State Opening of Parliament

PrincessFiona

ShootersHillGuru said:

PrincessFiona said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

PrincessFiona said:

sam3110 said:

It's just all a bunch of absolute poncing about really isn't it? 

Is it paid for privately or are our hard earned taxes going on this instead of, I don't know, offsetting the costs of The Silvertown Tunnel?

offset and some by tourism

It’s paid out of general taxation. 

yes, but offset by the revenue from tourism

Let’s be clear. Any money that tourism brings to the UK has nothing to do with offsetting the costs of any specific event. The money goes into the general pot and is spent as required by the government. 

Lets be clear, I never said it went into a specific account though. Why should it? It is about the bigger picture - it is income that creates businesses and jobs and employees pay taxes etc

SporadicAddick

The Red Robin said:

golfaddick said:

I feel sorry for Charles having to read out all that waffle. 

He literally believes he was put on the thrown by God. I’m sure he’s used to it. 

He literally doesn’t believe that.

swordfish

The Red Robin said:

golfaddick said:

I feel sorry for Charles having to read out all that waffle. 

He literally believes he was put on the thrown by God. I’m sure he’s used to it. 

I shouldn't think the Charles who believed that (the 1st) is used to reading out anything since he lost his head in 1649.

Raith_C_Chattonell

PrincessFiona said:

wmcf123 said:

Rizzo said:

seth plum said:

A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.

There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.

I am no monarchist but given the choice between Charles and President Johnson or Corbyn, I’m with the royal family 

How has the US come to a choice between Biden and Trump?!

lolwray

swordfish said:

The Red Robin said:

golfaddick said:

I feel sorry for Charles having to read out all that waffle. 

He literally believes he was put on the thrown by God. I’m sure he’s used to it. 

I shouldn't think the Charles who believed that (the 1st) is used to reading out anything since he lost his head in 1649.

"The Divine Right of Kings" 

Bournemouth Addick

Load of old outdated, irrelevant, tin eared, expensive, embarrassing nonsense.

Not a fan.

MuttleyCAFC

Bournemouth Addick said:

Load of old outdated, irrelevant, tin eared, expensive, embarrassing nonsense.

Not a fan.

No reason the king can't still be involved but maybe simplify and update.

Chizz

MuttleyCAFC said:

Bournemouth Addick said:

Load of old outdated, irrelevant, tin eared, expensive, embarrassing nonsense.

Not a fan.

No reason the king can't still be involved but maybe simplify and update.

There's nothing administrative about the State Opening of Parliament that couldn't be reduced to a simple group email.  The point of the pomp and ceremony is a reminder that "this is how we do it here".  And we do it, on the whole, pretty damn well. 

Jints

seth plum said:

Rizzo said:

seth plum said:

A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.

There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.

Of course there are.
However I dread to think what Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and others would have tried to get up to if there hadn’t been the constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth the Second around the place to ‘constitutionally’ stay their hand.

She didn't. The legal system, particularly the supreme court  did. 

Rizzo

Jints said:

seth plum said:

Rizzo said:

seth plum said:

A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.

There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.

Of course there are.
However I dread to think what Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and others would have tried to get up to if there hadn’t been the constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth the Second around the place to ‘constitutionally’ stay their hand.

She didn't. The legal system, particularly the supreme court  did. 

Was just catching up on posts since I last looked yesterday and was going to comment on Seth's post but you got there first. The monarch, whether literally or symbolically, did the square root of sod all to prevent what Johnson and other politicians tried to get up to in recent years. In fact, the only times the monarch has intervened with government over the past few decades has been when they instructed the government to alter certain laws to exclude the royal family from being subject to them. 

If an elected head of state had been present, for example in a US-style system, it would have been far easier for him/her to intervene as they would have veto power and a democratic mandate to use it. Not that I'm advocating for a US-style system as we've all seen how fragile that is. 

MuttleyCAFC

Chizz said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Bournemouth Addick said:

Load of old outdated, irrelevant, tin eared, expensive, embarrassing nonsense.

Not a fan.

No reason the king can't still be involved but maybe simplify and update.

There's nothing administrative about the State Opening of Parliament that couldn't be reduced to a simple group email.  The point of the pomp and ceremony is a reminder that "this is how we do it here".  And we do it, on the whole, pretty damn well. 

We can disagree on that surely.

seth plum

Jints said:

seth plum said:

Rizzo said:

seth plum said:

A constitutional monarchy is better than a dictatorship at the very least.

There are systems of government between those two though. They aren't the only choices.

Of course there are.
However I dread to think what Boris Johnson, Rees Mogg and others would have tried to get up to if there hadn’t been the constitutional monarch Queen Elizabeth the Second around the place to ‘constitutionally’ stay their hand.

She didn't. The legal system, particularly the supreme court  did. 

Indeed. But who is the head honcho of the courts? Weren’t they called Queens Counsels and now Kings Counsels?

Do you remember the headlines that said Judges are the enemies of the people?

seth plum

Come to think of it, there was some kind of a constitutional change in 2005 I believe.

Return of the SE7

Grapevine49 said:

On this occasion - It is a celebration of History and the peaceful transference of power in a democracy in line with the will of those people who chose to participate, going back centuries.

A little more reflection might suggest in referencing such History it specifically speaks to the transfer of authority from a tyrannical Monarchy to the people via an institutional monarchy. 

Democracy is forever under attack in many guises and thus any reminder of its origins (however eccentrically out of step with modern values) in this country should be celebrated and supported in whatever guise at every opportunity.

May I politely suggest people take Democracy for granted at their peril.

What, our tinpot democracy?

Return of the SE7

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Chunes

It's our history, culture and tradition. We don't have much of it going on in this country. Not like we pop down to watch the jousting of a weekend.

Long may it continue

SporadicAddick

Rizzo said:

SporadicAddick said:

Rizzo said:

SporadicAddick said:

It's not ceremony for the sake of ceremony. Every bit of the ceremony is essential constitutional process - it's just "dressed" in history. Of course we could relocate Parliament to an office block in Birmingham, get an elected president to open the session and read his / her own legislative plans (no need to attend, Zoom is fine), get some civil servants renting space in Media City Salford to type it up and put it on the internet and be done with it. 

Sounds good to me. And considerably cheaper. 

Be honest, it sounds shit (and net net a presidential system would be no cheaper from a fiscal point of view, and we would be much poorer culturally).  

Maybe to you it sounds shit but to me it sounds functional and far, far cheaper. I'm not quite sure you appreciate the cost of the monarchy. I'd also take issue with your definition of 'essential constitutional process'. What exactly is essential about any of this nonsense?

I fully appreciate the cost and the value.

The process of opening a new parliament is essential. What you find "nonsense" is the historical context within which it still sits. 

PrincessFiona

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

Chizz

Anyway.  Pomp, ceremony.  The brilliance of the UK State at its confident best?  Or the demonstration of constitutional unfairness?  What are people's views on the State Opening of Parliament, other ceremonial demonstrations by UK authorities, or even the way in which other countries show off their (second division) statuses?  

What are people's views on how well - or otherwise - we "do" ceremony here?  

(But no need for further, futile rabbit hole burrowing into the "we do/we don't want a republic" debate.  Please)

SporadicAddick

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

seth plum

The pomp and ceremony and cost and hereditary positions are worth the debate.
However for me I am interested in the constitutional aspects of things in the ‘unwritten constitution’ of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The way I have tended to view things is the Monarch is the head of the Church of England, the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, as did all the MP’s just elected and (this bit might need clarity from an expert) the judges and courts are beholden in some way to the Monarch rather than being the plaything of politicians.
The overall notion being that as long as the monarch is the ‘head of state’ in the UK, then you have a brake on politicians wanting to dictate everything. This malarkey played out when Boris Johnson wanted to do just what he pleased following the vote for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to leave the European Union.
In the USA I think the ‘brake’ is because no President can serve more than eight years. Mind you if Trump got elected it wouldn’t surprise me if he tried to argue for longer.
What we don’t need is the kind of never ending power that the people at the top in China and Russia have.

ShootersHillGuru

The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that. 

PrincessFiona

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

Six-a-bag-of-nuts

The Red Robin said:

golfaddick said:

I feel sorry for Charles having to read out all that waffle. 

He literally believes he was put on the thrown by God. I’m sure he’s used to it. 

Thrown on the Throne by God.
Now there's a ceremony I'd pay to witness 

ShootersHillGuru

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

PrincessFiona

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

It's not like they have the equivalent in other countries

Chizz

ShootersHillGuru said:

The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that. 

This is right.  But the key word is "amendment".  What's to stop another amendment being put in place to allow a third, non-consecutive term?  And then, later a third consecutive term?  And so on? 

Rizzo

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Return of the SE7 said:

France has far more tourism than the UK. Whatever happened to their monarchy?

Just looked into this and found conflicting statistics; some showing the UK with more revenue from tourism that France, but another source saying the reverse

'That year, inbound tourism receipts in Spain amounted to 92 billion U.S. dollars, recovering from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom and France followed in the ranking in 2023, with tourism receipts totaling around 74 billion and 69 billion U.S. dollars, respectively.5 Jun 2024'

I've always avoided the tourism income debate in any defence of the Constitutional Monarchy in the UK. It don't exist as a tourist attraction, and whilst I believe tourism income would likely reduce in the absence of a Monarch, it is negligible. It is also irrelevent. 

Tourist comparisons with other countries are also irrelevant, as the reason for tourism to those countries is different. Spain has beaches that are warm. France has them too, and mountains you can ski on (as well as Paris). 

The Royal Family and the pomp and circumstance is definitely deemed contributing significantly to the income from tourism in the UK, notably London and is not negligible nor irrelevant.

I gave some figures compared to France in response to another comment. It just goes to show how much it all does contribute since we don't have many of the attractions you mentioned France indeed has that the UK doesn't

I've not seen any evidence to suggest that tourism would decline significantly if the monarchy was no longer in place. Tourists come to see palaces, crowns, carriages etc, all of which would still exist even without the stuffed ermine robes that currently occupy them. The Palace of Versailles is orders of magnitude more popular as a tourist destination than Buckingham Palace and the French don't have a monarch or royal family. 

Rizzo

Chizz said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

The 22nd Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America states that a president may only serve a maximum of two four years terms. I’m pretty sure even Donald wouldn’t seek to change that. 

This is right.  But the key word is "amendment".  What's to stop another amendment being put in place to allow a third, non-consecutive term?  And then, later a third consecutive term?  And so on? 

The short answer is that it requires a two thirds vote of both houses. I can't see that happening anytime soon even if Project 2025 gets off the ground. 

seth plum

ShootersHillGuru said:

Surely the entire notion of elevating one family above and beyond all others in the land and to fawn over them swear allegiance to them and lavish them with untold luxury, wealth and property is beyond parody isn’t it ? I understand that the individuals here shoulder no responsibility for the accident of their birth but I’m incredulous that anybody doesn’t find the whole thing laughably funny.

This is 100% true.
The current situation has come about organically.
My concern is how to avoid some kind of dictatorship, for that this ‘democracy’ would need a highly detailed and foolproof plan for the transition that would need to come about in order to make the ‘Royals’ have the same status as the rest of us.
The plan years ago in France was a lot of heads being chopped off, and in Russia a basement in Ekaterinburg.