Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: CaptainDesslock on October 04, 2009, 05:32:19 AM
-
Curious question,
This being a primarily british userbase, just how important is the Queen and such to the average citizen? I've met some people who consider the family a matter of great national pride, and others who think of them as fat cats stuffing themselves with the peoples money.
Sooo..................?
-
Personally I like a bit of tradition and the alternative would perhaps be a president... a politician, no way I'd rather have nothing than that. The present Queen is good in my view but like all families there are those that certainly don't have the right public image but we only see them via the media and therefore just about any view will be distorted. I think for me it is more about the alternative. They cost each of us something like 80p per annum.We are currently wasting far more than that on other things that I would gladly see ditched before we thought about ditching the Royal family. I don't like the media drivel though that they generate. I think that Prince William is doing his best to be worthwhile . I don't think they do any real harm.
-
I guess I was more anti-royal in my youth, but not so much these days. I'm kinda OK with the status quo - in that ultimately it makes very little difference to my life. I'm with Mr 38th in that having a political head of state doesn't really float my boat. Very little substance in British politics at the moment, in my opinion.
Just re-read this post, and I'm not actually asking for Frances Rossi to be president. At all.
Mark.
-
I don't think they do any real harm.
Me neither. And they bring in a shed load of money through tourism.
-
the Queen herself is an extremely savvy diplomat/ambassador, her genius is that she appears very transparent. its too bad other members of the family make fools of themselves from time to time. definitely pro-Royals here
-
I'm not really bothered either way :? The present Queen has done a great job but Charles (the next in line) is generally unpopular and won't have the popular support that the Queen does now. If/when Charles becomes King, there could be a rise in republican opinions, so it maybe for the best to skip a generation and let William (who is popular) have a go.
I also think the high levels of contempt shown to politicians has increased popularity in the monarchy. When the Westminster expenses crises first happened, I heard many people saying the Queen should suspend parliament and take control. Not a bad idea but last time that happened, the monarch lost their head.
-
I actually like Charles. Not sure why though.
-
I suppose Charles is trying to be a role model in some ways, providing your own green food; or maybe not for the public, but for business, food originating from the UK.
I personally have no problem with them, would be interesting to see the results of parliament being closed
-
I suppose Charles is trying to be a role model in some ways, providing your own green food; or maybe not for the public, but for business, food originating from the UK.
I personally have no problem with them, would be interesting to see the results of parliament being closed
i reckon : most of the population would become instantly anti-royal. we would have a swift, violence free revolution, the royal family would be exiled and parliament would be reinstated, almost as it was before.
-
I used to be quite anti-royal until a wise man put me right during the Blair years. He asked me to imagine Blair as the "president" of this country, free to rule as he saw fit without his ego and ambition being kept in check by the Royal Family and associated powers. Blair with more power and less accountability. Shudder.
Also, it is alleged that the relationships the Royal Family build with other nations keen to be associated with them allows an awful lot of trade to take place. Just don't mention the arms trade. Apparently the royals more than pay for their own expenses in this way. If we didn't have this facility we may have to go much closer to Europe in order to secure trade. Fancy cuddling up to the Germans and French to ensure prosperity?
How about controlling terror? Is there a special relationship with the Saudi Royals? I don't know, but I'm sure the free flow of information that has prevented further attacks has come from some very good relationships being built somewhere. All in all I'm happy for the Royals to be there. In fact, I'd quite like them to behead some bankers....
-
I suppose Charles is trying to be a role model in some ways, providing your own green food; or maybe not for the public, but for business, food originating from the UK.
I personally have no problem with them, would be interesting to see the results of parliament being closed
i reckon : most of the population would become instantly anti-royal. we would have a swift, violence free revolution, the royal family would be exiled and parliament would be reinstated, almost as it was before.
Didn't really explain myself properly, sorry :P I agree with you upon that part, but I was more referring to if the Royals were to do so not out of their own interest in power but the politicians uselessness.
Then to try and reinstate another more legitimate system.
There are echoes of Russia in about 1919 here though I think.
