‘Why don’t you just ignore it?’: Piers Morgan clashes with anti-monarchists
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2023
- Piers Morgan engaged in a heated debate with anti-monarchist guests Graham Smith and Alex J. O’Connor, with the Sky News Australia host asking them to “just ignore” the monarchy if they don’t like it.
I'm American and yeah we like to see it, please don't think for one second we want a royal family....
Lol. It's like you love to see a clown in a circus, but not in your own house 😂
@@erwinsmith9473 exactly 💯...or an accident and you just have to look...
Piers is becoming more and more irrational
05:11
Alex: Piers, that's the most ludicrous thing you've said on the show and that's saying a lot.
Piers: The bar is low I agree.
Did Piers just self-roast? Or is he too dense to realise that he self-roasted?
did he say that? i thought it was the other guy
I think the voice was that of Piers.
Piers thinks fancy robes and tiaras are the best thing about England?
Piers fights tooth and nail for the corrupt leaders of England and at the same time fights against the rights of the “commoners” to own guns to protect themselves against a hostile government, tells you what you need to know.
I despise the former and support the other. We the people of Britain should be able to own fully automatic AR-15s and be able to defend ourselves against the State taking money from us through the Sovereign Grant taxes.
Ohhh the pompous Brits 🙄
Nooooo the world does not love them
I don't care about the Monarchy one way or another but Piers' arguments are trash, and he knows it which is why he won't let the guests speak.
Oh he got Piers!😂
Why doesn't piers morgan just ignore harry and meghan if it's so easy?
Careful Britain. Without monarchy, your culture will turn full-blown Chavy in no time.
You mean to tell me the 159 republics around the world are culture-less?
Many Australian s didnt watch the coronation and are laughing at Britain
The royals own massive land, fishing, mineral and oil rights in England, along with a large portion of its treasures, which all should be returned to the people who were abused to get it.
Crown expenses are only 100 million or is it 345 million?
“Wow!” England is lucky with that one.
Piers YOU ARE WORNG!!!!
I dont want the monarchy = I hate the homeless. Piers logic at its best.
None of this matters to me
That’s the problem mate
One day UK will be form in Republic then it will follow by their commonwealth countries. 😇💙
People just don’t realise that it’s literally 50 pence per year for each person which goes to the royal family… 50 pence!!!!
And yet the royal family bring in hundreds of millions of £ per year in tourism and hospitality for the UK economy. You also have to know that not all their money comes from us, they invest and bring in other investments from overseas I.e real estate, land, assets etc.
50p investment for each individual in return to international influence, respect and the ability to boost our economy because of our royal status, I’d take that anyday and you’d have to be an complete fool to not understand that otherwise you are literally arguing over 50 pence per year.
Come on people let’s get real here. If you’re not interested ignore the royal family. I’m not even a super fan and I didn’t watch the royal wedding or crowning but I still respect them as being one of the pillars of our country.
Pointless argument.
You mean to tell me this tourism would dissolve if it weren’t for the royal family? Obviously not true since France still takes in plenty of tourism for its historic buildings once owned by the King, yet no actual monarch is wanted not needed.
What would I rather have, 50 pence or an outdated, unfair form of government that gives power to a lone individual simply by birth right instead of a respected individual who was voted in by will of the majority. I’ll take the 50 pence, thanks.
Firstly, it costs considerable more than 50p. Let's not pretend that all their private holdings not included in the calculations come into their ownership via anything than their position (not to mention all the lands and titles given away to reward loyalty) - all of this would inevitably become part of land reform in the event of abolishment. But more to the point - why would anyone want to live under a formalised class system where you and your offspring are inherently inferior? Have a process of election for head of state and a second chamber (no more "Lords" and "Commoners") and leave this nonsense in the past where it belongs.
