6 ms·

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 t

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?
      - mrtksn 9y ago
        Yes, so? Do you have a point? My point was that the British public would not be happy if the Queen used her time on TV to push the agenda of the half of the nation - like openly supporting or opposing Brexit using channels that are not available to the opposition.
  - golergka 9y ago
    Because Queen doesn't have almost any real power.
  - petre 9y ago
    You vote for the parties in parliament. Then a government gets formed based on which party got the most votes. It's quite similar to Germany, which isn't a monarchy. However, the president of Germany is elected by Bundestag members and electors while the Queen is queen through birthright.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >They didn't because most of the UK public supports UK being a monarchy Of course they do. After all they are indoctrinated in its favor from an early age. I don't see what rational people, starting from first principles, would agree to a bunch of do-nothings sitting in a palace, aristocrats owning huge plots of land that just got handed down to them, that aristocratic class having huge say in politics, networking their kids everywhere, etc. (As for the "it's good for tourism" argument, you can have your palaces and castles made into tourist places even after you have thrown out your royals. The Palace of Versailles makes millions in tourist fees every year for example.)
  - zo1 9y ago
    >"Of course they do. After all they are indoctrinated in its favor from an early age." You could argue that for almost anything that we have in society (Religion and the State being the two most obvious ones). And yet, it intellectually doesn't phase people the slightest. "So what if we're taught that government is good and benevolent since a tender age". This is precisely because most of society does not function using first-principles. If they did, we'd be in a completely different world right now.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >You could argue that for almost anything that we have in society (Religion and the State being the two most obvious ones). And yet, it intellectually doesn't phase people the slightest. Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of royalty? At best, it's about how other things people think OK and are used to from a young age are also messed up. One could use that line of logic to excuse all kind of societal issues at their time -- segregation, racism and sexism for example. And yet, society evolved beyond those, from self principles like equality.
      - petre 9y ago
        The commies wanted to build a society based on principles like equality but then some people turned to be more equal than others and corruption became so deeply rooted that it still plagues ex communist states today, 30 years after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.

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?
    - mrtksn 9y ago
      Yes, so? Do you have a point? My point was that the British public would not be happy if the Queen used her time on TV to push the agenda of the half of the nation - like openly supporting or opposing Brexit using channels that are not available to the opposition.
- golergka 9y ago
  Because Queen doesn't have almost any real power.
- petre 9y ago
  You vote for the parties in parliament. Then a government gets formed based on which party got the most votes. It's quite similar to Germany, which isn't a monarchy. However, the president of Germany is elected by Bundestag members and electors while the Queen is queen through birthright.
coldtea 9y ago
>They didn't because most of the UK public supports UK being a monarchy Of course they do. After all they are indoctrinated in its favor from an early age. I don't see what rational people, starting from first principles, would agree to a bunch of do-nothings sitting in a palace, aristocrats owning huge plots of land that just got handed down to them, that aristocratic class having huge say in politics, networking their kids everywhere, etc. (As for the "it's good for tourism" argument, you can have your palaces and castles made into tourist places even after you have thrown out your royals. The Palace of Versailles makes millions in tourist fees every year for example.)
- zo1 9y ago
  >"Of course they do. After all they are indoctrinated in its favor from an early age." You could argue that for almost anything that we have in society (Religion and the State being the two most obvious ones). And yet, it intellectually doesn't phase people the slightest. "So what if we're taught that government is good and benevolent since a tender age". This is precisely because most of society does not function using first-principles. If they did, we'd be in a completely different world right now.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >You could argue that for almost anything that we have in society (Religion and the State being the two most obvious ones). And yet, it intellectually doesn't phase people the slightest. Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of royalty? At best, it's about how other things people think OK and are used to from a young age are also messed up. One could use that line of logic to excuse all kind of societal issues at their time -- segregation, racism and sexism for example. And yet, society evolved beyond those, from self principles like equality.
    - petre 9y ago
      The commies wanted to build a society based on principles like equality but then some people turned to be more equal than others and corruption became so deeply rooted that it still plagues ex communist states today, 30 years after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe.