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

I will refute each of CON’s claims, and extend my advantages with further evidence. POWERS OF THE MONARCHY CON: “The Military powers are very similar to the US President's power, and hardly count as bad.” They are ‘bad’ because an unelected leader [the Queen] can overrule the will of the elected leaders [the Prime Minister and the House of Commons]. American presidents are elected, the Queen is unelected. Unless CON wants to dispute the basic precepts of democracy, then he should concede this point. Secondly, if the president vetoes a law then his veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in congress; if the Crown withholds assent then there is no other legal recourse. In American history the presidential veto has been overridden by congress 109 times (3-ii). The Crown’s veto has not been “overridden” since the English Civil War in 1642. (3-ii) http://history.house.gov... CON: “The Crown could try to do those things, but won't succeed.” First, the Queen has tried and succeeded in exercising the Crown’s retained powers in the last ten years; see my (ii)Politics, (iii)Huffington, and (iv)Guardian evidence from rd-2. Crown vetoed a bill that would have transferred the power to authorize military strikes from Crown to parliament, and then attempted to hide it from the public. It took a lawsuit filed by the British-based Guardian newspaper for it to be revealed. The Crown exercised legislative prerogative over bills concerning tuition reform and Civil Partnerships in 2004. Secondly, if the powers will never be successfully used then why have them at all? Repeal them! CON: “Parliaments voice is still supreme above the Crown.” CON is mistaken. He failed to read the evidence I cited from the British House of Commons, on the UK’s official government website. It reads: “The Queen's constitutional prerogatives are the personal discretionary powers which remain in the Sovereign's hands. They include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private; to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers; to assent to legislation; to prorogue or to dissolve Parliament;and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without Ministerial advice.” If the Crown can “act contrary to or without Ministerial advice,” then Parliament is NOT supreme, and the Prime Minister’s advice is NOT required. In this respect, CON is simply mistaken. CON: “Since the 1900's, the Crown has required the advice of a Prime Minister or the Cabinet before it can enact anything.” CON's only support for this is a wiki. First, prefer PRO’s House of Commons evidence from the official site of the UK government over a wiki where any anonymous blogger can post his opinion. Secondly, even CON's wiki supports PRO’s case. In the second paragraph, third sentence of the Wiki it reads, “The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister [and/or] the cabinet.” COSTS OF THE CROWN CON: “This isn’t the people’s money….” CON is mistaken. It is the people’s tax dollars in the tune of 202.4 million dollars a year (2-v Nytimes). The royals practice stewardship over public estates in an arrangement that mostly benefits the royal family. If you read CON's evidence, it never says that the property is owned by the Royal Family. All of Con’s evidence just gives an analysis of the financial costs and benefits of the royals. Buckingham Palace is no more the private property of Queen Elizabeth II, than the White House is the private property of Obama (3vi)(3vii). They practice stewardship over it, but they are not allowed to sell it, destroy it, or paint it bright pink. CON himself cites a FAQ page from the official (4)Crown Estate website that answers the question, ‘Who Owns the Crown Estate?’ with “The Crown Estateis not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.” Furthermore, CON's Telegraph evidence reads, “The Queen will be eligible for a payment of £36.1m next April to fund her official duties, a 16 [percent] increase on the £31m paid by taxpayers to finance the Monarchy this year, despite the Government enforcing sharp public spending cuts elsewhere.” (That's just her salary, the 202 million annual cost to taxpayers includes the cost of security and wait-staff.) Lastly, his “Brand Finance” evidence should be disregarded. The link leads to a PDF created by an obscure finance dot-com site without any credentials or cited sources; it could have been thrown together by anyone. Even if you believe the Brand Finance evidence, it reads that the “costs of the Monarchy” are over “7.6 billion pounds.” These costs include royal security (3.2 billion), and