-
The main thing that bugs me is the list of 'royal' hanger-ons that we pay for. At least the Queen gets herself about and does what she's supposed to. In the main, I would consider myself an anti-royalist though. We've got massive heritage in this country and we'd still get massive tourism on the historic legacy of the royals without a current royal family.
-
Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic. The worst thing was when monarchy came back.
In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive. With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system. England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government.
Personally, I would abolish the expensive fiction of monarchy that we have, and flog or open up all her houses to make even more money from tourists and get on with things as normal.
-
Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic. The worst thing was when monarchy came back.
In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive. With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system. England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government.
Personally, I would abolish the expensive fiction of monarchy that we have, and flog or open up all her houses to make even more money from tourists and get on with things as normal.
we could have Lizzy and Phil do the guided tours of the palace too :lol:
-
I agree with Mr 38th. Nothing more to add really.
-
I've met some people who consider the family a matter of great national pride, and others who think of them as fat cats stuffing themselves with the peoples money.
Sooo..................?
it's a democracy so different people are going to have different ideas. I'm not a major fan on principle, but as long as they have no power (like now) I can put up with it.
In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive. With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system. England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government.
yup. queen didn't do much to stop the war in iraq, for example (plus allowing her to stop it would be even worse, on principle). I agree that voting for a president would probably mean that you just get to vote for another annoying politician, but at least you'd have the option to vote, kind of thing.
-
Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic. The worst thing was when monarchy came back.
In saying that the monarchy has no political role in the English constitution except a symbolic one - that is why the 'keep the monarchy because 'Thatcher/Blair/Brown/Cameron' as President would be worse' is just naive. With a first past the post system of elections, the Prime Minister is the president for all intents and purposes as all except hung or minority parliaments give the prime minister a huge mandate through the political whip system. England has an elected temporary dictatorship and the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha aka Windsor do nothing (and can do nothing) to keep any check on the supremacy of a majority government.
Personally, I would abolish the expensive fiction of monarchy that we have, and flog or open up all her houses to make even more money from tourists and get on with things as normal.
Although Blair made it quite like a Presidency, traditionally the role of the Cabinet (Cabinet MINISTERS Vs Presidential advisors) has kept that a bit more democratic (in principle). I have not really followed how Brown is using the system, so can't comment on that. I really dislike the idea of the UK having a President rather than a PM
-
you could always have both. that's what most countries do, as far as i'm aware. certainly france and ireland do, off the top of my head.
-
I don't think they do any real harm.
Me neither. And they bring in a shed load of money through tourism.
Enough to offset the hundreds of million they are paid, in addition to being kept by the state?
On my skim reading, Elliot appears to be the only person who's posted in this thread with any understanding of the monarchy's position in modern Britain.
-
On my skim reading, Elliot appears to be the only person who's posted in this thread with any understanding of the monarchy's position in modern Britain.
Yeah, the rest of us are all too thick. :roll:
-
On my skim reading, Elliot appears to be the only person who's posted in this thread with any understanding of the monarchy's position in modern Britain.
Yeah, the rest of us are all too thick. :roll:
well we all know nfe always cuts to the chase :)
-
Personally I think the best thing that happened in the history of the English monarchy was when they cut off Charles I's head and declared a republic. The worst thing was when monarchy came back.
You're more than entitled to your opinion and I respect your point-of view but the beheading of Charles I directly lead to parliament being suspended, democracy being abandoned and Cromwell becoming dictator for life. Which few folk would agree are 'good' things. Democracy isn't perfect but I'll take it over fascism everyday.
As for the restoration being the worst thing, it happened to unite the country (after the army lost confidence in Cromwell's son) and stop another civil war. The English Civil War was a devastating event, proportionately more English life was lost in the civil war than in WWI. Another civil war could have spelt the end of the country. Restoration was the only possible solution.
IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.
-
Yeah I am too naive to contribute further to this so I shall leave to you all to educate me.
-
IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.
Has there been a massive drop?
The Queen was being paid in excess of £80 million in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.
