frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should the British Monarchy be dissolved?

Debate Information

My condolences to the people of Britain for their loss. 

Right then, on to the topic of whether the British Monarchy is worth keeping. It is really only an ornamental institution. Are there any good reasons for keeping the monarchy in place, or is it just a waste of taxes? 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • OakTownAOakTownA 366 Pts   -  
    Yes. The monarch is nothing but a figure head. The money that goes towards keeping up the Royal Family and their residences could be used for more important things, like education.
    piloteer
  • BoganBogan 195 Pts   -  
    Yes, the monarchy must be preserved because Lefties like Okie hate it, so right wing racists like me love it.
    OakTownA
  • OakTownAOakTownA 366 Pts   -  
    Seriously? First of all, I'm a progressive, not a liberal. Yes, there is a difference. Secondly, I also love chocolate and hate kale. Is this also part of my agenda?
  • BoganBogan 195 Pts   -  
    If you are a lefty then make that "regressive".      Of course you Americans hate the monarchy.   Demined rebels.
    OakTownA
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    Dissolving the monarchy would require rewriting all the foundational documents and restructuring the government. The monarchy is not just an ornamental institution in the UK: the monarch actually has a tremendous amount of legal power, it has just been a tradition for them not to use this power to override any action of the other branches of government.

    I do think that this institution is a relic of ancient dictatorial times and has no place in the modern world. However, I am very skeptical of the ability of the British government to do away with the monarchy without messing things up royally (pun intended). It does need to be dissolved eventually, but right now the UK has hundreds of much more pressing issues, and this certainly can wait.
    OakTownA
  • OakTownAOakTownA 366 Pts   -  
    I don't hate monarchies; I think it is an archaic form of government that has little place in a modern society.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1534 Pts   -   edited September 9
    @MayCaesar

    That was kind of a vague comment. It's like you are saying yes, but no. As far as I'm concerned, any abhorrent waste of tax dollars is like a stab wound oozing blood. It's kind of important to tend to such matters post haste. Therefore, any massive waste of taxpayer money should automatically go to the top of the priorities list. Is the Monarchy a massive waste of tax dollars?  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    I do not know why you think it vague. Whenever considering a particular outcome, it is important to consider other outcomes that the chosen path will have. Abolishment of the British monarchy could happen in one of infinity of ways, and I do not think it plausible at present for a decent way to be taken. I am simply saying that, even though monarchy has no place in a modern civilized society, I do not trust the UK government to get rid of it without creating much bigger problems along the way.

    The waste of taxpayer money is very minor compared to many other institutions and laws present in the UK.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 222 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA ;I don't hate monarchies; I think it is an archaic form of government that has little place in a modern society.

    Thats right and i reckon that the the little place that they have makes the brits more money than they spend on the little place because when you think about it it is all just showy traditional stuff but all the diplermats all over the world fall for that stuff because its all about playing the game and proto call which doesn't go out of fashion any way Any way I reckon that big ears is going to be a more modern king because he a peels to all those greenies who love the dolphins and have hairy arm pits because they identify with talking to plants And any way they know that Charles is not going to take over the world because he once said that all he wanted to do is be a meds between camillers legs

  • anarchist100anarchist100 680 Pts   -  
    Should the British monarchy be dissolved?
    Yes, and then replaced with a better British monarchy that will actually rule instead of the Monkey Queen Liz Truss.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 222 Pts   -  
    See what your got to realize is that in countries like ours theres people dont rule because in other countries they have rulers and some of them are kings and some of them have dicktaters and some of them have generals but they dont answer to any body so they smack people around who are poor any way because the rulers are so up them selves they just think about making them selves and there croonies rich So the point im pointing out is that the president and the new king and the new lez pry minister over there dont rule they get consensual with all the other people in the government and make laws and if you dont like it so what not every body has to but most people do and thats how come we prosper and dont get knocked around like those bullies in back ward countris @anarchist100
  • BoganBogan 195 Pts   -  
    @OakTownA

    The UK is not a monarchy.   It is a parliamentary democracy with a hereditary monarch giving historical continuity with their proud past history.     What is it with you social regressives?    You see something that works and you want to destroy it?       The British empire was the greatest civilizing force that this world has ever known.     Everywhere the British went, they created viable states with the rule of law where commerce flourished and human freedoms eventually expanded.    No wonder you lefties hate western civilisation.     It is an unwelcome reminder of how badly your socialist workers paradises have fared around the world.      If you love socialist tyranny so much, could you please immigrate to Venezuela, Cuba, or North Korea?    I live in Australia. a former colony of Great Britain and the King is my sovereign who links my country to my British heritage.    I kind of like it that way.    The more you lefties hate the monarchy, the more I like the monarchy.            
    ZeusAres42OakTownAClodius
  • piloteerpiloteer 1534 Pts   -   edited September 10
    @MayCaesar

    Would you care to elaborate on exactly which issues could conceivably arise that would somehow endanger the people of England if the monarchy is abolished? While you're at it, exactly which other problems would you say are more pressing than a meaningless institution in which their only purpose is to fund itself with taxpayers money just for the purpose of continuing to exist?
  • Albert Pine wrote "everything we do dies with us. However, what we do for the world and others is and remains immortal."

