Republican quotes of the day

Started by Orchid, February 16, 2013, 09:02:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Orchid

Posts made by republicans on the Republic.org website.  I shall post one per day from the "Waht our memebrs say" section to keep a log of some of the sentiments that underpin the wider republican ethos:


QuoteSo much of a child's chances are determined by where and to whom they are born. I can't subscribe to a system which defines and cements this lottery from the top down. Jonathan Trigell

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Alixxx


Windsor

Quote from: Linn BarringerHaving a member of a privileged family inherit the position of head of state is anachronistic in a 21st century democracy. I do not believe in their god-given right to "rule."

Republic | A democratic alternative to the monarchy

Orchid

#3
Quote from: Coral BlissI would like to think that the cap-doffing mentality was a thing of the past, hence the presence of a family in our society earning automatic respect is an anachronism.

Coral Bliss



Quote from: Nelson BuchananI don't see any real, meaningful relationship between 99% of the people of England and the monarchy whatsoever.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Orchid


Quote from: Linn BarringerHaving a member of a privileged family inherit the position of head of state is anachronistic in a 21st century democracy. I do not believe in their god-given right to "rule."
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Orchid

Quote from: Lance PriceEvery child growing up in Britain today should know that their success in life will depend on their talents, character and dedication and not on who their parents were.

I beleive this is an important point in the Republic ethos. Like America and all other countries with elected heads of state, every child should be able to grow up in the UK knowing that they could work to become a leader and representative of their nation.

If America were not a presidential democracy it would never have been able to celebrate its first black President - a social beacon of progress and hope for many; rather it would have been continually accepting the offspring of one family, for good or bad, just like the UK.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Windsor

Democracy doesn't work with just aspirations and a desire to lead. It is also about money, the more of it you have the better your chances are at becoming 'someone' ... Monarchy has nothing to do with it. America is the prime example of how disgusting democracy and money go hand in hand.

It is a nice idea that everyone has the same opportunities in life, it works in theory! Now in practice we all know it is a very different story even in the most "democratic" country on the planet.  :shrug:

Orchid

As if money doesn't come into play wth monarchy. Monarchy and money go hand in hand. They want it to function, they want it to live, they want it to maintain power.  If you want to talk about power and money being disgusting and going hand in hand then we only need look at the model of monarchy.

Yes, all political campaigns require money as funding. That doesn't diminish its democratic core. Everyone should have a chance of leading their country. It's not about becoming "someone" as you phrased it, it's about underpinning a social value of equality and fair leadership based on ability and passion, not inheritance.  How is it democratic to inherit a country?!
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Windsor

There is a big difference with money when it comes to the Monarchy. You do not need money to get close it, nor do you need money to be represented by it. You also do not need money to be in it, as to be in it you need to be Royal. Sure, money is only part of the Monarchy in the sense that it is a very wealthy family occupying the role of Royal Family.

QuoteThey want it to function, they want it to live, they want it to maintain power.

That has nothing to do with money. Sure, it does require funding like any other public institution to function, but that is about it.

The Queen doesn't work on legislation to ensure her private pocket benefits from public handouts, nor does the Prince of Wales travel the world to secure deals from friends to build huge oil rigs in the north sea. Their power and position is maintained by the people and their willingness to see it continue.

QuoteYes, all political campaigns require money as funding.

Yes, of course! Nothing in this world is free... But when funding exceeds the billions of dollars mark then I do worry.  :wink:

Orchid

Quote from: Windsor on March 12, 2013, 03:51:16 PM
There is a big difference with money when it comes to the Monarchy. You do not need money to get close it, nor do you need money to be represented by it. You also do not need money to be in it, as to be in it you need to be Royal. Sure, money is only part of the Monarchy in the sense that it is a very wealthy family occupying the role of Royal Family.

That's true. The monarchy don't need money to campaign because they are unelected and undemocratic. They just have power on the basis of "they were born with it".  However, they do need a bankroll to function which does in fact mean we are paying to be represented by them, to house them, to protect them, to entertain them, to transport them etc. So actually, monarchy is all about money. They aren't a charitable institution.

The UK is paying for both a PM and a monarch when actually we don't need the two. Monarchists argue that the monarch is a good check on our political model but who checks the monarchy? No one. We have an unchecked, unelected, unaccountable institution checking and overseeing our democratic political system on the assertion that they are apolitical and born to be leaders. It brings to mind Plato's model of the Republic: who monitors the guardians and who monitors the guardians guardians etc etc. It's flawed, it's antiquated and it's wholly undemocratic. It's sickening.


QuoteThat has nothing to do with money. Sure, it does require funding like any other public institution to function, but that is about it.

What? It has everything to do with money. Monarchy are a publicly funded body. Every aspect of their lives are funded by the public. They need money to function in every aspect just like any political institution.  The only difference is, as I said above, they don't need money for campaigns. That said, every engagement they undertake is a campaign for popularity and survival so actually we are paying for their campaigns year in, year out. They're just campaigns which are packaged differently to your average election.

QuoteThe Queen doesn't work on legislation to ensure her private pocket benefits from public handouts, nor does the Prince of Wales travel the world to secure deals from friends to build huge oil rigs in the north sea. Their power and position is maintained by the people and their willingness to see it continue.

Their power and position is maintained through a lack of a referendum and a general passive acceptance, (expect from support of staunch monarchists who actively understand why they support the institution).

As for the Queen "not working on legislation to ensure her private pocket benefits". The Queen doesn't perform her role out of the goodness of her heart. She functions to uphold the position and power of her family's seat and to secure survival of the Windsor/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha hold on power into the future. And this hold on power is political, financial and social. So no, the Queen (and every preceding and proceeding monarch) is not a charitable figure acting solely for the good of the nation. They do so with personal/familial gains in mind.

You speak of politicians as if everything an elected body does is corrupt and bad. It's apples and oranges comparing a monarchy to a working government as the former ride the coat tails of their "apolitical badge" doing nothing more than making gestured appearances, while the latter actually work on policies, finances and the running of the country in a thoroughly immediate and active way. Yes, there are bound to be controversies and bad decisions made every now and then but no government is flawless.  I'd much rather invest in the ups and downs of a working ELECTED government than the ceremonial "powers" and unchecked "guardianship" of an antiquated, hereditary monarchy. 
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Jmax2

Quote from: Windsor on March 12, 2013, 02:48:00 PM
Democracy doesn't work with just aspirations and a desire to lead. It is also about money, the more of it you have the better your chances are at becoming 'someone' ... Monarchy has nothing to do with it. America is the prime example of how disgusting democracy and money go hand in hand.

It is a nice idea that everyone has the same opportunities in life, it works in theory! Now in practice we all know it is a very different story even in the most "democratic" country on the planet.  :shrug:

Yeah, but the thing is Windsor, in the US ANYONE can become rich, whereas in the UK people hold onto wealth and position for generations, centuries.  Bill Clinton was President, and he was born poor.  Barak Obama was at least middle-class, and yet he became President.  The list goes on.

Look at the UK, David Cameron is the PM, and he comes froma long line of Eton/Oxford aristos that can trace their lineage back to William IV.  He's 5th cousin to the queen.  Nick Clegg is descended from a Russian Baron and has a number of society relatives.  Ed Milliband is also from a prestigious background.  Most of parliment are millionaires, and attended schools most Britons can't afford and, until recently couldn't even get into. In fact, most PMs in British history attended schools like Eton, which was (and apparently still is) the main route to political power.

It's true that money infects American politics, but that doesn't mean that an ordinary kid can't be President.  There are too many examples that say otherwise.  Can you say the same for the UK?
The road to success is dotted with many tempting parking places.  ~Author Unknown

Windsor

In the UK anyone can become rich too.

