NationStates Jolt Archive

I don’t care how they are taken care of, along as they are and it doesn’t affect my way of life. I simply do not care how terrorists, be in Al Qaeda, the IRA, or any other terrorist organisation that dares attack the UK, are treated.
Then I heartily suggest you never enter public service in any shape or form; dehumanising one's opponents, no matter what acts they commit, is a terrible error.

If you knew anything of the history of the Troubles, this would be readily apparent to you.

Yes im sure, N.I was well esablished as one of the Home Nations by then, then the IRA started their campain.?"

No, you stated "but the Unionists were defending while the IRA was attacking. "...You don't seem to be aware of what sparked the IRA campaign.


The IRA was fighting for N.I to become part of the Republic, weren’t they?.?"

They were, not the "free state".

Why do you think that was? What was the difference between there and Scotland or Wales...?


So... didn’t stop the people voting to remain part of the UK. .?"

And that proves that catholics weren't a minority, discriminated against by the majority....? You never acknowledged that Brookeborough quote either...any reason?


And I just don’t understand "Cheese with that?"

Some people like Cheese with their whine.

He'll fit right in. Seriously, if the average squaddie is anything to by, he'll be considered erudite.

He'll be joining you doing the editorial for The Telegraph at the rate hes going....

How amazingly ignorant! I'm English and no way in hell am i going to let a couple of oppressive dogmatic backwards and hippocrital hell hole examples of nations tell us what's good for us! Pretty rich from a nation such as Iran where they cut peoples tongues out!

Please, the UN is trying to make every dam nation in the world exactly the same. I like having a manarchy! Sets us apart from the rest of the world...

For god sake... AND I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN GOD!!!

How amazingly ignorant! I'm English and no way in hell am i going to let a couple of oppressive dogmatic backwards and hippocrital hell hole examples of nations tell us what's good for us! Pretty rich from a nation such as Iran where they cut peoples tongues out!

Please, the UN is trying to make every dam nation in the world exactly the same. I like having a manarchy! Sets us apart from the rest of the world...

For god sake... AND I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN GOD!!!

I'm also English, and although not great fan of the monarchy, I do like the sound of this manarchy you speak of.

Then I heartily suggest you never enter public service in any shape or form; dehumanising one's opponents, no matter what acts they commit, is a terrible error.

If you knew anything of the history of the Troubles, this would be readily apparent to you.

Not that I'm involving myself in the Irish discussion, at all, but frankly, dehumanising the electorate, if you simply refer to dealing with them only with cold logic, not compassion, is precisely what I'd want in a public servant.

Not that I'm involving myself in the Irish discussion, at all, but frankly, dehumanising the electorate, if you simply refer to dealing with them only with cold logic, not compassion, is precisely what I'd want in a public servant.
Dehumanisation to the point of declaring someone or some people as 'non-human' is the problem though. That's quite different, as you will be well aware, from a detachment from emotional prejudice.

In this particular case, being a civil servant in NI and detaching oneself from one's, say, Catholic background to ensure a fair policy for Catholics and Protestants (and those not affiliated) is a stark difference to deciding that all or some Protestants are inhuman and thus can be treated in any way one sees fit.

None of the greatest tragedies of recent (or indeed not-so-recent) human history could not have been perpetrated without an element of dehumanisation; both on the part of the populace and its leaders. How does one send a whole section of society off to the Gulag, or the concentration camps, without reducing them to inhuman, or less-human?

How amazingly ignorant! I'm English and no way in hell am i going to let a couple of oppressive dogmatic backwards and hippocrital hell hole examples of nations tell us what's good for us! Pretty rich from a nation such as Iran where they cut peoples tongues out!

Please, the UN is trying to make every dam nation in the world exactly the same. I like having a manarchy! Sets us apart from the rest of the world...

For god sake... AND I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN GOD!!!

So what you're trying to say is: You didn't read the thread. Fine and dandy, but you know, saying just that would have saved you a lot of typing.

Please, the UN is trying to make every dam nation in the world exactly the same. I like having a manarchy! Sets us apart from the rest of the world...
Bar the nations which have a monarchy, yes.

So aye, that amazingly well-qualified group, the Human Rights Council, containing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Syria amongst other piss poor states reckons we should get rid of the monarchy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy,-says-UN.html

Of further interest, and showing why the HRC is an absolute joke, is the statement by Iran that we should more to stop sexual discrimination.

