The UK should abolish the Monarchy
Debate Rounds (4)
Abolish: Formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution).
Monarchy: A form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in 1 or 2 individual(s) (the monarch[s]).
 Sources must be provided for all statistics
 No semantics
[Round 1] Acceptance
[Round 2] Initial arguments
[Round 3] Rebuttal (New points allowed)
[Round 4] Final arguments (No new arguments)
My argument stands upon 3 simple points. How the monarch is important constitutionally. How it unites the country and lastly the economic gain. Reinforced by the point that there is no real downside to their existence.
This lead us to the question why the royal family is important constitutionally.
Simply put a non-political head of state prevents and anyone one individual holding too much power, this opposed to the American presidential system in which one person wields as much power as 535 elected representatives.
Within the UK the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliament are in service of the Monarch and this prevents abuse of the system in radical and dangerous ways. This may seem irrelevant in modern day Britain as there is no current threat. But let us not forget than in 1981 Spain experienced an attempted coup. Their Parliament taken hostage, TV and radio - the essential lines of communication for the public - taken from the populous. Chaos. However let us also not forget that in was their Monarch, their king, which was the symbol and the leader which people rallied around and halted this illegal coup.
In addition the existence of a Monarch does not affect the ability of government. The Monarch has not veto a bill since c1720. So far in modern Britain no elected government has be impeded by the monarch. Thus its existence does not prevent democracy in any form. But as history shows they can prevent extreme and dangerous people taking advantage of the democratic system.
In a much less important role. The monarchy also act as a non-political representative for this nation, which allows them to raise issues that country is facing without making them the chess pieces of politicians. As they can attract the donations of the wealthy and raise awareness of whatever issue they choose. Whether it be local art or wildlife protection.
Whatever my opponent may argue the monarchy services a purpose within our government and at little cost. To remove them would just be unneeded.
Leading on from my last point: 'the monarchy acts as a non-political representative for this nation'. It was the honourable Jacob Rees Mogg who said 'The monarchy is the golden thread which unites the nation'. This is very true today. We see this through the royal wedding 24.5 million  people watched the event and thousands swarmed the streets. For the first time in my life I actually saw a street party in celebration of this marriage. It may not have effected you but you cannot deny that there wasn't a feeling akin to the Olympics flowing through our nation. This was further reflected in "44 million in merchandise and "216 million from tourism revenue extra due to a single event. This is also leads to the question: 'What is the downside to this?'. It may not have united you or influenced you but it did 24.5 million people  and that shouldn't be ignored.
Finally tourism. So far I hope I have demonstrated that monarchy is more than just a tool to improve tourism revenue. But neither of us can deny that it does not have an effect on tourism. In 2012- 2013 (the only year I could find reliable statistics) there were 2.4 million visitor to Palaces and Galleries. This obviously has an impact of GPD and while this is difficult to accurately estimate but the whole industry contributes "7000 million .
Finally one common reason as to why we should abolish the monarchy is the minimal cost of "35.7  million approximately 0.00731% of our Tax revenue. Well I assume my opponent must also be aware of the crown estate. The estate owned by the crown in which King George III signed over the revenue from in exchange for the small sum of "35.7 million. Whereas most recently this land turned over a profit of "226.5 million .
In summation the monarchy while providing a protective layer which does not interfere with our democracy and is a non-political figure for us to rally behind. Politics divides people like nothing else and that is why a non-political head is so important. No elected figure is non-political and any political figure isolates someone. The Monarch does not. Then finally I hope that I have shown that while not their main purpose they bring more money than they cost in land revenue and in tourism. What is the advantage of not having this system?
One final point look at the mess which is the American political system, a government which has shutdown 17 times since 1976 . Ask yourself do you want that?
Well the simple fact is that our system more or less functions without a head of state. Regardless your point fails as it assumes that we would have to go down an american style route with a separate executive branch if we didn't have a monarch as the head of state when there are many different models which we could use for instance the Irish model of what is effectively a long term elected monarch.
Essentially I see no reason why very minor constitutional change could place the prime minister as the head of state with no real change in the functioning of the system. Or if you still want a different head of state you could have an Irish model elected president with the same powers of the current monarch. This should be considered as more legitimate than an inherited and non democratic position.
Again this is a function which can be filled in many different ways. I see no reason why other non political representatives could not be found and other nations function perfectly well without them.
While it is true that the monarchy brings in some money it is debatable how much money they actually bring in. I very much doubt that there impact on tourism is particularly extensive as we still have all our castles and our places without a monarch to occupy them and it is those they come to see not the monarch.
Remember that a significant percentage (actual figures cannot be posted as I cannot possibly know all the deductions used) of the money that the land will go to the government in taxes anyway and even if 200 million or so (as the amount of money will vary considerably each year) was lost this is miniscule in comparison to total GDP.
I will elaborate on why I think the monarchy should be abolished in the next round but I seem to have run out of time to post an argument, I am sorry I had important things I needed to do.
RichardOfTheM forfeited this round.
A341 forfeited this round.
RichardOfTheM forfeited this round.
A341 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.