Quotewhereas in the UK people hold onto wealth and position for generations, centuries

That is the case everywhere in the world.  :wink:

QuoteBill Clinton was President, and he was born poor.  Barak Obama was at least middle-class, and yet he became President.  The list goes on.

Harold Wilson wasn't exactly rich and powerful when he became Prime Minister, nor was Edward Heath a billionaire. Margaret Thatcher came from a very modest family and so did Tony Blair and yet they all became Prime Ministers, the list goes on... So, your point being?  :hmm:

QuoteLook at the UK, David Cameron is the PM, and he comes froma long line of Eton/Oxford aristos that can trace their lineage back to William IV.

He is actually the first Prime Minister in many decades to actually come from Eton. Also, what is wrong with people having money and being able to finance an education that is not standard?  :shrug: As for being related to a King... well, most people in the UK can claim some sort of Royal lineage, especially to the Stuart line of King Charles II.  :teehee:

QuoteEd Milliband is also from a prestigious background.

Prestigious background? Really? So, fleeing the Nazi's and their anti-Jewish policies is prestigious?

QuoteMost of parliament are millionaires

HAHA!!! That is the most inaccurate statement I have read in many years on this forum... Sure, there are one or two people who have a bit of money, but most of the people sitting in the House of Commons are regular people with a good salary. My local PM is certainly not a millionaire... He earns just over £65,738 per year.


Orchid

^ It's fair to say most of the House of Lords are millionnaires and aristocratic.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Jmax2

#13
Quote from: Windsor on March 14, 2013, 04:36:27 PM
In the UK anyone can become rich too.
whereas in the UK people hold onto wealth and position for generations, centuries

That is the case everywhere in the world.  :wink:

Um, not really.  There's a difference between institutionalized wealth and people simply being able to keep their cash.   

Quote from: Windsor on March 14, 2013, 04:36:27 PMBill Clinton was President, and he was born poor.  Barak Obama was at least middle-class, and yet he became President.  The list goes on.
QuoteHarold Wilson wasn't exactly rich and powerful when he became Prime Minister, nor was Edward Heath a billionaire. Margaret Thatcher came from a very modest family and so did Tony Blair and yet they all became Prime Ministers, the list goes on... So, your point being?  :hmm:

My point being that far more of your PM's came from wealthy Etonian backgrounds than not.  Your example all come from the 20th and 21rst centuries, after post-WWI changes were made.  Your history however goes back much further than that.

Quote from: Windsor on March 14, 2013, 04:36:27 PMLook at the UK, David Cameron is the PM, and he comes from a long line of Eton/Oxford aristos that can trace their lineage back to William IV.

QuoteHe is actually the first Prime Minister in many decades to actually come from Eton. Also, what is wrong with people having money and being able to finance an education that is not standard?  :shrug: As for being related to a King... well, most people in the UK can claim some sort of Royal lineage, especially to the Stuart line of King Charles II.  :teehee:

There's nothing wrong with people having money, just as there's nothing wrong with it in the US.  And, again, the change from Eton-type PM's is recent, and doesn't reflect the history of your country.

Quote from: Windsor on March 14, 2013, 04:36:27 PMEd Milliband is also from a prestigious background.

QuotePrestigious background? Really? So, fleeing the Nazi's and their anti-Jewish policies is prestigious?

His family fled the Nazi's, but that doesn't mean Ed himself grew up poor.  From what I've read he went to one of the best school in the UK and also attended Oxford and the London School of economics.  According to YOUR press, which is where I get this, the Milliband's were wealthy socialists.

Quote from: Windsor on March 14, 2013, 04:36:27 PMMost of parliament are millionaires

QuoteHAHA!!! That is the most inaccurate statement I have read in many years on this forum... Sure, there are one or two people who have a bit of money, but most of the people sitting in the House of Commons are regular people with a good salary. My local PM is certainly not a millionaire... He earns just over £65,738 per year.


The idea that you have a lot of millionaires in Parliment comes from your press, and I've read it several times.  Your government ministers aren't poor.  Our congressmen earn only about $180,000 per year, that doesn't mean that's all they're worth.


Six houses across the world, a seat in the Cabinet and a Sainsbury's heiress wife. Just why IS Labour's mult-millionaire turncoat so jealous of

Found, the exotic hideaway of Alan Duncan, the MP 'on rations' | Mail Online

A surprising view from a Tory MP - and ally of George Osborne - as mansion tax row rages | Mail Online

Speaker John Bercow warns wealthy Cameron not to curb pay rises for 'ordinary' MPs | Mail Online
(I linked this because of the responses from readers.)

Money affects your government Windsor and determines how you are led, just as it does everywhere else.  Wealthy newspaper owners, like Rupert Murdoch, influence your government so much it's become a scandal.

The idea that you should compound all that by having a wealthy, unaccountable head of state is absurd.  Republicans are right.  Children deserve to live in a country where they can aspire to anything, even being the head of state.  They can't do that in the UK.

THIS BOARD IS DRIVING ME CRAZY!  I Can't get it to quote properly.  :happy15:
The road to success is dotted with many tempting parking places.  ~Author Unknown

Windsor

Quote from: Jmax2 on March 14, 2013, 10:43:55 PM
Um, not really.  There's a difference between institutionalized wealth and people simply being able to keep their cash.   

Institutionalised wealth can be seen across the world, from the old Monarchical structure of the United Kingdom, to the 'modern democratic' ways in America, heck even in Socialist Cuba and Venezuela you see this being the case. That is how things are and will remain the case until some hippie becomes a multi-billionaire and starts giving away all the money directly do people who need it.

QuoteMy point being that far more of your PM's came from wealthy Etonian backgrounds than not.  Your example all come from the 20th and 21rst centuries, after post-WWI changes were made.  Your history however goes back much further than that.

Yes, we have many more people from previous centuries who occupied positions of powers and were also very rich. That is how things were for many centuries, even before your country was even born.

QuoteThere's nothing wrong with people having money, just as there's nothing wrong with it in the US.  And, again, the change from Eton-type PM's is recent, and doesn't reflect the history of your country.

If its not a problem then why attack it? It doesn't reflect how things are now. It has been over 100 years when we last had an uninterrupted line of Old Etonians running the country.

QuoteHis family fled the Nazi's, but that doesn't mean Ed himself grew up poor.  From what I've read he went to one of the best school in the UK and also attended Oxford and the London School of economics.  According to YOUR press, which is where I get this, the Milliband's were wealthy socialists.

He was not rich either. Going to a good school does not make you rich, nor is going to Oxford or the LSE mean you are well off. :wink:

QuoteThe idea that you have a lot of millionaires in Parliment comes from your press, and I've read it several times.  Your government ministers aren't poor.  Our congressmen earn only about $180,000 per year, that doesn't mean that's all they're worth.

Well, they do over exaggerate,especially when 'class wars' is becoming an issue again. Now, it is true that several members of the current Cabinet are millionaires, but that does not equate to the whole Parliament being millionaires.

Your congressmen earn more than a British member of Parliament. :P

QuoteMoney affects your government Windsor and determines how you are led, just as it does everywhere else.

I am not denying this... Money and power go together anywhere in the world.

QuoteChildren deserve to live in a country where they can aspire to anything, even being the head of state.  They can't do that in the UK.

I wouldn't want a corrupt Politician as Head of State. As for children wanting to aspire to become Head of State... if that is the wish of the people, then by all means remove the Monarch and elected a President... But alas... that is not happening, the Political class is so very under fire at the moment and has been for decades, nobody in their right mind would want a Republic with a President Blair/Cameron.  :P


georgiana996

Quote from: Orchid on March 12, 2013, 02:43:57 PM
Quote from: Lance PriceEvery child growing up in Britain today should know that their success in life will depend on their talents, character and dedication and not on who their parents were.

