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

In Round Three, BOTH SIDES AFFIRMED THE RESOLUTION NOTE: Crown = Monarchy. The “Crown” is just the legal term used in British law to refer to the Monarchy. The Monarchy/Crown is entirely different from the quasi governmental property management company known as the Crown Estate, which is sponsored by the UK Treasury. This is key to understanding the debate. This was explained in rd 2-3, but the explanation was disjointed throughout the text. This debate comes down to (1) Crown’s retained powers ought to be removed/repealed, (2) the royals do not need/should not receive public funding, and (3) the nature of the Crown Estate. CON has conceded (1) and (2), which is sufficient enough for both sides to affirm the resolution. I will demonstrate how CON conceded (1) and (2), in round 3, and how that is enough for you to vote PRO right now. Then I will provide my rebuttal on (3) the role of the Crown Estate. (1) Repeal/Remove Binding Crown Powers In rd. 3, third-last paragraph CON said, “That being said, abolishing the Monarchy would have to be the most beneficial option. Being unelected, the remaining, and practically useless powers of the Monarchy should be limited and some removed. ” With that statement CON agrees with me, and affirms the resolution. Therefore, you MUST VOTE PRO. The resolution demands that the Monarchy be “dissolved. ” I provided a definition of ‘dissolve’ for this debate that CON accepted in his rd. 1 response. “Dissolve” had two necessary conditions; (A) all binding powers must be repealed, and (B) all public funding for the royals must be eliminated. Throughout the debate, I mentioned possible scenarios (i. e. from full abolishment to curtailing Crown to a weak purely ceremonial role) that would be sufficient to meet the two necessary conditions, without those scenarios being necessary within themselves in order to affirm the resolution. The CON is expected to negate the resolution by providing arguments against dissolving the Monarchy. By agreeing that the Monarchy ought to be abolished, and or her powers removed, he has in fact affirmed the resolution; ERGO YOU MUST VOTE PRO. Whether you agree with PRO that the Crown’s powers are dangerous and anti-democratic, or agree with CON in thinking that they are merely “useless” then you should still vote PRO because we all agree that useless/dangerous powers should be removed. Royal Assent = Crown’s Veto CON insists that the Crown cannot use these powers, and won’t use them. First, I proved that Crown, on her own initiative, has used her assent 'veto' over 30 times in the last ten years in my 2013 Guardian, Huffington, and Politics-UK evidence, which I cited in rd. 2-3. CON ignores my sources, and doesn’t provide any counter-evidence. He only cites an out-of-date broken link (Brennian, 1981) about Royal Assent procedure. If he read my Guardian 2013 evidence he would see that all of these vetoes detailed in the secret Whitehall papers were only recently declassified by the Guardian’s successful lawsuit against the government in 2013. Secondly, Con’s Wiki citation, and the Brennian evidence discuss the law in theory, regardless of what Queen Elizabeth does in practice. In practice, as I explained above, the Crown utilizes her veto. In theory she can only use her more extreme powers, such as dismissing Parliament to seize total power, only in the case of an “emergency. ” But the Crown gets to decide what constitutes an “emergency. ” Therefore, British democracy is still threatened by by the unchecked powers of a future tyrannical Monarch. Con drops this argument. Extend my argument from rd-3. Even if a future Monarch would be removed immediately after attempting to seize power why risk the international embarrassment of having a public symbol of the country deposed by force, or risk the potential for a civil war? The Monarch should be peacefully dissolved NOW to prevent future threats to British democracy. (2) The Royals Should Not Receive/Do Not Need Public Funding CON concedes this in principle, and never argues that the royals deserve public money, only that they don't receive any; all evidence cited refutes this. In rd 3, he disputes my interpretation of his Telegraph evidence from rd 2. HOWEVER, IN ROUND 3 HE QUOTES AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TELEGRAPH ARTICLE. In rd 2, his Telegraph article clearly reads: “This means the Queen will be eligible for a payment of £36.1m next April to fund her official duties, a 16pc increase on the £31m paid by taxpayers to finance the Monarchy this year, despite the Government enforcing sharp public spending cuts elsewhere. ” (Author: Graham Ruddick, Telegraph: . http://tinyurl.com...) If British taxpayers did not fund the Monarchy, then the article would not use the phrase, “paid by taxpayers to finance the Monarchy. .. ” His rd 3 Telegraph decoy is very different and it’s written by Victoria Ward, while his rd 2 Telegraph article is written by Graham Ruddick. Nevertheless, CON concedes throughout rd 3 that British taxpayers actually do fund the royals by conceding the £202.4 M public expenditure figure. In rd 3 (rebuttal-2 paragraph-1)CON writes “Even with £202 million in funding to the crown, the Treasury earns million in profit. “ He believes this £202 M of funding is outweighed by the profits reaped from the royals, but cannot explain why any public funding for the royals is necessary at all. I have demonstrated with the Nytimes-rd 2, Telegraph-rd 2/3, and Republic-rd 3 evidence that British taxpayers fund the royals. But even if you believe, contrary to the evidence provided, that the royals bring in more than they receive, then why give them any public funds at all? If they are so self-sufficient and business savvy, then why not let them take care of themselves? The UK can redirect those £35-202.4 M funds toward more teachers, policemen, and public parks (X). Even if you do not believe my Republic think-tank evidence, then refer to the unchallenged rd-2 Nytimes and Telegraph evidence that verifies the “Costs of Crown” are at least 30-40 million pounds a year. All of the profits from tourism, the Crown Estate, and royal celebrations can continue if Parliament repeals all of the Monarch’s binding-powers, and eliminates all public funding for the royals (Y). CON keeps insisting that none of this could continue, but he never says why. I argued in rd-2-sect. II-A that the royals could continue to serve the country at public celebrations, raise money for charities, and encourage British tourism after Crown dissolution. Considering the royals’ undeniable celebrity in British society, they would have no trouble starting salaried careers heading charities or NGOs. All Pro argument on this flow are entirely dropped; by dropping it, Con effectively concedes the argument. Con concedes that all royal-inspired revenue will continue after Crown dissolution, thus Con's entire case falls. In short: In Pro’s case, royal-inspired revenue would continue, taxpayer funding of the royals would be redirected into more worthwhile investments, and the legal threat to British democracy eliminated. ERGO VOTE PRO. (X) See my rd.2-3 Youtube/Irish Republican evidence on how 202.4 million could be invested better elsewhere. (Y) See my rd. 1 definition of “dissolve,” which CON accepted in his rd. 1 response. (3) The Crown Estate Can Continue if the Monarchy is Dissolved Con’s only offense in this entire debate is his bizarre belief that the Crown Estate will evaporate, or be claimed by the Windsor clan if the Monarch’s powers are repealed, and public funding cut. CON states in rd 3 that the “Crown's Estate is nothing more than a government group meant to manage the assets of the Crown. ” Con still misunderstands how the Crown Estate (not "Crown's Estate") works. (Notice how the possesive "'s. " is incorrect. ) They are not “the Crown’s assets,” they are the assets of the British people. The Crown Estate is not the property of the Queen in the same way the White House is not the property of Obama or the executive branch, but the property of “We the people. .. ” in an abstract legal sense. Both of us cited the Crown Estate FAQ page, which reads: “The Crown Estates is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. ” If the revenues do not belong to the Monarch, then they are not strictly the Crown’s assets. The Crown Estates “belong to the reigning monarch” in a purely symbolic way in the same vein as “Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force,” and “Her Majesty’s Royal Navy,” etc. Yet it’s precisely this dangerous anti-democratic ambiguity of the “royal” label on British institutions that ought to be clarified through Crown dissolution. Besides, if all of Crown’s powers were repealed, then the “reigning Monarch” would be beholden to laws passed by Parliament just like every other citizen. Therefore, if the Monarchy was dissolved, Elizabeth would not have the power to deny the UK the right to the Crown Estates. There are no standing laws, and CON could not cite any, that would ever trigger a transfer of the Crown Estate from the UK Treasury to the Windsor family. But if you still believe that this property rightfully belongs to Windsors'-then look to history. The land and sea throughout British territory known as “The Crown Estate” was conquered hundreds of year ago, by an army of commoners led by a series of Kings over centuries. These Kings conquered that territory as agents of the state, and agents of a state serve as extensions of that state, ergo the territory belongs to the state. As property of the state, regardless of the Monarch’s legal status, the entity currently known as “ the Crown Estates” belong to the United Kingdom and its citizens. For hundreds of years commoners have worked that land, paid taxes to maintain it, and died defending it; the people have the only rightful claim to that territory. The Monarch may need the people, but the people do not need a Monarch.