AMEN! Be thankful that GOD woke you up today! AMEN! Let's keep this family friendly please! AMEN! GOD DOES! AMEN! Pray for everyone! Please do not call people fools! AMEN! None of us are worthy! But remember, GOD hates the sin, not the sinner! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️ Be thankful that GOD woke you up today! Pray for everyone! None of us are worthy! But remember, GOD hates the sin, not the sinner! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️ Please do not use THE LORD’S NAME in vain! Please do not swear on anything! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️
The idea that the monarchy in Tuvalu provides more stability actually isn’t just theory, but has been proven in praxis. In 2013 the Prime Minister of Tuvalu lost his parliamentary majority after a by-election. The opposition promptly tabled a vote of no confidence in the PM, but since parliament had already had a session that year and the constitution technically only requires parliament to meet minimum once a year, the PM declared that he didn’t need to recall parliament before a year later. This meant that the no confidence vote wouldn’t take place for another year, leaving the PM in office despite no longer having parliamentary confidence, a flagrant disregard for the principle of parliamentary democracy. The Governor-General (the monarch’s representative) subsequently overruled the PM and used royal prerogative powers to summon parliament to meet anyway. The Speaker of Parliament however, who was an ally of the PM, refused to allow the no confidence vote to be held, and then adjourned the sitting without the vote being held. The Governor-General proceeded to order Parliament to meet again, in order for the vote to actually be held. After this, the Prime Minister proceeded to write to the Queen telling her to dismiss the Governor-General and replace him with one of the PM’s allies. The Queen refused, and later the Governor-General proceeded to announce that he was dismissing the PM from office, and replacing him with the Leader of the Opposition as the new PM. Parliament subsequently met the next day, formally held a vote showing that the new government installed by the Governor-General had parliamentary confidence, and the constitutional crisis was ended.
It’s weird how specifically European monarchs get people so pissed merely existing as heads of state when you have absolute monarchy’s in the gulf states that don’t bother them.
There isn't much of a difference between Gulf monarchies & Arab republics. The latter are ruled by dictators with an iron fist with maybe Tunisia being the only exception.
I would have never expected a Prequel Meme from TLDR But you slaughtered the expecations. And not just those, but the men, and the women, and the children. ALL OF THEM
Should point out that many Pacific Islanders already travel to Australia on work visas to bring money back to their country. Australia has a work shortages, particularly for agricultural work. So Tuvaluans coming to Australia would be a boon to Australia by boosting the workforce.
Well can't lie Australia doesn't have that much Tuvalu you go to New Zealand yeah welcome to Pacific capital you got Micronesia, Polynesia and Malaysian yeah it's insane
Once it becomes a republic some family will control all the resources for themselves as many other countries have experienced. Monarch have some control if there's any conflict or anyone being a dictator
While there are some cases like that, in this case being a republic means giving up the status quo of stability the island has, and more importantly the aid they gain from fellow commonwealth nations they otherwise wouldn't get (at least normally); running the risk of having a dictator-king rather than just a purely symbolic figure. Tuvalu is also pretty much already independent in governing its own land, which is usually a big point for being independent , and as said in the video, "there's bigger fish to fry".
the monarchy hoards millions of pounds into their treasury, while the working class is shitted on both by them and the parliament. The only reason the British liked the monarchy was because of Elizabeth.
It tends to be done by two types of governments, 1. To have more independence and to have less british culture in the country, (sometimes this is done out of hated like ireland, and sometimes it's just for more self-determination like India) 2. Its done by dictators, corrupt politicians, etc, to distract people from there nations problem's, a lot of the time by blaming the monarchy as to why everyone is starving or poor, whilst the leader is on there yacht. People view the monarchy in different ways, some view it as being less then this one person, some view it as a figure head that helps unite different cultures together, some just hate the fact that someone was born into wealth when they weren't and are spiteful because of it, and some are just patriotic. There are more reasons then just there reasons but it changes from person to person.
