The United Nations has said that the UK must consider whether they should keep the Royal Family. The UN's Human Rights Council said the Government should 'think' about holding a referendum on the issue, to see if people would prefer to live in a Republican state with a written constitution. The monarchy costs each adult in Britain around 62p a year - but even groups representing taxpayers said there was no case for getting rid of it. The council has 29 members including Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Sri Lanka. It was the Sri Lankan envoy who raised concerns over the British monarchy. But a Royal spokesman has said the public haven't haven't displayed any appetite for a referendum. The UN report was also critical of the UK's treatment of immigrants from Sudan. Syria accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK's record on tackling sexual discrimination.
I'm sorry, what was that? Iran has criticised our record on sexual discrimination? Oooh, there goes the hypocrisy fairy... And in regards to the monarchy, I'm in favour of them. A constitutional monarchy is what Britain has had (in varying states of devolution) since the Magna Carta was signed. I don't think becoming another two-bit republic is in Britain's interest, when the Royals don't cost us much, cause no real problems, and bring in much tourism revenue.
I'm american and i say ALL HAIL THE QUEEN! LOL I always wanted to post that. But really why get ride of them? Their as much the UK I know as the Pope is the chathlic church (Not chathlic either). And obviosly your country cares about them... They pulled the prince back because his life was threatened while deployed, they're still arguing about prencess Diana's death. The royal family is like the Hiltons of UK, with out the sex tapes, and rehab.
It's spelt catholic. They also pulled Harry out because his presence was a danger to the safety of his fellow soldiers. And only Mohamed Fayed and the journalists at the Daily Express are still arguing about Diana. And they arent nearly so useless as the Hiltons.
I did mention with out the sex tapes and rehab right? And no i belive it was his life they where trying to protect. Now i think it was because it would have been a huge moral issue if he was killed, no because you felt it would effect the country. But moral is a major issue as it is with troops.
As much as they don't really do anything, I like the monarchy. It gives as that historical air to our country.
The only thing I don't like about the monarchy is the mess they left us here in Canada with their treaties and treatment of the Natives. But they are a part of the history and what would they do with themselves if they suddenly became redundant. Would they qualify for unemployment or welfare. I wish that Queen Elizabeth had done a better job of raising her children. Charles certainly hasn't done the family honour much good. At least Henry the V111 had a good story told about his life and his wives. Charles is just a duuh. Hope his children are better qualified for running the country. Hope they take after their grandmother. She has class.
William will be a great King. Of that I'm certain. He has a sense of humour, and sense of what is appropriate. And the way things are going, the Queen might outlive Charlie-boy
Why the hell are the U.N. pressing the issue of how the government of Great Brittain is structured, as long as the country is run democratically? The existence of the Royals does not materially affect the fact that G.B. operates with consent and representation of its populace to about the same extent as all the member countries of the U.N. Are the U.N. that bored, or are they that eager to discard whatever relevance they still possess?
Its the UN Human Rights Council. They must look impartial. So when they aren't attacking Israel for breathing, they must attack other Western countries. The Human Rights Council has Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, Libya, and about a dozen other countries that are known human rights abusers. They accused Canada of being racist for using the term "visible minority" in government reports. This is further proof that the so called Human Rights Council is more concerned with providing a shield for its members terrible human rights, than actually doing something effective.
I don't mind having a royal family. And 62p a year isn't bad at all, considering the other stuff taxpayers money is spent on..
that's true... So the whole Royal Family costs less than a litre of petrol... Not as good at running your car though, it must be said...
I would like to get my hands on that meetings transcript. "Shouldn't we talk about Sudan." British Rep. *crickets* "Why do you still have royals?"
How come other countries are allowed to have dictators and we're not allowed a bunch of posh, gold encrusted Germans?
Even with the 62p a year isn't your guy's economy like the best in the world right now? As it is i think it's about the only contry with around the same power as the US. France, spain, russia, and even china don't have the power of the england or the US. China has man power but would crush itself it if tried to wage a world war. But sadly the US is streatching itself pretty thin now adays.
Don't be so sure. They're proving to be quite the modern country... I think the Royal Family, while they have become a head piece, is definitely something I associate with Britain. Even if they don't serve any true need, it's still an important part of Britain's history. I think it's a stupid subject to argue about anyway when more important things are waging in the world.
Ummmm...pardon my contradiction, but shouldn't the question be, "Should the UK drop membership in the useless UN?" As an American, I would gladly terminate our participation in this useless body and move them out of New York to a more suitable country...Uganda or Myanmar would be my first choices. .....NaCl
Last time Britain went without a monarch they lasted like 7 years and then went back to a monarchy, plus doesn't the Queen have the final say anyway?
The royal family is just a national image. We're being strangled from our culture, and we're losing our national identity, if not lost already. If the royal family was taken away, the idiots of this country would lose all sense of self identity (The idiots that cling on to our history, whilst parlimant takes away all sense of 'Englishness' and enshrouds it with a grey sky made out to be am apex of cultural tolerance. So in otherwords, we need the royals to keep the sanity of the idiotic scum of England that make up this country. It happened before, as mentioned, and these same scum (They're very generative I guess) got se reinstate them (The royals). But there's still some hope left in this country, and I will fight for that (Because they pay me primarily).
Good point. Next they'll be taking away our tea, and then our pipes. What next? Surely not cricket (although I have no idea how this game works)?