over 387 million for building maintenance. It mentions money raised by royal celebrations, but there is no reason these celebrations could not continue if Queen Elizabeth can continue to smile and wave without the power to destroy British democracy. (3vi) http://www.republic.org.uk... (3vii) http://www.republic.org.uk... Advantages Of Crown Dissolution CON: “As for the Crown's own personal freedom, I do not believe they are too concern about the mild inconvenience…” Con's comment is glib and insensitive. It's not a “mild inconvenience,” it’s oppressive to one’s self identity. What if the law dictated that you must be a gay Buddhist? And when you protest, I say “get-over-it, you're rich.” Under current British law (see my BBC evidence from round 2), the royals must be straight, and they must be Anglican. If the Crown was dissolved, then all such laws would be repealed. They shouldn't have to hide their true selves (3viii). (3viii) Independent UK,. 2004: http://tinyurl.com... OVERVIEW: Remember, this is a value debate. In rd. 1-2, CON conceded this BOP shared status and that the debate ought to be judged on values via the PRO's thesis: “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.” PEACEFUL TRANSITION All of the necessary government departments and officials are already in place. Nothing would be added, only Crown removed. Ergo the transition would cost nothing, and save the public money by eliminating 202.4 million a year in annual subsidies for the royals. Plus all of the Crown Estate property would better benefit UK taxpayers if it is fully nationalized. The profits from the estates would be properly taxed, royal land could be opened up as public parks, and tourist destinations like Buckingham Palace would raise more money by being open 24/7/365 rather than a fraction of the year (ix). The Crown Estates could be fully nationalized, and placed under the departments of Culture and Historical Preservation (3-vii-viii). Plus, the administration of the Crown Estate would be more transparent and accountable because under standing UK laws, the Crown is immune to criminal charges and the British Freedom of Information Act. Ergo, it would be more accountable in a department that does not have such legal immunity. (ix) http://www.youtube.com... PM and Parliament are already viewed as the leaders of the country. They are elected and have a strong incentive to reflect the people's will. The UK would continue to reap benefits from the tourism attractions served by the royal family after public subsidies and binding powers are repealed. The Queen will still smile and wave at royal balls after her democracy destroying powers have been rescinded. UK Supreme Court is already in place, and can rein in any post-Crown power grabs, the same way the US Supreme Court will overrule any unconstitutional executive orders (x) (x) http://supremecourt.uk... Elizabeth II is like Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War. It's key to start reforms NOW while a reasonable head-of-state is in power. Imagine if Putin was in charge in 1989. The Soviet Union would of hung on, and never be reformed. Reforms must be made now to prevent a future Putin-like monarch from destroying UK democracy (xi). (xi) http://www.republic.org.uk... ADVANTAGE EXTENSIONS 1. REDUCE POVERTY – FUND EDUCATION The UK's education system, and social mobility is horrid. 202.4 million, and the billions in tax-free assets retained by the Crown estate would better benefit the people, and the 20% of the UK population in poverty. CON dropped this argument, he just claimed that the Crown Estates are privately owned – THAT'S BEEN REFUTED. Ergo, full nationalization of Crown Estates will benefit the public. http://www.republic.org.uk... 2. FREEDOM FOR MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL FAMILY If they are gay and catholic they should be able to live that way. Con's answers are glib and insensitive. 3. PSYCHOLOGICAL BENEFITS of REPUBLIC Extend this argument from rd. 2. CON totally dropped it. 4. STRONGER UK DEMOCRACY Why tolerate the potential liability of standing laws that could deeply undermine British democracy? All of the Crown’s standing powers ought to be repealed immediately in case a future monarch (A) sparks a government crisis by abusing the Crown’s full power, (B) sparks a civil war or coup by deepening divisions in British society between republicans and royalists, and or (C) embarrasses the United Kingdom before the world by destroying its image as an advanced democracy (3-i). (3-i) Washington Post, ‘Royalists & Republicans’ 2013: http://tinyurl.com... OTHER SOURCES REPUBLIC http://tinyurl.com...