-
The monarchy look pretty cheap when compared to the 2 billion that Gordon Brown lost us with his gold dealings. If the Royals had any real power at all they would use it to stop idoits like Brown being able to do things like that.
In fact we should get rid of the monarchy just because they have not even attempted to ged rid of the current government for lying about going to war and losing enough of the countries money to mean I will have to work until I'm 70!
I mean what's the point of them if the government can get away with things like that?
Other than that don't mind them :?
-
The monarchy look pretty cheap when compared to the 2 billion that Gordon Brown lost us with his gold dealings. If the Royals had any real power at all they would use it to stop idoits like Brown being able to do things like that.
In fact we should get rid of the monarchy just because they have not even attempted to ged rid of the current government for lying about going to war and losing enough of the countries money to mean I will have to work until I'm 70!
I mean what's the point of them if the government can get away with things like that?
Other than that don't mind them :?
They can't do anything about it. They have zero real power.
Which is great, because if they did we'd have people even less out of touch with the populace they are presiding over.
-
I'm not a Royalist, but I don't really have any strong feelings about it any more........ Just think that they should get the same amount of dole money as everyone else.
They're only really a figure head and don't have any real power or say, so I kind of think that the country has evolved into not needing a Royal Family any more. Good for the tourists though, but I'd rather my tax money went to the NHS.
-
IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.
Has there been a massive drop?
The Queen was being paid in excess of £80,000 in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.
Looks like my figure was a little out-of-date, according to The Metro it was £41.5 million for 2008/9
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Taxpayers_spend_%A31.5m_more_to_keep_monarchy&in_article_id=693697&in_page_id=34
-
I don't really know enough about it to make comment. FAR too many factors to weigh up, and to be honest I can't really be bothered. It'd likely make no difference anyway.
-
IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.
Has there been a massive drop?
The Queen was being paid in excess of £80,000 in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.
Thats really surprisingly low. I know people, work with them, whos wages are paid by taxes and earn more than that. I earn a little less than half that and my wages are mostly from taxes. 80,000 as one wage is one senior manager in any branch of civil service.
-
IIRC the monarchy receive just under £38 million from the tax payer.
Has there been a massive drop?
The Queen was being paid in excess of £80,000 in '99/2000 whenever I was studying it. Over and above the other Royals plus the costs of their staff, security and homes.
Thats really surprisingly low. I know people, work with them, whos wages are paid by taxes and earn more than that. I earn a little less than half that and my wages are mostly from taxes. 80,000 as one wage is one senior manager in any branch of civil service.
That was a mistake, I meant to write 80 million.
-
Now THATS more like it!
-
The monarchy look pretty cheap when compared to the 2 billion that Gordon Brown lost us with his gold dealings. If the Royals had any real power at all they would use it to stop idoits like Brown being able to do things like that.
those are two very different things, though. If gordon brown messes up, you can vote him out at the next election. If a royal messes up (certainly in the past when they did have actual power, and used it for much more gip than any modern democractic british democracy [which is not to say that the modern british democracies haven't been up to all kinds of gip, just not quite as much :lol: ]), you can't. The fact that we had to have a civil war to get rid of a cr@p king (who, granted, was replaced by not much better, and arguably worse) pretty much shows how democracy is preferable to absolute monarchy.
-
PlexiKen - You are wrong in your history - the beheading of Charles I did not 'directly lead to parliament being suspended' - Parliament sat as 'a commonwealth (in Latin 'Respublica') and free state' for 5 years before Cromwell's coup d'etat in 1653. In that time it set out to provide a republican identity for England and to bring in a raft of equitable reforms. I am not a fan of Cromwell, but he did not take power for those 5 years - a short period, but not 'directly suspended'.
'democracy being abandoned'. This is your first anachronist reading that has no sensitivity to 17th century voting rights - to have the vote in England in the 17th century you had to have either 40 shillings worth of freehold land or an income of £40 per annum - which pretty much excluded the majority of the population.
As to 'Cromwell becoming dictator for life'. Cromwell's goal was to heal and settle England by tempering the Republicans through the introduction first of religious radicals (Barebones' Assembly 1653 ) and then the two Protectorate Parliaments which return a large number of non Republican Parliamentarians - these were based on relatively free elections with only recalcitrant Royalists (and a few ex Levellers) being excluded.
Yes Cromwell did become assume the reigns of power, and I think wrongly, but to suggest that Cromwell was a 'fascist' really shows no understanding of the term or of 17th century history. Fascism is a 20th century doctrine based on a strong centralised racial state in a industrial or post society - it cannot with any accuracy be applied to 17th century England. The Cromwellian Protectorate was modeled on Venetian dogeist republicanism - a Parliament under the guidance of the monarchical element of the doge as a constitutional president. In fact, far from being facsist, it was the only time in English history that England was governed by the principles of a (relatively liberal) written constitution (the Instrument of Government) and, until the 19th century, that a broad range of toleration for religious difference existed.
Now I realise that the then foreign countries of Ireland and Scotland suffered under the might of the New Model Army - Ireland because of a long standing English racial prejudice coupled with a dangerously militant Protestant world view and Scotland because its Presbyterian leadership kept sending troops into England to restore Charles II as the Scots covenanted king (despite the fact that he was as Presbyterian as the Pope). It might be added that 1 English Catholic was executed when Oliver Cromwell was Protector (and against his wishes) but many were executed under Charles I, so he hardly was a fascist.
As to Restoration being the 'only possible solution' - This is the logical error of inevitabilism - and you haven't read your historical sources - No one expected monarchy to be restored until mid 1659 (for example Royalist spies like Silius Tiitus were writing to Charles Stuart that he didn't have a hope of returning as king as late as January 1659). The trigger for Restoration was when the Army broke out into in fighting after the deposition of Richard Cromwell, Oliver having died in 1658. If it hadn't been for this period of in in-fighting the Scottish New Model Army General George Monck would never have marched to London and consulted with Presbyterians on his way south to take their view as to the settlement of the country by way of restoration. There was nothing inevitable about the Restoration until this time and, in fact, viewed from the direction of 1653-1659 as opposed to the logically fallacious direction of 1660 backwards was unlikely to have happened (altough, of course, it did). As I say, in my view a terrible contingency in history that deliberately turned the clock back in England and stunted its development for a century and leaves us with a parasitical monarchy and over powerful parliamentary executive (the Cabinet) that hides behind the monarchy to act like temporary tyrants.
-
Well.... :|
..... that's easy for you to say.
-
Well.... :|
..... that's easy for you to say.
genius Philly, just genius :)
-
I see why we have one, I understand it brings money into the country through tourism etc.
But if I ever met a member of the royal family face to face i'd kick them in the privates.
-
Sorry all, especially Ken - too much London Pride after travelling in 3 days between Zurich - Geneva - London - Plymouth - London with a heavy cold...
-
No need to apologise, your knowledge of civil war/restoration period is superior to mine :)
-
Well to be honest I have no $%&#ing clue about the politics behind it all, but I'm not really fussed whether we have a King/Queen or a president.
-
Well to be honest I have no $%&#ing clue about the politics behind it all, but I'm not really fussed whether we have a King/Queen or a president.
:D
As long as I can play guitar (badly) and have a job I tend to not get worked up about politics - it's mainly all posturing and spin nowadays and I have enough of that already. A bit of an apathetic view I know.
-
OK, let's take this in a new direction that may be more fun:
WHICH ROCK ROYALTY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE BEHEADED?
I'll start you off with any rock millionaires who won't put their stuff on iTunes so that we can download the individual tracks we like. Not enough revenue in it for them apparently. You know who I'm talking about, McCartney. First on the block.
-
WHICH ROCK ROYALTY WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE BEHEADED?
Edward Van Halen.
-
I have to admit, I sit firmly in the minority in this thread, in that I'm a republican, and have been since I first started studying politics. It's been interesting to read everyone else's opinions on the subject though, but I haven't read anything that's persuaded me to change my mind I'm afraid! :)
-
I despise the Royal Family, they have took our money and spent it until we die an early death overworked. England is not a true democracy. Personally I prefer the French politcal system to any other in the world, we should have a president, but not Gordon Brown, he isn't even English! and he looks like a spaz-mong when he opens his weird fish like mouth.
