This House Believes that the United Kingdom Ought to Dissolve the Monarchy

I STAND TO AFFIRM THAT THE UK OUGHT TO DISSOLVE THE MONARCHYVOTING FRAMEWORK Because the key word used in the resolution is “ought,” it is to be interpreted as a value debate, and the resolution should be judged on balance as more true than false, in other words the burden of proof is shared. “Ought” refers to a moral judgment rather than a prediction about probable future events, IE. Fred the alcoholic ought to drink less, regardless of Fred's probable future choices and one's capacity to influence Fred's choices. Crown: Legal term used in British law to refer to the monarch and the monarch's power(s) Further definitions and background: http://tinyurl.com... Thesis: The UK ought to dissolve the monarchy by ceasing all state funding for the royal family, and repeal all binding powers still retained by the Crown. I will demonstrate how the Crown's retained powers threaten the democratic spirit of the UK, how these powers have been abused by the acting monarch, and how the UK would be better off after the dissolution of Crown. I. HARMS OF CROWN A. Unchecked Powers Still On The Books Contrary to popular belief the British Crown still retains many active binding powers beyond that of a purely ceremonial figurehead. The Crown reserves the sole right to authorize military action, to sign a bill into law by “royal assent,” or withhold assent - thereby vetoing the law. Further powers of crown include the right to dismiss an elected prime minister, the right to dismiss parliament and call for new elections, the right to utterly dissolve parliament, and “in grave constitutional crisis” to take total dictatorial power, and “act contrary to or without Ministerial advice.” According to the House of Commons report, the most disturbing retained power is “the principle that the Crown can do no wrong, and that the Crown is not bound by statute save by express words or necessary implication” (i). The powers retained by the Crown, even if some have not been exercised in recent history, are a threat to the democratic spirit of British government. The ministers elected by the people ought to have the right to pass laws by majority vote unencumbered by the oversight and potential obstruction of an unelected monarch that was literally born into the job. (i) House of Commons Report on Public Administration, April 2003: http://tinyurl.com... A-1. Recent Abuses of Power by Crown In 1999 the Queen vetoed a law, passed by Parliament, that would have shifted the power to authorize military strikes from Crown to Parliament. The Queen and the Prince of Wales have exercised their royal prerogative on at least 39 pieces of legislation in the last ten years. Their vetoes have included “New Labour's 2004 tuition fees legislation,” and a law about “Civil partnerships.” In the words of Professor Kirkhope at Britain's Plymouth University, "There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable.”(ii) Even more disturbing is that the British government did not want to disclose this exercise of royal prerogative. The information only “came to light” after the Crown “lost a court battle with the paper [The Guardian] to prevent publication of the internal Whitehall record.”(iii) The Crown actively exercises powers that most believe are moot, and then attempts to cover up the very use of that power. They also have royal precedent if any law”affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.” I'm sure most British citizens wish they had such privileges, especially since Charles and the Queen are not required to pay taxes (iv). (ii) Politics.co.uk, 2013: http://tinyurl.com... (iii) Huffington Post, January 2013: http://tinyurl.com... (iv) Guardian, January 2013: http://tinyurl.com... B. The Undue Cost of Crown According to the New York Times, “the Public Accounts Committee — Parliament’s watchdog on public spending — published a damning survey of the state of the royal finances. The queen had spent down her “reserve fund,” a savings account built up by years of surplus public subsidy, to “a historically low level” of only £1 million ($1.6 million), from £35.3 million in 2001.” The royal family receives over 202 million dollars a year in subsidies, all of which are not subject to taxes . The total value of all of the royal assets, including jewels and estates of land are worth upwards of billions upon billions of dollars.(v). All of this land costs millions a year to maintain, and many more millions to maintain the royal family's opulent lifestyle. (v) New York Times, February 2014: http://tinyurl.com... B-2. Spend the Billions on Education Instead Imagine what could be better done with the billions wasted on the royal family. Over 20 percent of British citizens live below the poverty line. Britain is near the U.S. in having the worst social mobility in the industrialized world (vi). Every million spent on the royals is a million NOT spent on public education. Every million spent on the royals is a million NOT spent on raising people out of poverty. The billions saved, if the monarchy was abolished, is enough reason to vote Pro because that money would go farther and do more good helping the poor children of the United Kingdom. Every child in the UK ought to have an equal opportunity to succeed because they worked hard, not because they were born into the royal family (vii). Oxfam, 2013: http://tinyurl.com... http://www.youtube.com... II. MAINTAIN ROYAL ADVANTAGES WITHOUT COST & LIBABILITY TO THE DEMOCRACY A. ORNAMENT-SYMBOL Royalist Brits can still idolize the royal family without subsiding their opulent lifestyle with their hard-earned tax dollars. Tourism Boon will continue because of UK's many historical attractions regardless of the legal status of the crown. Tourism revenue would probably increase because places like Buckingham Palace could be open year round. The Royal Family can continue to be honored at royal events, the same way popular celebrities and philanthropists often attend White House gatherings in the US. The Royal Family can raise money by establishing a NGO to maintain the royal aesthetic by giving speeches, representing non-for-profits, and accepting donations. The Royal Family can use their celebrity to raise money for worth-while causes rather than simply enjoy state funded entitlements, warranted by nothing other than birth-right. B. SAFE-GUARD 1. Judicial appointees selected by a majority of elected representatives could act as a legal safe-guard, similar to the US Supreme Court, rather than surrendering absolute trust to an unelected monarch to decide when a bill should be vetoed. 2. Appointees by elected representatives will have more legitimacy than unelected monarchs. III. ADVANTAGES OF CROWN DISSOLUTION A. PREVENT POTENTIAL FUTURE ABUSE BY CROWN Ending the monarchy now will insure that the British democratic system will not be torn asunder by a future sovereign that greatly abuses the powers still retained by crown. Some argue that the Crown would never abuse its power because that could spur a civil war and the abolishment of the monarchy. If the potential for a civil war actually exists in modern Britain then it's better to begin the peaceful transition to a monarch-free Britain now than wait for an insane sovereign that will require a bloody coup' to remove. B. SPEND THE BILLIONS ON EDUCATION & POVERTY REDUCTION The millions spent on, and the billions in assets held by, the royal family would be better spent on education and poverty reduction. The revenue currently raised “by the Royals” would only increase under public administration because people will continue to see the historical museums and castles with or without the royal family present in them. The funds raised by the royal lands would better benefit the people if they were turned over to public administration, and or turned into public parks rather than be used as the private hunting ground of the royal family. C. PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS OF A REPUBLIC British citizens are aware that they do NOT live in a meritocracy. They are aware that the royals are awarded tremendous privileges simply because of their birth-right rather than because of hard-work. Studies have shown that people actually become healthier when they can vote and feel like people are awarded for hard work, and acquire their status through talent and persistence. (viii). (viii) Web MD, 2013: http://tinyurl.com... D. ROYAL FAMILY MEMBERS WILL BE FREE TO LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES Members of the royal family themselves will benefit by a dissolution of crown by giving them the freedom to live their own lives free of constant surveillance and high expectations. Under current law, members of the royal family, especially the women, are incredibly restricted because they are expected to produce royal off-spring. Therefore they may only be straight and marry Christian Anglicans. Dissolving the Crown would repeal all binding law, thereby giving the former-royals freedom to be gay and fall in love with whomever they choose (ix). (ix) BBC AMERICA 2011:http://www.bbcamerica.com...