I'm not a royalist in the slightest. But I will say that these two have a bias that makes them ignorant of the facts
Yes the royal budget is in tatters, but, they got lumbered with a lot of very large bills in a very short time frame. A large jubilee celebration which we never had before, very expensive funeral which we haven't had for 70 years and a very expensive coronation which is the first in 70 years. On the up side, tourist revenues from these events have surely offset these expenses to a large extent which must make some level of contribution. Yes, the colorful regalia matters, no, regular suits wont cut it, we need the pomp and the ceremony, its a part of who we are. Once we let it go, it will never return, it will be lost for all time. Do we really want to become just another iteration of USA? How is that attractive, particularly given the current state of affairs in USA adminstration. I don't think so, I don't see anything to recommend it as a better outcome. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Not every republic follows the American model, in fact the vast majority of countries don’t and never have.
You want pomp and pageantry so badly? Fine. But that doesn’t entitle them to millions of pounds in public funds, land or the highest most uncontested position in government.
Remove all of that, then you can keep your monarch.
I ain't on the left, but the monarchy hasent long to go, soon it will fall though
Speaking as a millennial. I dont think the UK would benefit if the monarchy dissolves, the UK would likely struggle in a cultureless society. Would be better if the monarchy remained and find a middle ground.
There is plenty of culture left in britain without the monarchy
@@Sebbir not at this level of formality.
What cultural dependence do we have on the royal family? I don't understand your fear. Their of life is basically foreign to any regular Briton anyway. How much do you think you have in common with King Charles?
As a Caribbean person, I can say many Jamaicans at least don't give a crap about the royal family. I hardly knew who belonged to which generation until the controversy with Meghan started. So you can thank her for bringing awareness to people like me even if I don't like her either.
And many people don't give a crap about Jamaica either.
And yet you are breaking your neck to be British and living in Britain. All the while making out you are not. Off you go.
@@rightherethereeverywhere Piers was the one who brought up the Commonwealth. Maybe he should stop using us for his arguments then.
I am a Caribbean person and could less about the monarchy. Of course Britain cares because it enslaved both Jamaica and Guyana.
@@blakedavid8302 I'm not the one pretending that more people care about my country than they actually do. I know a lot of people hardly even knows where Jamaica is. Piers needs to stop using the Caribbean in his arguments.
The cost of running The White House under Obama was $1.4 billion per year, so the financial argument against the royal family is a non-starter.
There will be a cost for any head of state.
But I do enjoy watching this type of anti-monarchist. The envy and bitterness oozing from every pour never fails to make me smile.
PS I am not a monarchist, I would get rid of them on the grounds that they are increasingly getting involved in politics and not replacing them with anything.
Monarchists love to harp on about tourism, so I will too. How much of that money is returned from tourism in the US. The White House is still the most visited house in all of the USA. It was probably even higher when tours were conducted.
And once again you attack the man and not the argument, which I have no time for.
@stevenmcalister826 Yet that does not refute my main point, which is that there is a considerable cost to a nation for it's head of state regardless of their title and the cost for a POTUS per annum is significantly more than our Royal Family.
It also makes me smile when someone who Im very confident I would have no time for has no time for what I have to say.
@@MebXVII I have no time for petty name calling, I don’t even class it as an argument strategy therefore I don’t bother addressing it. There is a considerable cost for any head of state, there is also considerable tourism for every head of state wether it’s a monarch or president.
And having an unelected, uncontested individual having basically limitless access to public tax money is for the birds.
@stevenmcalister826 Yet you are addressing it! And repeating yourself about tourism doesn't magically make it a counter to my posts.
You do appear to like raising points unrelated to my comments. I never said anyone elected or not, for that matter, should have limitless access to public funds. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard any monarchist make an argument for that either.
Perhaps you should look through all the posts on this video, and then you may find one where your arguments are an actual reposte to what someone else has said.
@@MebXVII You don’t believe leaders should have unlimited access to public funds, yet the UK monarch does, and additionally they don’t pay tax. A president has rules to follow concerning what funds are used for and will be apprehend if it’s used improperly.
The cost for the royal family may be significantly less but any cost for supporting a monarch is an expense that none of us asked for, they were not elected.
Does sky news have something to say about this or are we supposed to assume that Piers Morgan IS sky news?