Throw the Royal bums out!!

[metta 0]

Talk about wasting time and money!

The U.N. Human Rights Council has called on Britain to hold a referendum on abolishing the country's monarchy.

LONDON, June 13 (UPI) -- The U.N. Human Rights Council has called on Britain to hold a referendum on abolishing the country's monarchy. The 29-member council released a report after the Sri Lankan envoy raised concerns about the British monarchy that concluded the country should hold a referendum to decide whether to do away with the monarchy and adopt a written constitution with a bill of rights, The Telegraph reported Friday.

The monarchy costs each British taxpayer about $1.20 each year to maintain.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Britain's TaxPayers' Alliance, said the report was a waste of time and resources.

"With so many human rights abuses around the world the U.N. should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world," he said.

"Saudi Arabia and Cuba should pay a little more attention to their own human rights record," Elliott said of the Human Rights Council members.

A royal source told The Telegraph that there has been no sign of support for such a referendum from within the country.

"People here certainly haven't detected any appetite for a referendum. The queen is a focus for national unity, identity and pride," the source said.

[Peikko 1,575]

It may not be at the top of the human rights debate, but there is a serious point here, people living in the UK are 'subjects' of the royal family and they don't have any 'rights', well certainly none that are enshrined consitutionally.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I never have understood this form of government. Its lame imo.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, it would be lame if the Royal family actually were able to 'rule' their subjects in any meaningful way. However, time and parliament have ensured that the Royal family is little more than ornamental - and as such it can be argued that they perform a useful service. After all, the UK doesn't have to waste vast amounts of money electing a 'president' to perform all the honorary functions that most countries are required to perform and they are a great boost to the economy with the tourist industry etc.

[PlatyPius 5]

It would be nice to see one country keep to tradition.

The UK should tell everyone else to GFT.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It would be nice to see one country keep to tradition.

The UK should tell everyone else to GFT.

I never pegged you as old fashioned.

[PlatyPius 5]

It would be nice to see one country keep to tradition.

The UK should tell everyone else to GFT.

I never pegged you as old fashioned.

Very.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By and large the monarchy is a positive thing in my view, but I'd certainly be in a favour of a paring down. Idiots like Prince Edward shouldn't be propped up on public money.

[palilover 1]

ok..........why is this a UN referendum??

Personally, I believe the monarchy is more or less......symbol and that's it. They don't do anything government wise. The prime minister does. Why should the people pay for them?

But on the other hand, this is something for Britain and Britain alone to discuss amongst themselves. I don't think it should be a UN referendum. They have more important things to discuss.

Hm...I guess this contradicts Machavelli's book. (I forget what it was called). Actually I think itr was Machavelli. It's been about 5 years or so since I read it. He said that a monarchy is the hardest government to overthrow. I guess because the monarchy is all family (such as case of British monarchy).

Well, I guess this is one way to overthrow a monarchy:) Have the rest of the international community say "no you cannot have it and we vote you out"

I think Machavelli was a bit outdated in his writing:)

[Ban Hammer 13,151]

It would be nice to see one country keep to tradition.

The UK should tell everyone else to GFT.

[truffles 2]

The fact of the matter is the civil list is very much pared down - if you have ever been to any of the Royal Palaces etc and seen how many tourists are there and the amount of money these people are willing to part with it is truly astounding. The Prince of Wales has a working estate of his own and generates an income. Sandringham is also a working household. Although this link refers to 2004 it is a guide to what it cost the taxpayer in the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/25/m...hy.stephenbates

The matter of Royals is for the British and the British alone.

[PlatyPius 5]

ok..........why is this a UN referendum??

Personally, I believe the monarchy is more or less......symbol and that's it. They don't do anything government wise. The prime minister does. Why should the people pay for them?

But on the other hand, this is something for Britain and Britain alone to discuss amongst themselves. I don't think it should be a UN referendum. They have more important things to discuss.

Hm...I guess this contradicts Machavelli's book. (I forget what it was called). Actually I think itr was Machavelli. It's been about 5 years or so since I read it. He said that a monarchy is the hardest government to overthrow. I guess because the monarchy is all family (such as case of British monarchy).

Well, I guess this is one way to overthrow a monarchy:) Have the rest of the international community say "no you cannot have it and we vote you out"

I think Machavelli was a bit outdated in his writing:)

The Prince?

Actually, current speculation is that 'The Prince' was a rather tongue-in-cheek look at ruling the masses - a work of humour (and possibly lampooning the government of the era), if you will.

[palilover 1]

ok..........why is this a UN referendum??

Personally, I believe the monarchy is more or less......symbol and that's it. They don't do anything government wise. The prime minister does. Why should the people pay for them?

But on the other hand, this is something for Britain and Britain alone to discuss amongst themselves. I don't think it should be a UN referendum. They have more important things to discuss.

Hm...I guess this contradicts Machavelli's book. (I forget what it was called). Actually I think itr was Machavelli. It's been about 5 years or so since I read it. He said that a monarchy is the hardest government to overthrow. I guess because the monarchy is all family (such as case of British monarchy).

Well, I guess this is one way to overthrow a monarchy:) Have the rest of the international community say "no you cannot have it and we vote you out"

I think Machavelli was a bit outdated in his writing:)

The Prince?

Actually, current speculation is that 'The Prince' was a rather tongue-in-cheek look at ruling the masses - a work of humour (and possibly lampooning the government of the era), if you will.

aha yeah that would be the one

[warriorprincess 0]

Long live the Queen and the Royal House of Windsor!