Your thoughts?

You would be surprised-shocked at how many NS nations on NS support the Cuban dictatorship government of Fidel & Raul.

Great Britain is a multi party democratic nation Monarchy or not. The King or Queen dosent have much power anymore. So if the British people wish to keep the Monarchy as a national symbol that is their right to do so.

I am very pro British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, European Union, USA, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.

You would be surprised-shocked at how many NS nations on NS support the Cuban dictatorship government of Fidel & Raul.

Great Britain is a multi party democratic nation Monarchy or not. The King or Queen dosent have much power anymore. So if the British people wish to keep the Monarchy as a national symbol that is their right to do so.

I am very pro British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, European Union, USA, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.

For the love of God can the US invade Cuba now. the Monroe doctrine says we can.

For the love of God can the US invade Cuba now. the Monroe doctrine says we can.
Because God forbid a nation doing something that the US says it can't.

Let's say hypothetically that the UK did decide to become a republic and abolish its monarchy.

I have a number of burning questions about this.

1. What would it call itself? It obviously can't be "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" anymore.

2. What would this mean for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Would they still owe allegiance to London, or would the dissolution of monarchy lead to the former UK dissolving back into its constituent parts?

3. What would happen to the other Commonwealth countries that retain the UK monarch as head of state? Would they too go along with republicanization, or would we have the decidedly awkward result of the (former) English monarch living in his/her estates in Britain but reigning in name over other countires? Or would they end up moving to another Commonwealth country.

4. What would happen to the rest of British nobility? Would their privileges and titles be abolished as well?

There's a lot of talk on this thread about the actual politics of republicanization, but what would be the actual effects? What do our fellow British NSGers think?

Because God forbid a nation doing something that the US says it can't.

You brits signed the Monroe doctrine too.

You brits signed the Monroe doctrine too.

Uh...no they didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

1. What would it call itself? It obviously can't be "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" anymore.

I imagine such a thing would be decided by some form of referendum on an official constitution. I would imagine something like "Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Stupid I know, but there you go.

2. What would this mean for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Would they still owe allegiance to London, or would the dissolution of monarchy lead to the former UK dissolving back into its constituent parts?

Again there is no reason why any particular model would have to accompany a republic, it could be either federal or centralized. What's wrong with our current arrangement? Everyone is pretty much happy with what they have...

3. What would happen to the other Commonwealth countries that retain the UK monarch as head of state? Would they too go along with republicanization, or would we have the decidedly awkward result of the (former) English monarch living in his/her estates in Britain but reigning in name over other countires? Or would they end up moving to another Commonwealth country.

Republic doesn't seem to have thought of a solution to this. It seems unfair that just because the UK decides to jump on the republican bandwagon that all the other realms would have to as well.

4. What would happen to the rest of British nobility? Would their privileges and titles be abolished as well?

I believe Republic supports abolition of the nobility.

There's a lot of talk on this thread about the actual politics of republicanization, but what would be the actual effects? What do our fellow British NSGers think?

Technically, it is illegal in the United Kingdom to engage in republican activity. European law, however, makes this unenforceable.

I personally think the idea of a republic is madness on many levels.

1. It is badly thought out. The royal family are a part of many nations identities and government. This is an issue for all the realms, not just the UK itself. To strip them of their status would cause a political mess across the entire commonwealth.

2. With the exception of the interregnum brought on by Cromwell, the UK has always been a monarchy. Why change? Why reject such a big part of our history, culture and identity? I'm very proud of our royal family, as the embodiment of our history and culture, and have no desire to loose that.

3. Politically and legally unsafe. We have had excessive collection of power in the office of "presidential style" PM's as it is. Adding a fully elected upper house and elected head of state into the mix will only exacerbate the current problems we are facing in the UK with showman politics and excessive populism.

4. Any attempt to bring about a republic will involve both a referendum and no doubt some attempt at knocking up a quick constitution. You know where that will lead...

5. An elected upper house is a big mistake, for it will be an ineffective check on the lower house, being subject to the same electoral pressures. The Lords (used to be) an effective check and balance on the powers of the Commons. This is being eroded, and a republic would make things much worse.