I tried to read your post but got hypnotised by your avatar

*bounces along eating an onion*

Don't know many Foreign Tourists flocking here to spend money because of our MPs tho...

quote:

Originally posted by Syd:
Don't know many Foreign Tourists flocking here to spend money because of our MPs tho...

I don't know about you but when I visit London as a tourist I never see the Royal Family anyway. I see the outside of Buckingham Palace
and then I see far more interesting things like
Madame Tussaudes and Westminster Abbey.

I doubt wether the tourists would stop coming if there was a President in Buckingham Palace
rather than a Queen.

Tourists come to my part of the country to see
the land of Robert Burns and William Wallace,
rolling green hills and the Loch Ness monster
and they don't cost as much to maintain as the
Royal Family.

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:
Why should I be outraged that MP's have been squandering tax payers money on second houses,dog food,trouser presses etc. Haven't the Royal Family been doing that for centuries anyway? I would rather support an MP's luxuries than those of Prince Charles because atleast MP's can serve a useful purpose and the ammount of public money that is flushed away to support
the Royal Family's lavish lifestyle is probably
vastly larger than the ammounts that have been claimed by MP's.

Totally agree with you!

As a constitutional monarch, the queen is just a very expensive figurehead - she's neither use nor ornament; high time they got rid of her and all the hangers-on!

People rabbit on about how she brings money into the country. How??? Tourists come to see the buildings, not her. Besides, she and her family cost far, far more than they generate.

I don't see any benefit in scrapping the Monarchy.
Howsabout getting everyone to pay income tax instead. Pay up, or take your business to where your cash is deposited. After that they can trawl through Local Government root and branch and prosecute all expense fiddlers.
Otherwise it will appear that the press are just scapegoating MPs, or indeed the Monarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:
I doubt wether the tourists would stop coming if there was a President in Buckingham Palace
rather than a Queen.

.

What makes you think having a President would be cheeper than the queen she costs 40 million a year. Thats 61p a year per person hardly a fortune when it is split between us all is it. A election cost 80 million to organsise twice the cost of the monarchy there would be no saving by getting rid of the monarchy it would be a major loss

By the way due to being in europe we give them 40 million a DAY thats right every day we are part of europe costs the same as the monarchy does in a year.

But billions of pounds is brought to the UK as people come to TRY and get a glimse of the royal family. What do we get for the EU money stupid new laws that unelected commissioners dream up

Getting rid of the monarchy to put some fool like gordon brown in its place would be a very silly thing to do. Now if we dumped the EU we would have 14 and half BILLION pound spare

quote:

Now if we dumped the EU we would have 14 and half BILLION pound spare

omg you could buy a panda

quote:

Originally posted by neil3842:



What makes you think having a President would be cheeper than the queen she costs 40 million a year. Thats 61p a year per person hardly a fortune when it is split between us all is it.

According to Republic (The Campaign For An Elected Head Of State) the annual cost of the monarchy is over £150 million a year.

France manages to be both a republic and a popular holiday destination, why can't Britain?

It would sadden me to think that the only thing drawing tourists to this great country is a glimpse of the Queen, what about the history,
the architecture, the culture and the beauty of the British countryside.

On the subject of the EU, they do make significant contributions to the funding of medical and other scientific research that benefits people in the UK as much as other countries in Europe which, to my mind, makes them much more useful than the Royal Family.

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:


According to Republic (The Campaign For An Elected Head Of State) the annual cost of the monarchy is over £150 million a year..

yeah they include the upkeep of all the palaces castles and stuff. These would still need to be paid for if we had a elected head of state or would they suddenly become maintenance free

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:
On the subject of the EU, they do make significant contributions to the funding of medical and other scientific research that benefits people in the UK as much as other countries in Europe which, to my mind, makes them much more useful than the Royal Family.

Using a small potion of the huge amount of our own money to do it. Why could we not fund this ourselves if the 14.5 billion didn't need to paid to the EU.