I beleive this is an important point in the Republic ethos. Like America and all other countries with elected heads of state, every child should be able to grow up in the UK knowing that they could work to become a leader and representative of their nation.

If America were not a presidential democracy it would never have been able to celebrate its first black President - a social beacon of progress and hope for many; rather it would have been continually accepting the offspring of one family, for good or bad, just like the UK.


:goodpost: i hope that after the queen its put to an end its about time or else it'll be disgraceful  :blank:
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

Orchid

^ Indeed it should :thumbsup:


Quote from: Windsor on March 15, 2013, 07:10:06 AM
I wouldn't want a corrupt Politician as Head of State. As for children wanting to aspire to become Head of State... if that is the wish of the people, then by all means remove the Monarch and elected a President... But alas... that is not happening, the Political class is so very under fire at the moment and has been for decades, nobody in their right mind would want a Republic with a President Blair/Cameron.  :P

The whole 'corrupt politician / Blair/Cameron' argument is so one-dimensional. There's far more to elected heads of state than the possibility of corruption and let us not overlook the corruption imbedded in monarchy.

And in reply to the "a Republic isn't happening" assertion; it's not that people have a united fear of a Cameron/Blair presidency or more generally, a country without a monarchy - it's because policy isn't seriously debating a referendum to nationally highlight and debate monarchy's necessity and democracy in a modern world. It's also because a republican makeup for the UK needs to be more clearly defined (as it stands it's slightly abstract and loose when political models need to be hard and clear). 

Monarchists continually argue against a Republic on the basis of existing Republican models elsewhere in the world - (or, as has been shown, the idea of a republic headed by two modern PM's, which is ridiculous.) But instead, what Monarchists ought to be doing is clearly defending just why a social system without a monarchy would be so disastrous and implausible for the betterment and democratic character of the country. The sustained argument I hear focuses on monarchy's "guardian" effect but as I said in a previous post: who monitors the guardians (a la Plato's Republican dilemma) and how practically effective and worthwhile is a Monarch's role as so-called guardian of our system? It's certainly archaic, established and revered in the eyes of its supporters, but when systematically dissected and analysed, just how actively integral is it? How deeply does the good of the UK hinge on a monarchy?

I often think that Republicanisms greatest hurdle is not linked to successfully disproving monarchy's worth and character but grappling with cultural traditions and passive acceptance of systems which seem so ingrained in our culture that it becomes hard to view them critically with an outsiders eye: that is to say, independent of historical attachment and passive cultural acceptance.

Anyway... I'll be away for a couple of months so if people could contribute some republican quotes to this thread while I'm away to keep it up-to-date and active I'll be eternally grateful.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Minerva

Thanks for this idea Orchid look forward to seeing more quotes these are inspirational especially as a UK citizen at a time when MPs have awarded themselves a £4000 pa pay rise and this was signed off while the people starve or suicide to death, die in war due to multiple reasons but usually cuts, die in the NHS due to cuts die full stop due to : Government Cuts.

All the pigs are in the trough and their snouts are dirty. I hope all those poor 99% are going to a better place.

biblehub.com/matthew/19-24.htm
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -George Orwell

live your truth there is nothing to fear, you live your fear you fear life.

Death is not a sport, nor is hunting. ... Ahimsa

Orchid

Quote from: Minerva on April 17, 2014, 01:41:06 AM
Thanks for this idea Orchid look forward to seeing more quotes these are inspirational especially as a UK citizen at a time when MPs have awarded themselves a £4000 pa pay rise and this was signed off while the people starve or suicide to death, die in war due to multiple reasons but usually cuts, die in the NHS due to cuts die full stop due to : Government Cuts.

Hi Minerva. Thanks for sharing some encouraging feedback on the thread. I'm pleased that it's providing a platform of interest and political relevance for you. 

I confess I've been slack in contributing of late but I'll work to reinvigorate the thread again.  I've come across some very inspirational quotes over the years (regarding a republic model of government) so I'll dig them out and share them here for discussion. :)
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil