NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently Britain has no "official" motto and there is now a plan to make one. Most of the suggestions were sarcastic. Personally, I think you guys are fine without a motto. Nowadays, creating a motto would be too...not good. You need to make the motto long ago for it to work. Today's world just doesn't work with national motto creation. It'd end up weird...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071116/ts_csm/ogreat)

LONDON - The French have their "Liberté, égalité, fraternité." The Americans have "In God we trust." Even tiny nations like Antigua and Fiji have stirring calls to nationhood, faith, solidarity.

Not so Britain. Remarkably, for a country with such a rich history and distinctive national traits, there have been no formal mottos to describe the British mission statement. Until now.

Keen to redefine an increasingly diverse nation and its values, the government has launched a quest for a national maxim. Meant to be "truly representative," the motto will be arrived at by 1,000 members of the British public. This week, the BBC and the Times newspaper jump-started the process by soliciting suggestions on their websites.

"Once Great: Britain," offered one contributor. "Americans who missed the boat," read a second. "At least we're not French" quipped a third. While some were genuine efforts, most were scornful in tone – revealing more about the British today than any motto could.

"It's stirring up a good characteristic of the British, and that is a sardonic humor towards any attempt by government to do unnecessary and pompous things," says Sir Bernard Crick, a former government advisor on citizenship. He says there's a good reason why Britain doesn't have a motto – it did not have the same grand cataclysmic moment of creation that other countries did.

"When the American states gathered together, they had 'e pluribus unum' and it was there right from the beginning and it meant something," he says. "We have no historical occasion like that. You have to take the British sense of history as a whole and I don't think it can be summed up. It would either be vague waffle or terribly contentious."

"You can't encompass a whole national history in a slogan," says Professor Crick. "It's ridiculous."

Why Brown is playing the British card
Upon first taking office in the summer, Brown said that he lived by his high school's hallowed maxim, "usque conabor" (I will try my utmost).

But one respondent to the Times' survey turned the joke back on the prime minister by offering a faux-Latin motto – "Dipso, fatso, bingo, ASBO, Tesco" – which neatly addresses the country's contemporary problems with alcohol, obesity, gambling, antisocial youth, and materialism.

A Monitor minisurvey revealed a similarly jaundiced view. "Get blotto, play the lotto, that's our motto," was the only printable response.

Despite the mockery, however, Brown believes he has good reason to play the British card. Nationalism is rising in Wales, Scotland, and England, and disenchanted ethnic minorities are picking at the seams of British unity. Homegrown terrorism has added extra urgency. The prime minister has already floated ideas like a new "national day" and new citizenship rules in a quest for greater social cohesion and peppers his speeches with the word British far more than Tony Blair ever did.

But philosopher and author AC Grayling says that a new motto is not the way to go about this.

"It's characteristic of how we have done things, a rather cheap, slogan-based solution to what are more complicated problems," he says. "The sneering response from the public is characteristic of the bleak British sense of humor."

Even the upsides of Britishness were snubbed by respondents. One, referring to the popular slogan of the '90s, scoffed, "Cool Britannia, yeah, right, whatever ..."

'Shakespeare might to do the trick'
Still, a country like Britain has plenty of cultural landmarks from which to draw, from William Shakespeare to fish and chips. Author Chris Cleave, who writes about contemporary Britain in his fiction, thinks "something from Shakespeare might do the trick."

"I like 'Virtue is bold, and goodness never fearful' (from "Measure for Measure").

But even he can't resist the temptation to ridicule. "How about something that encapsulates one of our most venerable sporting traditions, our national preference for a plucky underdog and our refusal to give up hope even when we are totally outgunned. How about "Come on Tim!" (A reference to Tim Henman, saluted perennially as a tennis hero despite never having got beyond the semifinals at Wimbledon).

Trying their best
Intriguingly, the younger generation may have more time for a new maxim than their more cynical elders. At Kingston University in southwest London, geography student Jeremy Puncher says he supports the government's attempt to instill greater pride in Britishness. Of the motto idea, he says: "It can't hurt. It should have something to do with togetherness, freedom, patience, acceptance of other cultures."

Leon Wright, another student, says that although being British doesn't mean much to him, the right motto could prove inspiring. "It should be something like 'try your best,' or 'be the best that you can be,' as opposed to 'love the queen."

The government says it has plenty of worthwhile suggestions and it now plans to decide on the motto and how it should be used. But clearly Brown will have to "try his utmost" to convince his nation that it's a worthwhile exercise. As one contributor put it this week, "We're British; we don't do mottos."

"Dipso, fatso, bingo, ASBO, Tesco"

I love that one!


Honestly, I always thought that "FOr King/Queen and country was the actual motto...


They should make it something about how them and the French messed the whole world up and left the mess for everyone else to clean up...

How about "Left the mess for the U. S." its got a nice ring to it :)

They do have a motto, the Royal one: "Dieu et mon droit". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg)

It is customary for some Monarchies to use the motto of the Monarch or the royal family - Sweden has "För Sverige - I Tiden", The Nethelands have "Je maintiendrai", Norway has "Alt for Norge", Denmark has "Guds hjælp, Folkets kærlighed, Danmarks styrke" and so on.

Excalibur!

Apparently Britain has no "official" motto and there is now a plan to make one. Most of the suggestions were sarcastic. Personally, I think you guys are fine without a motto. Nowadays, creating a motto would be too...not good. You need to make the motto long ago for it to work. Today's world just doesn't work with national motto creation. It'd end up weird...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071116/ts_csm/ogreat)


For Lord and Land

or something like that yeah it sounds cool.

or this is UK (like from 300?)

anyway whast a national motto worth anyway vahlar morghulis either way they all msut and they all will eventually

They do have a motto, the Royal one: "Dieu et mon droit". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg)

exactly. Dieu et mon droit is perfect: it's in an anachronistic language (for Britain, that is), expressing an anachronistic concept. Well suited for the soon to be defunct anachronistic "united kingdom".

Anyone for plain old 'Rule Britannia'?

"It's Raining."

exactly. Dieu et mon droit is perfect: it's in an anachronistic language (for Britain, that is), expressing an anachronistic concept. Well suited for the soon to be defunct anachronistic "united kingdom".

The United Kingdom's demise has been expected for quite some time now, and not materialised. Be separatist all you want, I won't be holding my breath. In any case, even if it were to split, the constituents all have mottos that are no better in the respects you mention than that of England and the UK:

Scotland: Nemo me impune lacessit. Wales: Ich Dien. Northern Ireland: Quis separabit. None in an indigenous language.

Ah, tough choice - there's so many great British catchphrases to choose from, though few probably merit "national motto" status. Still, I'd go with the classic "I say!" or the immortal jubilant exclamation "splendid!" which non-British English speakers can't really pull off without facing instant ridicule.

In fact, pretty much anything this guy says should be up for consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaGcCj0WVgg

Good luck on the motto search - looks like fun! :)

"Shagadelic Baby!" ~Austin Powers :D

Comon, you know you want to....yes you do....

Apparently Britain has no "official" motto and there is now a plan to make one. Most of the suggestions were sarcastic. Personally, I think you guys are fine without a motto. Nowadays, creating a motto would be too...not good. You need to make the motto long ago for it to work. Today's world just doesn't work with national motto creation. It'd end up weird...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071116/ts_csm/ogreat)

What about "God save the Queen"?

"Better than France" maybe?

"People hate to see us smile"

"Home of James Bond"

"Britain: The only country unable to speek or spell anything in its own launguage correctly"

"Britain: Bad food, speech, teeth, and general hygene since...the begining"

"Tea3: Rise of the Cameras"

What about "God save the Queen"?

Yeah, I thought it was that.

Wikipedia (National Motto) agrees with Fassitude, though. Dieu et mon droit for UK and England.

Australia's is "didja bring any beer?"

I thought the wombat's motto had something to do with the bloomin' onion. That is good, better than koala crackers. I wonder what Joey meat tates like.

Also from WikiP:

Zimbabwe: Unity, Freedom, Work
U.S.A: In God we Trust, but E pluribus unum also gets a mention. (Far better: "from the many, one.")
Botswana: Pula (Tswana, Rain)

A remarkable number of the African states mention "Work" in their motto.

I like this one for MAKING SENSE:
Turkey: Egemenlik kayıtsız şartsız milletindir. (Turkish, Sovereignty rests unconditionally with the nation)

But I like this one best, for definitely not implying any stinking work:
Belize: Sub umbra floreo (Latin, Under the shade I flourish)

The brits should let Eddie Izzard give them a motto

"People hate to see us smile"

"Home of James Bond"

"Britain: The only country unable to speek or spell anything in its own launguage correctly"

"Britain: Bad food, speech, teeth, and general hygene since...the begining"

"Tea3: Rise of the Cameras"

First of all, most of the james bonds are not from england, like sean connery is from scotland.

second of all, nice spelling, I find that fairly Ironic, don't you?


By the way, britain does have a motto, at least in wartime "brittania rules the waves"

By the way, britain does have a motto, at least in wartime "brittania rules the waves"

Wrong. You just got owned by a Swede, a Yank, and an Aussie.

Key: Fassitude., Thumbless Pete Crabbe, and me!

Or prove it.

I am not wrong though, that was the British motto throughout all of their wars, especially in WW2

Brown's an idiot for thinking that a national motto will inspire the nation into being nicer to each other. It's the kind of quick-fix policy that seems to dominate the main-stream political parties at the moment, attempting to combat the problem rather than the cause of the problem.

Will I act any better because I have a motto to inspire me? Fuck no. I'll just shake my head and laugh at Brown's pathetic attempt to inspire more nationalism, just want our country doesn't really need at the moment. Next, he'll attempt to institute a national oath of alliegence to the Prime Minister's office.

It's like wallpapering over a crack in the brickwork in the hopes that that will stop the damp coming through.

Heck, you just got owned by the Ancient Greeks, who at least knew how to speall "Britannia"

My choice would be

I'm a Brit....get me out of here!

The brits should let Eddie Izzard give them a motto

... or Ozzie Osbourne ...

I am not wrong though, that was the British motto throughout all of their wars, especially in WW2

Prove it.

Brown's an idiot for thinking that a national motto will inspire the nation into being nicer to each other. It's the kind of quick-fix policy that seems to dominate the main-stream political parties at the moment, attempting to combat the problem rather than the cause of the problem.

Yes. He's presumably trying to emulate his mentor Blair, who used the "inspiring" phrases very sparingly but to good effect.

He's not Blair. Fail.

Will I act any better because I have a motto to inspire me? Fuck no. I'll just shake my head and laugh at Brown's pathetic attempt to inspire more nationalism, just want our country doesn't really need at the moment. Next, he'll attempt to institute a national oath of alliegence to the Prime Minister's office.

It's like wallpapering over a crack in the brickwork in the hopes that that will stop the damp coming through.

Don't fart around. He's crap, right?

Prove it.

If you are too lazy and ignorant to find out for yourself, then I sure as hell can't be screwed

Don't fart around. He's crap, right?
Yep. Labour kind of fell out of my favour when they started to mirror the Tories as much as they do now. All this bollocks about attempting to make us more patriotic is just a load of crap, so that we love our country unconditionally, even if it is collapsing around our ears.

Dieu et mon droit.

That really is the only possibility sufficiently steeped in history and tradition worth considering. Not, of course, that it will be; if 1,000 random people are asked, no doubt we'll be stuck with "Engerland!" or something along those lines. This eventuality would, of course, be preferable to the nauseating tripe any modern politician, with the exception of Johnson, Hague, Davis and Howard, would conceive.

Dieu et mon droit.

That really is the only possibility sufficiently steeped in history and tradition worth considering. Not, of course, that it will be; if 1,000 random people are asked, no doubt we'll be stuck with "Engerland!" or something along those lines. This eventuality would, of course, be preferable to the nauseating tripe any modern politician, with the exception of Johnson, Hague, Davis and Howard, would conceive.
Agreed, up to a point. I'd much rather dieu et mon droit than anything a politician (including the ex-Tory fornt bench) would come up with. I'd hate to know what their difinition of 'inspiring' would actually be. Something along the lines of "Unity, Freedom, Work" no doubt. At least dieu et mon droit has some vague British history connected with it. Having said that, I don't really see the need for a motto at all. We've been fine without one all these years, and I doubt it will foster this new sense of 'britishness' on the population, including England, which is what this is all about.

'A nice cup of tea and a biscuit' would be appropriate.

What a poor attempt to steal the nationalist vote from the BNP.

Another poor attempt to steal the nationalist vote from the BNP.
Corrected:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7070756.stm

Corrected:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7070756.stm

You can't blame him really. He just got into the big chair, and now he doesn't want to leave, so he's going for the lowest common denominator.

You can't blame him really. He just got into the big chair, and now he doesn't want to leave, so he's going for the lowest common denominator.
I was about to say that your average lowest common demominator Brit doesn't think like that.

I quickly reconsidered.

I'm disappointed with the lack of British-ness in this thread.

"there ain't no black in the union jack" was funny

however "fuck the world" is a popular saying going round my circle

I'm disappointed with the lack of British-ness in this thread.

"there ain't no black in the union jack" was funny

however "fuck the world" is a popular saying going round my circle

What is funny about a racist slogan?

UK Rules OK

What is funny about a racist slogan?

because it sounds so silly and something a child would recite whilst doing some colouring

UK Rules OK

clues in the Geographical name really (well maybe soggy should be included somewhere)

They do have a motto, the Royal one: "Dieu et mon droit". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg)


I always liked "Honni soit qui mal y pense".

What is funny about a racist slogan?

"Laughable losingness" perhaps?

Why do we need a motto? The only things we're ever nationalistic about are sports and the proms.

Why do we need a motto? The only things we're ever nationalistic about are sports and the proms.

I think its more Mr Brown's way of uniting us under the common banner that brings us together

a strong urge to be bitter and depression that only Marvin could maybe top

Britain doesn't have a national motto because Wales, Scotland and England have their own national mottos, Wales' being "Cymru am byth" (Welsh)
"Wales Forever", Scotland's is "Nemo me impune lacessit" (Latin)
"No one provokes me with impunity" and England's is "Dieu et mon droit" (French) "God and my right".

I'm rather surprised no-one's mentioned Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense...
Order of the Garter's motto, but I prefer it to Dieu Et Mon Droit.

EDIT: Oh, one guy did. OK. Still.

"Our hovercrafts are full of eels." ;)

Britain doesn't have a national motto because Wales, Scotland and England have their own national mottos, Wales' being "Cymru am byth" (Welsh)
"Wales Forever", Scotland's is "Nemo me impune lacessit" (Latin)
"No one provokes me with impunity" and England's is "Dieu et mon droit" (French) "God and my right".

So clearly the motto should be Cymru am me impune mon droit

Britain doesn't have a national motto because Wales, Scotland and England have their own national mottos, Wales' being "Cymru am byth" (Welsh)
"Wales Forever", Scotland's is "Nemo me impune lacessit" (Latin)
"No one provokes me with impunity" and England's is "Dieu et mon droit" (French) "God and my right".
I always associated dieu et mon droit as a royal motto rather than an English one, although it could (probably is) be just as associated with both, considering our history.

In case that person was still around "Britannia rules the waves" isn't a motto, not even in war-time. It's a line from Rule Britannia.
Also, to whoever said "Most James Bond's aren't English, Sean Connery is scottish". No-one mentioned anything about English, the thread is about the British as a whole. Besides, the writer of the books was English, so you lose on both accounts. Go you.

New Motto For Britain: "Wot? You fokkin' Want sum mate!?" you hear it plenty of times as is on the average high street.

...nobody expects the british mottosition?

what about

"the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

Agreed, up to a point. I'd much rather dieu et mon droit than anything a politician (including the ex-Tory fornt bench) would come up with. I'd hate to know what their difinition of 'inspiring' would actually be. Something along the lines of "Unity, Freedom, Work" no doubt. At least dieu et mon droit has some vague British history connected with it. Having said that, I don't really see the need for a motto at all. We've been fine without one all these years, and I doubt it will foster this new sense of 'britishness' on the population, including England, which is what this is all about.

You might have just found the key point; any motto would essentially be English, not British. Even Dieu et mon Droit would probably offend the sensibilities of the more nationalistic amongst the Scots, Irish and Welsh.

If the parties do seek to engage with English nationalism, they'd be far better addressing its more violent manifestations, and the causes for white, lower class disaffection than spending untold thousands paying "intellectuals" to conceive a trite, cringeworthy manifesto.

The UK in Exile;13228192']what about

"the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

"We wear sunglasses because the sun never sets on the British empire":)

"We call fries 'chips' and chips 'crisps' and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourselves."

or

"We promise to be nicer from now on."

:)

You might have just found the key point; any motto would essentially be English, not British. Even Dieu et mon Droit would probably offend the sensibilities of the more nationalistic amongst the Scots, Irish and Welsh.
More likely, it’d offend the sensibilities of those people who don’t believe in a monarch’s divine right to rule, i.e. most of the British public.

Why on earth would a piece of outdated philosophy, written in French, be good as a British motto?

If the parties do seek to engage with English nationalism, they’d be far better addressing its more violent manifestations, and the causes for white, lower class disaffection than spending untold thousands paying “intellectuals” to conceive a trite, cringeworthy manifesto.
True.

And the whole problem does seem to be a perceived lack of English national identity, rather than a lack of British motto.

Part of what keeps Britain British is that they have traditions, not laws. They don't even have a written constitution, for God's sake, and yet their government is modeled by everyone. Why do they need a real motto?

Why do they need a real motto?
Maybe that's the answer. "Britain: What do we need a motto for?"

Suitably ironically pseudo-counter-establishment, yet somehow still collective. I like it. =)

What about "God save the Queen"?The German one is taken from the National Anthem, if there's need of a precedent: "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" (Unity and Justice and Freedom)

I'm satisfied with the current Scottish motto - 'no one provokes me with impunity.' Or to give it its modern translation 'whit are you lookin at?'

The German one is taken from the National Anthem, if there's need of a precedent: "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" (Unity and Justice and Freedom)

How boring. Accurate, maybe, but boring, nevertheless.

"We call fries 'chips' and chips 'crisps' and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourselves."

or

"We promise to be nicer from now on."

:)

"We pronounce it 'herbs', because there's a fucking 'h' in it"

"We pronounce it 'herbs', because there's a fucking 'h' in it"

On that tangent;

"It's football, moron."

In case that person was still around "Britannia rules the waves" isn't a motto, not even in war-time. It's a line from Rule Britannia.


Correct, but it's actually "Britannia rule the waves!" (No 's' on 'rule'). The song was written in the eighteenth century by a Scotsman, and that particular line is a 'command' from God to 'rule the waves'. You might recall other bits about Britain rising 'from the Azure main' (rising out of the sea on God's command - appealing to a sense of destiny and purpose, I suppose). It's actually a very interesting piece of writing if you read the words and think about it. Full of all kinds of analogies and links with religion because, at the time it was written (c. 1745, I believe), Britain was far from united. Protestantism was one key thread which kept everything together, particularly between England and Scotland.

I'm not so sure about this national motto either, to be honest. It's not very British. But I quite like "We want our empire back!" :D

Insert generic motto insulting England's cricket team.

"Pashh The Guinesshh" for Ireland.
.

T'is Northern Ireland

Yeah, I thought it was that.

Wikipedia (National Motto) agrees with Fassitude, though. Dieu et mon droit for UK and England.

Australia's is "didja bring any beer?"

Surely Australia's is 'Let's put another shrimp on the barbie!'?

"It's Raining."

Haha. Maybe we could have regional ones?

*WARNING* contains ridiculously typical sterotypes. And bad mottos.

Like..."Och Aye! The Noo" for Scotland.

"Pashh The Guinesshh" for Ireland.

Something about sheep, maybe, for Wales!?

And something about rain, PG Tips, queue jumping, or Sainsburys for England.

Correct, but it's actually "Britannia rule the waves!" (No 's' on 'rule'). The song was written in the eighteenth century by a Scotsman, and that particular line is a 'command' from God to 'rule the waves'. You might recall other bits about Britain rising 'from the Azure main' (rising out of the sea on God's command - appealing to a sense of destiny and purpose, I suppose). It's actually a very interesting piece of writing if you read the words and think about it. Full of all kinds of analogies and links with religion because, at the time it was written (c. 1745, I believe), Britain was far from united. Protestantism was one key thread which kept everything together, particularly between England and Scotland.