I was against the mornachy but given the fact that our republic is basically being ruled by a dynasty of two families and we often are very unstable during election years. Now im thinking maybe a permanent head of state isn't that bad
You’d be best off with an elected ceremonial President to provide stability and national unity, especially because a monarch in the British sense can’t do this because they refuse to even say anything mildly related to politics without the PMs consent, and then a PM to be the political leader. Germany, Iceland, Barbados, Estonia and Singapore are all good examples. Constitutional monarchy is just expensive and generally unpopular, unless you get a rare good monarch (but how can you decide who the good ones are? It’s a monarchy)
@@tobeytransport2802maybe but monarchy takes the polictical side out of they are completely neutral and they in the commonwealth case do not ever get involved and therefore allow prime minster to lead but without the power of a republican president such as for example the French or US president has to circumvent parliament or allow criminals to go free etc. that is why monarchal parliamentary systems such as Norway UK Aus Sweden Denmark Canada are the most democratic countries in the world
@@tobeytransport2802Would you say the immensely popular monarchs of Scandinavia are bad monarchs? In Norway the monarchy is more of a national symbol, it was the king who rallied resistance during ww2, it was the king who responded to the 2011 terror attacks in Norway and the Norwegian king generally a cool guy, not to mention that the Kingdom of Norway is listed as the worlds most democratic country.
We keep the constitutional monarchy in Canada because (1) trying to change the constitution will blow the country up, but also (2) the system works very well with much less corruption and incompetence seen in republics. Canada could "easily" remove King Charles as head of state and replace him with a generic "crown" (as in swearing allegiance to a symbol instead of a person) and retain all the other symbols and systems of government, military, and civic institutions. But that would mean changing the constitution.
Can you do a video on what the impact of the monarchy on british colonies is? What powers they have and how it impacts governance? I want to know how a country would be different if they booted the monarchy.
Apparently progressives can never consider that certain things can be valued in of themselves. That identity and history matter to an individual and nation.
Im from new zealand and i just dont see a need for the situation to change. The monarchy is purly serimonial and it would just br a waste of time removing it
Maybe I'm delusional but I feel like the monarch gives us commonwealth nations a sense of unity and serves as an important remainder of both the success and hardships of the empire I say it's rather ridiculous to boot out a monarch when it will barely effect your day to day experiences
The Pacific Ocean isn’t rising for one, and being a part in the Commonwealth of Nations of GB gives the little Island protection. Britain and the USA and Australia will defend it. The Commonwealth does carry a cashé that will never be replaced.
State of the Vatican City: ~ 1 000 inhabitants on 0.44 square kilometers = 100 % members Roman Catholic Church ~ 100 % fundamentalists May be the change some of those things now, they created in the life time of Martin Luther!
Yes, they would. The monarchies of each of the 15 realms are totally separate legal entities which are totally independent of one another. Technically Charles is, legally speaking, 15 different people, because King Charles III of Canada is a different legal person to King Charles III of the United Kingdom, who again is a different legal person to King Charles III of Australia. The UK theoretically becoming a republic would have no impact on the constitutional arrangements of the other realms, and King Charles would remain their head of state
@@LordDim1no it's not different people it's different crowns. Charles just so happened to be the holder of these crowns this is known as a personal union
@@BajanEnglishman51 The Commonwealth Realms are a bit more complicated when it comes to the person of the monarch than traditional personal unions. Traditional personal unions do indeed treat their monarch as the same legal entity but acting in 2 separate jurisdictions. The realms are not like that. The king in each realm (except Tuvalu and until earlier this year Canada) is an entirely insulated legal personality distinct from the legal personalities he has in the other realms
Britain offers financial aid to all countries that have British monarchy as head of state so any nation that stands by Britain Britain will stand by them like Britain still continues to support the people of Hong Kong.
The sad thing is that the tiny island nations projected to be engulfed by rising sea levels will be those who have contributed the very least to global emissions.
A republic doesn't make a state more democratic. It is the opposite, actually. Republics can be hijacked by extremists. In a constitutional monarchy, no charismatic extremist can come and claim that he is the true chosen leader of the country. Just by looking at some polls and stats, we can see that constitutional monarchies are the most functional democracies (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Commonwealth, Spain, Liechtenstein, etc.). What we need is more royal involvement in protecting democracy and the will of the people at that moment. For example, I talked to some Canadians and they were all in favour of King Charles to personally dismiss Trudeau. The people hate him, while elections are over a year away. Monarchs should also get more patriotic and invested in social issues at this point.
That's completely stupid. There are plenty of tyrannical and crazy monarchs throughout history who have done terrible things. Constitutional monarchy is a symptom of stable democracy, not a cause. It barely exists outside of Europe and colonies of European counties, because these are places where democracy was implemented but the vestigial monarchy was allowed to stick around in a limited capacity. Nobody in a stable democratic republic would ever propose adding a constitutional monarch in an effort to add stability. Incidentally, WW2 Japan and WW1 Germany both had monarchs who were more like figureheads than absolute rulers and still descended into militaristic fascism. Meanwhile modern countries like Germany, Ireland, Austria, and France are all republics with highly functioning democracies and constitutional rights.
@@kacperdudenko6828what was the point then? A government not being hijacked? That's only true depending on the resilience of the institutions that make up said government and the effectiveness of that government's citizens. In other words this is a team effort, one that 80% of current governments are failing at specially on the second point (educated and participating citizens). The countries mentioned in the op are countries that have a high voter turnout, and so are the ones that were mentioned in the second message. Plus they have a large portion of the population that is willing to participate in creating stress towards the government and by consequence participate in its process. Look at countries with low turnout and you'll probably find a citizen base unwilling or not interested in participating in every day governance
The graph with green and red labeled the monarchy as part of the colonial past that should be dropped. If a republic had colonized the islands, would that that mean the naysayers would see the republic as part of their colonial past that must be ditched in favor of a monarchy?
It's always a slow news day if they are debating about the monarchy......yeah having the pacific ocean in your kitchen might be a more pressing issue.........evacuate Evacuate Evacuate. 🏊♂️🚣🚣
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
I died as soon Australia jumping off to the water what a life saver 😂😂
Australia be preparing for its island hoping campaign
AMEN! Be thankful that GOD woke you up today! AMEN! Let's keep this family friendly please! AMEN! GOD DOES! AMEN! Pray for everyone! Please do not call people fools! AMEN! None of us are worthy! But remember, GOD hates the sin, not the sinner! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️ Be thankful that GOD woke you up today! Pray for everyone! None of us are worthy! But remember, GOD hates the sin, not the sinner! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️ Please do not use THE LORD’S NAME in vain! Please do not swear on anything! AMEN! 🙏🏾✝️
@@aiden_jaison gods nots real I must gonna pray before my glorious ending 🤣😂
@@aiden_jaisonnobody asked
The idea that the monarchy in Tuvalu provides more stability actually isn’t just theory, but has been proven in praxis.
In 2013 the Prime Minister of Tuvalu lost his parliamentary majority after a by-election. The opposition promptly tabled a vote of no confidence in the PM, but since parliament had already had a session that year and the constitution technically only requires parliament to meet minimum once a year, the PM declared that he didn’t need to recall parliament before a year later. This meant that the no confidence vote wouldn’t take place for another year, leaving the PM in office despite no longer having parliamentary confidence, a flagrant disregard for the principle of parliamentary democracy.
The Governor-General (the monarch’s representative) subsequently overruled the PM and used royal prerogative powers to summon parliament to meet anyway. The Speaker of Parliament however, who was an ally of the PM, refused to allow the no confidence vote to be held, and then adjourned the sitting without the vote being held. The Governor-General proceeded to order Parliament to meet again, in order for the vote to actually be held.
After this, the Prime Minister proceeded to write to the Queen telling her to dismiss the Governor-General and replace him with one of the PM’s allies. The Queen refused, and later the Governor-General proceeded to announce that he was dismissing the PM from office, and replacing him with the Leader of the Opposition as the new PM. Parliament subsequently met the next day, formally held a vote showing that the new government installed by the Governor-General had parliamentary confidence, and the constitutional crisis was ended.
This story is just hilarious lmao.
@@Rofflestomper The PM complaining to the queen was funny as all hell.
Wow that's insane
@@ibraheemshuaib8954 And her politely telling him to stick it and then giving the go-ahead for the GG to sack him
Wow. Great info to know. A sincere thank you.
Tuvalu plays Civ 5 obviously.
It’s weird how specifically European monarchs get people so pissed merely existing as heads of state when you have absolute monarchy’s in the gulf states that don’t bother them.
That is actually quite strange now that you mention it...
It is because european monarchy have all their dark past over the century
@@mtaufiqnmtn And so do the monarchies of Asia and the Middle East, people just don't look into their history and even current activities.
There isn't much of a difference between Gulf monarchies & Arab republics. The latter are ruled by dictators with an iron fist with maybe Tunisia being the only exception.
