Swear allegiance to who ?!

[Diving Dude]

l can't wait until the revolution happens and Paulus is the new Foxy.







Ok, maybe you need to be an oldie to understand that!

[Paulus]

Originally Posted by Diving Dude

l can't wait until the revolution happens and Paulus is the new Foxy.







Ok, maybe you need to be an oldie to understand that!

Certainly older than me, obviously

[Richard Mason]

Originally Posted by Scubee

In the US, to become a citizen you have to swear alegiance. The same is true for residency in Canada. I suspect it is also the case in many other countries in the world.

One of the problems in this country is that no-one seems to care about 'being british'.

Is it possible that this might be a way of getting people to view this as 'theirs' rather than viewing it in the same way as a tenant views their rented property - it isn't mine, so i don't have to care'.

Perhaps if people cared more about being british, it might be a better place to live.

This is the current pledge of commitment that new citizens are required to make here in Australia - there are 2 alternatives, religious & agnostic:

Pledge of Commitment

Form of Pledge No. 1

From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Form of Pledge No. 2

From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Seems to cover all the bases reasonably well, with a minimum of bullsh!t, without any body having to compromise reasonable personal principles, such as being a republican, as many here are.

[String]

Originally Posted by MarkP

Could you sustain the changing of the guard without anything to guard?

Works for many other countries that have an elected head of state instead.

[String]

Originally Posted by Mark Chase

TTo achieve this we need to centralize government and get rid of petty local / reagional profiteering.

You mean totally the opposite to the system that made the modern germany so efficient?

[String]

Originally Posted by Scubee

Cobblers.
You ask any tourist why they go to BP/Windsor and they will tell you that they want to see one of the inhabitants.

A tiny handful of americans and japanese. Insignificant when compared to what it costs to keep these people. Most go to see the buildings and so on which would remain.

The buildings will remain, but the traditions will go - no point changing the guard if there isn't anyone there to guard. Which would mean the loss of a few more jobs.

Elected head of state with guard works well in many countries. Even so its hardly a huge number of jobs, again compared to the running costs its worth it.

[String]

Originally Posted by Scubee

We need two levels of governance, but one (the higher one, to boot!) should not be comprised of particular people simply because of an accident of birth.

Which is one of the best arguments for getting rid of the monarchy.

In terms of governance, the queen has very limited powers, and the powers that she does have are restricted so that she has no real influence over what happens at many levels.

There by highlighting how utterly ridiculous keeping her and the entire hoard of hangers-on actually is.

[String]

Originally Posted by macstinator

Such a move to swear allegiance in our schools can be nothing but a positive thing, underlining the fact that as younger members of a productive society,

So forcing people to swear loyalty to something which they have no loyalty to or even want is a good thing? Then again i suppose it worked in Germany in the 1930s.

Anyone wanting the monarchy should have to pay for it. Anyone not wanting it should be excused that particular tax. Seems fair to me.

Anyone who disagrees should be hung for treason.

Except that isn't possible under UK law.
Hanging the royals would be far more cost effective and far more beneficial to the country.

[String]

Originally Posted by Paulus

Yep, the queen is ours and if we ever get the much needed ENGLISH independence we'll keep her.

Great idea, im all for each area operating on its own as its best for the band of people living there. If they also want to take on the moronic cost of keeping the "mother of all benefit seekers" then even better.

[String]

Originally Posted by Steve Jones

But String don't you think that setting up Madame Guillotine in the middle of John Frost Square is a bit over the top.

On second thoughts maybe not

Steve

Haven't they already got one down that way? A town that full of chavs must have something for entertainment surely.

Was thinking more of a nationwide competition where every town competes and the winner gets the guillotine and gets to drop the hatchet.

Runner-up town gets charles and his horse, 3rd place gets harry hewitt and so on..

Phone vote etc, the proceeds go to charity. I think it'll work.