I'm not so sure about this national motto either, to be honest. It's not very British. But I quite like "We want our empire back!" :D

No it's Britannia waive the rules

No it's Britannia waive the rules

Yeah, that one works too... :p

"Pashh The Guinesshh" for Ireland.
Just to point this out, you generally don't pass Guinness. Nobody else touches it. It's MINE. My own. My Precious... *Gol'm*

The UK in Exile;13228192']what about

"the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

LOL

Just to point this out, you generally don't pass Guinness. Nobody else touches it. It's MINE. My own. My Precious... *Gol'm*

My apologies. "Give Me Maaah Feckin' Guineshhh Back!" ?

We Came, We Saw, We Conqured; then we gave it back again, frightfully sorry.

If Brown has suggested that we need a motto, then why. He's a bloody scot. Why is he so bothered about an English motto. Because that what it's evidently about now it seems. A motto for England. Or is Britain, or the UK. Does anyone really know what they are talking about?

We Came, We Saw, We Conqured; then we gave it back again, frightfully sorry.

I love it! :)

Or, "We'd rather not have a motto if you don't mind awfully. Thanks."

If Brown has suggested that we need a motto, then why. He's a bloody scot. Why is he so bothered about an English motto. <snip>
Perhaps he feels it's relevant to him because he's the Prime Minister? Just a thought.

It's a daft idea, and I find it hard to believe that it originated from the PM's office as opposed to from the desk of one of the myriad of PR people that seem to infest the Government but meh. Had it not been for the fact that the Daily Mail and the BBC picked it up and ran with it, I'm sure it would have been forgotten by now...

...or maybe not... what do I know? I am, after all, also a bloody Scot ;)

We Came, We Saw, We Conqured; then we gave it back again, frightfully sorry.

:p Nice one.

Shouldn’t the Govt be more concerned about running the country than a motto, this is the sort of thing that the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family should be looking into seeing as it is THEIR country, the PM just looks after it.

However if Brown has his way the Royalty, the House of Lords and the Union will disappear altogether.

Just encase any of you have any doubts of my allegiances: God Save the Queen, the Commonwealth and the Union. Cos’ nothing else deserves it :p

Shouldn’t the Govt be more concerned about running the country than a motto, this is the sort of thing that the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family should be looking into seeing as it is THEIR country, the PM just looks after it.

However if Brown has his way the Royalty, the House of Lords and the Union will disappear altogether.

Just encase any of you have any doubts of my allegiances: God Save the Queen, the Commonwealth and the Union. Cos’ nothing else deserves it :p

So if he wants the Union to end then why all the talk of Britishness and why is he Alex Salmonds enemy number one

Shouldn’t the Govt be more concerned about running the country than a motto, this is the sort of thing that the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family should be looking into seeing as it is THEIR country, the PM just looks after it.
The UK doesn’t belong to the royal family, although they do own large tracts of land up and down the country.

It doesn’t belong to anyone except, arguably, every UK citizen.

However if Brown has his way the Royalty, the House of Lords and the Union will disappear altogether.
What nonsense!

Why would Gordo want to split up the Union, disband the Lords or dissolve the monarchy?

The UK doesn’t belong to the royal family, although they do own large tracts of land up and down the country.

It doesn’t belong to anyone except, arguably, every UK citizen.


But she is head of state. And the state is representative of the "peoples ownership" theoretically, and practically, the state basically does own the UK in a sense.

Possibly because Alex Salmond hates everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support an independent Scotland, no matter how hasty, ill-conceived or counterproductive that might be.

Possibly because Alex Salmond hates everyone who doesn't wholeheartedly support an independent Scotland, no matter how hasty, ill-conceived or counterproductive that might be.

It was somewhat of a rhetorical question

The UK doesn’t belong to the royal family, although they do own large tracts of land up and down the country.

It doesn’t belong to anyone except, arguably, every UK citizen.
On the contrary, when I was doing work experience at Strutt&Parker land agency I was bored and read up on the matter. It’s complicated, but the jest of it is the crown owns the actual soil that everything is built on. But private land owners own the space above the soil and the rights of the land, henceforth that is the legal reason the queen can seize any bit of land she likes and, in theory, nobody can do anything about it.

What nonsense!

Why would Gordo want to split up the Union, disband the Lords or dissolve the monarchy? Not just Gordon, but labour in general. So far they have pushed through lord’s reform that takes away hereditary peers and devolved the country. And he undermined the queen by realising the queen’s speech before the queen had said it.

The UK doesn’t belong to the royal family, although they do own large tracts of land up and down the country.

It doesn’t belong to anyone except, arguably, every UK citizen.
If you check your passport, it doesn't say "citizen", but "subject". And it is, in theory, the Queen's land before it's anyone else's. But, these days, that's just semantics.

On the contrary, when I was doing work experience at Strutt&Parker land agency I was bored and read up on the matter. It’s complicated, but the jest of it is the crown owns the actual soil that everything is built on. But private land owners own the space above the soil and the rights of the land, henceforth that is the legal reason the queen can seize any bit of land she likes and, in theory, nobody can do anything about it.
In theory.

If the Crown started to assert any political power, they’d be dissolved or lynched before the week was out. A puppet has no real power.

Not just Gordon, but labour in general. So far they have pushed through lord’s reform that takes away hereditary peers and devolved the country.
Reforming the Lords is hardly disbanding it, and devolving regional governments is hardly breaking up the Union.

Enough hyperbole, please.

And he undermined the queen by realising the queen’s speech before the queen had said it.
Oh noes!

The Queen speaks what the PM tells her. Her speech merely outlines what the current government plans to do over the coming year, so Brown’s hardly undermining the Queen by pre-empting his own statement.



But she is head of state. And the state is representative of the “peoples ownership” theoretically, and practically, the state basically does own the UK in a sense.
Again, this is all in theory.

If the Queen tried to assert any real power — ceased property or demanded that British citizens submit to her demands — she’d be given a richly deserved kicking off her purely ceremonial throne.



If you check your passport, it doesn’t say “citizen”, but “subject”. And it is, in theory, the Queen’s land before it’s anyone else’s. But, these days, that’s just semantics.
I did check my passport. The word ‘subject’ is only once mentioned, and listed at the end of a list of fairly outdated terms for British citizens.

However, it states I am a British citizen a number of times.

As we don’t live in feudal times, I’ll posit I am a citizen, rather than a subject.



Possibly because Alex Salmond hates everyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly support an independent Scotland, no matter how hasty, ill-conceived or counterproductive that might be.
Oh, what utter bollocks.

Salmond doesn’t hate, for example, the majority of the Scottish public.

On the contrary, when I was doing work experience at Strutt&Parker land agency I was bored and read up on the matter. It’s complicated, but the jest of it is the crown owns the actual soil that everything is built on. But private land owners own the space above the soil and the rights of the land, henceforth that is the legal reason the queen can seize any bit of land she likes and, in theory, nobody can do anything about it.
How this country works is based on the very principle that what can happen in theory is not what happens in practice.

Not just Gordon, but labour in general. So far they have pushed through lord’s reform that takes away hereditary peers
Sure. Labour have managed to change the Lords from being full of fat old landowners there because of 300 years of fine interbreeding to being half full of at old landowners there because of 300 years of fine interbreeding and half full of yes men and political dinosaurs. And that arrangement suits the government very well without having to do the right thing and abolish an anacronism that only exists because Lloyd George couldn't muster the strength in 1911.

and devolved the country.
And?

And he undermined the queen by realising the queen’s speech before the queen had said it.
Do you know nothing about our government? The Queen's Speech is written by the government and always has been.

IAgain, this is all in theory.

If the Queen tried to assert any real power — ceased property or demanded that British citizens submit to her demands — she’d be given a richly deserved kicking off her purely ceremonial throne.


Ah we are confusing terms here, I'm not talking about her powers here. You can be the legal head of state without having the power to rule by decree and make acts that bypass parliament.

If the Queen tried to assert any real power — ceased property or demanded that British citizens submit to her demands — she’d be given a richly deserved kicking off her purely ceremonial throne.
Maybe if she did something like that she might, but there are many who would welcome an intercession against the New Labour government, and who would start up a civil war if Broon and his cronies tried to overrule her authority to keep themselves in power.

It doesn’t belong to anyone except, arguably, every UK citizen.

We need Allemansrätt. We really do. The "right to roam" is a bit rubbish.

Maybe if she did something like that she might, but there are many who would welcome an intercession against the New Labour government, and who would start up a civil war if Broon and his cronies tried to overrule her authority to keep themselves in power.
The Queen doesn't have any authority to keep. We are a constitutional monarchy and the power to govern is vested in Parliament and Cabinet (in theory) accountable to it. Should the Queen decide tomorrow that she wants to decide government policy and abolish the pseudo-democratic system we have today Brown would have every right, as the head of our government (whether you like it or not, chosen by the people) to make trouble.

Supporting an absolute monarchy because you can't accept you lost a free and fair election is idiocy at its worst.

I think it should be strengu hyldu ar mægr Æeden - strength, loyalty, honour and kinship

I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.

When I enlisted I made an oath to the Queen and the crown, if defending her means removing a few politicians then so be it.

Maybe if she did something like that she might, but there are many who would welcome an intercession against the New Labour government, and who would start up a civil war if Broon and his cronies tried to overrule her authority to keep themselves in power.
Why on Earth would this happen? There’d be trouble either way. I sincerely doubt much of the British public would sit back and let either the Crown or the government extend their executive reach.

Though saying that, we’ve pretty much sit back and let them repeal habeas corpus for the first time since the fourteenth century.

We need Allemansrätt. We really do. The “right to roam” is a bit rubbish.
Up here in Scotland, the right of way laws are much more in favour of the public.

When I enlisted I made an oath to the Queen and the crown, if defending her means removing a few politicians then so be it.
I think you’re a bit lost.

The seventeenth century is that-away.

We need Allemansrätt. We really do. The "right to roam" is a bit rubbish. Right to Roam, what about the right of the landowner?

Sure. Labour have managed to change the Lords from being full of fat old landowners there because of 300 years of fine interbreeding to being half full of at old landowners there because of 300 years of fine interbreeding and half full of yes men and political dinosaurs. And that arrangement suits the government very well without having to do the right thing and abolish an anacronism that only exists because Lloyd George couldn't muster the strength in 1911. That’s is not the point. The point is that now the govt. in power can put Lords in place that suit there needs and support them, also if further reform is taken through then you will have to be voted into the house of lords by the govt. The benefit of the lords is that they don’t have to win votes, so they don’t follow vote winning policies that will have a detrimental effect on the country as a whole, even if the people don’t realise it. For example the super casino's and the hunting ban, although the govt cheated the later through.
Do you know nothing about our government? The Queen's Speech is written by the government and always has been. And it has always been that the speech is spoken by the monarch, because it is what HER govt. is planning for the country. He is symbolically undermining the Queen by showing he has more power than her, which is not the case. You say that the queen would be ousted if she tried to exercise her power, but I doubt it would be that simple.
And? The United Kingdom is no longer ruled solely by one government, but a collection of four because of devolution, I would call that breaking up the Union.

