What would become of the UK/England..

[smf]

The monarchy ends, it's wealth is redistributed to the people, global poverty levels decrease dramatically

Do you mean the crown's wealth or the personal wealth of the monarch?

Either way, global poverty levels would not be affected.

 

[pustal]

I'll not argue with these numbers, but I will say that the queen dying has shown a lot of the land "owned" by the crown would rather find new ownership, as it was improperly seized via colonialism and imperialism to begin with. For that matter, calls for reparations are also picking up a lot of steam.

With Brexit the UK declared they'd rather withdraw into their own little bubble, but that being the case, logic dictates lands outside of that bubble should no longer be accessible to them as a playground, royalty or no.

Yeah but we know how new ownership goes. It'll never go to where it's due, always to benefit someone already powerful and rich. As is at least there is a beneficial arrangement towards the people and it's not like you could expropriate the monarchs without some sort of revolution.

Right now Britain's greatest problem lies in the parliament where people have been voted into office fueled by misinformation and prejudice against the electorate's own interest. I'm sure a lot of discussion around Charles will be use to deviate attention for the state of the economy that will be facing a major challenge without the help of the EU and a new PM that seems to be as Tatcher'esque as one can be.

Nonsense. The monarchy is a drain on uk finances, the places associated with it would be even more successful without royals. I don't see Versailles, Caserta or Schoenbrunn suffer because of the lack of royalty inhabiting them.

You reacted to my post above. The monarchy pays more money directly to the state than the state to the monarchy. That's the arrangement the British crown has with the country, specifically. If you watch the video you'll how that came about.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You reacted to my post above. The monarchy pays more money directly to the state than the state to the monarchy. That's the arrangement the British crown has with the country, specifically. If you watch the video you'll how that came about.

No it really doesn't, it's that absurdity all over again. Just the money squandered on Andrew alone...

 

[FAST6191]

Nope, as someone who's been living through it since the beginning, it's a wankfest of Little Englander racist c***s who were duped by a conman. Besides, rebuke of the EU by driving the UK to the ground all by itself? That's some serious mis-aimed rebuke all right.

The beginning was the 70s really (amusingly enough Labour supported it back then, though that was old labour so take that as you will, them looking most to unions with Australia and strengthening the commonwealth that the EU stint saw left to rot really outside of sports events and a few easy visas at various times -- see ten pound poms) and had been bubbling in the background ever since (Eurosceptic would have been the term of choice if those playing along at home want to go searching old newspapers or whatever), though you could probably find further stuff (some anti EC stuff would have been around and even anti Bretton Woods but I am way less familiar with minutia there). I presume Farage is the one you label a conman and while he is certainly a figurehead he was far from the only player.

Whether it was a direct casual issue for the current woes, inevitable* or them mishandling kung flu with pointless restrictions (or perhaps too few in the eyes of some if that would have somehow shortened things) and doing money printer go brr (granted the US did the same so was going to happen regardless really). There is also the argument that the pain such that it is caused by it*** is worth it, and that comes down to individual subjective calls.

*recessionary cycles were overdue if it is every 8-12 years (greater cycles also overdue) and the last one was housing crash and it is not like they raised taxes to create a cushion and reduce in hard times as per sensible economics, there is still no industry, still a load of pointlessly restrictive laws preventing anything but financial services, increasingly expensive government mandated/provided services (between lack of industry, plus women in the workforce**, meaning you pay those that would have gone there and are too stupid or otherwise incapable of finance job to twiddle their thumbs and continuing to be at the forefront of science for medicine to also pay for all those with nothing to do it adds up considerably), not like anybody anywhere has built houses in decades now which means nobody is affording anything either if larger and larger portions of the depressed wages are going on that.

**Even as late at the late 70s and early 80s there were still large sections of society that would have done school to maybe be a secretary for a few years before marrying a rich man or one doing those nice shiny new apprenticeships which is basically them removed as far as workforce stats go.

***looking at most of the EU member states right now (certainly any with proper clout) then they are similarly not doing great. Some of that is ill considered Russian sanctions but not all. If so goes one (and it is not like Greece or Italy are going to get their shit together any time soon) then so goes all is the fate of the EU then is it all that much different?

 

[Xzi]

As is at least there is a beneficial arrangement towards the people and it's not like you could expropriate the monarchs without some sort of revolution.

That's supposing the profits are socialized or at least going toward social programs. As-is they're more likely to be going toward corporate subsidies and the like. You're right in calling that out as more of a parliamentary issue, though.

 

[pustal]

No it really doesn't, it's that absurdity all over again. Just the money squandered on Andrew alone...

Doesn't that money come from the crown? Even if for some reason the parliament decided to sponsor Andrew directly, his spendings far for reached the anual £160M the state profits from the crown or where that that value is at currently.

 

[smf]

as many would say it is more of a rebuke of the EU rather than an isolationist streak or removal from the commonwealth as a concept.

There are a lot of things people say, the reality is that some people voted to leave because they hated immigrants, some did it because they thought they were redoing world war 2, some did it because they saw no down sides and loads of money going to the NHS

Obviously the leavers want to remain in the common wealth, because they think we control that.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Doesn't that money come from the crown? Even if for some reason the parliament decided to sponsor Andrew directly, his spendings far for reached the anual £160M the state profits from the crown or where that that value is at currently.

No, it's taxpayer money given to the Crown

 

[pustal]

No, it's taxpayer money given to the Crown

Exactly then. And again, between of what the tax payer pays the crown and what the crown alleviates the tax collection with the benefits that are surrendered from their estate, the tax payer has a positive balance on the transaction.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

the tax payer has a positive balance on the transaction.

They really don't as it's all money down the drain.

 

[Jayro]

The U.K. just needs to dissolve in a pool of acid. The world will be much better off without the British running everything that they have now. Australia would be off their tiddy, Ireland gets their land back, etc, etc...

 

[Dark_Ansem]

The U.K. just needs to dissolve in a pool of acid

Only if it's acid tea.

 

[fatherjack]

“ driving UK to the ground all by itself…..?!
have you seen what’s going on globally?
where are you getting your ‘news’ ?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

have you seen what’s going on globally?

Yes.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

Nonsense. The monarchy is a drain on uk finances, the places associated with it would be even more successful without royals. I don't see Versailles, Caserta or Schoenbrunn suffer because of the lack of royalty inhabiting them.

"King" Charles is one of the scummiest landlords ever.

Any evidence to support your claims?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Any evidence to support your claims?

Which one would you prefer first?

 

[Deleted member 608654]

Which one would you prefer first?

The former first.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

The former first.

https://time.com/5282035/abolish-britain-monarchy-republic/

https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/

Considering that Charles just avoided a massive inheritance tax, while plenty of people struggle, and the fact that the true wealth of the monarchy is kept hidden..

 

[chrisrlink]

The monarchy ends, it's wealth is redistributed to the people, global poverty levels decrease dramatically

maybe a full blown Galarian government? (which wasn't a monarchy according to swordward and shieldbert)

 

[Deleted member 608654]

https://time.com/5282035/abolish-britain-monarchy-republic/

https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/

Considering that Charles just avoided a massive inheritance tax, while plenty of people struggle, and the fact that the true wealth of the monarchy is kept hidden..

I'd like to hear about the second next.