Britain should retain its Constitutional Monarchy.
Debate Rounds (3)
The British Monarchy is the most famous in the world. For centuries, it has been at the heart of British life with support at its highest levels for decades at the current time (an estimated 80% of Britons support the Monarchy).
Despite how it's presented, the Monarchy remains one of the most beneficial institutions in the UK. To start with, it offers an apolitical Head of State who can unite the nation in celebration, represent our grief in times of sorrow and act as a focal point for national loyalty - irrespective of one's political leanings.
Let us also take time to consider the alternatives. If Britain were to abolish the Monarchy and become a republic, what would it gain? Nothing, is the answer - but we would lose a lot! For one, we would be politicising the office of head of state (it's impossible to have a 'non-partisan president', by their very nature, presidents are divisive figures precisely because they had to compete for office), we'd also lose the tremendous tourism benefit the Monarchy brings to the UK!
Monarchy is presented by some as an old-fashioned institution, stopping the growth of nations. Just because something's old, doesn't mean it's not still useful! It's also worth noting, that a study of the most prosperous countries in the world in 2013 placed 8 monarchies in its top 10 - if anything, it seems to show Monarchy enhances a country's growth!
The Monarchy does a lot for the international image of the UK, ask any country's citizens what they think of The Queen and they're often very keen to praise her steadfastness and dedication to the country. Ask them about a president's (or even our own Prime Minister's) qualities and the best you're likely to get is an ambivalent response.
And, quite simply, in the words of the late Baroness Thatcher, "Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."
First I will address some of the oppositions arguments, the opposition argued that there is nothing to gain from abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic. There is no statement in the topic that the England and the British Empire have to become a republic; they could become any form of political government that might not necessarily be a monarchy. The suggestion that the government will become a "republic" simply is not a true statement. The opposition argued that the monarchy could act as a focal point of the British Empire in times of sorrow or celebration. The monarchy can in times of sorrow be a point of resignation and can indicate a lack of equality between higher and lower class. This I believe actually separates the population further. The opposition also argued that a monarchy makes a country more prosperous. This is not because of the monarchy"s influence towards the shape of the country, but rather the background, and in many cases, the colonization by the British Empire. I also question if a monarchy enhances growth. A monarchy it self doesn"t enhance growth, the country and it"s politicians enhance the growth of the country. The opposition also argued that The Monarchy does a lot for the international image of the UK. The overall image of the monarchy creates the sense of in-equality between the classes of citizens. This can only diminish the image of England for world.
As to my first argument, the monarchy creates an in-equality between citizens and the upper-class and hereditary monarchy. If there is a monarchy, whether it be in power or not, it create a in-equality between citizens and the upper-class. This could create feelings of indignation and/or hatred towards upper class, and therefore public instability. Therefore we should abolish the monarchy to minimize possible public instability.
As to my second argument, the monarchy has no right to be a public figurehead and therefore should be abolished, as there is no point or right for them to rule. The monarchy are a fake hereditary line that has not earn the right to rule, except for the winning a war and overthrowing the previous monarchy. It would be much better for an independent, voted in, politician to rule as it would allow for greater choice of the public and less influence from the monarchy.
The monarchy is a hereditary line that has not right to rule and creates public instability.
To say the Monarchy serves no role in society is definitely erroneous. The whole point is Monarchy brings people together in celebration, irrespective of politics and social class. When you see people gathering at occasions such as the annual Trooping the Colour or the Royal Wedding in 2011, nobody even considers each other's social class because it's such a uniting force.
Whilst it might not be intrinsically correct to say a Monarchy enhances a country's growth, it's certainly true that it has absolutely no negative effect on it. You mention the Monarchy encourages class divide, well this is also untrue. You only have to look at the world's republics to know that this is the case. America, for example, has huge class divides and none of this is to do with Monarchy - to say that there would be more equality just because the head of state is a president is simply wrong.
In the UK, there is a vast lack of enthusiasm for politicians, which is one of the reasons the Monarchy does so well. People really don't want another politician as Head of State. And what's to say an elected person would do a better job anyway? Monarchs are trained from birth for their role and have a lot of time to accrue experience, wisdom and understanding of the country they're head of state of - just because somebody's elected, doesn't mean they'll do a better job!
Your last argument about the Monarchy creating public instability is also unfounded. For over 350 years, the United Kingdom has remained incredibly stable politically and to this day, it remains more stable than many republics and other countries where the head of state is elected.
Her Majesty The Queen is all things to all people, a politician can only ever be one thing - and that's political. Wherever The Queen goes, vast crowds turn out to see her, whether that's in the UK or overseas. She is both a global icon and a living breathing reminder of what makes Britain great and why we don't have to be like other countries.
Republicanism in the UK is, quite simply, a solution looking for a problem.
bailsv forfeited this round.
In conclusion, the Monarchy represents something much more than any president could ever represent. It is both a direct link to history and at the same time, a direct link with the people.
The affection the Monarchy retains with the British people if phenomenal. In 2012, 1.2 million people lined the River Thames in the pouring rain just to catch a glimpse of The Queen and the Royal Family. Many people say the Monarchy's dying out, but I disagree - in these uncertain times, when trust in politicians is at an all time low and when more than ever we need someone to embody and represent the true meaning of Britishness, we have that in The Queen.
In some countries, they favour flags, anthems and animals as national symbols. Ours, however, is a living, breathing Monarch and this is another thing that is so appealing about Monarchy - it binds the country together - and everyone can unite behind The Queen, regardless of which political party you support.
Presidents come and go and politics change, but one thing that remains constant, both in the affection she holds and the steadfastness she demonstrates, is that of The Queen. And for those reasons, Long may she reign!
bailsv forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture warrants loss of conduct. Both R1 and R2, are equal. Both sides made the same types of arguments, just different colour. It was during R3 Pro included a historical source, though inaccessible, still counts as an argument.this + a conclusion clearly shows that pro wins this.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.