Right to Roam, what about the right of the landowner?
You give me a cohesive argument for the establishment of private property, and I’ll talk about landowner’s rights trumping the general public’s.

That’s is not the point. The point is that now the govt. in power can put Lords in place that suit there needs and support them, also if further reform is taken through then you will have to be voted into the house of lords by the govt.
Again, that’s not a disbandment of the Lords, which you claimed was happening.

The benefit of the lords is that they don’t have to win votes, so they don’t follow vote winning policies that will have a detrimental effect on the country as a whole, even if the people don’t realise it. For example the super casino’s and the hunting ban, although the govt cheated the later through.
Although I don’t agree with the ban (it doesn’t cover other blood sports and is thus hypocritical), how was it ‘cheated through’?

And it has always been that the speech is spoken by the monarch, because it is what HER govt. is planning for the country. He is symbolically undermining the Queen by showing he has more power than her, which is not the case.
It certainly is the case. The Queen is nothing more than a symbolic figurehead; a tourist attraction. She has no real power.

You say that the queen would be ousted if she tried to exercise her power, but I doubt it would be that simple.
It’s not a very simple thing in the first place, but I don’t see how the Crown could attempt to control parliament or take executive power away from government without serious civil unrest.

The United Kingdom is no longer ruled solely by one government, but a collection of four because of devolution, I would call that breaking up the Union.
And I would call that a misunderstanding of devolution.

The Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive are not governments per se, they only have limited power applicable to their respective regions. Westminster still very much keeps a tight hold on defence, the economy, foreign policy, etc.

Shouldn’t the Govt be more concerned about running the country than a motto, this is the sort of thing that the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family should be looking into seeing as it is THEIR country, the PM just looks after it.

However if Brown has his way the Royalty, the House of Lords and the Union will disappear altogether.

Just encase any of you have any doubts of my allegiances: God Save the Queen, the Commonwealth and the Union. Cos’ nothing else deserves it :p


Seconded!

However, if the PM does insist on coming up with something, then it should be those from the Arms of Dominion.

They are the mottos of the monarchy, ergo they are the mottos of the nation. To have anything else would be an act of the highest degree of idiocy.

Should the Queen decide tomorrow that she wants to decide government policy and abolish the pseudo-democratic system we have today Brown would have every right, as the head of our government (whether you like it or not, chosen by the people) to make trouble.
Certainly he would, but not in the capacity of First Lord of the Treasury; only as much as any other individual does. Being popular does not itself grant you legislative authority in this country, and a damned good thing that is too.

Supporting an absolute monarchy because you can't accept you lost a free and fair election is idiocy at its worst.
1) Not supporting absolute monarchy. Supporting stepping in the way of the government if it threatens national interests. I would, for instance, have been totally behind the Queen if she'd blocked the Iraq invasion, but would be completely opposed to a ruling requesting us to invade France, say.

2) I'm what would be called a Labour Back-Bench Rebel in the house, so although I do not support the Government, technically I'm on the winning side. Not that that's any better, though. These New Labour corporate sell-outs stole my party, goddamnit.

Why on Earth would this happen?
...
Though saying that, we’ve pretty much sit back and let them repeal habeas corpus for the first time since the fourteenth century.
An answer to your own question, perhaps? It seems like stepping in the way of these stupid anti-terror measures would be an entirely appropriate use of Monarchic authority.

You give me a cohesive argument for the establishment of private property, and I’ll talk about landowner’s rights trumping the general public’s. Well I may be biased coming from a farming family, but I believe that if you own land then it is yours. And you can do what you like, within the law of course. If you don’t want people on your land, which you own, you take care of and run a business from, then you should have the right to deny access. If you don’t want people in your house you have the right to chuck them out, should be the same for private land.
Again, that’s not a disbandment of the Lords, which you claimed was happening. Given, it is not disbandment. But it is major change that would render the lords a bunch of yes men. What is your opinion on the matter?
Although I don’t agree with the ban (it doesn’t cover other blood sports and is thus hypocritical), how was it ‘cheated through’? The lords threw the bill back several times. But the labour govt eventually used an old law, virtually never used, to pass the bill without the lord’s consent.
It certainly is the case. The Queen is nothing more than a symbolic figurehead; a tourist attraction. She has no real power. I disagree, our political system is based on her power. If she wanted to she could dissolve parliament, the fact that she wont doesn’t mean the power doesn’t exist. I am also willing to bet that a large proportion of the Armed Forces would support her, although we cannot know until the time of the glorious revolution.
And I would call that a misunderstanding of devolution.

The Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly and Scottish Executive are not governments per se, they only have limited power applicable to their respective regions. Westminster still very much keeps a tight hold on defence, the economy, foreign policy, etc. It was a simplification, but it is the case in many aspects of law that the devolved countries have the executive power. It is a small step, but it a step in the right direction of a divided UK.

An answer to your own question, perhaps? It seems like stepping in the way of these stupid anti-terror measures would be an entirely appropriate use of Monarchic authority.
Assuming the Crown gives two hoots about anti-terror measures. I wouldn’t leave the defence of liberty up to a bunch of inbred half-wits.



Well I may be biased coming from a farming family, but I believe that if you own land then it is yours.
That’s a circular argument, and certainly not one for the establishment of private property.

And you can do what you like, within the law of course.
In this case, the law makes provisions for travel across owned property, as long as you aren’t disturbing crops, livestock, etc., and you have a legitimate reason for crossing the land.

As I said though, Scotland has much more relaxed legislation on Right of Way; I’m more familiar with that than English/Welsh/NI legislation.

If you don’t want people on your land, which you own, you take care of and run a business from, then you should have the right to deny access.
Why?

Given, it is not disbandment. But it is major change that would render the lords a bunch of yes men. What is your opinion on the matter?
I think Lords reform is important; I strongly dislike hereditary peerships. I also think reform can be achieved with out making the Lords a nonsense.

I disagree, our political system is based on her power. If she wanted to she could dissolve parliament, the fact that she wont doesn’t mean the power doesn’t exist.
The Queen can do nothing; she is completely ceremonial and symbolic. It may be written down that she, technically, can dissolve parliament, but she dissolves parliament at the behest of parliament itself.

Hardly amounts to power, does it?

I am also willing to bet that a large proportion of the Armed Forces would support her, although we cannot know until the time of the glorious revolution.
You say this in jest, surely?

And you realise the ‘glorious revolution’ refers to the establishment of William and Mary? Replacing a catholic regent with a protestant one would be hard to achieve when a protestant monarch is already on the throne.

It was a simplification, but it is the case in many aspects of law that the devolved countries have the executive power. It is a small step, but it a step in the right direction of a divided UK.
It wasn’t a simplification, it was plain wrong.

Devolved power for regional application doesn’t equate to a breaking up of the Union. Holyrood et al have limited power over what happens within their respective regions, but Westminster holds far more power.

You might as well say that the British council system is breaking up the Union, or that the existence of the GLA drops London out of the UK.


As an aside, it's customary, pretty much mandatory, on this board to attribute quotes to the poster who made them; it saves confusion, and it's easier to spot which posts to reply to.

The UK doesn’t belong to the royal family, although they do own large tracts of land up and down the country.

It doesn’t belong to anyone except, arguably, every UK citizen.

Actually this is not so. As GlasgowAberdeen correctly said, all land belongs to the Queen. Regardless of the fact that this is overlooked for everyday practical purposes, this is still true.

The UK does not belong to the people.

Sure. Labour have managed to change the Lords from being full of fat old landowners there because of 300 years of fine interbreeding to being half full of at old landowners there because of 300 years of fine interbreeding and half full of yes men and political dinosaurs. And that arrangement suits the government very well without having to do the right thing and abolish an anacronism that only exists because Lloyd George couldn't muster the strength in 1911


A most eloquent way of making your point! However the reality is just as you say, the Commons made this change so suit the Commons, not the nation. What they have created is a mess, but also a very frightening situation.

The hereditary Lords were an effective restraint on Commons, part of what the Americans love to call “checks and balances”. Being hereditary, they did not have to respond to popular pressure and knee jerk reaction, nor could the upper house by filled with government cronies and yes men. Now it is, and we are being gradually led to a dark place because of it, where the Commons will have no one to scrutinise it or question it, except the volatile tide of public opinion and the lowest common denominator, left ultimately to run riot with no brake in place any more.

A wonderful reform. The house of Lords, there to check the power of the Commons. A house of Lord appointed by someone from the Commons. Genius

If the Queen tried to assert any real power — ceased property or demanded that British citizens submit to her demands — she’d be given a richly deserved kicking off her purely ceremonial throne.

Frighteningly enough, I think most British people wouldn't even notice. They are too busy getting blotto and playing the lotto. However those who aren't, I don't think would be so rash. A monarchy that keeps our bull-on-a-chinashop politicians in check could be a good thing, and I certainly wouldn't take to the streets to demand the politicians be given back their right to screw up the United Kingdom, and I very much doubt I am the only person who feels this way. Naturally there are limits, and right now they are being tested, in the opposite direction.

Actually this is not so. As GlasgowAberdeen correctly said, all land belongs to the Queen. Regardless of the fact that this is overlooked for everyday practical purposes, this is still true.
*calls for a lawyer*

Again we go back to the difference between ancient, technical rights and duties of the monarch vs. modern, practical rights and duties of the British citizen.

Frighteningly enough, I think most British people wouldn’t even notice. They are too busy getting blotto and playing the lotto.
Perhaps.

Though if the monarchy was actively appropriating land from landowners on a large scale, I don’t see many people standing by.

However those who aren’t, I don’t think would be so rash. A monarchy that keeps our bull-on-a-chinashop politicians in check could be a good thing, and I certainly wouldn’t take to the streets to demand the politicians be given back their right to screw up the United Kingdom, and I very much doubt I am the only person who feels this way. Naturally there are limits, and right now they are being tested, in the opposite direction.
You’d like a group of inbred, unelected aristocrats, subservient to parliament, to keep check on politicians? A frightening thought.

I’ve no love for Labour, but I’d prefer at least the veneer of representative democracy over monarchy any day.