The EU cannot even get its books signed off Auditors have refused to do so for 13 years and will no doubt again refuse this year if a company failed to get its books in order someone would be put in jail.

How you can claim the 40 million a year is poor value for money even though electing a president would cost 80 million is bad value for money but the 40 million a day for the EU is good value for money is beyond me

I also don't understand why some people want a elected head of state that (since the queen mostly stays out of politics and lets the elected lot do it all) but is ok with unelected foreigners making laws that we have to follow.

There may be idiots in westminster but at least we can vote in new idiots if we don't like the ones we have

We are unable to have any say who is making our laws in the EU commission and they are not even British.

Are you seriously comparing The Queen to the European President?

1)Will each president be president until they die or become so old that they have to let one of their children take over?

2)Will a Presidents only qualification for being President be that they are descended
from other Presidents?

3)Will a Presidents only duties consist of travelling round the world making speeches
in silly hats and performing ceremonies that a well trained monkey could perform like opening parliament?

About funding for medicine and science. If your highest priority is human progress and the curing of terrible diseases then it makes sense to help fund foreign scientists aswell as our own and have them working with our scientists, sharing information and resources. The more monkeys with the more typewriters the more chance you have of finding a cure for cancer.

Your much too pesimistic about the EU. Every system goes through problems but things change
and by being part of it you're in more of a position to change it. The European President is unelected, that's something that needs to be changed.

As for Republic, as far as I know,they added "Security costs,unpaid taxes,grants and costs to local councils for Royal visits" but why should the "the palaces and castles and stuff" require tax payers money to maintain them? Just open them to the public,charge admission and let them pay for themselves.

According to one article in the Telegraph, "The queen holds assets worth 17 billion in trust for the nation", thats 17 billion that could be serving all the families of Great Britain, not just the Royal family.

But to be fair, she does have some lovely hats.

We would have to print new stamps and money, that would cost a fortune

I don't think that people are able to grasp the significance of the large figures. The Queen's stuff is peanuts compared to the money we can recoup from tax avoidance.

I don't have a problem with the Queen but see no reason why we should keep the rest of them
I have had to work all my life and pay tax and I think both royal hangers on and the criminal element of MPs should do the same
i would also like to see all the benefit bandits doing something for my contribution not sitting on their backsided smoking dope and appearing on The Jeremy Kyle show

I would like my tax to pay for a superb health service, nurses salaries and houses and genuinely disabled or elderly people
We could all be part of the latter two groups and will all need the first eventually
I am hard pressed to work out what some MPs do a lot of the time

On the subject of the EU. I've checked the internet and Germany is a big contributor to the EU and so German taxpayers must either be giving some sort of benefit to the UK or atleast helping to shoulder the burden of poorer member states. Why should I think it so unfair that the UK pays so much to the EU when German tax payers are paying lots aswell and Germany doesn't even get a rebate.

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:
Are you seriously comparing The Queen to the European President? .

No the queen has much more of a intrest in the welfare of the united kingdom than the unelected EU presedent

You have failed to answer how spending more money for a foreigner to be head of state would be better for us even if you are talking about a UK president it would still cost more.

quote:

About funding for medicine and science. If your highest priority is human progress and the curing of terrible diseases then it makes sense to help fund foreign scientists aswell as our own and have them working with our scientists, sharing information and resources.

So what is to stop us investing in such projects from outside the EU I am sure the investment would be welcome.

quote:

The more monkeys with the more typewriters the more chance you have of finding a cure for cancer.

Really I don't expect monkeys with typewriters are going to cure cancer.

quote:

Your much too pesimistic about the EU. Every system goes through problems but things change and by being part of it you're in more of a position to change it.

So why can't the great british public have a vote on the EU we have been dragged into it and are comming very close to a super state we have NEVER had a vote the referendum in 1975 was for the common market a trade aggreement not surrender of power to unelected fools in brussels.

quote:

The European President is unelected, that's something that needs to be changed.

