comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
RR, on your second point I think that’s a failure of the left in embracing English nationalism. There was a period in the 90’s where it looked like it was going to, along similar lines regarding creativity, but Iraq really facked it up and it’s been and open goal for the right ever since.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was writing that paragraph, it struck me that what I was describing was pretty similar to the vision depicted by the 2012 opening ceremony. I think that's a kind of patriotism a lot of people across the centre and left could get behind, though of course the Daily Mail absolutely hated it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah perhaps. Though I think a lot of them just reject patriotism/nationalism outright.
It’s difficult to really reshape the national story if you are too uncomfortable to embrace your history. I don’t think it’s necessarily true, but it’s been an easy stick to beat these people with by saying ‘they hate the country’.
I think the left needs to reevaluate its attitude towards nationalism and what it means to be a nation state. Especially one that is in the doldrums like the UK. A renewed sense of British nationalism is probably preferable as well, given the precarious nature of the Union right now.
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 12 seconds ago
We've got you pegged!
———
Bales is a big fan of Prince William.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Word has it that Arab has a poster of Andrew in his bedroom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well aren't you all just treasonous meanies.
Of course there are people who dispute every point made, be it political or football.
That's as it should be, including mild insults.
But abuse is a no no for me.
And my only objection to the remarks on the monarchy are along the lines of 'she is an old woman in a box' which should be left until after the funeral, which is now. But some couldn't wait.
Most posters on here I like and respect, but there's always one or two.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
RR, on your second point I think that’s a failure of the left in embracing English nationalism. There was a period in the 90’s where it looked like it was going to, along similar lines regarding creativity, but Iraq really facked it up and it’s been and open goal for the right ever since.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was writing that paragraph, it struck me that what I was describing was pretty similar to the vision depicted by the 2012 opening ceremony. I think that's a kind of patriotism a lot of people across the centre and left could get behind, though of course the Daily Mail absolutely hated it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah perhaps. Though I think a lot of them just reject patriotism/nationalism outright.
It’s difficult to really reshape the national story if you are too uncomfortable to embrace your history. I don’t think it’s necessarily true, but it’s been an easy stick to beat these people with by saying ‘they hate the country’.
I think the left needs to reevaluate its attitude towards nationalism and what it means to be a nation state. Especially one that is in the doldrums like the UK. A renewed sense of British nationalism is probably preferable as well, given the precarious nature of the Union right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the media have a role to play in this also. The far right elements hijacked part of our nationalism, the media reinforced it and the left now seem to liken national pride with the far right and therefore refuse to express any themselves.
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
+++
be interested to know how you think Labour could actually do this.
Yeah I agree with that. Many seem to be unaware of how nationalism works across the political spectrum. It hasn’t helped either that with British nationalism fracturing, Labour has lost its support in Scotland.
I feel there’s a sort of pantomime in being ‘British’ where things like the funeral have to be that way to show the world the brand is still intact which I get must be appealing to a lot of people. The more it happens in a more enlightened world though it does feel a bit forced and I’d be surprised if by the time William is king and dies it’ll be just as peformative. The most vocal of the pro monarchy people (and sorry to lump you in with this MU52 as you’re normally quite a reasonable poster on everything except Ole and Royalty) are ones who seem very insecure and need to attach 1000 years of British history sans the airbrushed evil parts to their persona to feel more important when identifying who they are to the world.
No need for ad hominem attacks, Rob. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're insecure or whatever. That seems like a cop out to just package up something you don't understand in a neat little box you don't have to deal with.
there hasn't been 1000 years of 'British' royal history
That made me smile Robb, as you know we have got on well, but we don't have to agree with everything under the sun.
Ole? I wrote it was time for him to go, and it was, but no amount of ifs and buts can take away third and second.
Monarchy, I wouldn't fight for them, but I want to know what is better. Not more modern but better. You can point to Germany for example, but I can point to Holland.
So persuade me what is better.
And what would get the country behind it.
You are a bright chap, so you may succeed.
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 17 minutes ago
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
+++
be interested to know how you think Labour could actually do this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A commitment to invade France. That’s something every Englishman should be able to get behind.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 17 minutes ago
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
+++
be interested to know how you think Labour could actually do this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A commitment to invade France. That’s something every Englishman should be able to get behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I keep trying but can't seem to make it.
I will one day, I know it. But I need my parents to die first. At least Charles III and I have something in common. Who knew?
IMHO some of the assertions about british nationalism are laughable to most of us outside England and just validates much of the nationalism of our own countries.
Any further attempts at defining 'British nationalism' as a saviour of the union is 180 degrees from where the subjugated nations are right now and will merely deliver more hammer blows to the wedge between us.
