, chemistry, peace, economics, and physiology & medicine.

Not good enough for you? You'd still prefer a family who might possibly have no talent whatsoever in any field.