Britain in five words:

"Well, it could be worse"

Assuming the Crown gives two hoots about anti-terror measures. I wouldn’t leave the defence of liberty up to a bunch of inbred half-wits.
What I'd say is that I wouldn't leave the defence of liberty up to any one group, individual or political movement, elected or otherwise. Certainly, don't give the monarchy an unleashed omnipotence; if the Crown ever legislates, its legislation should have to pass through due process in the houses of parliament.

But I also think the converse should be true. Since (by virtue of how democratic process appeals to the general public) the views and political ideologies of the elected are always going to broadly agree, it is a necessary prevention of abuse of power to have some externally appointed body to stop it from passing laws that are inherently detrimental. And since we seem so determined to make the Lords into another democratic house, that only leaves the Crown to act in this capacity.

Since (by virtue of how democratic process appeals to the general public) the views and political ideologies of the elected are always going to broadly agree, it is a necessary prevention of abuse of power to have some externally appointed body to stop it from passing laws that are inherently detrimental. And since we seem so determined to make the Lords into another democratic house, that only leaves the Crown to act in this capacity.
But, as I said above, the Crown is subservient to parliament. I don’t see how they could act as any sort of barrier against parliamentary tyranny.

But, as I said above, the Crown is subservient to parliament. I don’t see how they could act as any sort of barrier against parliamentary tyranny.

Queen doesn't sign an bill then it doesn't become law. Perhaps not a barrier but definetly a stumbling block.

That’s a circular argument, and certainly not one for the establishment of private property.

You sereously oppose private property? In that case I'll have your PC! :P

What about by virtue of having mixed your labour with it? Or as a result of the individual conscious's right to expression?

Another arguement would be the subjective equality of ideas, requiring an equal line to be drawn between people- one of private property?

Or even simply the fact that it's a requirement for an economy, and thus for civilisation.

EDIT: DIEU ET MON DROIT!

"Tea and cake or death!"

That's my suggestion

How about

"We invent games for the rest of the world to beat us at? :D:D

Or "Bow to us, one of ours created NationStates"

But, as I said above, the Crown is subservient to parliament. I don’t see how they could act as any sort of barrier against parliamentary tyranny.
Things would need to be pretty bad in order for the Courts to agree with it, but it's entirely within the Crown's remit to influence legislation by Order-in-Council as long as the High Court permits it. Plus, if all else fails, there's always the prospect of declaring a State of Emergency, but I'm sure there're pretty heavy restrictions on that one.

"Tea and cake or death!"

That's my suggestion
That's already the Church of England! >_<;

EDIT: 0o;

It wasn't a double post, I promise! I was posting after Chishi posted his! ><;

How about

"We invent games for therest of the world to beat us at? :D:D

If Brown has suggested that we need a motto, then why. He's a bloody scot.

I'm still mystified as to why Brown being Scottish should bar him from being the PM. He is a Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons, and has just as much right to become Prime Minister as anyone else in there. I'm not sure what all this 'bloody Scot' nonsense is about either. Have you ever been to Scotland? Met any Scottish people?

And no, I'm not from Scotland and nor do I live there. I just can't see the point in all this anti-Scotland rubbish.

And no, I'm not from Scotland and nor do I live there. I just can't see the point in all this anti-Scotland rubbish.
It's just Conservative England being all pissy. If we let them have their devolved local assembly, they'll be off your backs, I reckon.

It's just Conservative England being all pissy. If we let them have their devolved local assembly, they'll be off your backs, I reckon.

I don't want an English Parliament either... the last thing we need is another layer of politicians and bureaucracy! :rolleyes:

I actually feel sorry for Scotland and Wales because they voted in favour of having devolved bodies :P

Assuming the Crown gives two hoots about anti-terror measures. I wouldn’t leave the defence of liberty up to a bunch of inbred half-wits. The bases for your argument is that the Queen and Royal Family are all useless. They are not; those in line for the throne are trained for the job virtually as soon as they are born. They know what is good for the country and don’t have to worry about vote winning policies. For instance, the trident nuclear missiles. Unpopular in the general public but ultimately good for the security of our county. For now we have peace, but in 10-20 years the situation could be completely different. Now many politicians just care about keeping there constituency so will go with popular opinion and many people just say no to nukes without knowing there true strategic value. However a royal with no need to win an election and with experience and training in foreign affairs and statesmanship can see what is good for the country, keeping the missies. And with the Royal Protectorate can use there power to ensure the right thing is done.

That’s is not the point. The point is that now the govt. in power can put Lords in place that suit there needs and support them, also if further reform is taken through then you will have to be voted into the house of lords by the govt. The benefit of the lords is that they don’t have to win votes, so they don’t follow vote winning policies that will have a detrimental effect on the country as a whole, even if the people don’t realise it. For example the super casino's and the hunting ban, although the govt cheated the later through.
Ah, I see. It's a case of "people don't vote the way I do but I'm right so we ought to fill Parliament with people who think like me anyway."

And it has always been that the speech is spoken by the monarch, because it is what HER govt. is planning for the country. He is symbolically undermining the Queen by showing he has more power than her, which is not the case. You say that the queen would be ousted if she tried to exercise her power, but I doubt it would be that simple.
He does have more power than her. The Prime Minister is the head of the government, which is so named as a result of history only. The cabinet, which he chooses, decides government policy, directs royal perogatives, corresponds with other States and decides our foreign policy. And, decided the legislative programme for each session of parliament.

Not the Queen.

The United Kingdom is no longer ruled solely by one government, but a collection of four because of devolution, I would call that breaking up the Union.
America: fifty states, fifty state governments, one federal government, unbroken.
Australia: six states, six state governments, one federal government, unbroken.
Germany: sixteen lander, sixteen state governments, one federal government, unbroken.

Add to that Brazil, Canada, Austria, Nigeria, Mexico, Northern Ireland since 1922.

Make of that what you will.

Assuming that this is indeed a failed stunt by Brown to artificially generate some sort of feeling of national unity which isn't actually there, how about "E pluribus pluribus"?

Or given that xenophobia is maybe the one thing that does hold us together a little bit, maybe the suggestions about "at least we're not French" were also pretty realistic. Though the British nations probably have at least as much animosity towards each other as they do towards anyone else, so maybe it's not such a helpful unifying thought after all.

A most eloquent way of making your point! However the reality is just as you say, the Commons made this change so suit the Commons, not the nation. What they have created is a mess, but also a very frightening situation.
Not really. It's not really changed since 1911.

The hereditary Lords were an effective restraint on Commons, part of what the Americans love to call “checks and balances”. Being hereditary, they did not have to respond to popular pressure and knee jerk reaction, nor could the upper house by filled with government cronies and yes men. Now it is, and we are being gradually led to a dark place because of it, where the Commons will have no one to scrutinise it or question it, except the volatile tide of public opinion and the lowest common denominator, left ultimately to run riot with no brake in place any more.
Nonsense. The Lords has had no effective power since 1911, and less since the Salisbury convention and second parliament act. Since then the Lords has lost its veto and the Commons has been de jure the primary House of Parliament. It does and has not formed a balance to the House of Commons, and in this era of government responsible to the people not the aristocracy, does not have to be. Our government has always been run on the basis of (apparently) following public opinion, and the last time it wasn't - guess what - we restricted the Lord's power to reject legislation.

Put it this way. Compare the number of successful democracies with no or an elected upper house to the number with a hereditary house.

It's quite revealing. Plenty of countries work very well without.

A wonderful reform. The house of Lords, there to check the power of the Commons. A house of Lord appointed by someone from the Commons. Genius
Which is why election by the people can be the only way of ensuring it has the power and authority to check the commons, if such a check is indeed necessary. A hereditary house has no legitimacy, an appointed house no capacity to challenge legislation. Only a 'backbench house' elected by the people will do.

The bases for your argument is that the Queen and Royal Family are all useless. They are not; those in line for the throne are trained for the job virtually as soon as they are born. They know what is good for the country and don’t have to worry about vote winning policies. For instance, the trident nuclear missiles. Unpopular in the general public but ultimately good for the security of our county.For now we have peace, but in 10-20 years the situation could be completely different. Now many politicians just care about keeping there constituency so will go with popular opinion and many people just say no to nukes without knowing there true strategic value. However a royal with no need to win an election and with experience and training in foreign affairs and statesmanship can see what is good for the country, keeping the missies. And with the Royal Protectorate can use there power to ensure the right thing is done.
Here we go again. "I'm right, but the public disagerees, so we've got to arrange our government so people who think like me have a monopoly on government."

Ah, I see. It's a case of "people don't vote the way I do but I'm right so we ought to fill Parliament with people who think like me anyway." Things like a higher NHS budget makes people vote for you, but most people wouldn’t read the small print that says the money would be taken from other important sector like the Armed Forces or the Highways. The point is that the Lords don’t have to win votes, so they can say 'No, This would be bad for the country'. Its not as if they simply decide there and then, they have lengthily debates considering all sides of the argument and all parties involved.

He does have more power than her. The Prime Minister is the head of the government, which is so named as a result of history only. The cabinet, which he chooses, decides government policy, directs royal perogatives, corresponds with other States and decides our foreign policy. And, decided the legislative programme for each session of parliament.

Not the Queen.
The Prime-Minister cannot abolish parliament, the Queen can. Also the Ministers have to be voted in by the people. The Queen doesn’t, she will always be there. Just because the Queen doesn’t use her power doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That’s like saying the old lawnmower in the shed doesn’t work because you don’t use it, its just wrong.
America: fifty states, fifty state governments, one federal government, unbroken.
Australia: six states, six state governments, one federal government, unbroken.
Germany: sixteen lander, sixteen state governments, one federal government, unbroken.

Add to that Brazil, Canada, Austria, Nigeria, Mexico, Northern Ireland since 1922.

Make of that what you will. The American states and German Lander are not separate countries, England, Scotland, Wales and NI are. The situation is unique throughout the world; to compare it to other countries cannot be done.

And even though I think all this stuff about government and devolution is a bit off-topic, it's hard to avoid getting sucked in:

Of course the Queen would be in trouble if she tried to exercise too much of her theoretical power - her great-great-great-great-grandfather tried it and got his head chopped off. While the modern manifestation would perhaps be more along the lines of just quietly ignoring her, I think the fact remains she would probably not get her own way over the wishes of the government.

And even though I think all this stuff about government and devolution is a bit off-topic, it's hard to avoid getting sucked in:

Of course the Queen would be in trouble if she tried to exercise too much of her theoretical power - her great-great-great-great-grandfather tried it and got his head chopped off. While the modern manifestation would perhaps be more along the lines of just quietly ignoring her, I think the fact remains she would probably not get her own way over the wishes of the government.
Out of interest, Charles I and Elizabeth II aren't related, but apart from that, you're pretty much correct.

While the modern manifestation would perhaps be more along the lines of just quietly ignoring her, I think the fact remains she would probably not get her own way over the wishes of the government.
Again, I think it's up to the High Courts to decide whether the ruling is upheld or not. It could well be the case that they rather like the suggestion.

yes she is related to Charles I through his Sister Elizabeth of Bohemia
Really? You learn something every day, although I should have guessed considering how all the European dynasties are related.

Out of interest, Charles I and Elizabeth II aren't related, but apart from that, you're pretty much correct.

yes she is related to Charles I through his Sister Elizabeth of Bohemia

He does have more power than her. The Prime Minister is the head of the government, which is so named as a result of history only. The cabinet, which he chooses, decides government policy, directs royal perogatives, corresponds with other States and decides our foreign policy. And, decided the legislative programme for each session of parliament.

Not the Queen.


That the PM enacts Royal Perogatives (honours, declaration of war) etc. are one of the things tha truly concerns me. Parliament has more power than is good, and no compass to guide it excep the desire to win popular support in a few years time. This is potentially not good at all.

They are called Royal Perogatives for a reason.

I think you’re a bit lost.

The seventeenth century is that-away.

I like you you're funny. Oaths are so witty aren't they.

The American states and German Lander are not separate countries, England, Scotland, Wales and NI are. The situation is unique throughout the world; to compare it to other countries cannot be done.

Actually Malaysia has a similar arrangement. Each of the states of Malaysia historically are independent Sultanates, now federated into a constitutional monarchy. The difference is that there are several royal families and so you have a rotating monarchy, which gives it a different flavour, but the fundamentals under the skin are not so different o hat of the UK. When Malaysia became independent a lot of the parliamentary system we have was adopted there too, with a few variants for specific Malaysian concerns. One of the problems that systems has faced is the same as us, an excessively powerful lower house trying to take mre power from the monarch and upper house. This led to a deadlock between monarch and lower house with the Sultan of Johor at one point.

Wow this started a huge non-traditional debate...

They do have a motto, the Royal one: "Dieu et mon droit". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UK_Royal_Coat_of_Arms.svg)

It is customary for some Monarchies to use the motto of the Monarch or the royal family - Sweden has "För Sverige - I Tiden", The Nethelands have "Je maintiendrai", Norway has "Alt for Norge", Denmark has "Guds hjælp, Folkets kærlighed, Danmarks styrke" and so on.

That's what I was thinking of...

Things like a higher NHS budget makes people vote for you, but most people wouldn’t read the small print that says the money would be taken from other important sector like the Armed Forces or the Highways. The point is that the Lords don’t have to win votes, so they can say 'No, This would be bad for the country'. Its not as if they simply decide there and then, they have lengthily debates considering all sides of the argument and all parties involved.
If a democratically elected government wants to lower defence or highways budgets, it is their decision, not the Lords. Other countries seem to do fine without a hereditary house of Parliament and have functioning roads and a strong military. Furthermore, the Lords have even less authority over appropriations bills than they do other bills. So no, they can't say 'no, this will be bad for the country' even if it were right that they could do so.

The Prime-Minister cannot abolish parliament, the Queen can. Also the Ministers have to be voted in by the people. The Queen doesn’t, she will always be there. Just because the Queen doesn’t use her power doesn’t mean it isn’t there. That’s like saying the old lawnmower in the shed doesn’t work because you don’t use it, its just wrong.
The Queen uses these powers, and only uses these powers, on the advice of the Prime Minister, and any attempt to do so contrary to that advice would precipitate a huge constitutional crisis likely leading to huge opposition to the Monarchy in Parliament and to the population at least that voted for the government and anyone in the opposition interested in democracy. The monarchy does not want to create a rallying call for a republic, and so will not use these powers.

The American states and German Lander are not separate countries, England, Scotland, Wales and NI are. The situation is unique throughout the world; to compare it to other countries cannot be done.
No. Politically, and constitutionally, the situation is comparable, regardless of semantics. Having a division of powers between different layers of government has existed in the UK since 1922 successfully, and in plenty of other countries with differing levels of secessionist and nationalist movements, just like the UK. Without suddenly causing some form of national collapse.

That the PM enacts Royal Perogatives (honours, declaration of war) etc. are one of the things tha truly concerns me. Parliament has more power than is good, and no compass to guide it excep the desire to win popular support in a few years time. This is potentially not good at all.
Perhaps not, but it is no different to every other country in the world, North Korea excepted.

They are called Royal Perogatives for a reason.
See above.

It has to be five words or fewer. I would suggest, "Britain: Home of the proto-Americans."
The show QI has some suggestions here (http://www.qi.com/news/item.php?id=560). My favorite is, "Once might empire, slightly used."

Queen doesn’t sign an bill then it doesn’t become law. Perhaps not a barrier but definetly a stumbling block.
Technically a potential stumbling block, yes. But in modern Britain’s political scene, the Queen can hardly refuse to sign a bill that has passed through the two houses.

I don’t deny that on paper the Queen has a small amount of executive power. But in reality, that power is completely ceremonial. She doesn’t have the legitimacy nor the military or fiscal power behind her to successfully challenge parliament.



You sereously oppose private property? In that case I’ll have your PC! :P
I have serious misgivings about the establishment of private property, especially ownership of land. I don’t think there’s a very good philosophical argument for how one claims unowned land.

What about by virtue of having mixed your labour with it?
Locke’s ‘mixing’ labour to create property seems vague and unsatisfactory to me. What constitutes ‘mixing’? And how does mixing my labour suddenly give me rights over, and you duties towards, a portion of land? Where do these rights and duties come from?

To paraphrase Robert Nozick, if I open a can of Coke (labour) and mix it with the sea, do I suddenly own the sea? A rather spurious example, I know, but it highlights the strangeness of Locke’s position.

Or as a result of the individual conscious’s right to expression?
I’m unfamiliar with this response, but I don’t see how right to expression (which could, I suppose, be to put labour into land) confers ownership rights onto me and duties towards private property onto you.

Interesting tack, though.

Another arguement would be the subjective equality of ideas, requiring an equal line to be drawn between people- one of private property?
Again, I’m not too familiar with this line of reasoning.

Or even simply the fact that it’s a requirement for an economy, and thus for civilisation.
One could argue that it isn’t a requirement for an economy.



Things would need to be pretty bad in order for the Courts to agree with it, but it’s entirely within the Crown’s remit to influence legislation by Order-in-Council as long as the High Court permits it. Plus, if all else fails, there’s always the prospect of declaring a State of Emergency, but I’m sure there’re pretty heavy restrictions on that one.
But power doesn’t transfer to the Crown during a State of Emergency, surely?

Anyhoo, as you say, things would have to be in a pretty bad shape for an Order-in-Council to be issued, or for the Crown to take on more executive power.



The bases for your argument is that the Queen and Royal Family are all useless. They are not; those in line for the throne are trained for the job virtually as soon as they are born. They know what is good for the country and don’t have to worry about vote winning policies.
I seriously doubt any members of the Royal family ‘know what is good for the country’. They know what is good for themselves: taxpayers money.

And killing wildfowl.

As to being ‘trained for the job’, the job in question is a purely ceremonial one, so those in line for the throne are getting trained how to wave out of windows, sit on fancy chairs with fancy hats on, and how to wine and dine barbaric oil-rich dictators.

For instance, the trident nuclear missiles. Unpopular in the general public but ultimately good for the security of our county.
Says you.

Have you been trained for the job?

For now we have peace, but in 10-20 years the situation could be completely different. Now many politicians just care about keeping there constituency so will go with popular opinion and many people just say no to nukes without knowing there true strategic value.
Which you know so well, right?

However a royal with no need to win an election and with experience and training in foreign affairs and statesmanship can see what is good for the country, keeping the missies. And with the Royal Protectorate can use there power to ensure the right thing is done.
You’d seriously want to live in an almost absolutist monarchy?

I shudder at the thought. Handing power over to a small set of aristocrats is madness in my opinion. There’s been struggle enough to get a limited form of representation on the go in Britain; why would we want to reverse the trend now, go back to the 1600s?



I like you you’re funny. Oaths are so witty aren’t they.
Swearing allegiance to an unelected, impotent monarch is pretty funny from my point of view.



It has to be five words or fewer. I would suggest, “Britain: Home of the proto-Americans.”
The show QI has some suggestions here (“http://www.qi.com/news/item.php?id=560”). My favorite is, “Once might empire, slightly used.”
Lolerz.

“Promoting historical unity myths since 1066.”

"Better than America. We think."

Airstrip One already has a motto.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I mean, jesus christ, it's 2007. 1984 was 23 years ago, you'd think you would have gotten it by now.

Airstrip One already has a motto.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I mean, jesus christ, it's 2007. 1984 was 23 years ago, you'd think you would have gotten it by now.

:D

I'm satisfied with the current Scottish motto - 'no one provokes me with impunity.' Or to give it its modern translation 'whit are you lookin at?'

Or "don't fuck with me."

The Dipso, Fatso, Bingo, Asbo, Tesco one rocks. Sooooooo spot on :D

But the true essence of the UK is summarised in this:

"Will the property market turn?"

Yes well, hmmm.... *quite* :D

Or given that xenophobia is maybe the one thing that does hold us together a little bit, maybe the suggestions about "at least we're not French" were also pretty realistic.

That doesn't work for me, though: I'm British and French! :(

"Have a nice cup of tea" would seem ideal. ;)

Or just "Dieu et mon droit". It's already there, and it reminds me that being French and British isn't a contradiction in terms.

Here's a few from me.

We beat the Germans. Twice.

Britain: In various wars since 1939.

Britain: America's lapdog (for now...)

We still build the best planes!

Atlee wrecked our train system.


As for the frogs:

'Ve Surrender!'

didn't gb used to have one? something about the sun never setting?

=^^=
.../\...

How boring. Accurate, maybe, but boring, nevertheless.

How about: "Next time we will win!"? ;)

Atlee wrecked our train system.
Atlee?

But Beeching was the one who got rid of the vast majority of the rail system.


As for the frogs:

'Ve Surrender!'
Well, that's not been done before, has it?

Utter bollocks as well. It irritates me in the extreme.

"In George we trust"?

Well, there is always the Mr Kipling's "exceedingly good" motto :P

Well, there is always the Mr Kipling's "exceedingly good" motto :P
:D

Got my vote!

:D

Got my vote!

I remember when I was in Australia - they used to sell those creamy filled rolly-polly things covered in chocolate - fuck they were so good; good bye sex, we have a new number one :fluffle:

Locke’s ‘mixing’ labour to create property seems vague and unsatisfactory to me. What constitutes ‘mixing’? And how does mixing my labour suddenly give me rights over, and you duties towards, a portion of land? Where do these rights and duties come from?

To paraphrase Robert Nozick, if I open a can of Coke (labour) and mix it with the sea, do I suddenly own the sea? A rather spurious example, I know, but it highlights the strangeness of Locke’s position.

Good example actually. I normally interpret it as meaning that, if you can take an un-owned piece of land, or whatever, and somehow transform it into something else that could serve a purpose, you own it. So planting crops gives the land a purpose of agriculture. As no-one owns it, no-one has the right to prevent you.

One way of looking at it is this. Suppose we own the product of our labour. What if the product of our labour is part of soemthing else? So this field has crops in it, which are there because I planted them. My labour has now been turned into agriculture, and is a requirement for the growing.

Since without my labour, nothing would have grown, and with my labour, something will grow, it can be determined that my labour is the cause of the growth (efficient cause, I believe Aristotle would have said). The growth is due to my labour, it is produced by my labour. It is the product of my labour.

This would show that I own the growth, but not necessarily the land beneath it, or the crops it produces.

But the growth is taking from the field (nourishment), and giving to the plants. To do so I can only be as a result of the product of my labour, passing through soemthing I own. Ok, lost that line of reasoning.

The plants are the result, the product, of the growth. The growth is the result, the product, of my labour. Since I own the growth, I can identify with it. Thus I own it's product, the crops.

This would allow for private ownership of stuff, like crops, and, by extension, other goods. But how to establish the ownership of land?

What is land? Dirt, mud, decomposing plant matter, rock. Is it of any different material to crops, or anything else that can be owned? No, so there is no physical reason why it shouldn't be owned. Is there any immaterial reason, like soemone owning it beforehand? No. So I see no reason why in theory it shouldn't be owned. However, to go by the above, one would have to create the land to own it. Hm.

Owh! But agriculture does change the land- tilting the soil, fertilising it. So it would lead to ownership.


I’m unfamiliar with this response, but I don’t see how right to expression (which could, I suppose, be to put labour into land) confers ownership rights onto me and duties towards private property onto you.

Interesting tack, though.

Ahh

The reason you’re unfamiliar is probably because I came up with it. It is, to a certain extent, a sub-set of the next line of reasoning.

If I have the right to express myself, without any property this would be extremely limited. While I concede I could talk or sing, or whatever, I wouldn’t be able to make anything. With no right over material, I would be unable to make a work of art.

Without rights over the (clay, for instance) it could be denied that I had any right to work it. I’ll leave this point aside for the moment however, and deal with the more pressing concern. Once I had made it, unless I owned it, I would be unable to stop anyone else from destroying it. I would have no more right to my masterpiece than anyone else had to tear it down and throw it at me.

Expression means being able to have some effect on the world, as a mark of my individual desires. Without property rights to separate what it mine from what is not, there would seem to be no way to co-ordinate people’s desires for self-expression.

Without property rights, you would be sorely pressed to find a basis for an opposition to murder, or rape. Only once the body has been declared the property of the individual do these follow.


Again, I’m not too familiar with this line of reasoning.

Hehe, this was my main argument.

And somewhat long-winded.

I see no over-reaching purpose to life, no cosmic meaning. For want of one, all ventures would be futile, all reasons ultimately baseless.

However, I could be wrong. There might be one, even if it’s a one in a million chance. If there is, we should look for it, since we cannot hope to achieve it otherwise, there being so many potential courses of action. If there isn’t, we lose nothing looking for one, since everything is ultimately objectively pointless.

I sincerely doubt any such meaning exists, and even were it too, I would not know what form it would take. Nor can I think of any objective way to place one route to it above another, one idea about it above another. How then to live, thus paralysed by the inability to judge?

Reason is our best judge of the world; reason is the tool with which our minds decipher it. Abstraction, all the other mental endowments that allow us to make sense of the world. I shall consider every collection, every organism capable of reason, of consciousness, to be one individual.

How then to allow for each to exist, with no supremacy or subjection? Lacking any objective measure, there is one we can use. We can infer the strength of an idea by how many individuals are convinced by its mantra. If an idea is held by one whereas another is held by two, we can infer that the latter is twice as persuasive. The more an idea is admired by individuals, the more it will be held.

And we can allow each idea power, influence, overt the material world to the same extent that it has influence, has been accepted by, individuals. If we grant each individual free reign to do largely as he wished, the more successful ideas will have more individuals who may in some small way have their actions inspired by that idea. The more centrally an idea is held, the more it will affect that individual. This exposes the difference between intensity and spread: that the world is round is an idea with great spread, but little intensity. That Spinoza was right is an idea with far less spread, but far more intensity. That a God exists has a fair bit of both.

How then to accord for when two individuals clash? Clearly, some line must be drawn between them, where one might enjoy his liberty and freedom without fear of another. This leads us to my earlier line of reasoning, that property rights are needed here. How else could it be done? We cannot divide the world up equally, as different individuals value different things. So it makes sense to allow each to use his own sense of value to ascern what he acquires to be his space of interactions. What to bring into the world of made-things, what to trade for and what to own.

One could argue that it isn’t a requirement for an economy.

One could. But in practise, there haven’t been many successful control economies. And even those presume ownership of the land, if collective.


I seriously doubt any members of the Royal family ‘know what is good for the country’. They know what is good for themselves: taxpayers money.

“The Civil List funds only HM and Prince Philip, and the Queen covers other members’ expenditure from the Privy Purse. The Civil List covers official expenditure, which an elected representative would incur also, and lets face it, a President like Bush must cost the earth to fund in terms of official duties, e.g. travel and accomodation during visits. Also, the Civil List is granted in return for the revenue from the monarch’s historical private source of income, the Duchy of Lancaster, passed from Monarch to Monarch as a private individual. You’re welcome to check these figures, but the Civil Lisit is annually set at £9.7million until 2011, while the Duchy of Lancaster, whose funds go straight to the Government, was worth over £132million in 2000- with inflation, and agricultural pick up since Foot and Mouth, this is easily above and beyond that figure now. Can we please stop spouting such nonsense about how much they cost us now? If anything, from the above, you could almost say they pay for the privelige of beingour First Family, and they do a damn good job”
Daniel Cuffe

"Duet on Mon Dei" has a nice ring to it...

Suppose we own the product of our labour. What if the product of our labour is part of soemthing else? So this field has crops in it, which are there because I planted them. My labour has now been turned into agriculture, and is a requirement for the growing.
“We own property because we own the product of our labour” seems to be begging the question. Perhaps even more fatally, the ‘product of our labour’ is often taken to mean ‘private property’, which would turn your argument into a rather circular one.

Since without my labour, nothing would have grown, and with my labour, something will grow, it can be determined that my labour is the cause of the growth (efficient cause, I believe Aristotle would have said). The growth is due to my labour, it is produced by my labour. It is the product of my labour.
Fine so far.... but:

This would show that I own the growth
How so?

Again, this seems to beg the question: “I have property rights over the products of my labour because I have property rights over my labour”. What gives you property rights, and in turn me duties toward your property, over said labour?

Expression means being able to have some effect on the world, as a mark of my individual desires. Without property rights to separate what it mine from what is not, there would seem to be no way to co-ordinate people’s desires for self-expression.
An interesting argument, and one I may come back to later, when I have more time.

What I would say now is that although it may be a good argument to keep property rights in existence, it fails to address how we establish those rights in the first place.

That’s my real interest.

Without property rights, you would be sorely pressed to find a basis for an opposition to murder, or rape. Only once the body has been declared the property of the individual do these follow.
I’d hope you’d find that murder and rape was wrong not simply because it was defiling ‘property’. I agree that it’s hard to find a cohesive answer for why murder and rape are wrong, apart from an innate sense that they are wrong, but I find an appeal to private property rather distasteful, and not a great argument in itself.

I see no over-reaching purpose to life, no cosmic meaning. For want of one, all ventures would be futile, all reasons ultimately baseless.
I agree heartily with this.

How then to allow for each to exist, with no supremacy or subjection? Lacking any objective measure, there is one we can use. We can infer the strength of an idea by how many individuals are convinced by its mantra. If an idea is held by one whereas another is held by two, we can infer that the latter is twice as persuasive. The more an idea is admired by individuals, the more it will be held.

And we can allow each idea power, influence, overt the material world to the same extent that it has influence, has been accepted by, individuals. If we grant each individual free reign to do largely as he wished, the more successful ideas will have more individuals who may in some small way have their actions inspired by that idea. The more centrally an idea is held, the more it will affect that individual. This exposes the difference between intensity and spread: that the world is round is an idea with great spread, but little intensity. That Spinoza was right is an idea with far less spread, but far more intensity. That a God exists has a fair bit of both.
Very interesting. I’m with you, or at least willing to go along for the ride, so far...

How then to accord for when two individuals clash? Clearly, some line must be drawn between them, where one might enjoy his liberty and freedom without fear of another. This leads us to my earlier line of reasoning, that property rights are needed here. How else could it be done? We cannot divide the world up equally, as different individuals value different things. So it makes sense to allow each to use his own sense of value to ascern what he acquires to be his space of interactions. What to bring into the world of made-things, what to trade for and what to own.
I’d highlight here the inefficiency and potential danger in allowing individuals to determine as ‘their own’, if that’s what you’re arguing. Moreover, I still don’t see a cohesive argument for property rights, if, as you correctly say, different individuals value different things. How are we to establish who has what property?

One could. But in practise, there haven’t been many successful control economies. And even those presume ownership of the land, if collective.
Collective ownership (or collective non-ownership), if it’s applied to all of humanity, is far less problematic to justify than individual property rights, though I admit it has been far less widespread of an idea/practice.

But I think it’s safe to say that property rights are not necessary to society, as we can identify societies with little or no individual property rights.

‘If anything, from the above, you could almost say they pay for the privelige of beingour First Family, and they do a damn good job’
You, me and Daniel Cuffe could argue all day long over whether or not the royals ‘deserve’ the money, but this wouldn’t show to me why the Royals have any business, or relevant experience, running the country unelected and unaccountable to UK citizens. Which was the question at hand.

...this wouldn’t show to me why the Royals have any business, or relevant experience, running the country unelected and unaccountable to UK citizens. Which was the question at hand.

No it wasn't. It was something along the lines of "why in hell's name would Britain need a national motto?" :)

I don’t deny that on paper the Queen has a small amount of executive power. But in reality, that power is completely ceremonial. She doesn’t have the legitimacy nor the military or fiscal power behind her to successfully challenge parliament.

At present it is true the position of our Monarch is not very strong, I won’t deny it. What I deny is that this is a positive thing. I don't think it is. Also, I think the basis for an extension of the Monarch's power is within our legal system. The fact it hasn't been used does not make it illegitimate or illegal. I think the argument that it is "illegitimate" for a Monarch to rule his or her own nation is in itself somewhat dubious in the legal department, if not a contradiction.


I seriously doubt any members of the Royal family ‘know what is good for the country’. They know what is good for themselves: taxpayers money.

And killing wildfowl.


I would argue that this is far more true of politicians than it is of royalty. Also where a Monarch is on the throne for life, there is a much stronger need for them to act in a manner which is beneficial to the nation than for an elected politicians, who will be there for ten years at best. What happens after that won't be his problem. This is not true for a Monarch. Things will come back to bite you. And also your children will inherit the fallout of any bad decisions you make. Again, this is not true of politicians (except the Bush dynasty)


As to being ‘trained for the job’, the job in question is a purely ceremonial one, so those in line for the throne are getting trained how to wave out of windows, sit on fancy chairs with fancy hats on, and how to wine and dine barbaric oil-rich dictators.


I think actually that the royal family of the UK have been more pragmatic than this. That Prince William has begun to be handed official duties such as the visit to New Zealand is proof of it. That the duties of the Monarch and the Royal family is restricted is evidence only that our current system limits their role, not that they are incapable of more.


I shudder at the thought. Handing power over to a small set of aristocrats is madness in my opinion. There’s been struggle enough to get a limited form of representation on the go in Britain; why would we want to reverse the trend now, go back to the 1600s?


Everyone has their own wishes. I shudder at the thought of a presidential system, yet many want to push that upon us. Others what an overarching Commons, which is what we have. Personally I am not sure an absolute system is best, but I'd certainly support having a powerful Monarch and see the Commons (in particular the PM) reigned in, and a house of Lords that isn't chosen by the Commons. For the role of PM I'd favour the actual definition of the position as more chairman like figure for the cabinet, and having to present the positions of the cabinet to Parliament and the Monarch more than the "presidential" style PM we've seen in recent years. I've had quite a few thoughts on this matter and come up with a fairly detailed idea of the possibilities for such a system, such as how laws would be passed and the likes.


Swearing allegiance to an unelected, impotent Monarch is pretty funny from my point of view.


And swearing it to a PM who won't be there in ten years is more meaningful?

At present it is true the position of our Monarch is not very strong, I won’t deny it. What I deny is that this is a positive thing. I don't think it is. Also, I think the basis for an extension of the Monarch's power is within our legal system. The fact it hasn't been used does not make it illegitimate or illegal. I think the argument that it is "illegitimate" for a Monarch to rule his or her own nation is in itself somewhat dubious in the legal department, if not a contradiction.
I don't even think it is within a monarch's legal capacity. Any attempt to use any kind of executive power would result in Parliament immediately passing legislation putting that power in the hands of parliament and the cabinet de jure as opposed to de facto. Which does not require royal approval (Royal Assent is granted by the Speaker and Lord Speaker of the Commons and Lords, not the monarch.) Not to mention the huge amount of public opposition the the monarchy as an institution this would entail which the monarchy wants as much as I want leukemia.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean that that's the way things turn out. That is the whole basis of how our country is run.

I would argue that this is far more true of politicians than it is of royalty. Also where a Monarch is on the throne for life, there is a much stronger need for them to act in a manner which is beneficial to the nation than for an elected politicians, who will be there for ten years at best. What happens after that won't be his problem. This is not true for a Monarch. Things will come back to bite you. And also your children will inherit the fallout of any bad decisions you make. Again, this is not true of politicians (except the Bush dynasty)
It certainatly came to bite Lous XVI, Gyanendra, Charles I et al...

I shudder the idea of giving power to someone who doesn't have to face any kind of reelection to stay in office. Being 'monarch for life' does not make a leader any more competent or likely to rule well. If there is no way the public can evaluate whether they think a leader is ruling well they have no incentive to do so. Look at Nepal as a prime example. Look at Ireland as an example of parliamentary republican government.

I think actually that the royal family of the UK have been more pragmatic than this. That Prince William has begun to be handed official duties such as the visit to New Zealand is proof of it. That the duties of the Monarch and the Royal family is restricted is evidence only that our current system limits their role, not that they are incapable of more.
Frankly, I could visit New Zealand if the taxpayer gave me millions to do it.

Everyone has their own wishes. I shudder at the thought of a presidential system, yet many want to push that upon us. Others what an overarching Commons, which is what we have. Personally I am not sure an absolute system is best, but I'd certainly support having a powerful Monarch and see the Commons (in particular the PM) reigned in, and a house of Lords that isn't chosen by the Commons. For the role of PM I'd favour the actual definition of the position as more chairman like figure for the cabinet, and having to present the positions of the cabinet to Parliament and the Monarch more than the "presidential" style PM we've seen in recent years. I've had quite a few thoughts on this matter and come up with a fairly detailed idea of the possibilities for such a system, such as how laws would be passed and the likes.
And look what happened when we had a system like that. Reform Acts 1832, 1667 and 1884, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, House of Lords Act 1999. This, though, is a recipe for a constitutional disaster. What happens when the unelected monarchy vetos bills popular with the people or passes unpopular legislation supported by the people and by the Commons? I can't see why or how going back 200 years is going to give us better government.

And swearing it to a PM who won't be there in ten years is more meaningful?
Plenty of other countries seem to manage swearing allegience to their country without the need of a monarch.

No it wasn't. It was something along the lines of "why in hell's name would Britain need a national motto?" :)
That's indeed the question that the OP led to, but not what I was discussing with GlasgowAberdeen.


At present it is true the position of our Monarch is not very strong, I won’t deny it. What I deny is that this is a positive thing. I don't think it is.
Why not?

I think the argument that it is "illegitimate" for a Monarch to rule his or her own nation is in itself somewhat dubious in the legal department, if not a contradiction.
Well, legitimacy of authority comes through only a few avenues.

There may be a couple more, but off the top of my head, I can think of: legitimate authority granted by a higher authority -- as in divine right, the Queen being authorised by a god or gods to rule; legitimate authority through knowledge, as in the legitimate authority of a geneticist to talk about genetics (which admittedly is a different kind of authority from political authority), known as epistemic authority; and legitimate authority through popular representation, as in being voted into authority.

Firstly, I submit that the Queen cannot appeal to authority from a higher authority, especially a god or gods. A large majority of the British population would simply not accept that reasoning as legitimate. The divine right of kings, or queens, has been a political dodo for quite some time now.

Secondly, I don't think the Queen has epistemic authority, she doesn't have the theoretical or practical knowledge that a regent would need to justly and wisely rule a modern country (indeed, I would submit that no monarch, especially no absolute monarch, would ever be capable of achieving this). Furthermore, epistemic authority doesn't automatically grant political authority; a skilled economist, for example, may still not have the correct knowledge to warrant running the Treasury.

Finally, the Queen, by necessity, doesn't have popular representative authority; she isn't voted into office. And I don't see the point of having an elected monarch take over from an elected PM.

I would argue that this is far more true of politicians than it is of royalty. Also where a Monarch is on the throne for life, there is a much stronger need for them to act in a manner which is beneficial to the nation than for an elected politicians, who will be there for ten years at best. What happens after that won't be his problem. This is not true for a Monarch. Things will come back to bite you. And also your children will inherit the fallout of any bad decisions you make. Again, this is not true of politicians (except the Bush dynasty)
The failings of politicians do not necessitate a return to rule by monarchy. I agree that politicians have issues with accountability and proper representation, but I don’t see how reverting back to an even less accountable and representative system would solve matters.

We shouldn’t create a system where the only 'accountability' is that you or your children might be lynched. Powerful monarch in today’s world can keep themselves fairly protected from violent reprisal.

I think actually that the royal family of the UK have been more pragmatic than this. That Prince William has begun to be handed official duties such as the visit to New Zealand is proof of it. That the duties of the Monarch and the Royal family is restricted is evidence only that our current system limits their role, not that they are incapable of more.
Ignoring the contentious point that a visit to New Zealand bankrolled by the taxpayer counts as 'political experience', I'm not claiming that in all possible worlds, the Royals are completely incapable of ruling a country. I was making the point that the lifestyle they now lead is hardly a good training for practically managing a society as complex as the UK.

Everyone has their own wishes. I shudder at the thought of a presidential system, yet many want to push that upon us. Others what an overarching Commons, which is what we have. Personally I am not sure an absolute system is best, but I'd certainly support having a powerful Monarch and see the Commons (in particular the PM) reigned in, and a house of Lords that isn't chosen by the Commons.
I'd say that many of the problems of a presidential system would be compounded by a monarchical one; problems of accountability, power of the executive, etc.

I also agree that the power of the PM and, albeit less so since Blair, Cabinet is far too overreaching, but I'd say that, if anything, the Commons need more power to hold the government accountable, not to be reigned in.

In fact, I think there needs to be a whole shake up of the entire parliamentary system, but this is straying (even more) of-topic. Suffice to say, I don't think a (more) powerful monarch would solve any of the problems of the Westminster system.

For the role of PM I'd favour the actual definition of the position as more chairman like figure for the cabinet, and having to present the positions of the cabinet to Parliament and the Monarch more than the "presidential" style PM we've seen in recent years.
And I'd probably agree with you on most counts.

Again, I dislike the idea of an overly powerful executive, and I don't see how transferring the power of executive over to the Crown (and indeed increasing the executive's power) would solve anything.

And swearing it to a PM who won't be there in ten years is more meaningful?
Slightly.

Swearing allegiance to a supposedly representative, publicly appointed figure --and thus swearing to the public who appointed that figure -- seems to be more meaningful than swearing allegiance to an unelected individual with little or no real power.

The choice isn't between a powerful monarch or a powerful PM.