Scrap the Sovereign Grant

Our local council foots the bill because the royal visiting as been invited .

Exception being visits to disaster areas

Kamiso could you explain why you consider that we are lucky to have them please?

Yes I wondered that too specki4eyes

A President is an elected Head of State instead of a hereditary HoS
He or she would work represent us for our constitution, politically neutral, but step in if the government does something wrong.

Sorry, but I keep thinking of Donald Trump..

The Queen does not want to do the job of working for our constitution but still wants the trappings the luxury that goes with the job.

The Queen is in a difficult position. As per the constitution she is supposed to act on the advice of her ministers.

It will be interesting if the Internal Market Bill, with its poisonous international law breaking clause, comes to her for royal assent because she is sworn to uphold the rule of law. One would hope that would present her with a real problem...

In the meantime, I expect she just enjoys being wealthy, in the same way that many people far more wealthy than her enjoy it.

How do you, or anyone know that she 'wants the trappings'? She's enough private wealth of her own to live in 'luxury' if that's want she wants..

Could a president be politically neutral ?

Oh yippee another petition we are expected to sign.

What is it with some posters continually bombarding us with yet another one trying to get rid of this, ban that.

With I would say three notable exceptions (Andrew, Harry and his awful wife) I fully support the Royal family so no I won’t be signing.

Anniebach

Could a president be politically neutral ?

That's what I'm wondering, Annie.

Nor can I see how a president could oversee the constitution and 'step in' in the case of government wrongdoing.

Grany names the president of Ireland as an example,

He was president of the Labour Party until he became the president, he had served as an MP , did he suddenly become
politically neutral .

We vote the government into power, can one man/woman decide to step in and rule the government is in the wrong , it’s
for the voter to decide.

represent the nation
defend our democracy
act as referee in the political process
offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration

The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

What sort of powers would the head of state have?
In a republic all our politicians would have to obey a set of rules that are decided by the people (written down in a constitution and voted on by the public). The head of state would be able to stop the politicians from doing something if they are breaking the rules - but not just because they disagree with the politicians.

MaizieD and Anniebach I hope my precious post Fri 23-Oct-20 14:40:47 answers your questions about a presidents role

Its amusing to read that Elizabeth II is "using her own money". Anyone believing that delusion should read 'And What do YOU Do' by Norman Baker.

Yes that book is an eye opener speki4eyes The RF spend public money day in day out as if it's their own who else would be allowed to get away with that), on transport for their own private interests, wether it is trains cars jets, helicopters their favourite method of transport, not very environmentally friendly. Reminds me of the expenses scandal.

Royal Finances how much?

An absolute exemption for the Windsors under the freedom of information act granted by the government without going through parliament Meaning claims for information about their costs would not be met until after their deaths. What have they got to hide?

There is something deeply wrong if the public are not entitled to know where its money goes. Huge swathes of money are not even available for public disclosure. All travel expenses below £15,000 are exempt from publication and are not recorded. Security costs which account for by far the largest drain on the public finances are similarly unpublished. And Local councils often foot a heavy bill for the Windsors family days-out. Ramsey Council saw its reserve budget wiped out due to a bill £58,000 for a visit from Mrs Windsor. Transport is available to them for whatever they want. Private jet to Scotland Charles, trips to play golf Andrew, Anne to watch sport. Etc. Etc Etc

But the abohorant nature of the monarchy is only further underlined by the fact that the Windsor family see fit to steel millions of pounds of tax payers money and deliberately seek to deceive thoses tax payers, whether by omitting three-quarters of their costs from published reports or by dividing the sum by everybody in the country.

£345 million is a lot of money. Money that could be used for our public services , nurses ,doctors ,schools ,police. Instead We throw money at an institution that serves No Purpose Whatsoever

The Windsors are given tens of millions of pounds of public money simply because they happen to be members of a particular family, despite their incompetence, their casual racism, and their institutional snobbery.

Compare this to the costs of the Irish President which actually came in under budget.

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/higgins-spends-over-300-000-on-guests-at-áras-an-uachtaráin-1.4193042

The Windsors cost a lot don't they?

Signed.