In a world that thinks global and acts local, UK is heading the wrong way because it has London blinkers on. It is why, despite delivering devolution, Labour has been deserted in Scotland once they were shown up for the metropolitical class they needed to be to win middle England.
And its a fvck up because without Scotland they are making it very hard to ever get back. In the meantime both Scotland and the RoUK suffer. Sorry I cannot speak for Wales or NI - they have their own problems, outlooks and supporters on here.
So persuade me what is better.
And what would get the country behind it.
You are a bright chap, so you may succeed.
——
Regarding getting the country behind it - I’m not sure as a great many are brainwashed by the concept of a monarchy being as important as they are when in reality if the monarchy collapsed on itself tomorrow nothing bad would happen and people would possibly realise they just spent hundreds of years propping up a parasitic institution for little gain to themselves other than a spurious claim about ‘tourist income’ which France shows isn’t quite the silver bullet the monarchists claim.
It all really comes down to democracy. If the UK and it’s people want to be a proper democracy in the 21st century then make it happen instead of having a royal family paid for by the people who do things like avoid over £300 million in income tax at a time when grannies as old as the queen have to ride around on buses all day as it’s cheaper than paying for their heating.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Excellent Bale, I agree with all that, pretty much word for word.
My only caveat is always the word modern. Under the present cultural system we have conquered large parts of the world, had the industrial revolution, succeeded in two world wars, had 50% of the world's important inventions attributed to us.
Things change, but what 'modern' is going to do better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Sounds like Putin putting the case for Communism!
Maybe the abject decline of the UK since the war has passed you by?
Besides , did the UK really win WW2? I say not
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
But the queen meddled in foreign events so she was hardly apolitical
comment by Robb Eriksen (U22716)
posted 59 seconds ago
So persuade me what is better.
And what would get the country behind it.
You are a bright chap, so you may succeed.
——
Regarding getting the country behind it - I’m not sure as a great many are brainwashed by the concept of a monarchy being as important as they are when in reality if the monarchy collapsed on itself tomorrow nothing bad would happen and people would possibly realise they just spent hundreds of years propping up a parasitic institution for little gain to themselves other than a spurious claim about ‘tourist income’ which France shows isn’t quite the silver bullet the monarchists claim.
It all really comes down to democracy. If the UK and it’s people want to be a proper democracy in the 21st century then make it happen instead of having a royal family paid for by the people who do things like avoid over £300 million in income tax at a time when grannies as old as the queen have to ride around on buses all day as it’s cheaper than paying for their heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
how do you pay for your Monarchy is Australia?
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
It amazes me how much shiiiiiit you can come out with in only one paragraph.
We can harness some historical USPs - but surely to fvck we have to look forward and not back into history for our vision of the future?
UAE ploughing so much into tourism.
Norway not spunking her oil windfall and creating the $1.3trn sovereign fund.
Taiwan creating a world class semiconductor foundry business
Germany excelling in engineering and 'doing things right'
China, yes, even China, at least having strategies on rare earth metals, stealing IP from inward investors and much else that hasn't succeeded but at least a forward strategy!
Anyone got a story about a poor Polish tradesperson?
Not even gonna mention S Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam.
Just no idea WTF the UK is or wants to be? Electoral system doesn't help. Union of unequal parts doesn't help.
Sorry, don't have all the answers.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you should go back and read Red Russian's responses to this in my discussion with him. Particularly the parts about not losing sight of our history, about being able to reflect while also to move forward without all the baggage.
You're doing a lot of assuming here without giving your reasoning. I get what you're saying, that we need to be careful, but there's no use speculating what the preferred solution would be and that it'd be bad because we have no idea. I think the safer bet would be that there'd be a period of chaos while everything got figured out. Could it be worse? Definitely. That's what bothers me in all this. But I certainly wouldn't claim to know it will be.
And really, that's why I'm wasting my time on this thread. I want someone like RR to come along point to all the good alternatives and all the ways we can improve. Cos we certainly can.
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
It amazes me how much shiiiiiit you can come out with in only one paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
It amazes me how much shiiiiiit you can come out with in only one paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote the op ffs.
Sign in if you want to comment
The Queens funeral today
Page 16 of 20
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
RR, on your second point I think that’s a failure of the left in embracing English nationalism. There was a period in the 90’s where it looked like it was going to, along similar lines regarding creativity, but Iraq really facked it up and it’s been and open goal for the right ever since.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was writing that paragraph, it struck me that what I was describing was pretty similar to the vision depicted by the 2012 opening ceremony. I think that's a kind of patriotism a lot of people across the centre and left could get behind, though of course the Daily Mail absolutely hated it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah perhaps. Though I think a lot of them just reject patriotism/nationalism outright.
It’s difficult to really reshape the national story if you are too uncomfortable to embrace your history. I don’t think it’s necessarily true, but it’s been an easy stick to beat these people with by saying ‘they hate the country’.
