For decades, parliament has been far too lenient about the royal family’s finances. This avaricious practice needs to end, says the former Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker
Yeah that’s an interesting point. Here in NZ we outsource monarchy to the UK (I think it costs us about $1 per person per year) and it’s often been said that this is likely to end during Charles’ reign because he’s way less popular than QEII.
Heh. No, ironically the history here with the white settlers is the opposite insofar as we were mostly an autonomous colony, and when Britain passed a law giving New Zealand the right to full independence it took us 15 years to take them up on it.
They used to buy all our stuff and NZ was really annoyed when they stopped so they could join the EU.
We’re like that kid that moves out but still comes round for meals. We were still regularly borrowing their Privy Council for use as our highest court until like 2004.
Yeah no thanks, I’m definitely on the side of the civilians in the anthills. :P
Commonwealth countries seem so fucking strange for me.
I think this is because Americans think we are controlled by the UK or they get a say in our governance or something. But they don’t. Belonging to the Commonwealth is just an extra set of sporting events and dialogues we can participate in.
As someone living in a parliamentary system with proportional representation, I find presidential systems weird. For me, it’s important to be able to get rid of our leader as soon as the majority needs to, not wait around for years.
I don’t think most of you give a shit, but it seems kind of weird to voluntarily recognize a monarch I guess.
Our president wasn’t initially supposed to be quite so powerful, nor the rest of the federal government, but here we are. I care less about getting rid of them and more about the two party lock in bullshit.
Yeah it sucks. We used to have the two party system but we voted to abolish it and switch to proportional.
Having an outsourced royal family is basically just another celebrity for magazines. Some of the elderly like it.
It initially functioned as one of our constitutions’ checks and balances - the kiwi we appoint to “represent” the monarch can disolve the government if it becomes tyrannical. So if we abolish the monarchy we will keep the representative.
Yeah that’s an interesting point. Here in NZ we outsource monarchy to the UK (I think it costs us about $1 per person per year) and it’s often been said that this is likely to end during Charles’ reign because he’s way less popular than QEII.
Wait, it’s not just some weird historical shit? You guys actually send them money?
Hahaha no but when they come and visit us we tend to splash out on security etc.
They don’t really benefit from us financially at all as far as I know.
Thank fuck. I was about to load a boat up with tea and muskets and head over.
Heh. No, ironically the history here with the white settlers is the opposite insofar as we were mostly an autonomous colony, and when Britain passed a law giving New Zealand the right to full independence it took us 15 years to take them up on it.
They used to buy all our stuff and NZ was really annoyed when they stopped so they could join the EU.
We’re like that kid that moves out but still comes round for meals. We were still regularly borrowing their Privy Council for use as our highest court until like 2004.
Then I guess we’re the fat kid down the street trying to get you to come out and blow up ant hills with firecrackers.
Commonwealth countries seem so fucking strange for me. Probably for a lot of Americans.
Yeah no thanks, I’m definitely on the side of the civilians in the anthills. :P
I think this is because Americans think we are controlled by the UK or they get a say in our governance or something. But they don’t. Belonging to the Commonwealth is just an extra set of sporting events and dialogues we can participate in.
As someone living in a parliamentary system with proportional representation, I find presidential systems weird. For me, it’s important to be able to get rid of our leader as soon as the majority needs to, not wait around for years.
I don’t think most of you give a shit, but it seems kind of weird to voluntarily recognize a monarch I guess.
Our president wasn’t initially supposed to be quite so powerful, nor the rest of the federal government, but here we are. I care less about getting rid of them and more about the two party lock in bullshit.
Yeah it sucks. We used to have the two party system but we voted to abolish it and switch to proportional.
Having an outsourced royal family is basically just another celebrity for magazines. Some of the elderly like it.
It initially functioned as one of our constitutions’ checks and balances - the kiwi we appoint to “represent” the monarch can disolve the government if it becomes tyrannical. So if we abolish the monarchy we will keep the representative.
deleted by creator
Not every member of the Commonwealth has the British monarch as head of state (in fact the majority do not).