You're making up a person to get mad at here, nobody who supports the abolition of European monarchies is in favor of keeping the gulf monarchies
I would have never expected a Prequel Meme from TLDR
But you slaughtered the expecations. And not just those, but the men, and the women, and the children. ALL OF THEM
Just like the younglings!
Should point out that many Pacific Islanders already travel to Australia on work visas to bring money back to their country. Australia has a work shortages, particularly for agricultural work.
So Tuvaluans coming to Australia would be a boon to Australia by boosting the workforce.
Well can't lie Australia doesn't have that much Tuvalu you go to New Zealand yeah welcome to Pacific capital you got Micronesia, Polynesia and Malaysian yeah it's insane
British people will realise how lost they are without a monarchy. We Romanians and Serbs have realized this long time ago👑🇷🇴🤝🏻🇷🇸👑
The Cromwell Aera (from 1649 to 1660)
was exciting!
@@maikotter9945 Cromwell, what a scumbag, we were so close to universal male suffrage that wouldn't be won for hundreds of years.
How is a monarchy beneficial in any way?
@@remboldt03 It's not in the slightest
For the good of the kingdom 😎✌️
God save the King!
"is Tuvalu's future with or without the monarchy" if humanity keeps it up then it's future is going to be underwater...
Once it becomes a republic some family will control all the resources for themselves as many other countries have experienced. Monarch have some control if there's any conflict or anyone being a dictator
So basically the same steps just the difference being the family that controls the resources... Great pro monarchy point
A family that rich doesn't really have an incentive to harm Tuvalu@@VictorPerez-vu1fo
While there are some cases like that, in this case being a republic means giving up the status quo of stability the island has, and more importantly the aid they gain from fellow commonwealth nations they otherwise wouldn't get (at least normally); running the risk of having a dictator-king rather than just a purely symbolic figure. Tuvalu is also pretty much already independent in governing its own land, which is usually a big point for being independent , and as said in the video, "there's bigger fish to fry".
@VictorPerez-vu1fo The Royal family controls the resources, doesn't restrict them. A beuracracy would.
Based Tuvalu
At the very least it provides a diplomatic link for when help is needed.
If I was Australia, I would give whole Tuvalu a climate visa in exchange for their top level domain
All the realms are in favour of the Monarchy... cause it works and gives us stability... so why change ?
England:
"We have criminals!
Let us send them to Australia!"
the monarchy hoards millions of pounds into their treasury, while the working class is shitted on both by them and the parliament. The only reason the British liked the monarchy was because of Elizabeth.
Like, honestly... have the HAI editors gotten a hold of this channel? I love it.
I never understood why people want to abolish the monarchy. Can someone please explain?
We spend money towards them.
It tends to be done by two types of governments,
1. To have more independence and to have less british culture in the country, (sometimes this is done out of hated like ireland, and sometimes it's just for more self-determination like India)
2. Its done by dictators, corrupt politicians, etc, to distract people from there nations problem's, a lot of the time by blaming the monarchy as to why everyone is starving or poor, whilst the leader is on there yacht.
People view the monarchy in different ways, some view it as being less then this one person, some view it as a figure head that helps unite different cultures together, some just hate the fact that someone was born into wealth when they weren't and are spiteful because of it, and some are just patriotic.
There are more reasons then just there reasons but it changes from person to person.
@@lunkycultist5519 thank you
@@juckya9660no they don’t learn more before believing false narratives
@@chazzerbox131 Yes we do we pay for their protection?
Tuvalu's Republicans when Charles the III literally lifts the islands out of the ocean
I was against the mornachy but given the fact that our republic is basically being ruled by a dynasty of two families and we often are very unstable during election years.
Now im thinking maybe a permanent head of state isn't that bad
You’d be best off with an elected ceremonial President to provide stability and national unity, especially because a monarch in the British sense can’t do this because they refuse to even say anything mildly related to politics without the PMs consent, and then a PM to be the political leader. Germany, Iceland, Barbados, Estonia and Singapore are all good examples. Constitutional monarchy is just expensive and generally unpopular, unless you get a rare good monarch (but how can you decide who the good ones are? It’s a monarchy)
@@tobeytransport2802maybe but monarchy takes the polictical side out of they are completely neutral and they in the commonwealth case do not ever get involved and therefore allow prime minster to lead but without the power of a republican president such as for example the French or US president has to circumvent parliament or allow criminals to go free etc. that is why monarchal parliamentary systems such as Norway UK Aus Sweden Denmark Canada are the most democratic countries in the world
@@tobeytransport2802Would you say the immensely popular monarchs of Scandinavia are bad monarchs? In Norway the monarchy is more of a national symbol, it was the king who rallied resistance during ww2, it was the king who responded to the 2011 terror attacks in Norway and the Norwegian king generally a cool guy, not to mention that the Kingdom of Norway is listed as the worlds most democratic country.