I think the left needs to reevaluate its attitude towards nationalism and what it means to be a nation state. Especially one that is in the doldrums like the UK. A renewed sense of British nationalism is probably preferable as well, given the precarious nature of the Union right now.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Sadiq Khan (world class mayor) - #JC4PM (U18243)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 12 seconds ago
We've got you pegged!
———
Bales is a big fan of Prince William.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Word has it that Arab has a poster of Andrew in his bedroom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well aren't you all just treasonous meanies.
posted on 20/9/22
Of course there are people who dispute every point made, be it political or football.
That's as it should be, including mild insults.
But abuse is a no no for me.
And my only objection to the remarks on the monarchy are along the lines of 'she is an old woman in a box' which should be left until after the funeral, which is now. But some couldn't wait.
Most posters on here I like and respect, but there's always one or two.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 13 minutes ago
RR, on your second point I think that’s a failure of the left in embracing English nationalism. There was a period in the 90’s where it looked like it was going to, along similar lines regarding creativity, but Iraq really facked it up and it’s been and open goal for the right ever since.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I was writing that paragraph, it struck me that what I was describing was pretty similar to the vision depicted by the 2012 opening ceremony. I think that's a kind of patriotism a lot of people across the centre and left could get behind, though of course the Daily Mail absolutely hated it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah perhaps. Though I think a lot of them just reject patriotism/nationalism outright.
It’s difficult to really reshape the national story if you are too uncomfortable to embrace your history. I don’t think it’s necessarily true, but it’s been an easy stick to beat these people with by saying ‘they hate the country’.
I think the left needs to reevaluate its attitude towards nationalism and what it means to be a nation state. Especially one that is in the doldrums like the UK. A renewed sense of British nationalism is probably preferable as well, given the precarious nature of the Union right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the media have a role to play in this also. The far right elements hijacked part of our nationalism, the media reinforced it and the left now seem to liken national pride with the far right and therefore refuse to express any themselves.
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
posted on 20/9/22
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
+++
be interested to know how you think Labour could actually do this.
posted on 20/9/22
Yeah I agree with that. Many seem to be unaware of how nationalism works across the political spectrum. It hasn’t helped either that with British nationalism fracturing, Labour has lost its support in Scotland.
posted on 20/9/22
I feel there’s a sort of pantomime in being ‘British’ where things like the funeral have to be that way to show the world the brand is still intact which I get must be appealing to a lot of people. The more it happens in a more enlightened world though it does feel a bit forced and I’d be surprised if by the time William is king and dies it’ll be just as peformative. The most vocal of the pro monarchy people (and sorry to lump you in with this MU52 as you’re normally quite a reasonable poster on everything except Ole and Royalty) are ones who seem very insecure and need to attach 1000 years of British history sans the airbrushed evil parts to their persona to feel more important when identifying who they are to the world.
posted on 20/9/22
No need for ad hominem attacks, Rob. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean they're insecure or whatever. That seems like a cop out to just package up something you don't understand in a neat little box you don't have to deal with.
posted on 20/9/22
there hasn't been 1000 years of 'British' royal history
posted on 20/9/22
That made me smile Robb, as you know we have got on well, but we don't have to agree with everything under the sun.
Ole? I wrote it was time for him to go, and it was, but no amount of ifs and buts can take away third and second.
Monarchy, I wouldn't fight for them, but I want to know what is better. Not more modern but better. You can point to Germany for example, but I can point to Holland.
So persuade me what is better.
And what would get the country behind it.
You are a bright chap, so you may succeed.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 17 minutes ago
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
+++
be interested to know how you think Labour could actually do this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A commitment to invade France. That’s something every Englishman should be able to get behind.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 17 minutes ago
I agree that it’s a mistake on their part. I think it’s massively where Labour have been going wrong in recent years as it really easily does come across as ‘they hate the country’.
+++
be interested to know how you think Labour could actually do this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A commitment to invade France. That’s something every Englishman should be able to get behind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I keep trying but can't seem to make it.
I will one day, I know it. But I need my parents to die first. At least Charles III and I have something in common. Who knew?
posted on 20/9/22
IMHO some of the assertions about british nationalism are laughable to most of us outside England and just validates much of the nationalism of our own countries.
Any further attempts at defining 'British nationalism' as a saviour of the union is 180 degrees from where the subjugated nations are right now and will merely deliver more hammer blows to the wedge between us.
In a world that thinks global and acts local, UK is heading the wrong way because it has London blinkers on. It is why, despite delivering devolution, Labour has been deserted in Scotland once they were shown up for the metropolitical class they needed to be to win middle England.
And its a fvck up because without Scotland they are making it very hard to ever get back. In the meantime both Scotland and the RoUK suffer. Sorry I cannot speak for Wales or NI - they have their own problems, outlooks and supporters on here.
posted on 20/9/22
So persuade me what is better.
And what would get the country behind it.
You are a bright chap, so you may succeed.
——
Regarding getting the country behind it - I’m not sure as a great many are brainwashed by the concept of a monarchy being as important as they are when in reality if the monarchy collapsed on itself tomorrow nothing bad would happen and people would possibly realise they just spent hundreds of years propping up a parasitic institution for little gain to themselves other than a spurious claim about ‘tourist income’ which France shows isn’t quite the silver bullet the monarchists claim.
It all really comes down to democracy. If the UK and it’s people want to be a proper democracy in the 21st century then make it happen instead of having a royal family paid for by the people who do things like avoid over £300 million in income tax at a time when grannies as old as the queen have to ride around on buses all day as it’s cheaper than paying for their heating.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Excellent Bale, I agree with all that, pretty much word for word.
My only caveat is always the word modern. Under the present cultural system we have conquered large parts of the world, had the industrial revolution, succeeded in two world wars, had 50% of the world's important inventions attributed to us.
Things change, but what 'modern' is going to do better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Sounds like Putin putting the case for Communism!
Maybe the abject decline of the UK since the war has passed you by?
posted on 20/9/22
*inheritance tax
posted on 20/9/22
Besides , did the UK really win WW2? I say not
posted on 20/9/22
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
posted on 20/9/22
The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
But the queen meddled in foreign events so she was hardly apolitical
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Robb Eriksen (U22716)
posted 59 seconds ago
So persuade me what is better.
And what would get the country behind it.
You are a bright chap, so you may succeed.
——
Regarding getting the country behind it - I’m not sure as a great many are brainwashed by the concept of a monarchy being as important as they are when in reality if the monarchy collapsed on itself tomorrow nothing bad would happen and people would possibly realise they just spent hundreds of years propping up a parasitic institution for little gain to themselves other than a spurious claim about ‘tourist income’ which France shows isn’t quite the silver bullet the monarchists claim.
It all really comes down to democracy. If the UK and it’s people want to be a proper democracy in the 21st century then make it happen instead of having a royal family paid for by the people who do things like avoid over £300 million in income tax at a time when grannies as old as the queen have to ride around on buses all day as it’s cheaper than paying for their heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
how do you pay for your Monarchy is Australia?
posted on 20/9/22
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
It amazes me how much shiiiiiit you can come out with in only one paragraph.
posted on 20/9/22
We can harness some historical USPs - but surely to fvck we have to look forward and not back into history for our vision of the future?
UAE ploughing so much into tourism.
Norway not spunking her oil windfall and creating the $1.3trn sovereign fund.
Taiwan creating a world class semiconductor foundry business
Germany excelling in engineering and 'doing things right'
China, yes, even China, at least having strategies on rare earth metals, stealing IP from inward investors and much else that hasn't succeeded but at least a forward strategy!
Anyone got a story about a poor Polish tradesperson?
Not even gonna mention S Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam.
Just no idea WTF the UK is or wants to be? Electoral system doesn't help. Union of unequal parts doesn't help.
Sorry, don't have all the answers.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 28 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
On a football forum, Im sure most fans can acknowledge the importance of history in determining identity and status, in giving people a sense of pride, individuality, uniqueness and attachment.. The monarchy plugs us directly into our history and contributes significantly to your sense of ID. Unplug that, replace it with a cerimonial president and our national identity will suffer. It may be more modern but it will be soulless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you should go back and read Red Russian's responses to this in my discussion with him. Particularly the parts about not losing sight of our history, about being able to reflect while also to move forward without all the baggage.
You're doing a lot of assuming here without giving your reasoning. I get what you're saying, that we need to be careful, but there's no use speculating what the preferred solution would be and that it'd be bad because we have no idea. I think the safer bet would be that there'd be a period of chaos while everything got figured out. Could it be worse? Definitely. That's what bothers me in all this. But I certainly wouldn't claim to know it will be.
And really, that's why I'm wasting my time on this thread. I want someone like RR to come along point to all the good alternatives and all the ways we can improve. Cos we certainly can.
posted on 20/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
It amazes me how much shiiiiiit you can come out with in only one paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise
posted on 21/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 36 minutes ago
Identity is to a large extent defined by our history. We cannot reinvent ourselves as a nation, we cannot erase our history, any new system would be almost meaningless and hollow...an elected ceremonial president? Who honestly wants that or would vote for that and what status would they hold globally...none whatsoever. The moment it becomes.es a vote it become political, whereas we want a head of state int the function they perform now to be neutral, apolitical.
———
It amazes me how much shiiiiiit you can come out with in only one paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote the op ffs.
Page 16 of 20
16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20