Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well." Divide and conquer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Eh? The people who wanted Brexit are (mostly) the kind of people who are very pro monarchy. Republicanism doesn't have any kind of foot hold in the media, or any prominent groups pushing for it. Unfortunately! " Corbyn is an outspoken republican, he never publicly called for the abolition of the Royals, but wanted them removed from all government process. And look how he was attacked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"with a change in monarch we do perhaps need a real debate on abolition. I personally see no reason to keep Charles the turd. " Real debates are always much better, if not littered with childish and unnecessary name calling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who want the abolition of the monarchy are a tiny fringe in the UK and I can't see at all that changing as long as Charles keeps things steady, neutral, and manages to keep his political opinions to himself. Personally I am quite ambivalent about the concept of monarchy but liked the Queen and think Charles will do better than expected. People who are anti monarchy are far more likely to be pro EU fanatics, the EU of course being their new religion since they became unhinged in 2016. I suggest you scan Twitter to see where the anti monarchy vitriol is coming from at the moment, and you will see it is exactly the same crowd who have been ranting about Brexit since they lost the plot in 2016. " Interesting making a link between people who understand brexit and people who are against the monarchy. I wonder if there is a correlation. I mean, more evidence than you looking at Twitter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who want the abolition of the monarchy are a tiny fringe in the UK and I can't see at all that changing as long as Charles keeps things steady, neutral, and manages to keep his political opinions to himself. Personally I am quite ambivalent about the concept of monarchy but liked the Queen and think Charles will do better than expected. People who are anti monarchy are far more likely to be pro EU fanatics, the EU of course being their new religion since they became unhinged in 2016. I suggest you scan Twitter to see where the anti monarchy vitriol is coming from at the moment, and you will see it is exactly the same crowd who have been ranting about Brexit since they lost the plot in 2016. " You really do think life is binary and tribalist with just two sides to any discussion...oh dear!  Life isn’t black & white. It is grey with many and multiple permutations.
Some people who wanted to remain in the EU based that purely on economic factors (ie the things that actually really impact on all of us) and could see beyond the spurious, and in some cases idiotic, arguments around sovereignty. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Eh? The people who wanted Brexit are (mostly) the kind of people who are very pro monarchy. Republicanism doesn't have any kind of foot hold in the media, or any prominent groups pushing for it. Unfortunately! " Quite. There's not even a whiff of correlation between republicanism and support for Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well." I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally." there is a difference between the people who stoked the flames, and those who voted. It's not about being on the winning side. It's about creating a division. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. " Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who want the abolition of the monarchy are a tiny fringe in the UK and I can't see at all that changing as long as Charles keeps things steady, neutral, and manages to keep his political opinions to himself. Personally I am quite ambivalent about the concept of monarchy but liked the Queen and think Charles will do better than expected. People who are anti monarchy are far more likely to be pro EU fanatics, the EU of course being their new religion since they became unhinged in 2016. I suggest you scan Twitter to see where the anti monarchy vitriol is coming from at the moment, and you will see it is exactly the same crowd who have been ranting about Brexit since they lost the plot in 2016. You really do think life is binary and tribalist with just two sides to any discussion...oh dear! Life isn’t black & white. It is grey with many and multiple permutations.
Some people who wanted to remain in the EU based that purely on economic factors (ie the things that actually really impact on all of us) and could see beyond the spurious, and in some cases idiotic, arguments around sovereignty."Haha, says the person whose every single post is about Brexit and who sees the entire world through their Remoaner prism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who want the abolition of the monarchy are a tiny fringe in the UK and I can't see at all that changing as long as Charles keeps things steady, neutral, and manages to keep his political opinions to himself. Personally I am quite ambivalent about the concept of monarchy but liked the Queen and think Charles will do better than expected. People who are anti monarchy are far more likely to be pro EU fanatics, the EU of course being their new religion since they became unhinged in 2016. I suggest you scan Twitter to see where the anti monarchy vitriol is coming from at the moment, and you will see it is exactly the same crowd who have been ranting about Brexit since they lost the plot in 2016. You really do think life is binary and tribalist with just two sides to any discussion...oh dear! Life isn’t black & white. It is grey with many and multiple permutations.
Some people who wanted to remain in the EU based that purely on economic factors (ie the things that actually really impact on all of us) and could see beyond the spurious, and in some cases idiotic, arguments around sovereignty.
Haha, says the person whose every single post is about Brexit and who sees the entire world through their Remoaner prism."Lol don’t spout nonsense. I post about Brexit when it is relevant to the thread or discussion being had. If we are talking about economics and impact on GDP or £GBP then yep I will bring up Brexit because it is highly relevant no matter how much you would like to stick your head in the sand and wish it all just went away. You may need to read a few more threads | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press " It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically." Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. " If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"with a change in monarch we do perhaps need a real debate on abolition. I personally see no reason to keep Charles the turd. Real debates are always much better, if not littered with childish and unnecessary name calling." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. " And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People who want the abolition of the monarchy are a tiny fringe in the UK and I can't see at all that changing as long as Charles keeps things steady, neutral, and manages to keep his political opinions to himself. Personally I am quite ambivalent about the concept of monarchy but liked the Queen and think Charles will do better than expected. People who are anti monarchy are far more likely to be pro EU fanatics, the EU of course being their new religion since they became unhinged in 2016. I suggest you scan Twitter to see where the anti monarchy vitriol is coming from at the moment, and you will see it is exactly the same crowd who have been ranting about Brexit since they lost the plot in 2016. You really do think life is binary and tribalist with just two sides to any discussion...oh dear! Life isn’t black & white. It is grey with many and multiple permutations.
Some people who wanted to remain in the EU based that purely on economic factors (ie the things that actually really impact on all of us) and could see beyond the spurious, and in some cases idiotic, arguments around sovereignty.
Haha, says the person whose every single post is about Brexit and who sees the entire world through their Remoaner prism."Assuming you use "remoaner" to mean "someone who understands the impacts of brexit". Why is that a problem? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. " That's pretty funny, you appear to be suggesting that because some rich people don't want to fuck the country to get more wealth and power, that this is in some way evidence that brexit isn't a huge unpolishable turd. Excellent! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there!" Indeed. I'm also not sure what it has to do with republicanism  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there!" So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"?" What does this have to do with republicanism? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"? What does this have to do with republicanism?" I suggest you read the entire string. And with the greatest of respect, I don't have to talk about stuff that you would like me to talk about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"? What does this have to do with republicanism? I suggest you read the entire string. And with the greatest of respect, I don't have to talk about stuff that you would like me to talk about. " With the greatest of respect, you've not refuted a single point made. I had thought that the topic of the thread was republicanism, not Brexit is the bestestest round umpteen. But perhaps I'm mistaken. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"?" Look at the evidence and decide. Probably they all had their reasons. But those who backed leave 100% wanted to fuck British people to gain more wealth and power. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"? What does this have to do with republicanism? I suggest you read the entire string. And with the greatest of respect, I don't have to talk about stuff that you would like me to talk about. With the greatest of respect, you've not refuted a single point made. I had thought that the topic of the thread was republicanism, not Brexit is the bestestest round umpteen. But perhaps I'm mistaken." I think it's fun that the poster brought brexit confusion into the conversation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. " I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"? What does this have to do with republicanism? I suggest you read the entire string. And with the greatest of respect, I don't have to talk about stuff that you would like me to talk about. With the greatest of respect, you've not refuted a single point made. I had thought that the topic of the thread was republicanism, not Brexit is the bestestest round umpteen. But perhaps I'm mistaken." The main purpose of a Politics forum is for a group of people who have the same opinion to type out the same thing and share it with others who think the same. That way they can convince themselves that everyone agrees with them. Obviously when they find out that everyone doesn't agree with them they will totally lose their shit but never mind. It makes them feel in control for a while. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I seem to recall the anti eu brigade were pretty much a minority fringe movement untill the likes of farage and co were given a platform by the right wing press It coincided with decisions the clamp down in tax evasion and tax havens/offshoring. Ironically. Hmm, here's a list of all those poor working class people who paid for the Remain campaign: https://www.businessinsider.nl/sunday-times-rich-list-2017-biggest-donors-to-the-remain-campaign-against-a-brexit-2017-5/ But sure rewrite history so you can claim some kind of victimhood. If they said that poor working class people paid for the Remain campaign, you might have a point. As it is, you're just throwing up irrelevancies. Shows the strength of your position, really. And he ignores the wealthy backers for the Leave campaign who clearly had no ulterior motives LOL! Including all that suspect and unaccounted for money from Aaron Banks with his odd connections to Russia. I mean who knows, it might just be totally coincidental of course but Putin has been very keen over the last 20 years to undermine the unity of the EU and remove the power bloc he saw as a threat to his western borders. Clearly there cannot be any connection to Russia in the Leave campaign can there! So the wealthy backers of the Leave campaign have "ulterior motives", but the even wealthier backers of the Remain campaign don't have "ulterior motives"? What does this have to do with republicanism? I suggest you read the entire string. And with the greatest of respect, I don't have to talk about stuff that you would like me to talk about. With the greatest of respect, you've not refuted a single point made. I had thought that the topic of the thread was republicanism, not Brexit is the bestestest round umpteen. But perhaps I'm mistaken. The main purpose of a Politics forum is for a group of people who have the same opinion to type out the same thing and share it with others who think the same. That way they can convince themselves that everyone agrees with them. Obviously when they find out that everyone doesn't agree with them they will totally lose their shit but never mind. It makes them feel in control for a while." I didn't say you didn't have a right to your opinion. I said that you hadn't answered what has been put, and that this seems to be on a different topic than what you're discussing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. " Indeed - presumably the natural conclusion of the terms of the Glorious Revolution minimises their role in practical terms. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. " That's also my personal opinion. There's a wiki page which gives an overview of their funding called "Finances of the British royal family". It's interesting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. That's also my personal opinion. There's a wiki page which gives an overview of their funding called "Finances of the British royal family". It's interesting." Wait, I misunderstood. Yes from ye olden days it's reduced. I would like to see it reduced further and for there to be less hangers on. They mean a lot to a lot of people, so I wouldn't be in favour of abolishing the royal family entirely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. That's also my personal opinion. There's a wiki page which gives an overview of their funding called "Finances of the British royal family". It's interesting. Wait, I misunderstood. Yes from ye olden days it's reduced. I would like to see it reduced further and for there to be less hangers on. They mean a lot to a lot of people, so I wouldn't be in favour of abolishing the royal family entirely." Yes it's changed from the old days. I noticed in Charles speech that he confirms the monarchy will continue to surrender their income including from the crown estate to the government. In return they get the some money back from the government in the form of the sovereign Grant which is around 20% of the original money paid to the government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. That's also my personal opinion. There's a wiki page which gives an overview of their funding called "Finances of the British royal family". It's interesting. Wait, I misunderstood. Yes from ye olden days it's reduced. I would like to see it reduced further and for there to be less hangers on. They mean a lot to a lot of people, so I wouldn't be in favour of abolishing the royal family entirely. Yes it's changed from the old days. I noticed in Charles speech that he confirms the monarchy will continue to surrender their income including from the crown estate to the government. In return they get the some money back from the government in the form of the sovereign Grant which is around 20% of the original money paid to the government" That's for the king and his household, but there's a lot of other randomers that seem to get money. Like I said, I wouldn't abolish them entirely. It's an issue on which I could be swayed either way by some solid arguments. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally." King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” " Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members." "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists Monarchists are slightly more likely to be Leave voters, with those who cast a ballot in 2016 splitting 56%/44% in favour of Brexit, while those oppose Britain having a Royal family voted 65%/35% in favour of Remain. But it's not clear what the main driver is. Older ppl tend to support the monarchy more, and Tories tend to as well. Interesting. Not a huge correlation. I don't believe in unicorns, but I'm not necessarily favour abolishing the monarchy. Although I would like to see them having a reduced role, and less public funding. I see their current role as quite reduced as to me its more ceremonial than anything else. Of course that's just my personal opinion. What public funding do they get. That's also my personal opinion. There's a wiki page which gives an overview of their funding called "Finances of the British royal family". It's interesting. Wait, I misunderstood. Yes from ye olden days it's reduced. I would like to see it reduced further and for there to be less hangers on. They mean a lot to a lot of people, so I wouldn't be in favour of abolishing the royal family entirely. Yes it's changed from the old days. I noticed in Charles speech that he confirms the monarchy will continue to surrender their income including from the crown estate to the government. In return they get the some money back from the government in the form of the sovereign Grant which is around 20% of the original money paid to the government That's for the king and his household, but there's a lot of other randomers that seem to get money. Like I said, I wouldn't abolish them entirely. It's an issue on which I could be swayed either way by some solid arguments." As I understand it, it pays for all the senior royal members and their duties and resident upkeep, not just the king. The fairly recent trip by William and Kate to several countries was paid by the Grant as its part of their duties. I'm not sure if more minor royals get any from the Grant but also can't find anywhere that says they get any from the government either. If they do then totally agree that should stop. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc." I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no?" I like what you did there. You made an assumption, made another assumption based on the first and then got annoyed about it. Do you have any examples of this? To be clear. Understanding climate change isn't an "option". It's just understanding the very basic science. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"with a change in monarch we do perhaps need a real debate on abolition. I personally see no reason to keep Charles the turd. Real debates are always much better, if not littered with childish and unnecessary name calling." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no? I like what you did there. You made an assumption, made another assumption based on the first and then got annoyed about it. Do you have any examples of this? To be clear. Understanding climate change isn't an "option". It's just understanding the very basic science." We have lived through a fine example of "following the science" over the last two years with COVID. Often wrong, politically motivated, and incapable of predicting what will happen next week, let alone in 100 years' time. But even if one accepts what you claim to be "the science", which has obviously been hijacked for political ends by various globalist interest groups, what is done in response is an entirely political, democratic and economic decision. As someone who predicted Brexit twenty years ago, my feeling is that Net Zero is going to be Brexit x 1000. It is going to cause untold political and economic mayhem in the West, and most likely to virtually no useful end as far as the climate is concerned. It will simply impoverish the West while the rest of the world passes us by. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no? I like what you did there. You made an assumption, made another assumption based on the first and then got annoyed about it. Do you have any examples of this? To be clear. Understanding climate change isn't an "option". It's just understanding the very basic science. We have lived through a fine example of "following the science" over the last two years with COVID. Often wrong, politically motivated, and incapable of predicting what will happen next week, let alone in 100 years' time. But even if one accepts what you claim to be "the science", which has obviously been hijacked for political ends by various globalist interest groups, what is done in response is an entirely political, democratic and economic decision. As someone who predicted Brexit twenty years ago, my feeling is that Net Zero is going to be Brexit x 1000. It is going to cause untold political and economic mayhem in the West, and most likely to virtually no useful end as far as the climate is concerned. It will simply impoverish the West while the rest of the world passes us by." I am not claiming anything about the science. Anyone can choose to learn about climate science, it's basic stuff. Renewable energy is a lot cheaper than fossil fuels. So cheap clean energy is going to cause a lot less damage than pandering to the oil companies that donate to the Tories causing expensive energy and causing the climate to change. Have a look at what effect this is having right now with the energy and cost of living crisis. If politicians had listened to climate scientists in the 80's we wouldn't be in this mess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no? I like what you did there. You made an assumption, made another assumption based on the first and then got annoyed about it. Do you have any examples of this? To be clear. Understanding climate change isn't an "option". It's just understanding the very basic science. We have lived through a fine example of "following the science" over the last two years with COVID. Often wrong, politically motivated, and incapable of predicting what will happen next week, let alone in 100 years' time. But even if one accepts what you claim to be "the science", which has obviously been hijacked for political ends by various globalist interest groups, what is done in response is an entirely political, democratic and economic decision. As someone who predicted Brexit twenty years ago, my feeling is that Net Zero is going to be Brexit x 1000. It is going to cause untold political and economic mayhem in the West, and most likely to virtually no useful end as far as the climate is concerned. It will simply impoverish the West while the rest of the world passes us by." Actually you kind of hit the nail on the head. In the UK we didn’t follow the science. The Johnson Govt prevaricated and were indecisive and caused 000s more deaths through their inaction and hesitation. When scientists were shouting to close the immediately borders to flights from India, Johnson waited six weeks to ensure he could still do his trade talks visit (which were a waste of time) allowing 000s of people to arrive from India carrying Delta with them. Politics always seem to override science. And just cos it will annoy you...the only reason we had the corrupt inept Johnson Govt at that time of (inter)national crisis was because Leave voters wanted to Get Brexit Done. So another thing we can (indirectly) blame on Brexit  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no? I like what you did there. You made an assumption, made another assumption based on the first and then got annoyed about it. Do you have any examples of this? To be clear. Understanding climate change isn't an "option". It's just understanding the very basic science. We have lived through a fine example of "following the science" over the last two years with COVID. Often wrong, politically motivated, and incapable of predicting what will happen next week, let alone in 100 years' time. But even if one accepts what you claim to be "the science", which has obviously been hijacked for political ends by various globalist interest groups, what is done in response is an entirely political, democratic and economic decision. As someone who predicted Brexit twenty years ago, my feeling is that Net Zero is going to be Brexit x 1000. It is going to cause untold political and economic mayhem in the West, and most likely to virtually no useful end as far as the climate is concerned. It will simply impoverish the West while the rest of the world passes us by." At a high level, the science said something needed to be done COVID. I'd imagine we can agree do nothing would have been bad? And science took the sting out of COVID via vaccines. However science was PR'd to death to avoid accountability by our government. And misunderstood by the public (I don't even like using the word science when it's modelling) I'm intrigued why you would see renewables impoverishing us. My guess is that by us taking the heat, that creates slack for others to exploit. Maybe that's actually a fair outcome given our wealth was built in carbon But I am not sure if you don't believe global warming etc is happening. Or just the response is wrong. Can you clarify ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” " No idea why you bought "farage and daily express boys" into this, does that prove your belief or something? . You obviously are a fan of the uk becoming a Republic, but personally I hope you are wrong as its not something that I would want or vote for. Oh and voted remain by the way as I have stated so many times so not sure how this fits in with it all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” Charles as King will have no political opinions at all, whether on the environment or otherwise. Or did you not pay attention to what he was saying yesterday? As for republicanism, it's the Left who want to abolish the monarchy, and redistribute their assets equally among the masses. Well when I say equally there will have to be some sort of hierarchy obviously, perhaps starting with Party members. "King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist" That means he understands climate change. That in itself isn't political. But it certainly goes against the agenda of the Daily Mail Etc. I have a feeling that none of your opinions are political. They are all self evident truths and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot, no? I like what you did there. You made an assumption, made another assumption based on the first and then got annoyed about it. Do you have any examples of this? To be clear. Understanding climate change isn't an "option". It's just understanding the very basic science. We have lived through a fine example of "following the science" over the last two years with COVID. Often wrong, politically motivated, and incapable of predicting what will happen next week, let alone in 100 years' time. But even if one accepts what you claim to be "the science", which has obviously been hijacked for political ends by various globalist interest groups, what is done in response is an entirely political, democratic and economic decision. As someone who predicted Brexit twenty years ago, my feeling is that Net Zero is going to be Brexit x 1000. It is going to cause untold political and economic mayhem in the West, and most likely to virtually no useful end as far as the climate is concerned. It will simply impoverish the West while the rest of the world passes us by. At a high level, the science said something needed to be done COVID. I'd imagine we can agree do nothing would have been bad? And science took the sting out of COVID via vaccines. However science was PR'd to death to avoid accountability by our government. And misunderstood by the public (I don't even like using the word science when it's modelling) I'm intrigued why you would see renewables impoverishing us. My guess is that by us taking the heat, that creates slack for others to exploit. Maybe that's actually a fair outcome given our wealth was built in carbon But I am not sure if you don't believe global warming etc is happening. Or just the response is wrong. Can you clarify ?" Yes, I think the cumulative damage that developed nations have done gets swept under the rug. Along with manufacturing for our needs that is now done in other countries. It's still for our benefit, we can't just disown it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally.there is a difference between the people who stoked the flames, and those who voted. It's not about being on the winning side. It's about creating a division. " That was quite obvious from the ops post, thank you though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” No idea why you bought "farage and daily express boys" into this, does that prove your belief or something? . You obviously are a fan of the uk becoming a Republic, but personally I hope you are wrong as its not something that I would want or vote for. Oh and voted remain by the way as I have stated so many times so not sure how this fits in with it all." I think because Farage, Daily Mail Etc have the aim of dividing British people. Making us easier to control and subjugate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself." we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system " I agree. I'm questioning the idea in the OP that republicanism is divisive, rather than just one idea among many. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system I agree. I'm questioning the idea in the OP that republicanism is divisive, rather than just one idea among many." indeed I think republicanism could in time unite the country rather than divide it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system I agree. I'm questioning the idea in the OP that republicanism is divisive, rather than just one idea among many. indeed I think republicanism could in time unite the country rather than divide it " Yes. In the meantime I just quietly get on with my life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system " Would we all be born equal if the royalist suddenly went. Would there suddenly be no one richer than others. All children going to state school. No powerful industry leaders giving their children well paid jobs, overlooking more deserving candidates. I don't think being a republic will solve those problems and many more. It will simply remove one family that are better off than us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system Would we all be born equal if the royalist suddenly went. Would there suddenly be no one richer than others. All children going to state school. No powerful industry leaders giving their children well paid jobs, overlooking more deserving candidates. I don't think being a republic will solve those problems and many more. It will simply remove one family that are better off than us." that one family own a significant amount of this country's assets and manage them in such a way that prevents the country from achieving certain things that would improve everyones lives ... eg owning the sebead around the coast and blocking the construction of off-shore renewables for one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system Would we all be born equal if the royalist suddenly went. Would there suddenly be no one richer than others. All children going to state school. No powerful industry leaders giving their children well paid jobs, overlooking more deserving candidates. I don't think being a republic will solve those problems and many more. It will simply remove one family that are better off than us. that one family own a significant amount of this country's assets and manage them in such a way that prevents the country from achieving certain things that would improve everyones lives ... eg owning the sebead around the coast and blocking the construction of off-shore renewables for one." As I say it would remove that one family that are better off than us but I do agree that should that happen we would all of a sudden be born equal and gave examples | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system Would we all be born equal if the royalist suddenly went. Would there suddenly be no one richer than others. All children going to state school. No powerful industry leaders giving their children well paid jobs, overlooking more deserving candidates. I don't think being a republic will solve those problems and many more. It will simply remove one family that are better off than us. that one family own a significant amount of this country's assets and manage them in such a way that prevents the country from achieving certain things that would improve everyones lives ... eg owning the sebead around the coast and blocking the construction of off-shore renewables for one. As I say it would remove that one family that are better off than us but I do agree that should that happen we would all of a sudden be born equal and gave examples" I'd imagine it's a statement of intent. Next we can get rid of hereditary Lords. And then look at bumping up IHT. I suspect born equal is a dream. But being born such a distance apart because five generations ago your family profited off mine.... That disparity should be reduced. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? " Agree... let's break the union | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And becoming a republic would be better in what way ? " Interesting that not one poster has directly answered this question other than to say "it's democratic". We can thank republicanism for bestowing upon the world - amongst others - presidents Putin, Trump, Bolsonaro, Chavez, Pinochet, Macron, Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot and many more. A more illustrious and shining advert for Republicanism is difficult to imagine. Our constitution may not be perfect but it generally works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? " Why would that be a good thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"with a change in monarch we do perhaps need a real debate on abolition. I personally see no reason to keep Charles the turd. " The reason is national unity and international relationships. Whilst there are republicans in this country, in times of crisis, most UK citizens will be motivated by loyalty to the King or Queen. In a country like the USA only half wants their President so loyalties are divided. For 70 years Queen Elizabeth 2 travelled the world forming relationships with foreign countries. As a non-political leader she was readily accepted as a conduit for trade and political links. As an example of the alternative imagine a Republican US President trying to find common ground with, say, President Jeremy Corbyn.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And becoming a republic would be better in what way ?
Interesting that not one poster has directly answered this question other than to say "it's democratic". We can thank republicanism for bestowing upon the world - amongst others - presidents Putin, Trump, Bolsonaro, Chavez, Pinochet, Macron, Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot and many more. A more illustrious and shining advert for Republicanism is difficult to imagine. Our constitution may not be perfect but it generally works."how many of thise are truly democratic ? Trump and Macron. We've had Johnson and now Truss. I'd suggest many of the dictators are more akin to kings and queens than a properly elected president. I do note our royal family are neither sides of the coins as they have little to do with how a country is run. They are a symbol of how we choose to manage wealth and birthrights. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well." Let’s have a referendum, what could possibly go wrong  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” " I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And becoming a republic would be better in what way ?
Interesting that not one poster has directly answered this question other than to say "it's democratic". We can thank republicanism for bestowing upon the world - amongst others - presidents Putin, Trump, Bolsonaro, Chavez, Pinochet, Macron, Kim Jong Un, Pol Pot and many more. A more illustrious and shining advert for Republicanism is difficult to imagine. Our constitution may not be perfect but it generally works."As this poster has illustrated an elected head of state that is not politically neutral or is able to exercise power over the state for their own ends is a recipe for disaster. History is littered with examples of this. Yes it is democratic to have an elected head of state.. But that’s exactly what they should be and nothing more. A figurehead for the state. Given the current choice of either the current Royal family (who by birth are not much more than life prisoners in a gilded cage subject to constant media scrutiny) or say someone like President Boris…. I know which way I would vote. - Sorry Boris. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? " We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. " No it doesn’t | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. " There's less spelling mistakes when you copy and paste from the Daily Express website. But ignoring that, would I be right to assume you have the same level of evidence and data to back this up when you claim that Brexit isn't a massive steaming turd, or that Boris was a PM who cared about British people? IE, no data or evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. " On what do you base this? Let's have a look at some evidence. Most visited country in the world: France Most visited attraction in the world: Louvre Solved their issues with the guillotine: France. There you go. We'd get far more tourists visiting the Royal Palaces if they could actually go into then all, see all of the art, architecture and opulence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. " Should have gone to specsavers Pat, or get a bigger keyboard! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. " That's just how my mate down the pub would put it after a skin full. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You saw it here first. Watch the people who stoked division over immigrants, the EU, and more recently vaccines pick up the mantle of Republicanism in fairly short order as Queen Elizabeth II is laid to rest. This will be the next (and probably most significant) societal division that this country has endured over the last decade. It probably won’t end well. I think it has been statistically proven that most people who voted for brexit were in favor of a monarchy so I think you are way off personally. King Charles 3rd is a fervent environmentalist. Is that not enough for the Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and Daily Express fanboys to take exception? I can categorically assure you that Republicanism is on its way and it’s leading charge will be “cost saving.” I think that if you undertake a bost benefit invalysis , the benefits of the monarchy vastly vxeed the fosts. On what do you base this? Let's have a look at some evidence. Most visited country in the world: France Most visited attraction in the world: Louvre Solved their issues with the guillotine: France. There you go. We'd get far more tourists visiting the Royal Palaces if they could actually go into then all, see all of the art, architecture and opulence." Yeah but, the benefits vastly ‘vxeed the fosts’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not sure how we can definitively say that X or Y is designed to create division. I don't believe in monarchy. Not because I want to tear at the fabric of society, but because I believe it's morally wrong to have one person born with more inherent worth than another. I've believed this for most of my life. I believe any cause can be used to create division, but I don't believe that the cause is about division itself. we would be better off without a hereditary system of monarchs lords etc we should all be born equal, when there is a change of Monarch it is time to look at the whole outdated system Would we all be born equal if the royalist suddenly went. Would there suddenly be no one richer than others. All children going to state school. No powerful industry leaders giving their children well paid jobs, overlooking more deserving candidates. I don't think being a republic will solve those problems and many more. It will simply remove one family that are better off than us. that one family own a significant amount of this country's assets and manage them in such a way that prevents the country from achieving certain things that would improve everyones lives ... eg owning the sebead around the coast and blocking the construction of off-shore renewables for one. As I say it would remove that one family that are better off than us but I do agree that should that happen we would all of a sudden be born equal and gave examplesI'd imagine it's a statement of intent. Next we can get rid of hereditary Lords. And then look at bumping up IHT. I suspect born equal is a dream. But being born such a distance apart because five generations ago your family profited off mine.... That disparity should be reduced. " I understand that but personally do not think it will make everyone born equal. Unless all wealthy people are done away with the world over. People no longer send their children to private schools. To me their will always be some better of and who we are not equal to. If we get rid of the monarchy then the blame will just be targeted at someone else as things would not have changed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. " The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution." But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. " Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions." Not really sure being concerned about the environment is political really but it can be portrayed as such. And by droning on do you mean just expressing his opinions on an important issue which as Prince he was perfectly entitled to do? See that kind of language isn't very helpful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Not really sure being concerned about the environment is political really but it can be portrayed as such. And by droning on do you mean just expressing his opinions on an important issue which as Prince he was perfectly entitled to do? See that kind of language isn't very helpful. " It's turned political by anyone or any news outlet with an anti-science agenda. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up?" The trouble with written constitutions is they do not follow the times and thus become obsolete. For instance, a right given to the citizens to defend their republic from Royalists who may want to return to a monarchy can be used 246 years later to provide the tools required for school children to be gunned down in their classroom. You cannot blame those original men in 1787 for not thinking child anhilation would become a sport in the early 2000s and, further more, one enthusiastically supported by a political party and a charity (e.g. The NRA).  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up? The trouble with written constitutions is they do not follow the times and thus become obsolete. For instance, a right given to the citizens to defend their republic from Royalists who may want to return to a monarchy can be used 246 years later to provide the tools required for school children to be gunned down in their classroom. You cannot blame those original men in 1787 for not thinking child anhilation would become a sport in the early 2000s and, further more, one enthusiastically supported by a political party and a charity (e.g. The NRA). "The US is a good example. You can see how angry they get when someone suggests amending the amendment that talks about guns. Ireland has to have a referendum when they need to update their constitution. And we know what a cluster fuck that can create. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up?" Look back at the actions of Johnson as PM to understand why a written constitution would be of benefit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions." Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up!" Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up!" It's funny how the far right associate understanding climate change with being non-racist. As if either is a bad thing!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. " It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes." Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! It's funny how the far right associate understanding climate change with being non-racist. As if either is a bad thing! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. " Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing!"A lot of people I know think environmentalists are a bunch of out of touch rich people, or middle class urban dwelling public sector workers who haven't got a clue about the real world. I think Charles is just your man to reach out to the ordinary worker about climate change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing!
A lot of people I know think environmentalists are a bunch of out of touch rich people, or middle class urban dwelling public sector workers who haven't got a clue about the real world. I think Charles is just your man to reach out to the ordinary worker about climate change."Your friends have a very bizarre stereotype of people who understand the very basic science behind climate change. Maybe time to start hanging out with some more open minded and less sciencephobic people? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing!
A lot of people I know think environmentalists are a bunch of out of touch rich people, or middle class urban dwelling public sector workers who haven't got a clue about the real world. I think Charles is just your man to reach out to the ordinary worker about climate change."Charles is the epitome of a rich out of touch hypocritical environmentalist, rides round in private jets & tells us plebs what to do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. " fill ya boots mate get to the front and lead or are you waiting for someone else to do it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. fill ya boots mate get to the front and lead or are you waiting for someone else to do it" Are all kings & Queens the same ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing!
A lot of people I know think environmentalists are a bunch of out of touch rich people, or middle class urban dwelling public sector workers who haven't got a clue about the real world. I think Charles is just your man to reach out to the ordinary worker about climate change.
Charles is the epitome of a rich out of touch hypocritical environmentalist, rides round in private jets & tells us plebs what to do "What has he been telling you to do? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. fill ya boots mate get to the front and lead or are you waiting for someone else to do it Are all kings & Queens the same ? "no idea if all kings and queens are the same monarchy is not something im to intrested in,dunno if id get rid of the whole lot but definatley think the royals that are way down the pecking order should support themselves andrews kids for example, pretty sure annes kids earn there own living but defo way to many of them riding the gravy train | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution." "But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up?" "Look back at the actions of Johnson as PM to understand why a written constitution would be of benefit." You've lost me there. What do you think would be in a constitution that would have stopped Boris from doing anything that he did? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up? Look back at the actions of Johnson as PM to understand why a written constitution would be of benefit. You've lost me there. What do you think would be in a constitution that would have stopped Boris from doing anything that he did?" There’s too many things to list but just one example was the Johnson Govt repeatedly presenting bills to Parliament late with insufficient time for proper scrutiny. This should be codified in a written constitution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution." "But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up?" "Look back at the actions of Johnson as PM to understand why a written constitution would be of benefit." "You've lost me there. What do you think would be in a constitution that would have stopped Boris from doing anything that he did?" "There’s too many things to list but just one example was the Johnson Govt repeatedly presenting bills to Parliament late with insufficient time for proper scrutiny. This should be codified in a written constitution." I would say that sort of thing is already written down in parliamentary protocol. Having a written Constitution would just give him one more thing to ignore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing!
A lot of people I know think environmentalists are a bunch of out of touch rich people, or middle class urban dwelling public sector workers who haven't got a clue about the real world. I think Charles is just your man to reach out to the ordinary worker about climate change.
Charles is the epitome of a rich out of touch hypocritical environmentalist, rides round in private jets & tells us plebs what to do "Have you heard a single word King Charles 3rd has said these last 70 years? Accusations of hypocritical environmentalist etc are far from the truth. Let us be real. An ordinary worker would not give a flying fuck about climate change if they were given a Ford Mustang v8 and free fuel for life. So it's not just the rich. King Charles needs to travel efficiently between locations to get his message over. If he walked or went by bicycle it would take hundreds of times longer and defeat the object. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. But why? What benefit does that bring to the people, apart from less time needed to look things up? Look back at the actions of Johnson as PM to understand why a written constitution would be of benefit. You've lost me there. What do you think would be in a constitution that would have stopped Boris from doing anything that he did? There’s too many things to list but just one example was the Johnson Govt repeatedly presenting bills to Parliament late with insufficient time for proper scrutiny. This should be codified in a written constitution. I would say that sort of thing is already written down in parliamentary protocol. Having a written Constitution would just give him one more thing to ignore." Except that protocol (and precedent across hundreds or thousands of documents) can be easy to bypass and hard to quickly restore due to the complexity. A codified written constitution cannot as it should provide recourse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The unknown factor in this is how quiet Charlie stays on environmental matters and in exerting influence. Can see him being portrayed as the woke King and certain people stoking division even if not going as far as Republicanism. Hopefully Charles sticks by his commitments so far and doesn't stoke division by droning on about his personal political opinions. Nah I hope Charlie becomes an absolute thorn in the side of the political elite. If raising awareness of environmental issues is woke then woke me up! Yes I can see that King Charles is just another in your long line of working class heroes. Clearly not but he has a platform none of us will ever have and that provides an opportunity to either do good stuff or bad stuff. I just hope he doesn’t do nothing!
A lot of people I know think environmentalists are a bunch of out of touch rich people, or middle class urban dwelling public sector workers who haven't got a clue about the real world. I think Charles is just your man to reach out to the ordinary worker about climate change."Probably time to get out of your echo chamber then. When the vast majority of scientists around the whole world (are these all “middle class” or “out of touch rich people”?) are saying climate change is real and presenting peer reviewed evidence to support this...why would you still ignore it? Surely the more spokespeople across all walks of life who have a platform for getting the message out the better? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. " You clearly don’t understand that the UK does have a constitution written down. It is just spread across a number of documents which can make it a bit hard for some people to understand. If you would like to see it amalgamated into a single document that’s what you should be saying. I guess some just need everything laid out on a plate for them… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. You clearly don’t understand that the UK does have a constitution written down. It is just spread across a number of documents which can make it a bit hard for some people to understand. If you would like to see it amalgamated into a single document that’s what you should be saying. I guess some just need everything laid out on a plate for them…" It is far more complex then that because the constitution, like the law in England & Wales, is established through precedent, protocol and case law. It is actually therefore spread across hundreds (or even thousands) of documents. That makes it hard to enforce or hold Govt to account as proven by the Johnson led Govt’s frequent infringements and stretching of boundaries. A written codified constitution is nothing to be afraid of unless you want the latitude to bend the rules! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm a Republican but the best way for that baby is the smashing of the Union. In the meantime, can we agree that a written constitution would be a good thing for us all? We do have a written constitution. What you actually mean is the constitution has not been codified into a single document. This is a common mistake a lot of people make when they say this. The weasel worded excuse. I want to be the same as every comparable nation state and have the rules and rights of my state in a written constitution. You are defending the bosses system, and it only protects them. It’s not weasel worded excuse. The rules and rights of the state are written down. You just want them codified into a single document to make things simple for you. Of course it is. Why are we the only cunts without a written constitution then? Oh aye, cos we are unique and special. Smash this fecking awful union and start again. You clearly don’t understand that the UK does have a constitution written down. It is just spread across a number of documents which can make it a bit hard for some people to understand. If you would like to see it amalgamated into a single document that’s what you should be saying. I guess some just need everything laid out on a plate for them… It is far more complex then that because the constitution, like the law in England & Wales, is established through precedent, protocol and case law. It is actually therefore spread across hundreds (or even thousands) of documents. That makes it hard to enforce or hold Govt to account as proven by the Johnson led Govt’s frequent infringements and stretching of boundaries. A written codified constitution is nothing to be afraid of unless you want the latitude to bend the rules! " The unwritten crap only suits the powerful. No protection for the proles. Smash the UK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
