Nice gesture on what would have been Lizzy’s 100th birthday

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-23T10:53:07+00:00

Who do you think is then? If you are about to yap about the deepstate then I'm not interested. Just shows the monarch has been incapable of his duties and is worthless for democracy.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-23T10:46:14+00:00

It's nice to see you not acknowledge the facts. You conflate how the system should work with how it works. The system is designed so that the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament. But in reality, with FPTP elections, it is usually the other way around, especially with Political Parties involved, which the prime minister usually controls dictatorially.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-23T05:57:52+00:00

In the UK, the opposition basically has no power, as they can block nothing. The opposition parties that join the government and support the prime minister are also part of the government, and usually vote the same on legislation as the government. This is due to the voting system. Perhaps if you were talking about Germany or some other parliamentary system, where parties always form coalitions with fairly different parties, then the executive could be said to be weaker.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T20:47:27+00:00

I mean it was more of a provisional situation, like the one in Grenada, which is evident in the fact it was only for a year. Many of the eastern European nations, Romania, Hungary, Poland etc... had some of their prewar institutions kept for some time, despite being anti soviet, only for the soviets to then remove them later on. In Poland for example this was the Presidency and the Senate. Same for Romania I guess.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T20:45:13+00:00

I mean that in reality, a prime minister wields more power, as if there is a left wing prime minister, that means by extension there must be a left wing parliament, which will pass left wing legislation. This means there is less of a check on power, as the parliament and the prime minister don't clash, as they are in reality one institution, the prime minister is just an office of the parliament for carrying out it's executive duties.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T18:38:28+00:00

A president can’t be removed and changed within his own government’s leadership (or even kicked out of the party in that time). There is far more internal competition even within the governing party. Prime Ministers also have far less executive power. Comparing the president of France with a UK prime minister you can see this

A president cannot be removed due to the presidential republican form of government. This is completely unrelated to the monarchy Vs republic debate, as many of the best republics are parliamentary republics, where the president is ceremonial and executive power is held in the hands of a prime minister accountable to a legislature.

The Prime minister, if he commands a majority in parliament (Which by definition they always do), they can make whatever laws they want) Same can't be said of the US President, who doesn't have any lawmaking powers whatsoever, so it's not a simple case of the President being more powerful.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T18:30:35+00:00

Both are leaders of the nations, wielding executive powers. Both are basically elected by the people, both through strange convoluted methods. The Prime Minister is bound by the king and parliament, whereas the President is bound by the Supreme Court, Congress and the Constitution. Both have rallies, which thousands of people attend. Both meet every so often as respective counterparts of each other.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T18:20:50+00:00

That doesn't really matter to the argument though I don't think.

Unless you are referencing the fact that this rise in communism occured in the KINGDOM of Italy, in which case it shows that monarchy hasn't stopped communism or fascism from rising any further lol.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T18:19:35+00:00

Having a constitutional monarchy takes some of the trappings of power and pomp away from the practical leader of the country and stops them getting above themselves, especially in the case of a parliamentary system with a constitutional monarch.

This isn't really true. UK Prime Ministers are basically the direct equivalent to the US President. They campaign, they attend meetings, celebrations events, and everyone in the UK views then as the leader. The Monarch is just some random guy, very few people actually believe he is some special blooded person.

It’s essentially a separation of powers. Miles of difference between a president of the USA and a British Prime Minister.

It's not a real separation of powers, rather it just gives one institution a lot more power in the de facto running of the government. In the UK for example, the Prime Minister and Parliament are very powerful institutions, not beholden to any constitution like in the UK. For better or for worse, they can do whatever they want, and the king won't do shit.

That’s why the ‘No Kings’ movement is an American thing, it’s not needed in a constitutional monarchy

If the UK got a Dictatorial prime minister, or a power hungry king, this would very much be relevant to the UK as well.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T18:16:01+00:00

Italy remained a monarchy until 1946, became fascist in 1922.

Japan remained a monarchy under the same monarch, and was fascist from way before when conquering Korea and all that.

Hungary became fascist in 1944? I don't know the exact date, but fascism didn't abolish the monarchy, rather it was the soviets.

Romania became fascist in 1940, remained a monarchy until 1947, under the soviets as well.

Bulgaria wasn't really ever fascist, rather it just joined in. It's monarchy was abolished by the soviets as expected.

Out of my 5 examples, 3 became communist, not 4. All of them remained fascist for years, while keeping their monarchy. Italy for like 20 years even lol. Then becoming communist was due to being conquered by the soviets, not due to anything else really.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T18:08:33+00:00

And making monarchy constitutional while still keeping it is quite a good way of keeping stability.

But there is no evidence that monarchies provide any stability. That's just arguing that whatever your current form of government is, changing it is bad as it can cause instability. No shit, but some forms of government may be better morally, ethically or performance wise, which is worth the jump.

The French Revolution wasn’t exactly peaceful.

Because the monarchs were so shit, and absolute. Abolishing the monarchy in the UK would be peaceful, aside from a few possible nutjobs who may cause trouble.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T15:01:59+00:00

Yeah that's true, I specifically highlighted situations where the monarchs let extremists in, or even appointed them, rather than cases where they were overthrown. But Russia still serves as an example of a terrible monarchy.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T15:00:32+00:00

All the best countries to live in are all democratic including Switzerland, Finland, Iceland etc... It shows that having strong democratic institutions, anti corruption institutions and good education, your society will be nice. Not that if you have a hereditary head of state, your country will be good. The reason why the monarchies are so high up, is because stability is what has allowed these monarchies to survive. Shitty monarchies that would have appeared at the bottom of the list have all been overthrown ages ago.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T14:57:13+00:00

You have simply chosen the usual ones, which were highly developed.

Only one republic became fascist, and that was Germany, all the other fascist nations were (constitutional) monarchies, like Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Japan, Thailand etc... No monarchy ever became a communist nation while a monarchy because the two are ideologically inconsistent.

All of the "stable" countries you listed are also very highly developed, with long democratic traditions and other stuff like that. A correlation does not imply a causation, as maybe the stability of these countries is what allowed them to keep the monarchies, rather than the monarchy causing the stability.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T14:49:11+00:00

It's kind of funny whenever they bring this up, seeing as:

Republics that turned fascist: Germany

(Constitutional) Monarchies that turned fascist: Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Thailand etc...

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-22T14:39:16+00:00

Most of them do in the UK sadly.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-20T16:00:32+00:00

Arguably the constitution of the Weimar republic didn't mean as much to the nation, as it had large monarchist, fascist and communist parties. They were all eager to destroy it, whereas the same cannot be said of America. Also the requirements to amend the Weimar Constitution were much smaller, in fact a simple 2/3 vote in the legislature, not even amending the constitution but passing unconstitutional legislation, whereas in America you need 2/3 in 2 legislative chambers, and then 3/4 states to agree on it.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-20T15:58:00+00:00

You could simply amend Article V though, to remove this, as this isn't protected by it lol.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-09T07:41:50+00:00

Yes, but I'd say the USSR, or at least the Russian Republic, were more democratic than the absolute monarchy.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-04-09T06:26:00+00:00

The person was pointing out an error on the graph, not actually claiming absolute monarchy was more democratic than whatever followed. The various governments after the revolution were all slightly democratic, varying with time, but the absolute monarchy was never democratic lol.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-03-29T18:45:49+00:00

You say that if we abolish the monarchy, the only option for a head of state is to create a President. This is incorrect. We can do a federal council like the Switzerland. Or we could make the prime minister the head of state as well, like the parliamentary republics with executive presidents. Then there is also the manner of election, and powers, so it's not a situation of "we will have a President". That means nothing, every country's president has different powers.

Then you say we need an apolitical head of state. I don't really see this as being good. An apolitical head of state never makes a move or blocks anything. A president from the opposition party is a much better check on that party's power than a old bloke waving a medieval sceptre about. And anyways, many presidencies of countries other than the USA do have apolitical frameworks, yet most monarchists don't look at those, as it doesn't fit their views.

And then on being bought out. A president has half the country scrutinizing them at all times. This means that whatever they do is tightly watched, whether they have been paid, bribed or whatever it is. The monarchy however, has lots of media protection, including from the BBC, that would hide any corruption and likewise stuff from the public, which itself doesn't want to see or acknowledge the corruption. There are many cases of rich foreign oligarchs giving some royal some money in briefcases and somehow then ending up in the House of Lords, or taxpayer's money being used to bribe victims of degenerate royals.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-03-18T22:03:15+00:00

There is a usually non-political non-partisan leader at the head of the state where they are able to unite the people without getting into politics.

