Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

Did I say she had absolutely no power?TO my recollection, you implied as much.I'd be grateful if you would explain the system for members in parliamentary to pass new laws.The House of Commons has the sovereign right to propose financial or mainly financial bills. In the case of such a bill being proposed, after much discussion and consultation, it is read in the House of Commons for a first time, at which there is no debate. Two weekends after that, a second reading is made, whereafter the bill's principle aims are discussed. A vote then takes place. A bill that is not financial in nature may be proposed in either House. The House of Lords retains the ability to amend delay any bill, except, per the Salisbury convention, legislation promised by a government's election manifesto.Her Majesty then gives Royal Assent to the bill, which becomes law. The Monarch also retains the right to make treaties, declare war and dissolve parliament. But she hold executive powers, which I believe should be run in legislative fashion.It is a wise thing to check the powers of the parliament itself by vesting prerogative powers in the monarch. It is an unwise thing to vest all powers in one institution, or even in one system of governance.  I believe in rights, and in that belief comes a firm believe in law. Order will be maintained through law, and law won't be abused by being kept in check by rights. It is a theoretical system, but one that has not had its chance to be carried out.But the primary purpose of law is to ensure that the strong do not harm the weak. If you consider that to be a desirable end, why do you place such emphasis on the rule of law?I have no effective rebuttal. I yield.Noble. Such problems are present in all ideologies. Never will I claim to have to perfect system, I just have the one that fits with how I view people and the world.Then would you do me the honour of defining your model in its entirety? Democracy is not the only ideal in which the people are the source of power.A populace that is either contented or subdued is the only source of power. As long as the weak are disposed of through the intent of the people im fine.But the people are fickle and greedy. They are impulsive, irascible and dispose to level blame at convenient figures. Should they be granted licence to destroy whomever they wished, they would ultimately destroy only themselves. Observe how people who contrive to subsist on public welfare, whether for reasons of apathy, sloth or dire necessity, are ultimately fixed upon by the public's wrath in times of economic contraction. I am as well, we just differ on the form of order.To my conception, order is a state in which Man may prosper under the protection of the law, by the bounty of a structured economy and in the security of a professional standing army. But in my opinion, such a position shouldn't be gained by birth.The position of monarch would appeal only to the vain and the egotistical. Should we rather elect one from a pool of such people or have the role pass to one who is born into it, and raised form birth to fulfil it?