-
Don't worry he's not going to be around much longer - we'll have Lord Snooty and all his Eton chums instead. :?
-
^ now, now, I'm sure the bullingdon club has many noble egalitarian aims...
I despise the Royal Family, they have took our money and spent it until we die an early death overworked. England is not a true democracy. Personally I prefer the French politcal system to any other in the world, we should have a president, but not Gordon Brown, he isn't even English! and he looks like a spaz-mong when he opens his weird fish like mouth.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
the country is the UK, not england. As a citizen of the UK, he is completely acceptable to have as PM. I hate the guy, but on principle I defend his right to be PM. You can't go round annexing countries and then tell citizens of those countries that they can't be PM... we don't complain when we have an english PM.
-
I despise the Royal Family, they have took our money and spent it until we die an early death overworked. England is not a true democracy. Personally I prefer the French politcal system to any other in the world, we should have a president, but not Gordon Brown, he isn't even English! and he looks like a spaz-mong when he opens his weird fish like mouth.
And thus we see why many Scots would like independance.
Anyway I personally like the Royals, but mainly the unpopular ones as I'm a fan of the politically incorrect and the outspoken. As has been said before the royals bring in a lot in the way of tourism, but also the Queen invests more that she is paid from public funds on various stately homes and estates that would normally go to ruin without assistance, thereby doing much to preserve British heritage. The money she uses for this comes from financial investments and overseas concerns so I say more power to her.
-
Its also why many English would like to see Scots independence too.
-
I despise the Royal Family, they have took our money and spent it until we die an early death overworked. England is not a true democracy. Personally I prefer the French politcal system to any other in the world, we should have a president, but not Gordon Brown, he isn't even English! and he looks like a spaz-mong when he opens his weird fish like mouth.
And thus we see why many Scots would like independance.
Of course, we'd then be ruled by a bunch of wee free mentalist Tartan Tories and we'd quickly get back to not being able to open shops on Sundays and drink, petrol and fag taxes would rocket. Eventually we'd probably slide to the left as people got the huff with the SNP idiots and started voting in the SSP. So that's a positive.
On the UK not being ruled by an Englishman, well, there's more than England in the UK, the name kinda gives it away, you know? And it hasn't been for 12 years, get it up ye.
-
oh, no!
i should've remembered what my mother taught me, never talk about sex, politics, or religion around the table!
-
^ now, now, I'm sure the bullingdon club has many noble egalitarian aims...
I despise the Royal Family, they have took our money and spent it until we die an early death overworked. England is not a true democracy. Personally I prefer the French politcal system to any other in the world, we should have a president, but not Gordon Brown, he isn't even English! and he looks like a spaz-mong when he opens his weird fish like mouth.
!!!!!!!!!!!!
the country is the UK, not england. As a citizen of the UK, he is completely acceptable to have as PM. I hate the guy, but on principle I defend his right to be PM. You can't go round annexing countries and then tell citizens of those countries that they can't be PM... we don't complain when we have an english PM.
Glad to see i wasn't the first person here Dave!
The fact that he's from Scotland is completely irrelevant, the English pms we had before him (Thatcher and Major) weren't exactly better for it were they? Although i can't say i like him very much either, always seems to come off as useless no matter what he does.
And thus we see why many Scots would like independance.
Only ones who've seen Braveheart a few too many times (which seems to be most of the SNP by the sounds for them).
-
Glad to see i wasn't the first person here Dave!
The fact that he's from Scotland is completely irrelevant, the English pms we had before him (Thatcher and Major) weren't exactly better for it were they? Although i can't say i like him very much either, always seems to come off as useless no matter what he does.
yeah, definitely.
-
Its not irrelevant that he's from Scotland - the UK is an artificial construct created to give England stability and Scotland access to all the trade routes that the English had such as the American and East Indies trade. Now that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have devolved (and hopefully independent) governments it is wrong and hypocritical for the Scots to vote on exclusively English issues or to take the great offices in England Its about time that the irrelevant and perenially unpopular political union of 1707 be disbanded leaving the individual countries to form a cultural alliance (if they so choose) rather like the Scandinavians do. This is especially so given that it the EU now does what the old union set out to do - regulate economic transactions between the various separate countries of the union. In fact we would all get on better that way.
-
I don't think that's fair. I think it's a bit rich to decry a very slightly unfair thing which is happening now (and which has only been happening for the past few years, might I add- there was no talk of this unfairness when english votes had much more effect on policies in NI, scotland and wales :rolleyes: ) considering the extremely unfair things which england visited upon wales, scotland and northern ireland up until very recently.
Also, the govts are devolved, but plenty of stuff is still done from westminster. it's not true that scots etc. are voting on things which don't concern them, because plenty of it still does.
-
Its not irrelevant that he's from Scotland - the UK is an artificial construct created to give England stability and Scotland access to all the trade routes that the English had such as the American and East Indies trade.
That's historically true I'm sure, but I think England, Scotland and Wales are essentially artificial constructs. It's one poxy little island, why divide it up into three tiny "countries" so we can all have silly little disputes and hate each other (even more than we apparently do already)?
By the same argument, a united Ireland makes sense too, but I'm not trying to get involved in any political complexities here...
-
eh, any country is an artificial construct, if you want to get down to it. i don't agree with your island argument, philly, because an awful lot of islands have more than one country in them. plus an awful lot of countries have more than one island.
EDIT: plus i'm not certain you've thought through the ireland thing... making it one country so we liked each other more might just degenerate into a gigantic royal rumble... :lol:
-
Ok, I can't stay out of this any longer...
I pretty much agree with 99% of what Elliot has said on this thread.
The Civil war and particularly the interregnum was an incredibly valuable period of political growth and thought. The echoes of which continue through the American constitution & any actions influenced by that.
The trial and execution of King Charles established a precedent that underpins the international ability to prosecute murderous rulers and tyrants to this day.
The revisionist history of Royalist sympathisers is still taught in English schools and the importance of this period of English history to the world is mainly overlooked.
Presently the Scottish MPs in parliament continue to vote on English matters that no longer concern them... That is NOT devolution.
If we English don't start to be a bit more forthright and become educated and proud about our intellectual contribution to the world we will all be poorer for it.
-
Its not irrelevant that he's from Scotland - the UK is an artificial construct created to give England stability and Scotland access to all the trade routes that the English had such as the American and East Indies trade.
That's historically true I'm sure, but I think England, Scotland and Wales are essentially artificial constructs. It's one poxy little island, why divide it up into three tiny "countries" so we can all have silly little disputes and hate each other (even more than we apparently do already)?
By the same argument, a united Ireland makes sense too, but I'm not trying to get involved in any political complexities here...
Its one poxy little planet, why divide it up into a couple of hundred tiny countries so we can have silly little disputes with each other?
Daves right; all countries are artificial constructs.
-
Yeah your right, your reasoning is so clear, stripping away all the rubbish detritus of history - lets have one world government - now that would stop all conflict, or at least we could then have one world police to stop the ethnic tensions that might emerge from those not clever enough to see that their feeling of community and identity was in fact wrong headed poxy artificial reasoning :lol:
-
Yeah your right, your reasoning is so clear, stripping away all the rubbish detritus of history - lets have one world government - now that would stop all conflict, or at least we could then have one world police to stop the ethnic tensions that might emerge from those not clever enough to see that their feeling of community and identity was in fact wrong headed poxy artificial reasoning :lol:
Precisely the sort of engrained glorified tribalism I expected.
Your nationality is Human. All else is secondary or artificial. Deal with it.
P.S. Reductio ad absurdum. Look it up :)
-
...or at least we could then have one world police...
F**k Yeah! :lol:
(http://www.bolgernow.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/team-america-photo.jpg)
-
:lol:
-
Yeah your right, your reasoning is so clear, stripping away all the rubbish detritus of history - lets have one world government - now that would stop all conflict, or at least we could then have one world police to stop the ethnic tensions that might emerge from those not clever enough to see that their feeling of community and identity was in fact wrong headed poxy artificial reasoning :lol:
Precisely the sort of engrained glorified tribalism I expected.
Your nationality is Human. All else is secondary or artificial. Deal with it.
P.S. Reductio ad absurdum. Look it up :)
(cough)Bullsh!t(cough)
And your aunt would be your uncle if she had balls... Look it up! :P
-
That's the sort of organisation I had in mind. Remember, there is no "I" in "Team America"
BTW 'nationality is human' = category mistake :D
-
I know you could call it a category error, but that would be completely missing the point, which you have both done very aptly.
-
plus i'm not certain you've thought through the ireland thing... making it one country so we liked each other more might just degenerate into a gigantic royal rumble... :lol:
I said I was avoiding the political complexities....
Yeah your right, your reasoning is so clear, stripping away all the rubbish detritus of history - lets have one world government - now that would stop all conflict, or at least we could then have one world police to stop the ethnic tensions that might emerge from those not clever enough to see that their feeling of community and identity was in fact wrong headed poxy artificial reasoning :lol:
You live in London and you have a "feeling of community and identity"? Come on, pull the other one. :P
-
You live in London and you have a "feeling of community and identity"? Come on, pull the other one. :P
:lol:
Good shout!
-
I live in South East London where we are all nice to each other - at least we say please and thank you before giving each other a black eye 8)
-
You two use your tongues prettier than $10 whores...
-
(a) Presently the Scottish MPs in parliament continue to vote on English matters that no longer concern them... That is NOT devolution.
(b) If we English don't start to be a bit more forthright and become educated and proud about our intellectual contribution to the world we will all be poorer for it.
(a) you could just have your own assembly along the lines of the scottish/NI/welsh one. problem solved.
(b) are you kidding? you've felt a little bit guilty for about the past 50 years about imperialism. I'd hardly say you're shrinking violets, even yet.
Its one poxy little planet, why divide it up into a couple of hundred tiny countries so we can have silly little disputes with each other?
Daves right; all countries are artificial constructs.
:drink:
don't get me wrong, forcing everyone into the one country now that we're used to being in separate ones would likely do more harm than good, as elliot said. But yeah, all countries are artificial constructs.
I said I was avoiding the political complexities....
i wouldn't say it's a complexity at all, it's just common sense (if you live here, anyway). Plus your argument about splitting into different countries helping us to get along better is a fallacy too- have you ever been to ireland (i.e. eire- not northern ireland because the area you're in would skew the results ;)) and asked the average punter on the street what he/she thinks of the english? To get the correct (i.e. not the tourist-friendly) answer, you'd have to affect an irish accent, of course. :lol:
:)
-
Plus your argument about splitting into different countries helping us to get along better is a fallacy too- have you ever been to ireland (i.e. eire- not northern ireland because the area you're in would skew the results ;)) and asked the average punter on the street what he/she thinks of the english? To get the correct (i.e. not the tourist-friendly) answer, you'd have to affect an irish accent, of course. :lol:
Yeah, but why do the Irish, Scots and Welsh hate the English and vice versa? Do all English people have some innate characteristic that all Irish people instinctively react against, like magnets repelling each other?
No, they're just brought up that way, due to generations of passed-down prejudice based on events that happened hundreds of years before anyone alive today was born. It's childish, and it's bullsh!t.
-
i agree wholeheartedly, but it's naive if you don't realise that that's the way it works.
i'm also not sure if it's "hundreds of years", either. Certainly in ireland (and definitely in northern ireland), it's pretty recent.
regarding the "innate characteristic", you don't all have it, but some of you do. the couple of times I've been in London, certainly some people acted like I must be an idiot because I didn't have an English accent, or because I didn't understand the exact system the tube was running on (wow, it took me like 15 minutes to figure it out). It's also pretty funny when a few others get really scared when they realise where I'm from... :lol: not to mention extremely ironic.
-
regarding the "innate characteristic", you don't all have it, but some of you do.
I'm not English, I'm Welsh. I only live here. :wink:
Anyway, I think this is one of those topics it's very difficult to discuss on a forum without sounding all pompous and misunderstanding each other. We'd be much better off getting rat-arsed and shouting at each other in a pub. :P
-
London is rubbish.
im from the north west and people dont understand me. they think im a cave dwelling heathen.
some irish, scots, and welsh dislike the english, and the northern english hate the southern english, and the southerners don't care or go out of their way to hate anyone. they wouldnt even describe themselves as southern... BUT THEY ARE!
my accent is a mix of lancashire and scouse. not the best for chatting to folk in london.
Imperialism didnt hit home to me till i went to work in New Delhi for two months. wowser.
-
Yeah, but why do the Irish, Scots and Welsh hate the English and vice versa?
English Sports commentators.
-
Re Dave and Dmoney's comments about accents: personally, I love the sound of all the regional accents from these islands (I daren't say "British", do I? :P :roll: )
It's just a shame they seem to be dying out as all teenagers call each other "blood" and talk in an idiotic accent that seems to be a hybrid of mockney, Kingston Jamaica and South Central LA. :x
-
ive noticed this... scouser using the phrase 'get me'... which to me is pretty south london, and probably originates from somewhere in the US.
I was playing around with merch ideas today, and i thought about this whole 'lets pretend to be american' thing... what gets me, is when you go to gigs in london in the MIDDLE of winter, and its FREEZING, and some chump turns up in mesh shorts, and a tshirt, and a trucker cap... it just makes me die a little inside.
so i drew up this shirt when i messing about with ideas....
-
Yeah, but why do the Irish, Scots and Welsh hate the English and vice versa?
English Sports commentators.
That made me chuckle!
-
I'm not English, I'm Welsh. I only live here. :wink:
Anyway, I think this is one of those topics it's very difficult to discuss on a forum without sounding all pompous and misunderstanding each other. We'd be much better off getting rat-arsed and shouting at each other in a pub. :P
haha, excellent. But yeah, as I said, only some of the English have it, nowhere near all. Plenty of people were really nice any time I've been in England (or anywhere, really). I think stereotypes persist because you remember the one person who conforms to them, and forget the 10 who don't.
What I find really funny is the supposed animosity between the english and the french or germans... mainly because the reasons given for why the french or germans are annoying (which are ridiculous stereotypes, anyway) are the exact same stereotypes given by non-english people to the english... :lol:
What actually does annoy me, and for which there's no real excuse, is the amount of english people who don't seem to realise that NI is part of the UK, it's not that hard to figure out which provinces (whatever you want to call them) are part of your country. I dunno how many people on forums ask me what it's like using the euro... :lol:
English Sports commentators.
yes
Re Dave and Dmoney's comments about accents: personally, I love the sound of all the regional accents from these islands (I daren't say "British", do I? :P :roll: )
It's just a shame they seem to be dying out as all teenagers call each other "blood" and talk in an idiotic accent that seems to be a hybrid of mockney, Kingston Jamaica and South Central LA. :x
i haven't noticed any real difference with our accent, but then our accent is halfway to american anyway, so it might be less noticeable... I have wandering accent syndrome anyway, it gets annoying.
-
Re Dave and Dmoney's comments about accents: personally, I love the sound of all the regional accents from these islands (I daren't say "British", do I? :P :roll: )
It's just a shame they seem to be dying out as all teenagers call each other "blood" and talk in an idiotic accent that seems to be a hybrid of mockney, Kingston Jamaica and South Central LA. :x
Armstrong And Miller do a great job of mocking the afflicted teen misplaced fools, which is on later.
My mates in Glasgow love taking the piss out of Jimmy Hill! :lol:
All this regional rivalry goes on in other countrys too, the Aussies thrive on it. Its part of our nature, which is probably why borders came about in the first place.
As for the royals, years ago i wasn't too keen but these days I think its probably best things are left as they are. There's a lot worse around than them.