    The greatest thing Royalty could ever do is renounce the monarchy. And the wealth they possess which is based on no more than a brutal and murderous history could be distributed throughout the nation and/or spent on more charitable and trying means.

    There are soldiers on the front lines that have died for their country and get no more than 2 minutes of silence. There are those civilians that have died either from collateral damage or due to pure negligence that get nothing. On the other hand, Royalty that is born from a silver spoon and that has lived a life of luxury gets two weeks' remembrance.

    Yes, I liked the Queen; she was a sincere human being, unlike other Royalty. Nontheless, this whole situation is fking insulting to those that have struggled to make ends meet, including those that have died in the process.
    piloteer



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4713 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Like I said, in order to abolish the British monarchy, all the foundational documents have to be rewritten. And given how statist the current government and both major parties are, it is not hard to guess in what direction that rewriting will move the country. It is very much likely that, in the course of this rewriting, the government will claim much more power than it currently has - and all the powers that the monarch technically has, but nowadays almost never uses, will be transferred to other branches of the government and surely regularly used (and abused).

    As for more pressing issues, the UK features very high tax rates and a large variety of tax subtypes, stringent economical regulations, trade barriers... Compared to all of that, the 100m pounds that the royal branch of the government receives every year is nothing. The total government expenditure in the UK is approximately 1t pounds per year, and the royal expenditure is 0.01% of that. There can be many things done that would return far more than 0.01% of the taxpayer money back to people's hands, don't you think? ;)
  • piloteerpiloteer 1534 Pts   -   edited September 11
    MayCaesar said:
    @piloteer

    Like I said, in order to abolish the British monarchy, all the foundational documents have to be rewritten. And given how statist the current government and both major parties are, it is not hard to guess in what direction that rewriting will move the country. It is very much likely that, in the course of this rewriting, the government will claim much more power than it currently has - and all the powers that the monarch technically has, but nowadays almost never uses, will be transferred to other branches of the government and surely regularly used (and abused).

    As for more pressing issues, the UK features very high tax rates and a large variety of tax subtypes, stringent economical regulations, trade barriers... Compared to all of that, the 100m pounds that the royal branch of the government receives every year is nothing. The total government expenditure in the UK is approximately 1t pounds per year, and the royal expenditure is 0.01% of that. There can be many things done that would return far more than 0.01% of the taxpayer money back to people's hands, don't you think? ;)
    The argument that all the documents must be rewritten is just an excuse that can be used by every future generation, in virtually every future event, as to why it just shouldn't be done now because it's 'just not a good time for that now. You argued yourself that it should "eventually" be done, and if I were British, I'd have no qualms with wholeheartedly getting rid of all the high tax rates, stringent economic regulations, including any meaningless redundant expenditures, including the royal family, regardless of how minute of a return it is to taxpayers. 

    Parliment acts of 1911 and 1949 (Which is written into them that they MUST be construed) "asserted the SUPREMACY of the House of Commons by limiting the legislation-blocking powers of the House of Lords (the suspensory veto). Provided the provisions of the Act are met, legislation can be passed without the approval of the House of Lords. Additionally, the 1911 Act amended the Septennial Act 1716 to reduce the maximum life of a Parliament from seven years to five years. The Parliament Act 1911 was amended by the Parliament Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103), which further limited the power of the Lords by reducing the time that they could delay bills, from two years to one.[2]". This took the vast majority of power away from the house of lords. The supremacy of the house of commons already dissolves any real authority of the crown, but it stops just short of abolishing it on the grounds that it is still a "symbolic" institution of British pride and all that fuzzy stuff. The house of lords, and therefore the sovereign, have been stripped of any authoritative powers. Only their titles remain.

    Your argument that the current government is not trustworthy and will try a power grab is a superfluous non-argument. The Royal family has been stripped of their powers already, so of course the house of commons will assume all authority by default if the royal family were abolished. The argument you are making is that we should not allow the primary chamber to assume all power if the crown were abolished because that would give the primary chamber all the authority. In other words, you are saying we shouldn't abolish the crown just because we shouldn't. That's not an argument. It's a non-argument.               
  • ClodiusClodius 34 Pts   -   edited September 19
    @piloteer

    Frankly, your grasp of the British constitution is embarassingly weak. As you are probably aware, the UK has no written constitution. It is largely agreed that Royal Assent is merely a ceremonious act, but while the constitution does not explicitly state that the monarch has a veto on legislation or anything like that, neither does it definitively forbid the withholding of monarchical approval. As such, it is impossible to say with any certainty how powerful the King/Queen actually is: thankfully, there has been no need for the courts to give us a definite answer.

    In fact, it is quite likely that the monarch posses considerable power. He/she is the head of state, occupying a similar position to that of the German President, and, as such, is theoretically capable of wielding the so-called "personal prerogatives". A well known example of such behaviour would be Hindenberg's initial refusal to appoint Hitler as Chancellor or Bruning using the President's power to rule by decree (the emergency laws). It is worth noting that, though such regular use of these powers will likely never be seen again, they are still essentially present in the German Constitution. As MayCaesar has noted, they will need to be dispersed and I agree that the present government (paradoxically, given their small state rhetoric) cannot be trusted in this matter, meaning, if nothing else, that a referendum on abolishing the monarchy would probably fail even if the people of the UK wanted to be rid of the royals (which is, in fact, not the case).

    In all likelihood, the only feasible replacement for the royal family would be a democratically elected president. While this system does have it's benefits (not least that it removes the vaguely sinister social implications of a hereditary monarchy), it is, I believe, a less favourable option for a number of reasons:
    1. As many former Prime Ministers and political commentators have hastened to point out, our leaders have, time and time again, benefitted from the wisdom and experience of a Monarch who, to paraphrase Boris Johnson, has seen off fifteen Heads of Government. It is unlikely that an elected Head of State (probably some elderly celebrity, given the ceremonious nature of the job) would be so useful.
    2. The Monarchy helps stimulate tourism which is not an insignificant contributor to the economy of the UK, generating £106 billion in income and supporting 2.6 million jobs. Obviously not all of this is down to the Royal family, but only an imbecile would contest the huge part they play.
    3. The Monarchy is also important for fostering a sense of continuity. This is a rather nebulous concept, but, keeping in mind the self-perpetuating cycle of political instability in many African countries, it is seems to me that the hereditary monarchy has had some role to play in the remarkable stability of British politics. American friends have often noted the unity brought about by our emotional investment in the monarchy. It is foolish really, but, nonetheless, it is useful to have this shared bond - a bond made all the more powerful by the fact that it has a human face. 

    As a final point, it is worth remarking on the direct financial contribution of the Royal family. Contrary to popular belief, the taxes spent on the monarchy are not some kind of generous gift bestowed by the benevolent British people on their beloved King/Queen, but are actually paid in return for 75% of the revenue profits of the Crown Estate. Since the Sovereign Grant costs the state £86.3 million and the revenue to the government from the Crown Estate is approximately £234 million, there is a clear benefit to the public finances from the monarchy. I am well aware that a few people will claim that the royal family should not control the crown estate anyway, but, legally, it is a possession of the monarch. 
  • ClodiusClodius 34 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    QUOTE: Albert Pine wrote "everything we do dies with us. However, what we do for the world and others is and remains immortal."

    RESPONSE: Then, my friend, does not the fact that the Queen's memory is likely to be immortal prove that she lived a life of service? What about Hitler.
     I am aware this is not logical, and consequently neither is Albert Pine's statement.

    QUOTE: The greatest thing Royalty could ever do is renounce the monarchy. And the wealth they possess which is based on no more than a brutal and murderous history could be distributed throughout the nation and/or spent on more charitable and trying means.

    RESPONSE: That is a poorly formed opinion, if you do not mind me saying (please read the argument addressed to Piloteer). On the matter of the "brutal and murderous" wealth: so what. My friend, when God created the world he did not distribute the wealth - all land ownership has its roots in blood when you go back far enough. If you are a proponent of communism then fair enough (no matter how foolish I believe that opinion to be) , but in that case your anger should be directed towards the entire economic system as opposed to a single beneficiary of it. 

    QUOTE: There are soldiers on the front lines that have died for their country and get no more than 2 minutes of silence. There are those civilians that have died either from collateral damage or due to pure negligence that get nothing. On the other hand, Royalty that is born from a silver spoon and that has lived a life of luxury gets two weeks' remembrance.
    Yes, I liked the Queen; she was a sincere human being, unlike other Royalty. Nontheless, this whole situation is fking insulting to those that have struggled to make ends meet, including those that have died in the process.

    RESPONSE: The problem here is that you are not grasping what the monarch actually is. The Queen, as a symbolic head of state, was the embodiment of the nation and thus her funeral is in fact a funeral and a time of remembrance for all those who have given their lives for our country. I do not know your family history, but my grandfather fought in WW2. I don't really remember him, but my parents used to recall how, religiously, he would stand whenever the Queen would appear on the television screen. He fought for us and as a consequence he fought for her. I think he would be disgusted to hear his fallen comrades used as an excuse to attack the role of the monarch.
    As for those struggling to make ends meet, remember that there will always be those struggling to make ends meet. The amount of money spent on the funeral is a drop in the ocean compared to what it would take to rectify that issue. As pointed out in the argument addressed to Piloteer, the Royal Family actually contribute a significant amount of money to the government, so this complaint is not really valid anyway. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch