EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 615
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
| ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On May 01 2023 03:12 GreenHorizons wrote: What are citizens of the UK's thoughts on coronating their new king soon? Anyone planning on taking up his offer to swear your allegiance to your new king? Anyone find it absurd that your tax money is being used to coronate your new billionaire king? 1) I don't think this is abnormally soon. 2) Nope. 3) The royal family generate more income for the country than they cost. | ||
|
Mikau313
Netherlands230 Posts
On May 05 2023 17:08 MJG wrote: I'm not a royalist, but I do like that our head of state is someone with no official political power or agenda who simply rubberstamps whatever Parliament tells them to. I certainly wouldn't want to move to a system where the head of state is an elected official with their own political power and agenda that might be at odds with Parliament, which is what most republicans want to do. 1) I don't think this is abnormally soon. 2) Nope. 3) Nope. The royal family generate more income for the country than they cost. You are misrepresenting that link. The fact that palaces and landmarks that were built by kings and queens in the past generate revenue doesn't mean the current royalty generates that revenue. Even if you didn't have a royal family now, those landmarks would still exist and generate similar revenue. Old buildings generating revenue is not a reason not to abolish the royal family, or at least drastically reducing tax money going there. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
EDIT: In more important political news, the Conservatives are being predicted to lose more than 1000 council seats in yesterday's local elections. I guess the interesting thing will be who takes those seats from them, and how many councils it results in them losing control of. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18408 Posts
On May 05 2023 17:29 Mikau313 wrote: You are misrepresenting that link. The fact that palaces and landmarks that were built by kings and queens in the past generate revenue doesn't mean the current royalty generates that revenue. Even if you didn't have a royal family now, those landmarks would still exist and generate similar revenue. Old buildings generating revenue is not a reason not to abolish the royal family, or at least drastically reducing tax money going there. There was a parliamentary investigation into the costs and benefits of the royal family in The Netherlands a few years ago (probably 10+ years ago by now). The whole situation is considerably more complex than you think, because the "old boys network" between royals is actually very profitable for countries with royalty, and elected heads-of-government generally don't have time to build those networks and ties. Macron is simply not personal friends with the King of Sweden because they happened to go skiing in Lech together their whole lives. And that means that Macron's business buddies won't get the same level of access to business connections in Sweden that the Dutch royal family provides to Dutch business leaders. Should it work that way? Almost certainly not. But personal connections are, and always have been, exceedingly important when hiring people, striking deals, etc. And state visits almost always include a contingent of prospective business partners looking to broker new trade deals, and these deals are smoothed by having personal introductions, which are generally not possible with elected officials. And that is generally made worse by having political agendas which might conflict. At least a (theoretically) apolitical president like Germany has is unlikely to clash politically with an elected president. But presidents like Macron or Biden are inextricably linked to their political views, which may be unpalatable to a political leader of, for instance, Brazil. Why is this, when the British (or Dutch) royal families are inextricably linked to a horrific past of exploitation and plunder? Maybe things have changed since the study was done with slavery and exploitation becoming a more relevant topic to question our royal families about. There were also some questions about how you can possibly compare the effect the royal family had on these missions, and whether their absense wouldn't just have been compensated somehow. Nor can you really compare the Dutch missions with French or Polish ones. They are different countries with different economic priorities, so the Dutch coming away from a foreign mission with a lucrative trade deal doesn't mean the French would have if only they had had Willem Alexander to introduce them. There are inherent methodological problems in any way you try to measure the effect the royal family has. However, the study seemed to show sufficiently large effects that it was definitely worth considering. The study further showed that the cost of the royal family is not actually that much higher to a comparable president. And the cost of a royal family is furthermore a specific choice of the country. The Swedes spend far less on their royalty than the Dutch or English do. And the Spanish royal family is the cheapest of them all (for a Spanish tax-payer). In fact, it seems like the Spanish royal family costs the average Spaniard less than Macron costs the average Frenchman. Finally, there is a bunch of stuff that is related to bookkeeping. The British and Dutch royal families own a lot of monuments. The costs of maintaining these castles, parks, etc. are paid for as part of the royal expenses. These parks and castles would still need maintaining (presumably) if we got rid of the royal family. They'd just come out of the "culture" budget instead of the "royal expenses" budget. This is a further potential source of the difference in cost for the Spanish monarchy (who were tossed out of the country with no belongings during the republican era) and British or Dutch monarchies, and distorts the whole equation. Oh, and just to be clear: I am not a monarchist, but I am also not a republican. I think hereditary titles are ridiculous, but seeing as they are also powerless figureheads for the country, my threshold for caring is tiny. I just don't think the financial argument about the royal family being more expensive than an alternative head-of-state holds up under closer inspection. | ||
|
Mikau313
Netherlands230 Posts
I think it's good to have a discussion about the pros and cons of royalty heads of state where we objectively look at all the data that exists, like you seem to be doing in the above post. Linking to an article claiming one thing and acting like it's claiming something else does nothing but make having that discussion more difficult. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom1451 Posts
On May 05 2023 22:56 Mikau313 wrote: I wasn't arguing against royalty heads of state (even though I would like to see them abolished for reasons including but not limited to the financial), I was arguing against somebody who linked to a newspaper article and misrepresented what the article was claiming. I think it's good to have a discussion about the pros and cons of royalty heads of state where we objectively look at all the data that exists, like you seem to be doing in the above post. Linking to an article claiming one thing and acting like it's claiming something else does nothing but make having that discussion more difficult. My claim: "[I don't find it absurd that taxpayers money is being used for the coronation because] the royal family generate more income for the country than they cost." The article: "While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe." Where is the misrepresentation? Remember that I was responding to a question about something that is happening tomorrow, and that I was not responding to a hypothetical question regarding the monarchy being abolished. | ||
KwarK
United States44236 Posts
At least right now we make them work to earn their keep. If we’re not going to eat the rich then I’d prefer that we make them send their sons to Afghanistan alongside ours out of social convention and tradition. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
The Lib Dems + the Green Party are now nearly as big the tories lol. | ||
|
Razyda
1058 Posts
Still I find this insane: | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27262 Posts
If true, I’d absolutely object | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
On July 01 2023 09:20 WombaT wrote: I’m really not sure if I believe it. If true, I’d absolutely object Yeah... I'm wondering who it is that actually initiated this if it happened, and why now, when Farage is absolutely zero threat to anyone? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44236 Posts
| ||
|
castleeMg
Canada787 Posts
On July 01 2023 10:31 KwarK wrote: You're not owed banking services. What a great justification for having your assets locked by the state without any explanation at all. Imagine this happened to you? Would you think “well, that’s their choice, I’m not owed banking services” | ||
|
KwarK
United States44236 Posts
On July 01 2023 10:48 castleeMg wrote: What a great justification for having your assets locked by the state without any explanation at all. Imagine this happened to you? Would you think “well, that’s their choice, I’m not owed banking services” Start your own bank. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14177 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18408 Posts
Your hot takes get more ridiculous by the minute. I have 0 love for Nigel Farage and no reason at all to believe him. And *if* it's true that his bank accounts are being frozen, I am still willing to give the government (even Rish!'s government) the benefit of the doubt that there were court cases and similar procedures that Farage is just not telling us about here. But in the unlikely case that Farage's message is 100% true and the government is unilaterally freezing Farage's bank accounts for no further reason than "they can", the response should be to march on Westminster and demand those totalitarian twats get the hell out of there, not "just start your own bank". | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
All due respect, this is a fucking stupid response. EDIT: I viscerally dislike our boy Nigel, and am personally incredibly pleased he is disempowered. But that does not cut it for state or bank policy. Losing access to your accounts is a rung away from actually being in prison in terms of limitations imposed on someone and is a ridiculous thing to do without good cause and clear avenues to contest. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
This is similar to someone receiving money from a known Al-Qaeda associate. No crime has been committed (yet) but there are reasons to believe that money won't be used for benign goals. On the morality field, I am torn. Yeah, in most countries there is no "right to banking services" but on the other hand, our world is becoming more and more dependent on online services. This is a very serious hindrance and incursion into someone's life. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9959 Posts
On July 01 2023 16:24 Acrofales wrote: Your hot takes get more ridiculous by the minute. I have 0 love for Nigel Farage and no reason at all to believe him. And *if* it's true that his bank accounts are being frozen, I am still willing to give the government (even Rish!'s government) the benefit of the doubt that there were court cases and similar procedures that Farage is just not telling us about here. But in the unlikely case that Farage's message is 100% true and the government is unilaterally freezing Farage's bank accounts for no further reason than "they can", the response should be to march on Westminster and demand those totalitarian twats get the hell out of there, not "just start your own bank". On July 01 2023 16:47 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: All due respect, this is a fucking stupid response. EDIT: I viscerally dislike our boy Nigel, and am personally incredibly pleased he is disempowered. But that does not cut it for state or bank policy. Losing access to your accounts is a rung away from actually being in prison in terms of limitations imposed on someone and is a ridiculous thing to do without good cause and clear avenues to contest. Have you guys considered that maybe KwarK is using the language and mannerisms of Nigel Farage to satirise Nigel Farage? | ||
| ||