What with the EU consitution that the french and dutch voted against, so got rearranged and renamed. Then everyone was denied a vote except the irish of course who voted no and are now being told they have to vote again. Why does the EU not understand the meaning of the word NO I am quite sure if the whole EU had a vote many other countrys would also vote NO

quote:

As for Republic, as far as I know,they added "Security costs,unpaid taxes,grants and costs to local councils for Royal visits" but why should the "the palaces and castles and stuff" require tax payers money to maintain them? Just open them to the public,charge admission and let them pay for themselves.

So anything they can add to make the actual cost look bigger then but I suppose they did not bother to work out profits made by the public purse and indead the public themselves to put alongside their grossly over inflated figures

quote:

According to one article in the Telegraph, "The queen holds assets worth 17 billion in trust for the nation", thats 17 billion that could be serving all the families of Great Britain, not just the Royal family.

How that is just a fancy way of saying that it is public property.

Many of the royal building are open to the public or did you not notice this.

I notice that you have completely ignored that the EU has failed to get its books signed off for 13 years, can you think of any excuse for this as the only reason that I can think of is dodgy books why is this fact ignored and more money thrown down the toilet

ThE EU has destroyed our fishing industory as well as caused other problems and is making 3 out of 4 of our new laws yet we have no power to vote these goons out.

Why can't we have a vote on membership of the EU if it is so good a convincing campain to be in it should be able to be organsised. If a vote to be in the EU was in favour at least the people would have decided for themselves but it should be one vote no vote again because the EU dosen't think we gave the right answer.

We would be much better off keeping our 14.5 billion and deciding what it is invested in ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Pol Pot Noodle:
But to be fair, she does have some lovely hats.

Didn't she inherit them all off her Mum as well?

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:
I don't see any benefit in scrapping the Monarchy.
Howsabout getting everyone to pay income tax instead. Pay up, or take your business to where your cash is deposited. After that they can trawl through Local Government root and branch and prosecute all expense fiddlers.

Well said, Joe!

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:
On the subject of the EU. I've checked the internet and Germany is a big contributor to the EU and so German taxpayers must either be giving some sort of benefit to the UK or atleast helping to shoulder the burden of poorer member states. Why should I think it so unfair that the UK pays so much to the EU when German tax payers are paying lots aswell and Germany doesn't even get a rebate.

Just to add Why should I be concerned with what the germans are paying are they concerned with what we are paying as to the rebate tony bliddy blair gave a great deal of it away in exchange that france allowed a review on the CAP they had the review and decided they were keeping the CAP

quote:

Originally posted by neil3842:
No the queen has much more of a intrest in the welfare of the united kingdom than the unelected EU presedent

Yeah, if shes’s so interested in the the welfare of her subjects then why did the Royal Family, prior to 1992, pay no taxes on income or capital gains? Wouldn’t the money from those taxes go towards the health and education of her subjects?

The EU (which already has three presidents, of the council of ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament ) is obviously an altruistic organisation, it gives aid to developing non-european nations, it works with The Council Of Europe and helps to enforce The European Convention Of Human Rights, it creates legislation to protect health and safety and it allows easier cooperation between the British police and foreign Police Organisations.

quote:

You have failed to answer how spending more money for a foreigner to be head of state would be better for us even if you are talking about a UK president it would still cost more.

If we scrapped the Queen then australians wouldn’t have to live with a foreigner
as head of state.

A President would cost less than a monarch. A president would not need the same number of residences - just a London base and a country house that would be more modest than a palace. They would not get income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and this money could go to the Treasury coffers and the Civil List would be abolished.


Cost of The Queen – (officially) £37m (actually) £150m

Costs of comparable European heads of state:

Ireland - £1.5m
Austria – £ 3.5m
Finland – £ 7.9 m
Germany – £ 9.9m

quote:

So what is to stop us investing in such projects from outside the EU I am sure the investment would be welcome.

Membership of the EU doesn’t prevent us from investing in projects from outside the EU and remember that we share resources with european scientists like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, we are also members of the European Space Agency which allows British scientists to be part of projects like Mars Express and Venus Express.

quote:

So why can't the great british public have a vote on the EU we have been dragged into it and are comming very close to a super state we have NEVER had a vote the referendum in 1975 was for the common market a trade aggreement not surrender of power to unelected fools in brussels.

What with the EU consitution that the french and dutch voted against, so got rearranged and renamed. Then everyone was denied a vote except the irish of course who voted no and are now being told they have to vote again. Why does the EU not understand the meaning of the word NO I am quite sure if the whole EU had a vote many other countrys would also vote NO

“There is at present (as of 2009) no provision in the treaties or law of the European Union outlining the ability of a state to voluntary withdraw from EU. The European Constitution did propose such a provision and, following the failure of the constitution, that provision has been carried over to the Treaty of Lisbon (it could come into force in 2009 or 2010 if a second referendum is passed in Ireland after the first one was rejected in the Irish referendum)." – “Withdrawal from the European Union” , Wikipedia

“Withdrawal clause
A new clause in the TCE allows for the withdrawal of any member state without renegotiation of the TCE or violation of treaty commitments (clause I-60). Under this clause, when a country notifies the Council of its intent to withdraw, a settlement is agreed in the Council with the consent of Parliament. If negotiations are not agreed within two years, the country leaves anyway. The process described is a formalisation of the process which Greenland used to leave the EC in 1985” – “Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe”, Wikipedia

quote:

So anything they can add to make the actual cost look bigger then but I suppose they did not bother to work out profits made by the public purse and indead the public themselves to put alongside their grossly over inflated figures

“The cost is not offset by revenue from tourism

The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.” - Republic

quote:

I notice that you have completely ignored that the EU has failed to get its books signed off for 13 years, can you think of any excuse for this as the only reason that I can think of is dodgy books why is this fact ignored and more money thrown down the toilet

"Over the recent years the Court's overall evaluation of the EU's accounting books was that they were reliable. The 2007 accounting books received for the first time a completely clean bill of health. Predicting future may be a risky business…" - From 'EU Accounts not signed off', 'EU Budget Myths', http://ec.europa.eu

quote:

ThE EU has destroyed our fishing industory as well as caused other problems and is making 3 out of 4 of our new laws yet we have no power to vote these goons out.

Why don't you say anything about the good things that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy does for British Dairy farmers, livestock industries and cereal farmers? There are British farmers who wouldn’t
have survived at all if it were not for EU subsidies.

quote:

Why can't we have a vote on membership of the EU if it is so good a convincing campain to be in it should be able to be organsised. If a vote to be in the EU was in favour at least the people would have decided for themselves but it should be one vote no vote again because the EU dosen't think we gave the right answer.

Blame the Prime Minister not the EU. It is the British government that decides wether or not to hold a referendum. I have no objections to a referendum. How about a referendum for Scottish independence too?

quote:

We would be much better off keeping our 14.5 billion and deciding what it is invested in ourselves.

“The Government's latest estimate of UK net contributions, and therefore the cost of the UK’s membership for 2007 - 08 is £4.7 billion pounds.” – Foreign & Commonwealth Office website

A large percentage of our GDP is generated by trade with European countries which
Membership of a single market makes easier. If Britain left the EU then it could still
survive and prosper but why limit ourselves to trade with non-EU countries, why throw away a market of 500 million people?

Also, "If we wished to continue trading with the EU – for example as a member of European Free Trade Area (EFTA ) (like Switzerland) or the European Economic Area (EEA) (like Norway) - we would still have to comply with EU laws, while having no say in negotiating them. We might even have to keep up contributions to the EU budget as the price of continued access to the Single Market, but get nothing in return".

- "What If We Left The European Union?",
"Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform" Website.

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:
Yeah, if shes’s so interested in the the welfare of her subjects then why did the Royal Family, prior to 1992, pay no taxes on income or capital gains? Wouldn’t the money from those taxes go towards the health and education of her subjects?

As I recall the queen volunteered to pay this your point is

quote:

Originally posted by Well-Wisher:The EU (which already has three presidents, of the council of ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament ) is obviously an altruistic organisation,

How exactly is it obviouisly a altruistic organisation, just because it gives aid to developing non-european nations. So does the UK your point is

quote:

If we scrapped the Queen then australians wouldn’t have to live with a foreigner
as head of state.

The austrailians had a choice they decided our queen should also be their queen we have had no choice with the EU. If the EU want to be considered a legitimate organisation they should insist a vote is put accross the entire EU not force countrys that said no to vote again

quote:

Membership of the EU doesn’t prevent us from investing in projects from outside the EU and remember that we share resources with european scientists like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, we are also members of the European Space Agency which allows British scientists to be part of projects like Mars Express and Venus Express.

No but giving the EU 14.5 billion a year makes us unable to afford to


Oh and why do we need EU rules to tell us how we have to withdraw from the EU its only held together with treatys, they can be canceled.

quote:

Over the recent years the Court's overall evaluation of the EU's accounting books was that they were reliable. The 2007 accounting books received for the first time a completely clean bill of health. Predicting future may be a risky business…" - From 'EU Accounts not signed off', 'EU Budget Myths', http://ec.europa.eu

That link tells me nothing have a look at this one from last year They cannot get the accounts in order

quote:

Why don't you say anything about the good things that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy does for British Dairy farmers, livestock industries and cereal farmers? There are British farmers who wouldn’t
have survived at all if it were not for EU subsidies.

Because its only a portion of our own money coming back why do we need the EU again oh and the CAP is what is keeping food bills artifically high most of it goes to france why do we Pay farmers NOT TO FARM and what is the point of throwing dead fish back in the sea

quote:

Blame the Prime Minister not the EU. It is the British government that decides wether or not to hold a referendum. I have no objections to a referendum. How about a referendum for Scottish independence too?

When as many people want a vote for scottish independance are there is want a vote for IK independance there should be one.

quote:

The Government's latest estimate of UK net contributions, and therefore the cost of the UK’s membership for 2007 - 08 is £4.7 billion pounds.” – Foreign & Commonwealth Office website

We all know about government estimates we know it costs £40m a day you do the math

We may agree the BNP are scum but I don't think we will ever agree on the EU.


If a referendum took place I would accept the result of it whatever it was (unlike what the EU does) but until the british people have their say the EU will always be a foreign power interfering in our business and restricting what we can do in our own country.

BNP ...
I fight you vermint as scum an as me grandad did Japs ...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Strutter:
BNP ...
I fight you vermint as scum an as me grandad did Japs ...

Get no argument from me on that one or from Well-Wisher I will fight alongside you

quote:

As I recall the queen volunteered to pay this your point is

As I recall that was the Annus Horibilis, the year when two royal couples got divorced, Andrew Morton’s Diana: My True Story was published and there was a public outcry that the taxpayers would have to pay for the £40 million restoration of Windsor castle, the image of the Royal Family at that time seemed lower than it had ever been before.

"I think it was a very important year in the queen's life," says royal watcher Robert Jobson. "I think it was the year that she realized and the people realized that the royal family was not really a family that one should look up to in moral terms." - CNN. Com, WORLD

The Royal Family desperately needed to boost their public image and so
the Queen publicly volunteered to pay tax on income and capital gains but privately she worked out a deal with the treasury that avoided her having to pay full tax on income and capital gains.

