HabboxWiki needs you!
Are you a Habbo buff? Or maybe a rare trader with a bunch of LTDs? Get involved with HabboxWiki to share your knowledge!
Join our team!
Whether you're raving for rares, excited for events or happy helping, there's something for you! Click here to apply
Need a helping hand?
Check out our guides for all things to help you make friends, make rooms, and make money!


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Wanted to add on the video, from 7.40 onwards - doesn't look like an institution that is in any danger of people 'not caring'. :8



  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    Germany

    Firstly in regards to Germany, President Hindenburg did sign into law Nazi doctrines along with appointing Hitler into government. But like you said, you've just done a Google search. If you knew the motives - Hindenburg ultimately had his hands constitutionally tied as the Preisdent and not the Chancellor, and his motive in appointing Hitler if my recollection serves me right was that he would be "shown up" in power.

    If you read the history on the period though you will know that Hindenburg's presence was a great irritation to Hitler and certainly put brakes on his acquisition of power in Germany, hence the wait for Hindenburg to pass away. My argument simply is that quite possible, had Hindenburg been a monarch with an heir waiting in the wings then although possibly still toppled in the end, this would have led to more of a rebellion in Germany against Nazi rule.

    The actions of King Haakon VII of Norway in refusing to collaborate with Nazi Germany along with Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and King Christian X of Denmark inspired rebellion amongst the Norweigans, Danes and Dutch people - hence why Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark all remain kingdoms to this very day.

    Italy

    In terms of King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, you'll notice I did not state that monarchy is an absolute guarantee against dictatorship. Of course it is not - sometimes monarchy (although rarely constitutional) can even be the cause of a dictatorship like modern day Saudi Arabia or Imperial Germany. But it is a constitutional defence nevertheless because if you compare the constitutional monarchies of Britain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium Denmark, the Netherlands to republics in Europe you'll see that on the whole they are much more peaceful and stable.

    King-Emperor Edward VIII

    Important to remember context in all of this. Back in the 1930s, there were no gas chambers or German troops marching across Europe. National socialism had undoubtedly brought stability to Germany in the same way we view modern day China or Russia: a brute government but one that has stabilised a previously weak state. Kign Edward VIII was not alone in early admiration for 1930s Germany - in any case, constitutional restraints on the king resulted in his abdication anyway which rather supports my case.
    Just because stable nations have monarchies doesn't mean it's at all because they have monarchies. It really is such a farce of an argument you're making here.

    You'll have to provide evidence for this. It isn't a burning constitutional issue, no, because the vast majority are happy with the status quo in the same way that voting reform doesn't appear in the top ten issues when people are polled. If you attempted to remove the monarchy though with say a referendum, I would guarantee an even more intense debate than we had over the European Union last summer. Like I said, Australia - on the other side of the world, a curious mix of the British and American constitutional systems and during the Windsor's least popular years - didn't even want to abolish the monarchy when all of the media and political class wanted to.

    What we do know from polling is that the monarchy is key to our national identity and you only have to look at the crowds that turn up on royal events to see, as Lord Hurd put it a few years back, that the magic hasn't gone. The same crowds that were there to see King George VI on VE Day were there on the Queen's Golden Jubilee, her Diamond Jubilee, the Royal Wedding - even today Prince William visited my local area and huge crowds turned out. From our armed forces, to our flag, to our ceremonies, to our national anthem, to our post stamps, to our post boxes, telephone kiosks, national coat of arms, what we name our buildings and streets, our constitution, history, national celebrations, national times of mourning - everything is wrapped up in that of institution of The Crown.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/05/01...jack-mean-you/
    http://www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/how-imp...british-people
    Whilst I don't disagree with your point about the referendum, should the monarchy be removed without a referendum then I personally don't see many people actively campaigning for it back, or even feeling any difference in their life whatsoever. Personally, the only reason I see it even being an issue to be discussed is because people keep making it one along with stuff like fox hunting with dogs.

    Don't confuse your own indifference to the House of Windsor to that of the public.

    Huge crowds will turn out for the funeral of the Queen and the Coronations of Kings Charles, William and George.




    If they were not in the Queen's exact position then you're assuming a *huge* constitutional change that this country has never seen before - even when we had the English Civil War and overthrew the monarchy, Cromwell as Lord Protector basically assumed the institutions of the Crown rather than abolishing the structures of government as is what happened in France. Huge constitutional change is very un-British which is why we're still talking about Lords reform more than a hundred years after it first surfaced as an issue. There's no appetite for republicanism - or constitutional change - other than in the back pages of the Guardian newspaper.
    Funeral of the Queen? I don't disagree in the slightest. Typically, what I read from those who say they want a "UR", it is often followed by "after the Queen passes". I think there is a chance of a shake up of opinion when it's Charles/Williams turn.

    On the HoL, it benefits the incumbent to keep it as is. I believe if you put it to a public vote, most would be in favour of some kind of reform including myself.
    Having said that first point though, after a quick look up on HoL reform it suprisingly looks like it was the HoL voting against it being partially elected (which I agree with, but not surprising they would vote it down).

    There's a twist, however: YouGov Profiles data shows that when asked, 63% of the public say the Lords should be mostly (22%) or entirely (41%) elected, while only 15% say it should be mostly (10%) or entirely appointed (5%).
    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/01...s-house-lords/

    Personally, I'm happy with an unelected chamber but just not in its current state.

    I'm not the one making the case for a change - opponents of monarchy often bring up the cost factor (which does not bother me in the slightest as I think every penny is worth it and more) to which my question is exactly how they would bring down the costs when a President would likely cost the same or even more as in the case of the US President.

    Unless they want to merge the Crown with the office of the Prime Minister (as many of them say when you say this) which in itself would Presidentialise the position of PM and concentrate a lot of power in the hands of one person.
    I see no reason why a UK president would need anymore than a UK PM who gets a lot less in comparison to a US president. You could easily save costs by locating the UK president in Downing street.
    On what planet would a UK president need more than a US? Especially with Trump and his golf weekends.

    If you really want to debate the silly point that this government is somehow fascist for copying and pasting existing EU law into the statute books then i'll happily do so in The Great Repeal Bill thread.
    I'm fairly sure I was on about it dividing the country.

  3. #13
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Just because stable nations have monarchies doesn't mean it's at all because they have monarchies. It really is such a farce of an argument you're making here.
    How is it a farce to argue that countries which are constitutional monarchies often are the most stable because that prevents constant constitutional change and/or a dictator. The system of government a country has is key to whether a country is stable or not - the Westminster system for example has produced countless stable countries. France (the country most modern republics are based upon), since it first became a republic, is now on it's fifth republic since removing the House of Bourbon.

    Spain, which has alternated between kingdom and republic for the last century or two is another example. In the 1970s the dictator General Franco died, and the heir to the (vacant) Spanish throne Juan Carlos I became King - Franco intended that the King continue his regime. Instead, Juan Carlos being in place helped transition the country back to a democracy and possibly prevented another Spanish civil war between monarchists and republicans.

    One of the left wing leaders at the time proclaimed that "We are all royalists now!" after the actions of the King.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Whilst I don't disagree with your point about the referendum, should the monarchy be removed without a referendum then I personally don't see many people actively campaigning for it back, or even feeling any difference in their life whatsoever. Personally, the only reason I see it even being an issue to be discussed is because people keep making it one along with stuff like fox hunting with dogs.
    Really? Monarchy is still debated in Russia a hundred years after it was abolished. The likes of Serbia, Romania and even Libya are also pondering whether restoring their royal houses. I mentioned Spain earlier, the issue of monarchy has played a huge role in Spanish politics for the past 150 years and still does to this day. The abdication of King-Emperor VIII in this country nearly spawned a new political party headed by Sir Winston Churchill over the cause.

    Given all the polling I provided on the importance of monarch to people, as well as the identity issue, removal of the monarchy would become a huge issue as it was in Australia. Like the EU referendum, even more so actually, it is about identity. The removal of a key part of the British identity wouldn't be anything like fox hunting, don't be daft.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Funeral of the Queen? I don't disagree in the slightest. Typically, what I read from those who say they want a "UR", it is often followed by "after the Queen passes". I think there is a chance of a shake up of opinion when it's Charles/Williams turn.
    Many republicans always argue this but I actually think the opposite, they're making a tactical mistake thinking that a change of sovereign will bring them good fortune in their republican cause. With nearly every succession to the throne, there's been speculation that the monarchy is finished - especially when a monarch who has been on the throne for so long dies (Death of Queen-Empress Victoria being the prime example). King-Emperor Edward VII lived through very politically turbulent times with the rise of socialism, universal suffrage, trade unions and militarism and he used to introduce the then-Prince of Wales (later King-Emperor George V) as "The last King of England" - as it turned out George V was one of the most popular monarchs even with a radical Labour Party.

    When the Queen passes, attention will spin quite quickly - across the Commonwealth realms and world - to King Charles III and all the ceremony that comes with a change of reign. Those not dyed in the wool royalists will likely say "give him a chance" as we watch on with the Coronation and celebrations and the issue will once again be knocked off course. In time, he'll become the lovable grandfather figure that his mother currently is (monarchs tend to be at their most popular when they are young or very old).

    Unless a King Charles III does a Charles I or a Cromwell and storms the HoC then I think he's pretty secure.


    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    On the HoL, it benefits the incumbent to keep it as is. I believe if you put it to a public vote, most would be in favour of some kind of reform including myself.

    Having said that first point though, after a quick look up on HoL reform it suprisingly looks like it was the HoL voting against it being partially elected (which I agree with, but not surprising they would vote it down).

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/01...s-house-lords/

    Personally, I'm happy with an unelected chamber but just not in its current state.
    The argument against Lords reform, like against electoral reform a few years ago, hasn't been conducted in public - only really in academic circles and in the House of Lords itself. If we had a referendum on Lords reform, I would expect the public to not be interested in the issue at all and like with electoral reform, reject changes the dodgy politicians from the lower house are putting forward. If you look at the polling before and during the referendum on AV+ vs FPTP you'll see a similar situation: British people just do not like constitutional change.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    I see no reason why a UK president would need anymore than a UK PM who gets a lot less in comparison to a US president. You could easily save costs by locating the UK president in Downing street.
    A Head of State almost always earns more than a Head of Government given what the role is. And if moving the Presidency to Downing Street (itself controversial because Downing Street is de facto representative of the centre of our politics and government which the Head of State is not supposed to be) where would the Prime Minister then live along with the Chancellor?

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    On what planet would a UK president need more than a US? Especially with Trump and his golf weekends.
    I don't mean the wage I mean the security costs etc.
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 17-09-2017 at 07:53 PM.



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •