England Should Not Remain A Monarchy

Thank you for your opening statement Con.In reverse then,“ The British Tourism Agency has calculated that Monarchy-related tourism generates an average of $767 million for the British economy every year. Compare that to even the most liberal estimates...which come out to $307 million per annum. Basic math reveals that the monarchy is...creating an annual surplus of $460 million. “ As I mentioned before, the monarch himself and the monarchical system of government are not the reason why people go tour around the UK. If Con will provide further details on where this money came from, I can guarantee that not 1% of all the tourism income was from visiting the Queen or had anything relating to the Queen’s political work. To get more specific, the Queen herself does not interact with common tourists, nor does she stand in a chair where you can go see her for £5. Tourism does not mean having tea with the monarch, it is about visiting places representative of the monarchy. We may keep these, like Mexico has stopped having emperors but still keeps old statues and pyramids. As a matter of fact, most tourism that takes place is on visits to important landmarks, museums, palaces and other non-living attractions. I do not say that we should get rid of these tourist attractions, surely this would be madness, I merely assert that the monarchical system of government may go, but it does not need to take with it important tourist attractions relating to the monarchy. It would even be beneficial, being the case that the monarchy has one of the biggest art collections in the world, which are privately owned and are not displayed. Buckingham palace, which is closed for most of the year and when opened is only so for a few days, would bring huge economic benefits if it was made a public museum.2. “the monarchy provides the British government with a sense of continuity which is very important for public perception of its legitimacy. " “nation's identity and political culture” “The monarchy's immense symbolic significance to Great Britain is more than enough reason to justify keeping it around.” Not denied, the monarchy IS a very symbolic thing, but not for this reason should we stop an important change from happening. Removing the monarchy will be a change that may affect people emotionally for some time, but ultimately the benefits will improve the well being of the country. If people’s lives improve, the political system improves, the economic system improves and the tourist system improves, perhaps emotions and feelings are mostly just a small detail or obstacle. Is it not true that rather than appealing to emotion and national pride, we should appeal to reason and common sense? And if this is given, is it not the case with the UK and the monarchy?“The UK should remain a monarchy in order to (1) retain an essential piece of its history, culture, and political identity, and (2) reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profit” The monarchy needs to go, this does not mean that we will get rid of the UK’s history or culture, because the representations of the monarchy such as statues and palaces will remain. There must be made a clear line between culture and political system of rule. I already mentioned political identity, and point 2 has been rebutted.Thank you, I impatiently await Con’s rebuttals.