Currently the Queen recieves 7.9 million a year from the Civil List, tax free
And she doesn’t have to pay capital gains tax or corporation tax on the money she recieves from the Duchy of Lancaster not to mention the tax exemptions that Prince Charles and other members of the Royal Family enjoy.


http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/n...=348718&in_page_id=2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2.../30/politics.jubilee

quote:

How exactly is it obviouisly a altruistic organisation, just because it gives aid to developing non-european nations. So does the UK your point is

a)Why does the UK give aid to developing non-european nations? Because it’s altruistic. Why does the EU give aid to developing non-european nations? Because it’s altruistic.

b) If the EU weren’t altruistic then it would keep the richer, more powerful members of the EU happy; it would give more
money to Britain and Germany and less to the poorer EU
nations.

quote:

The austrailians had a choice they decided our queen should also be their queen we have had no choice with the EU. If the EU want to be considered a legitimate organisation they should insist a vote is put accross the entire EU not force countrys that said no to vote again

Only 55% of them chose to keep the Queen but 67% of the British public chose, in 1975, to stay in an EEC whose aims were:
“To bring together the peoples of Europe.
To raise living standards and improve working conditions.
To promote growth and boost world trade.
To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.
To help maintain peace and freedom.” – 1975 referendum pamphlet

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#14

By voting “Yes”, the British voters in 1975 also knowingly chose the Common Agricultural Policy which you think is such a bad thing.

By voting yes, the British voters in 1975 also knowingly chose the council of ministers thus giving the council of ministers the right to make decisions on their behalf, the council of ministers is what evolved into the council of the European union which is the principle decision making institution of the European union. In other words, the 1975 referendum gave the council of ministers a british mandate and thus the right to create the European Union.

quote:

No but giving the EU 14.5 billion a year makes us unable to afford to

Britain already invests in non- EU projects so what your saying is just not true. For example, in 2005 Britain invested in a US nuclear power project through the British Nuclear Fuels plc and in 2008, Britain joined with the US and Japan to invest in an Energy Technology Fund.

quote:

Oh and why do we need EU rules to tell us how we have to withdraw from the EU its only held together with treatys, they can be canceled.

This is just nitpicking. The important point is that under the terms of The European constitution and The Lisbon Treaty Britain would have the right to leave the EU. Furthermore, do you understand that treaties are contracts and all contracts involve terms and conditions, why should the EU not set down terms and conditions for the withdrawal of member states?

quote:

that link tells me nothing have a look at this one from last year They cannot get the accounts in order

Your link was very informative. Most importantly, it tells me that, in the opinion of the Auditors, the EU is not guilty of fraud. What large organisation does not make mistakes? Following eurosceptic logic I should leave Britain because it’s government is quite often incompetent and corrupt but then I would also be leaving behind the advantages of being a British citizen, just as Britain would leave behind the advantages of EU membership.

quote:

Because its only a portion of our own money coming back why do we need the EU again oh and the CAP is what is keeping food bills artifically high most of it goes to france why do we Pay farmers NOT TO FARM and what is the point of throwing dead fish back in the sea

Don’t forget that the CAP existed in 1975 when Britain voted to stay in the EEC and thus Britain voted in favour of the CAP and don’t forget that the CAP has undergone many reforms since it was first established and the modern CAP is less concerned with price support.

"Modern reforms
The current areas that are issues of reform in EU agriculture are: lowering prices, ensuring food safety and quality, and guaranteeing stability of farmers' incomes. Other issues are environmental pollution, animal welfare, and finding alternative income opportunities for farmers. Some of these issues are the responsibility of the member states." – wikipedia

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4407792.stm

quote:

When as many people want a vote for scottish independance are there is want a vote for IK independance there should be one.

Yes they want a vote for UK independence but, in a referendum, the majority would vote to stay in the EU. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me:

http://www.populuslimited.com/...ttitudes-060604.html

quote:

We all know about government estimates

Well, I know more about them than about your estimates.


Lastly, I would like to remind you that The Queen is a supporter of the EU, athough, thanks to reforms in 2005, she will receive less money from the CAP to help pay for care of her large estates.