Basically I am Republican.Of course, it is not true to designate a head of state on the basis of the fact that his father or mother was also.
Pragmatically, I have to say that Beatrix and Willem-Alexander are good heads of state.And I am not sure that we should have had better through elections.
In my opinion, We must overcome some misunderstandings in this debate.First of all, the childish level at which most Republicans argue that they are against the kingship:
- It would cost too much money.
A) This is a matter of fact, presidents also cost a lot of money. b) So much money is not in a rich country like ours. A JSF will cost you more per year.
Yes of course. They also provide all sorts of ordinary rights, because they live in a golden cage. It is a little kinne staalwerken sinne of the Beotjes people.
That was a problem with Bernhard and just about all the oranges before that, but it is very much with Beatrix and Willem-Alexander. With presidents you will also have regular hassles.
The Orange fans also have some arguments in their arsenal based on misunderstandings:
- This orange branch is not directly descended from Willem de Zwijger.
- The Netherlands has never had an orange as frost for 1815.
And the role of the Oranjes in the Dutch government-after Willem de Zwijger-has always been dubious. The Oranjes are behind the most important political murders in our history.
So let’s be pragmatic, as long as the oranges deliver good heads of state, they may stay seated.But as soon as a half-sole like Juliana or King Willem III climbs on the throne, we cut d’r with it, agreed?
The royal family is mainly an easy lightning conductor in Belgium.I think the royal family in the top-3 state of most used lightning conductors, already doing in our country the Flemings or Walloons, depending on which side of the country you’re in, it might be even better. The unemployed are also very popular, but it is really the turn of the royal house.
芒 鈧?艙We have an unexpected gap of 2 billion in budget? 芒 鈧?芒 鈧?艙Aha, what if we would abolish the monarchy? 芒 鈧?/p>
In populist circles, the monarchy is mainly a lost cost.Although I also have problems in principle that someone is selected for a function based on Origin alone, I think the benefits are much greater than the cost.
Certainly in a country like Belgium it is good that there is an entity that stands above the political and can mediat.This has remained useful in the past, and it promotes stability.
Moreover, the king is also an excellent representative for our country.Some popusts like to portray King Filip as an incompetent sloth, but he is an ex-F16 pilot who studied political science at Stanford and had 310 official activities per year in 2014.
The Royal House will cost 2019 36 614 000 euro.That may seem a lot, but that is peanuts in budgetary terms.If King Filip Belgium can deliver one big contract, the cost is already more than recouped, and I do not yet have the more implicit advantages as an expression that can also lead to trade and tourism.
In the worst case, the royal house is a marginal cost; A non-issue.In the best case, a particularly good investment, especially in a country where stability is not always a matter of course. I think, especially given the above, rather the last.
So let the King sit still.
I live in a country where the head of state is elected.That means endless electoral campaigns, robocalls, propaganda, lies and ultimately determine a very small set of biljonairs by whom and how everyone is represented, because they have made the campaigns so long and so expensive that ordinary people Hardly more to come.
Then I feel a lot better represented by want-Alexander than by Donald Trump.
So no, I don’t think we would be better off without the Oranjes.On the contrary, some of my American friends are actually a little jealous of us.
Oh well, I think our current King and Queen are doing the heartening good.A royal house will be about as expensive as a president. The only thing I have trouble with is that a start-up like the late Prince Bernhard has been able to work up to Prince-Gemaal and has been guilty of bribery, self-enrichment and treason. Something is not right there.
And talking about non-throbbing bernhards: Those young Bernhard with those weird eyewear also all do things in the real estate that are unworthy of a royal house.
I find it untrue in principle that someone gets privileges because of his/her family.Of course you can argue that this applies to all those wealthy parents, but that does not seem to me to be a good reason to institutionalise it.
On the other hand, I don’t know which alternative is better. A president elected by the people with a ceremonial function, as in Iceland, could work but I think it is important that the head of State does not interfere with politics, and that is difficult to avoid if an election campaign is to be conducted Be.
So I tend to say that my preference goes to no head of state at all.The monarchy might be second choice, although I think they should get less money.
I find our monarchy, as our king and his family fill him in, a good way to bind EN, and a great signboard abroad.
One may complain about the cost of the royal house, but a president is probably lasting….
Furthermore, the countries in Europe where people are happiest are practically all monarchien, until we know from whence this correlate is, I see no reason here what to change.
The royal house is just as close as the first to be the best Mars dweller.But I don’t bother either.
Our monarchy is a tourist attraction and folklore, more not.There is nothing wrong if they are not there, nothing goes wrong because they are there.
They cost money and they make money, they are a kind of old windmills.
Although the royal house is officially not allowed to interfere with politics, they still keep a close eye on political policy in the Netherlands.They have a (good) reputation to keep high and will also do everything to keep it that way.