5 ms·

Yes. The UK could vote to abolish the monarchy, but they haven't. In a typical democracy, you are subject to laws that you didn't vote for or "agree to". A mode

Yes. The UK could vote to abolish the monarchy, but they haven't. In a typical democracy, you are subject to laws that you didn't vote for or "agree to". A modern constitutional monarchy is a structure agreed to by the people.

ant6n 9y ago
You can't become a citizen of Canada, a country that calls itself democratic, without swearing allegiance to the queen.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  The majority of Canadians became Canadian by being born there. Pretty sure the swearing wasn't coming from the new citizen.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    Yes, naturally you can't "become" a Canadian citizen if you're born one.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
gonvaled 9y ago
Sure, Turks could also have rejected Erdogan (they voted for his reforms a couple of months ago). What are you trying to say? And what was the last time that the UK voted to be a monarchy? Because Turkey voting recently makes it arguably more democratic.
- petre 9y ago
  They didn't because most of the UK public supports UK being a monarchy so if anyone made such a proposition it would probably be highly unpopular. But they did vote to leave the EU for not having it their way. This decision has always been more popular, since about 60% of the UK public voted to join the EC, not the EU.
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    Why is having a monarchy that nobody voted to get rid of more democratic than having a president people voted for? Why is your elected president hijacking the telephone network worse than your unelected queen hijacking your tv network?
    - sgift 9y ago
      Phones are an essential service, TV isn't.
    - bencollier49 9y ago
      Because the Queen's Speech is a 15-minute slot on one channel out of about 300, not a mandatory message any time anyone makes a phone call. Also, if you switch over to Channel 4, you can watch an alternative speech. A few years ago, they had the President of Iran on simultaneously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Christmas_message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Christmas_message
    - mrtksn 9y ago
      Think of it as if the Queen speech was about the excellent job the British people did on the Brexit referendum, defeating the traitors. Currently, a little bit more of the half of the population supports Erdogan and the other half hates him. Though admittedly the anti-Erdigan half did not support the coup as it is believed to be orchestrated by another islamist, but still...
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >Currently, a little bit more of the half of the population supports Erdogan and the other half hates him. So, just like most politicians?
        zo1 9y ago
        You mean just like all other Democracies out there? Sure, it floats from 60-40, or 70-30 sometimes. But how is 51-49 any less authoritarian against the 49 vs the 30?
pjc50 9y ago
This is an extremely stupid, reductionist discussion that shows the difference between theoretical and practical freedoms. While the Queen's approval is theoretically required for legislation and various other bits of constitutional machinery, in practice it is always granted. The objections to the Queen's role in the power structure are theoretical; nobody can point to specific bad actions as justification for changing the system. The objections to Erdogan are much more practical and involve suppression of opposition and journalists.
coldtea 9y ago
>Yes. The UK could vote to abolish the monarchy, but they haven't. How open is this issue for discussion? Is it acceptable for e.g. a BBC journalist to promote on camera the dismantling of royalty, if that's what they think should be done? >A modern constitutional monarchy is a structure agreed to by the people. Agreed when? The MPs are voted for every few years. Even the constitution can be amended and changed, for countries that have one. Does the UK hold a referendum on the issue of keeping or abolishing royalty, at least once every generation?

ant6n 9y ago

You can't become a citizen of Canada, a country that calls itself democratic, without swearing allegiance to the queen.

lostlogin 9y ago
The majority of Canadians became Canadian by being born there. Pretty sure the swearing wasn't coming from the new citizen.
- ant6n 9y ago
  Yes, naturally you can't "become" a Canadian citizen if you're born one.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

gonvaled 9y ago

Sure, Turks could also have rejected Erdogan (they voted for his reforms a couple of months ago). What are you trying to say? And what was the last time that the UK voted to be a monarchy? Because Turkey voting recently makes it arguably more democratic.

petre 9y ago
They didn't because most of the UK public supports UK being a monarchy so if anyone made such a proposition it would probably be highly unpopular. But they did vote to leave the EU for not having it their way. This decision has always been more popular, since about 60% of the UK public voted to join the EC, not the EU.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  Why is having a monarchy that nobody voted to get rid of more democratic than having a president people voted for? Why is your elected president hijacking the telephone network worse than your unelected queen hijacking your tv network?
  - sgift 9y ago
    Phones are an essential service, TV isn't.
  - bencollier49 9y ago
    Because the Queen's Speech is a 15-minute slot on one channel out of about 300, not a mandatory message any time anyone makes a phone call. Also, if you switch over to Channel 4, you can watch an alternative speech. A few years ago, they had the President of Iran on simultaneously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Christmas_message https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Christmas_message
  - mrtksn 9y ago
    Think of it as if the Queen speech was about the excellent job the British people did on the Brexit referendum, defeating the traitors. Currently, a little bit more of the half of the population supports Erdogan and the other half hates him. Though admittedly the anti-Erdigan half did not support the coup as it is believed to be orchestrated by another islamist, but still...
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Currently, a little bit more of the half of the population supports Erdogan and the other half hates him. So, just like most politicians?
      - zo1 9y ago
        You mean just like all other Democracies out there? Sure, it floats from 60-40, or 70-30 sometimes. But how is 51-49 any less authoritarian against the 49 vs the 30?

pjc50 9y ago

This is an extremely stupid, reductionist discussion that shows the difference between theoretical and practical freedoms. While the Queen's approval is theoretically required for legislation and various other bits of constitutional machinery, in practice it is always granted. The objections to the Queen's role in the power structure are theoretical; nobody can point to specific bad actions as justification for changing the system. The objections to Erdogan are much more practical and involve suppression of opposition and journalists.

coldtea 9y ago

>Yes. The UK could vote to abolish the monarchy, but they haven't. How open is this issue for discussion? Is it acceptable for e.g. a BBC journalist to promote on camera the dismantling of royalty, if that's what they think should be done? >A modern constitutional monarchy is a structure agreed to by the people. Agreed when? The MPs are voted for every few years. Even the constitution can be amended and changed, for countries that have one. Does the UK hold a referendum on the issue of keeping or abolishing royalty, at least once every generation?