So you basically have some sort of an elective monarchy then
@@math3000 yeah
A fellow commonwealth helping other one
Fair enough
Doesnt matter if your a Republic or a monarchy if your gonna be with atlantis soon
We keep the constitutional monarchy in Canada because (1) trying to change the constitution will blow the country up, but also (2) the system works very well with much less corruption and incompetence seen in republics. Canada could "easily" remove King Charles as head of state and replace him with a generic "crown" (as in swearing allegiance to a symbol instead of a person) and retain all the other symbols and systems of government, military, and civic institutions. But that would mean changing the constitution.
Tuvalu's future is beneath the wave 🌊💦 of the Pacific Ocean 🌊💦🪸!!!
Looks like on Average Tuvalu natives are pretty smart
Who are we to decide for them, let them do as they wish to.
Can you do a video on what the impact of the monarchy on british colonies is? What powers they have and how it impacts governance? I want to know how a country would be different if they booted the monarchy.
Strange. Coasts almost don't change. Rich folks buying houses on the beach. But islands are afraid of sudden death by submerging.
Monarchs shouldn’t exist, except for the butterflies 🦋
Interesting
Apparently progressives can never consider that certain things can be valued in of themselves. That identity and history matter to an individual and nation.
King gud. Simple as.
t. Baz of the tropics.
Wise island
"Is Tuvalu's future with ot without the monarchy?"
Better question would be: "Will Tuvalu have a future?"
Im from new zealand and i just dont see a need for the situation to change. The monarchy is purly serimonial and it would just br a waste of time removing it
As long as they behave themselves, we should try to get them off the island if it’s not gonna exist.
Tuvalu’s future is water
Maybe I'm delusional but I feel like the monarch gives us commonwealth nations a sense of unity and serves as an important remainder of both the success and hardships of the empire I say it's rather ridiculous to boot out a monarch when it will barely effect your day to day experiences
Remember when uk news was laughing on national tv about Tuvalu being completely submerged in ocean
The Pacific Ocean isn’t rising for one, and being a part in the Commonwealth of Nations of GB gives the little Island protection. Britain and the USA and Australia will defend it. The Commonwealth does carry a cashé that will never be replaced.
11200 people, my litte twon has the same population
State of the Vatican City:
~ 1 000 inhabitants
on 0.44 square kilometers
= 100 % members Roman Catholic Church
~ 100 % fundamentalists
May be the change some of those things now,
they created in the life time of Martin Luther!
Australia giving tuvalu people visa even though they are one of the worst polluters in the world and one of top exporters of coal.
Tuvalu's future is with the ocean
What would happen if the uk got rid of the monarchy but the rest of the commonwealth didnt? Would they keep charles as head of state?
Yes, they would. The monarchies of each of the 15 realms are totally separate legal entities which are totally independent of one another. Technically Charles is, legally speaking, 15 different people, because King Charles III of Canada is a different legal person to King Charles III of the United Kingdom, who again is a different legal person to King Charles III of Australia. The UK theoretically becoming a republic would have no impact on the constitutional arrangements of the other realms, and King Charles would remain their head of state
Yes, it’s technically the monarchy of Tuvalu, it’s not **officially** pegged to the UK or anything.
@@LordDim1no it's not different people it's different crowns. Charles just so happened to be the holder of these crowns this is known as a personal union
how many time have the british king/queen visited tuvalu?
@@BajanEnglishman51 The Commonwealth Realms are a bit more complicated when it comes to the person of the monarch than traditional personal unions. Traditional personal unions do indeed treat their monarch as the same legal entity but acting in 2 separate jurisdictions. The realms are not like that. The king in each realm (except Tuvalu and until earlier this year Canada) is an entirely insulated legal personality distinct from the legal personalities he has in the other realms
Fucking mega chads ❤
Britain offers financial aid to all countries that have British monarchy as head of state so any nation that stands by Britain Britain will stand by them like Britain still continues to support the people of Hong Kong.
I mean if they like it why not.
I don't really get the monarchy hate many people seem to have.
Tuvalus future is under the sea
Does anyone else think that the word commonwealth sounds communist
"common..." = "for everybody"
Isn't it pronounced tu-VAH-loo?
They're both accepted
Yes
Iceland is the same. Once their economy grows to be self stabilizing, they will separate from Denmark. But not until then. There’s wisdom in it.
Iceland has been independent since WW2…
@@ItzLucky90 Not economically.
@@PandaNFriends23 you are mistaking Iceland with Greenland, Iceland holds total independence since WW2
The sad thing is that the tiny island nations projected to be engulfed by rising sea levels will be those who have contributed the very least to global emissions.
Tuvalu? More like Tuvawhy?
In the Kingdom of Tonga, for nearly all humans, it is literally "TABOO", to touch this King!
And if your lifeline is Australia and Australia themselves are not too sure about the monarchy...
Simple, rich monarichst defens with homes or second homes there.
Thier future is underwater
I think the concept of monarchy is stupid but hey I’m a yank. Don’t listen to me
Kate should hula for them show the love
I think it is irrelevant. Tuvalu will ne nothing more than a sad sidenote of why there are navigation hazards in the area.
A republic doesn't make a state more democratic. It is the opposite, actually. Republics can be hijacked by extremists. In a constitutional monarchy, no charismatic extremist can come and claim that he is the true chosen leader of the country. Just by looking at some polls and stats, we can see that constitutional monarchies are the most functional democracies (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Commonwealth, Spain, Liechtenstein, etc.). What we need is more royal involvement in protecting democracy and the will of the people at that moment. For example, I talked to some Canadians and they were all in favour of King Charles to personally dismiss Trudeau. The people hate him, while elections are over a year away. Monarchs should also get more patriotic and invested in social issues at this point.
That's completely stupid. There are plenty of tyrannical and crazy monarchs throughout history who have done terrible things. Constitutional monarchy is a symptom of stable democracy, not a cause. It barely exists outside of Europe and colonies of European counties, because these are places where democracy was implemented but the vestigial monarchy was allowed to stick around in a limited capacity. Nobody in a stable democratic republic would ever propose adding a constitutional monarch in an effort to add stability.
Incidentally, WW2 Japan and WW1 Germany both had monarchs who were more like figureheads than absolute rulers and still descended into militaristic fascism. Meanwhile modern countries like Germany, Ireland, Austria, and France are all republics with highly functioning democracies and constitutional rights.
@@krombopulos_michaelyou missed the point
Which is?@@kacperdudenko6828
Why the fuck have it be *hereditary* then?
@@kacperdudenko6828what was the point then?
A government not being hijacked? That's only true depending on the resilience of the institutions that make up said government and the effectiveness of that government's citizens. In other words this is a team effort, one that 80% of current governments are failing at specially on the second point (educated and participating citizens).
The countries mentioned in the op are countries that have a high voter turnout, and so are the ones that were mentioned in the second message. Plus they have a large portion of the population that is willing to participate in creating stress towards the government and by consequence participate in its process. Look at countries with low turnout and you'll probably find a citizen base unwilling or not interested in participating in every day governance
Tuvalu’s future is under water… it basically already is submerged.
I mean Australia did it because of losing Solomon islands to China 😂
.tv
Yeah that 1mm or so a year is gonna drown all the islands any milenium now, better hurry up and preperare.
It's actually more than that. Projected to submerge Tuvalu by 2050, if people's emissions don't change
Wanna rejoin?
Tom Bower said king Charles don't like Going to Africa he don't like African Coulter he don't Black people country, he only likes India
Australia giving visas but in exchage they give away their sovereignty 😂
yes the "climate" that nobody can control anyways lol
The graph with green and red labeled the monarchy as part of the colonial past that should be dropped. If a republic had colonized the islands, would that that mean the naysayers would see the republic as part of their colonial past that must be ditched in favor of a monarchy?
yes.
climate change denialists shaking because of this short
I don’t know I’ve always heard that 80% of the statistics are made up 27% of the time
how do you come up with the least interesting information possible
Countries that get rid of the british monarchy are stupid, except America.
It's always a slow news day if they are debating about the monarchy......yeah having the pacific ocean in your kitchen might be a more pressing issue.........evacuate Evacuate Evacuate. 🏊♂️🚣🚣