Harry And Meghan Get Booted Out Of The Royal Family!

That post was not in relation to you Vlad, but 'Sexwise' - (who stated "23 1/2 years service in the British Army", and for whom an oath is required.)
I didn't think with your convictions that this would not something that you would appeal to you

 

"I... swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me. (So help me God)."

 

Well said comrade !!!

 

Quite understandable. You've a right - especially having served - to stick to your convictions.

 

I'd fine and warn them, and then upon three times = (whilst letting them retain their title) remove all their financial allowances.
Whether it is an Upper Senate or House of Lords, - Accountability is all.

 

Quicker, easier and cheaper to abolish it entirely and replace it with a directly elected second chamber.

 

I don't know how you work that out. ?!?!
- You clearly do not understand the de- and re-structure of legislate bodies and lawful methodology.

 

The queen looked as if she would have liked to slap her face in that picture.
If the queens mother was still alive, she probably would have done it for her. She was really lovely to work with, but she had no time for arrogant jumped up fools.

 

I know as much about it as you do and it is entirely possible to abolish the house of lords in its entirety and replace it with an elected second chamber - all it requires is political will !!!

 

Neither have I, which is why I want them all gone entirely. The French, Italians, Germans and Russians have all abolished their aristocracy, its about time we did likewise !!!

 

Didn't they basically leave voluntarily, saying they didn't want to be royal and now they, who grew up in luxury are complaining about how unfairly they are being treated. Oh no, you have to live like peasant? Boo hoo on you.

 

1. I Interesting that you make that assumption
2. I didn't say it wasn't possible - but that it would not be cheaper

 

I'd be interested to see your detailed accounts of those two alternative suggestions !!!

 

If you were to pay me for time and trouble Vlad, I would look into such provision - If you require educating, then it will cost you.
- Though if you have figures that would back your initial claim, then I'm sure people on this thread would be interested in the validity of your calculations (should there be any)

 

You're the one making the statement that its not cheaper, therefore the onus of proof has passed to you to prove it !!!

 

Oh Vlad, once again, you are mistaken ..
#74

So, away you go ...

 

£300.00 per day x 800 + members, plus the subsidised retsaurant and bars, plus foreign travel (first class) on investigative committees, plus first class travel to and from the House of Lords must run into many hundreds of Millions !!!

 

Thank you: -
Members of the House of Lords are not salaried.
They can opt to receive a £305 per day attendance allowance, plus travel expenses and subsidised restaurant facilities.
- Peers may choose to receive a reduced attendance allowance of £150 per day instead.
.
Most members of the Lords do not receive a salary for their parliamentary duties but are eligible to receive allowances and, within certain limits, the travel expenses they incur in fulfilling their parliamentary duties
- - Some members of the Lords receive a salary because of the offices they hold.
Now, given that those replacing the Lords would still be expected to fulfil a function, this would require a comparable salary (and expenses) - so who would fund that? (Respective Parties, or (again) Public funds)
- or would you apply the same principles of those in an upper senate to opt and/or chose not to receive?
.
Also, the dissolving of any establishment requires financial offset,
There are titles of representation within the Lords that date back more than 700 years - only 85 of the 800 sitting are hereditary peers (their families have been entitled to sit in the chamber as a consequence of decree)
.
So, two things here:
1. The vast majority or Lords, have come from those given title by political parties - will all those now be stripped of title? -or just the financial entitlements?
2. Giving up hereditary peerage that has been a protected and lawful right for the number of years it has, will require compensation - who would foot that Bill?
.
Setting up of a New, or Re-organisation of Structure would require,
Appointment procedure: Vetting, electoral methodology, - and Administration costs! - regardless of the status name would be as much to run - and more given that recompense would be required to 'the old guard'
Accountability: If they could were not accountable to a sovereign realm, this sounds as if it would be another level of bureaucracy, that if electable, would be ipso facto changeable for similar periods to Government and therefore be subject to instability,
However, the main thing here is that removing one level of status (Lords) for that (Upper senate) which does the same job (maybe more??) would still cost the Tax-payer

• As I said, it's not to say that it isn't possible, but it is hardly cheaper

 

Your conjecture !!!


And as for heriditary peers, no by abolishing the House of Lords in its entirety, they are NOT entitled to any further compensation. Life peers, likewise will lose their titles as well as their income from the (now abolished) HoL.


Since the vetting procedure is already in existence for both MPs and peers, there is no further 'on' costs or bureaucracy.

 

And - Your opinion

Now remind me - what has this got to do with this Thread (RE:Harry and Meghan)?

Perhaps you should start a fresh Thread to specifically debate this issue? and then when opened up may attract the views of other than just you and I?