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

Rebuttal I: Power of the MonarchyThere are many unelected leaders in the US and UK both who have large amounts of power. There are unelected members in all branches of every government. The Queen has never vetoed a bill by herself. She has only ever vetoed a bill when advised to by her cabinet (1).Pro still assumes that because the Queen "can" use certain powers, that it means the Queen can actually do those things. His source shows what the Queen could do, but he fails to see that if the Queen did do those things, Parliament would override her. As I said, Parliaments voice is still supreme. They can override any power or even abdicate the Monarchy if the Queen abuses her powers.Pro insults the integrity of my source. Understand that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source in a petty school debate, but here, every source is taken at face value until proven wrong. As for what my first source said about the ability of the Queen, Pro continuously ignores that the Queen can't do any of those without risking abdication. This is, again, a list of what the Queen can 'legally' do, not what she really can do. Pro has to prove that there is an extreme abuse of these powers. Vetoing isn't an abused power, but is actually done only when the Queen has been advised to by her cabinet.Pro cherry picked my source. He specifically did it, having had to erase the comma in the sentence and replace it with a period to make the text look like it supported his case. The actual sentence goes like this: "The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the Royal Prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question."1) Bennion, Francis. "Modern Royal Assent Procedure at Westminster".Rebuttal II: Costs of The Monarchy.Pro is mistaken. Every penny comes from the money that that Treasury receives from the Crown's Estate. The Treasury gives the Crown 15% of all profits. Even with £202 million in funding to the crown, the Treasury earns million in profit. This £202 million numbers came from an anti-Monarchy group called the Republic. There is no actual backing to this number."If you read CON's evidence, it never says that the property is owned by the Royal Family."This is a horrendous argument. My sources also never said Dinosaurs existed, but seeing as it wasn't supposed to, it doesn't really matter. My sources shown that the Crown's Estate brings in more money, even with the unsupported claim of £202 million, than it receives. The Crown's Estate is nothing more than a government group meant to manage the assets of the Crown."The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne."(2)While my source does explain the Crown's power over the property is limited, all limitation end if the state no longer recognizes the Monarchy. Even if the Crown costed more than they brought in, this would be easy to solve. Lowering the expanse of the Monarchy is much easier than eliminating the Monarchy, and wouldn't eliminate a possible £204 million income.As for the 16% increase in funding, Con is gravely misrepresenting facts. The Crown Estate's profits rose, and because the queen receive 15% of her estate's profits, her personal income rose as well (3). "George Osborne, the Chancellor, scrapped the Civil List, which financed the official duties of the Queen, and replaced it with a Sovereign Grant that is equal to 15 per cent of the Crown Estate's annual profits." On the Civil List, the queen earned £31 million. When the list was replaced with a 15% income, and the profits from the estates rose greatly, the queen ended up getting 16% more than last year.2) http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk...3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Rebuttal III: The Benefits of abolishing the CrownPro claims my comment was insensitive, but he clearly does not understand the Royal Family. Claiming they are oppressed is an attempt to grasp at straws. The Royal Families restrictions are not by law, but tradition. They can change what ever they so please if they so please.Pro still holds on to the idea that eliminating the Monarchy will save the Treasury enough money to hurt poverty. If every penny the Queen earned came from the tax payers, they would be paying £3 each. The savings wouldn't fight poverty. Of course, however, since the Treasury earns profit off the monarchy, be it £10 million or a potential £204 million, the Treasury would lose money abolishing the Monarchy. Pro ignores this point. The Queen does a lot of fundraising and charity for the poor, the UK would also lose that as well.Pro's talk of physiological issues is unsourced. He claims there are negative side effects, but his source is blank. Any side-effects from having a monarchy would also exist from simply having rich people in general. As for enforcing the Democracy, every Democracy has unelected leaders who hold a lot of power. The Monarchy never acts without being advised first.Argument I: Alternatives.The Monarchy brings in a great deal of revenue for the Treasury. Abolishing the Monarchy would be painful for the Treasury. If expanses were cut back to the Queen's 15%, the Treasury would receive £204 million in revenue. The Treasury, already in debt, would lose out a lot.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. There is no reason abolishing the Monarchy would be better than limiting her powers to ceremonial, and keeping the income she produces.The cost to eliminate the Monarchy would be grand. The restructuring of an entire Government, including the House of Lords, would cost upwards to billions in expanses. The Treasury would spend upwards of billions only to lose £204 million a year afterwards. Keeping the Monarchy and limiting her powers would be much better for the nation.Conclusion: The Monarchy has little power left. Limiting her powers further would be much more benefical then eliminating the Crown all together. The crown brings in a possible 100s of millions in Pounds, and the cost of Eliminating the Crown only to lose that money would not be worth it.