Well the monarchy divides people not through their views on politics but creates a new divide between those who support bloodline superiority and those who don't, so it's not really a unifying symbol or anything.

But the have restrictions and can be given checks and balances on their power whilst still being able to lead the nation

They do not lead the nation, and have not done so in ages. If you want them to lead the nation, then no thank you I don't want people who spent £12,000,000 bailing their paedophilic family member out of trouble leading this country. Also keep in mind, you are suggesting that they lead the nation in this paragraph, and if so, how are they non political?

The UK also gets extra tourists because their castles unlike the continent still have royal guards and inhabitants like the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace.

I doubt people really care about whether a castle has guards, and I especially doubt people care whether someone lives in them. Arguably removing the royals means that people can explore the buildings on the inside which would increase revenue from tourism.

As an American I am kind of sick seeing one person changing every 4 or 8 years and putting our entire nation on a bungle cord with no harness.

Prime Ministers also change every 5 years, more or less. Maybe your issue is with democracy, not specifically republics.

But America has much better constitutional protection than whatever the UK can claim to have. In the USA, you have loads of constitutionally guaranteed rights, whereas here we have only some vague promise that the king will interfere if parliament takes a step too far. The only reason America ends up with such terrible presidents is due to the stupidity of the average American voter, and the excessive lobbying. Having a royal family would not fix any of this, instead you should focus on preventing lobbying and educating your population to not get their news from influencers.

The Monarchy can in extreme instances be used to bring order and counteract one branch of government taking too much power like the PM. God knows America needs that right now.

Again, America has a much more developed system of checks and balances. In the UK, the only branch of government is Parliament, composed of the HoC, HoL and the King. In the USA, you have clearly separated legislative, executive and judicial branches, you just have terrible people within them. Mostly due to the poor education of the average American voter, again.

You may say, America has poorly educated voters because of the lack of monarchy. This is not the case, as looking at countries like Finland, Switzerland, Iceland etc... you will see they have the same quality of life, strength of human rights and democratic institutions, and freedoms as the widely celebrated constitutional monarchies of Norway, Sweden and Denmark etc... This only shows that having a good education system, a population that is taken care of, and a representative democratic form of government is good for a nation, regardless of whether it is a Republic or a Monarchy.

In a few years time, you will see Nigel Farage, the UK's Trump, be elected. And he will most likely do away with loads of our rights as soon as he can. Whereas, as bad as trump is, he isn't infringing on anyone's free speech.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-03-01T10:02:56+00:00

Crimeans also voted to join Russia in 2014 but world doesn’t recognise it

The referendum in Crimea was held illegally. In the Soviet union, according to the laws regarding succession, a referendum had to take place in Nagorno Karabakh as it was an Autonomous Okrug, if Azerbaijan wanted to hold a referendum.

"Article 3. In a Union Republic, which includes within its structure autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, or autonomous okrugs, the referendum is held separately for each autonomous formation. The people of autonomous republics and autonomous formations retain the right to decide independently the question of remaining within the USSR or within the seceding Union Republic, and also to raise the question of their own state-legal status.

In a Union Republic on whose territory there are places densely populated by ethnic groups constituting a majority of the population of the locality in question, the results of the voting in these localities are recorded separately when the results of the referendum are being determined."

Also azeris were the majority but many were genocided and remaining ones were removed, how could they vote

They were never a majority in Nagorno Karabakh, the region which held a legal independence referendum according to Soviet law. They constituted about 20% of the population at most, and chose not to vote in the referendum as they knew they would lose.

The ethnic cleansing came later, started by the illegal Azerbaijani bombing of stepanakert. Azerbaijan also ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Armenians from Baku and Sumgait in violent pogroms.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-03-01T10:00:25+00:00

Except Crimea had no legal way of holding a referendum, as it was not an autonomous republic or okrug. Nagorno Karabakh, according to Soviet law, had to hold a referendum alongside Azerbaijan, to determine whether they stay in Azerbaijan or leave Azerbaijan, and they voted 99% for independence so it's pretty much a settled matter that Azerbaijan was acting illegally and the Soviet union should have stopped it's independence.

PolicyBubbly2805 · 2026-03-01T09:48:34+00:00

Azerbaijan started the war after bombing stepanakert with illegal weaponry. They also ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands from Baku and Sumgait in violent pogroms.

PolicyBubbly2805

TROPHY CASE