Between 12-19 April 1999 Queen Beatrix brought a state visit to China.During the state visit, Beatrix was accompanied by Prince Claus, Crown Prince Willem-Alexander and more than forty top entrepreneurs. The whole became a media spectacle that is described by a mixture of a Marco Polo-like adventure, political sensibility and commercial importance.
At the end of the years 90 the trade gates with China were still close.The political-economic system of China was focused on domestic overproduction and only later on exporting surplus. Why should you export rice if the mouths in the interior should first be fed. Then you will have to import rice again. The free trade was sent enormously. At the end of the years 90 China reached the status that at all levels of trade (light and heavy industry) there was surplus achieved whereby one could think of exports.
Exactly on that cut, Beatrix takes a state visit to China.The trade delegation finally brought in EUR 30 billion in orders, at that time an unprecedented amount.
Back to your question.This is only one example why the Royal House brings added value to the Dutch economy. Yes, it costs money but the alternative with a president equally.
The fact is that a country can be economically successful both as a republic and as a monarchy and that there are no objective advantages to a monarchy.Switzerland does it without hereditary rulers at least as good as the Netherlands. Ireland has passed the United Kingdom into GDP per capita and you cannot say that the British royal house is in prestige for the Dutch.
A monarchy is an undemocratic form of government.
Alex and Flip and Elizabeth are undoubtedly more pleasant heads of state and more respectable personalities than Trump and Putin and Erdogan.This also applies to all those Scandinavian kings and queens and those other operetta figures, Prinches and Grand Dukes who have secured a job for life and tax free in Spain, Monaco, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg.
Once democratically elected of the battle Putin and Erdogan are firmly seated in the saddle, they try to transform a democratic state as much as possible into a monarchy.It succeeded in North Korea, and a dynasty of evil killers and exploiters holds the land in an iron grip. Putin has accommodated the power alternating into two functions. Which of the two functions, president or prime minister, he also fulfills at certain times, he is always de facto the tsar. Xi transformed himself into a Chinese Emperor for life.
People who are blinded by the brilliance and luster of golden coaches, crowns and diadems, jewels, Gala uniforms and haute couture, see through the propaganda machine of Blue blood (not the on itself entertaining TV program, but the monarch-ism defenders In general) often only yet the benefits of a monarchy.
They do miss a bit of historical insight.The disadvantages of hereditary heads of state are seen throughout history. Rome, with the degeneration of the Empire, France and Russia with their revolutions, because the Monarch’s lived in opulence while their populations died starvation. And of course there is our own Dutch Freedom war against the king who resulted in the largest Dutch flowering time ever, the Golden Age, when the Netherlands became the most powerful trading nation in the world.As a republic. The Netherlands was not just 芒 鈧?虄a Republiek芒 鈧劉.No, in the international context our country was widely known as the Republic.
And then those, mostly by conservative ideology-driven monarchists, are all talking about trade missions that would have become a great success thanks to a prince.Trump has the same talk, so you don’t need monarch’s. The fastest economic growers of the last decades in the world, Singapore, Ireland: all republics. Also among the stable rich countries, you can find both monarchies and republics. I have never met a Swiss who likes to be a queen.
If you pull them off the teething of power but sufficiently, a monarchy can be little evil in the form of a constitutional monarchy.Even though a monarchy is undemocratic, if we come for the choice: Beatrix or balding (the one head of state on the grounds of heredity, the other would have been driven above in elections) I would know who I would choose.
But if the choice would be between such corrupt and corrupting Prince Bernard (for decades propagated as the figurehead of the monarchy in trade missions!) or a decent driver, such as Hans dijkstal or Job Cohen, the choice would also be in favor of The decency.
Come, let the ideological schellen fall from the eyelets, Monarchisten, and recognize that a monarchy can be made harmless on its highly, but remains fundamentally undemocratic.
A crowned head of state has only 1 priority: “How can I maintain the dynasty, cost a little?”
A King/Queen keeps his/her job at the mercy of the established order and will always express the opinions desired by that order.
The established order (or ‘ establishment ‘) is the group of persons who hold the whole of institutional, political, cultural, legal and economic levers, and of course also wishes to perpetuate this power.
Regardless of how much the public opinion (the people) also deviates from what the establishment wants, a crowned head of state will never ever choose the side of the people, but always do well and say what needs to sustain the dynasty.
A King/queen is never more than a hand puppet who is doing what is being commanded.For the show, occasionally something naughty may be said, but never on important subjects.
At an elected head of state, the probability that the establishment has it for saying is also almost 100%, but not quite.Just look at Trump in the U.S.
You can say a lot about his style, but he is his own man.
In addition, in a republic, anyone with the necessary qualifications can be elected head of state.In A Kingdom It doesn’t matter how good you are. The place where your cradle was standing is the only criterion.
For example, I would be very proud to have one of my children kick it to president.In A kingdom, this career path is finally bloated off for ordinary people, however clever they are.
One has Republic: so keep.
One has monarchy: so keep.
There is no point in changing the system.
No, totally not.I see no added value of a monarch over a (ceremonial) president. The system of noble titles is archaic and undermines one of the most important pillars of Western democracy: equality. These titles are by definition unequal. And another pillar is being undermined: freedom. How free are the children of Willem-Alexander and Maxima? Hardly. They have hardly any choice and are prepped for the state of joy, certainly Amalia. Good choice is that. She certainly is also going to study history in Leiden? And become a member of Minerva? As I said, she is not free.
And as a final point, there is the friction between the right to privacy and the right to information and freedom of the press.The Dutch press has accepted silence when it comes to the children of the King. Well, every child is entitled to a worry-free childhood. The problem is that she is our next head of state. Why should we, as citizens, not know whether they are suitable or not? Prince Laurent is also not great and who pays for all those squares with his Ferrari? The Belgian taxpayer. Who pays in the Netherlands? We. And who is liable if they kill someone? The Prime Minister. What happens then? Resignation. Is this the perpetrator punished or rehabilitated? No, she will NEVER go into jail for crimes she has committed. She will literally stand above the law, just like her parents now. I oppose this in principle.
I’d rather be a president who can hold you accountable for their wrongdoings.If you do not have to pay for the maintenance of that ship again, it is very well taken.
Yes, a royal house is a figurehead of a country.A face that remains the same throughout the years and is free from a political agenda.
For many, the photo leaves and stories give a little extra shine/dreams to a still boring existence, where football is for others, and live music for others.[Entertainment is of value.
[Certainly the most important it is a way to stay changed from a also-chosen 芒 鈧?艙leader 芒 鈧? which ensures that there is a 漏 n that is indisputably the popular representation it has for saying, 脙 漏 n that no one can fetch it in his/her head supernational Competences (because chosen).
The extremely great value of the lack of鈩?n person in our administration, and the primeasure of the power that this puts in the representation, is invaluable.
[Very stupid are the ones who, in addition to the elected representation, want to have a chosen doll (with thus equal power), or as the highest in the city, the province or the country: that would be as wrong with us as now in e.g. the USA or France
Yes.The members of the Dutch royal House did not publicly show signs of decreased spiritual strength. A president with the whole reutemeteut will not be cheaper.