Constitutional monarchy or republic?

First topic message reminder :

This topic or subject is actualy about the head of state of the United KIngdom and 15 other independent sovereign nations including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

If this particular thread was about the head of state of say France or the United States, then instead of been slotted into "General Discussion", it would have been more appropriate to put the topic into "Politics", but of course our head of state is above politics and represents no political party, and in my view thats what makes the constitutional monarchy a superior system.

In 1981 this question was put to me: "are you a true and loyal supporter of the British Crown and constitution", and my reply was "yes" I am, and in doing so I actualy made an oath of loyalty not to any politician, but to The Crown, the people and the nation.

The Crown and the monarchy are not democratic in the sense that no one ever elects them, but then again what system, or which sytem of government is truly fair and democratic ?, in the United States 45% of serving soldiers, airforce staff and sailors voted Republican in 2008, yet they have to swear alliegence to President Obama, in many unstable nations this situation is a recipe for civil war.

Today ( 25th May 2012 ) the latest opinion poll has been published in the UK on the subject of the monarchy, the findings have been released just prior to nationwide celebrations for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II.

The first thing to point out about this opinion poll is that the monarchy enjoys solid support amongst Labour voters and supporters, the Queen and the institution of the monarchy has never been so popular.
Support is strong in Scotland, Wales, all areas of England and in every age group and social class, but the findings are not good reading for Charlie, most people feel the line of succession should jump a generation and go to William.

Should TRUE Labour supporters be embaressed about been a supporter of the Queen and the monarchy ?, I say absolutely not, it is clearly obvious that to go down the path of republicanism would lose both support and votes, just as it did to the SNP in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

And so as my next door neighbour who is chairman of the local Conservative club puts out his flags for the celebrations, so shall I, and as a Labour supporter and voter we are both equal in one nation under one Crown.

boatlady. I like Natalie Bennett, who followed me on Twitter, so of course I followed back (@natalieben). The Green Party is a republican party with many good ideas – but outside of Brighton, it’s unlikely to beat the Tories and thereby help to remove the scum from office.
 
The first principle of a hereditary monarchy is that the rest of us must never get above our station in life. According to Charles Windsor, it takes “natural ability” (not accident of birth?) to be head of state. Sounds as if the pompous dipstick has ruled himself out of the job then.
 
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/prince-s-blast-at-people-who-get-above-their-station-1-562530

Prince Charles criticised for 'planting moles' in government departments
 
From an article by Rowena Mason:-
 
MPs are to raise the matter in the House of Commons after it emerged that two aides working for the heir to the throne have been seconded to two Whitehall departments. One was sent to the Cabinet Office for two years, while another worked in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for 14 months. According to ‘The Sunday Times’, some of the ministers working in these departments did not know about the appointments. Labour MP Paul Flynn said the secondments suggested the prince was a "constitutional crisis in waiting".

This comes as MPs prepare to examine the prince's role in helping to shape government legislation. The political and constitutional reform committee will examine his little-known royal veto over new laws that affect his private interests. It is also expected to look at recent revelations that the prince has held 36 meetings with ministers since the government took power in May 2010.

A ‘Guardian’ investigation in 2011 looked into the secretive constitutional position held by the prince that means ministers have been forced to seek his permission to pass at least a dozen government bills. Later this year, the Court of Appeal will hear the latest stage of an eight-year battle by ‘The Guardian’ to get the government to reveal a set of 27 letters written by the prince to ministers in seven departments over a nine-month period.
 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/prince-charles-moles-government-departments

You'd think, as he hopes to be head of state one day, he'd want a bit of transparency and trust

Interesting points of view here...............

I am a monarchist because.............

There is a respect across the world for Britain's parliament, its separation into lower and upper house, its need for legislative change to be first compatible with preceding law, and second, voted through by both houses. Much of this world-wide respect is due to the ritual, the pomp and ceremony, the evidence that the future is built on the past, and that a revolving democratic government does not need a revolution to achieve change, even though change in incremental, rather than overturning.

The monarchy has the role of approving or dissolving parliament, and the present queen leads by example, maintaining dignity, courtesy, and formality in her contacts with foreign heads of states.

One only has to watch the brawls that happen in Eastern block countries' parliaments to value the stability of the British system, with the monarchy at its head.

Okay so Charles is a bit left-wing for the old guard, his green credentials give them the colly-wobbles, and he might interfere, given the chance. William is more photogenic, and Harry is charismatic. They ain't a bad bunch for representing the character of the nation.

Can't imagine why you think Charles is left wing

methought wrote:-
There is a respect across the world for Britain's Parliament, its separation into lower and upper house

Really? Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? There are plenty of democracies which have two chambers, and usually both of them are elected. In the case of the USA, so is the head of state.
 

its need for legislative change to be first compatible with preceding law, and second, voted through by both houses.

No. When Cameron decided – without any mandate whatsoever – to set about privatising the NHS to satisfy both Tory ideology and his party donors from private healthcare firms, “preceding law” was irrelevant.  And as he has stuffed his cronies in the House of Lords at a faster rate than any previous PM, it’s now a foregone conclusion as to how the upper house will vote on any issue.
 

Much of this world-wide respect is due to the ritual, the pomp and ceremony

Again, where’s your evidence for such a wild assertion? I would guess that many countries view such rigmarole as weird, archaic and anachronistic, maybe even as evidence of the UK’s inability to shrug off its imperial past and start living in the 21st century.
 

The monarchy has the role of approving or dissolving Parliament

The monarch only has the power to dissolve Parliament if the incumbent government tries to outstay its 5-year maximum period in office. Otherwise the monarch dissolves Parliament only when asked to do so by the PM. There are slightly different rules since Cameron and Clegg amended the law (without a mandate) to suit their own purposes, but if no government is formed within 14 days of the passing of a no-confidence vote, a general election is automatically triggered – nothing to do with the monarch.
 

One only has to watch the brawls that happen in Eastern block countries' parliaments to value the stability of the British system, with the monarchy at its head.

Non-sequitur. The monarch doesn’t sit in Parliament and break up any brawls. And the MPs don’t think: “We’d better not have a punch-up because Mrs Windsor will tell us off if we do”.
 

Okay so Charles is a bit left-wing

Now you’re being absurd. Charles Windsor is a shady Tory businessman who supports foxhunting and whose best friend is Nicholas Soames. It was Charles who vetted the guest list for his son’s wedding and approved invites to Major and Thatcher but not to Blair and Brown, probably because they stopped him from murdering foxes.
 
Monarchy is Tory – the idea of a hierarchy in society, the apex of which the rest of us cannot ever reach, regardless of our abilities. The belief that some people are born to rule, and that the rest of us mustn’t “get above our station”, as Charles Windsor inferred to one of his employees, Elaine Day, when she asked for promotion in 2004. That’s not something that a left-wing person would ever say.
 

They ain't a bad bunch for representing the character of the nation.

They’re nothing like the rest of us. They don’t have to worry when there’s so much month left at the end of the money. They don’t have to worry about job security or working all hours to pay a mortgage and feed the kids. Do we have people to put toothpaste on our toothbrushes and plump up our cushions before we sit down? Do we charter an entire plane and take 20 servants with us when we go abroad? All they represent are the most privileged of the elite, and why? Not because of their skills and achievements, but purely because of accident of birth. There really is no place for such feudal nonsense in a country that aspires to be a democracy.

Fair do's

Nothing's changed – the royals still grow fatter each year at our expense
 
The pressure group 'Republic' estimates that royal expenditure has increased 94% in real terms in 20 years:-
 
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/10/nothing-changed-royal-family-fatter-expense-queens?

Lets have a republic, yeah! Lets make T Blair the first president, yeah! I wonder how long it would be before Zimbabwe was lower on the despot list than us?

tlttf. Oh dear, another comment which reveals nothing except your superficiality and ignorance.  
 
So, in your simple mind, all countries which have elected presidents become despotic, do they? There are numerous variations on presidencies, just as there are with so-called constitutional monarchies. Thankfully, I haven't heard any republican be stupid enough to suggest that the Windsors are comparable to the King of Swaziland. Why don't you go to night school and learn how to argue?
 
Ireland and Germany manage to elect non-political presidencies to carry out ceremonial functions at a fraction of the cost of our unelected feudal system, which is what that 'Guardian' article by Tanya Gold is essentially about - cost. The Windsors cost us 94% more in real terms than they did 20 years ago.
 
Yesterday you were posting drivel from that far-right headbanger Redwood about the EU being undemocratic. Today you're defending a system of hereditary monarchy. Maybe one day you'll at least show some consistency, but I won't hold my breath.

tlttf. Oh dear, another comment which reveals nothing except your superficiality and ignorance.
So, in your simple mind,

I'll allow other people to make their own opinions of who posts drivel. Yep I can see you went to night school to learn the art of arguing, personally I learnt how to debate, however each to their own, as they say.

Yes Ivan my views vary (thinking) and luckily I'm able to think for myself without relying on pamphlets informing me on how to think. Yes I'm anti EU and yes I think the royals give great value for money (perhaps you should come and watch some of the pageantry on view in London and watch the tourists flooding the city on the back of it).

The buildings would have to be maintained regardless (no difference in cost) a lot of the minor royals have been binned (paid for now by the Royal Family). Considering we have a Royal Family that stands as head of 70+ nations and considering the power brokers of each strike deals at some function or another, yep I think they're value for money. Do you get where I'm coming from yet Ivan?

I agree we probably need someone to carry out some of the functions of the royals - whether we need an inbred bunch of super wealthy aristos to carry out those functions is perhaps a matter for debate, as is the question of whether this particular inbred bunch of aristos provide their services in the most cost-effective way - maybe we could think of (good Tory concept here) outsourcing?

I hope nobody imagines that abolishing the Monarchy would put any money back into our pockets.

tlttf wrote:-
I think the royals give great value for money (perhaps you should come and watch some of the pageantry on view in London and watch the tourists flooding the city on the back of it). The buildings would have to be maintained regardless (no difference in cost) a lot of the minor royals have been binned (paid for now by the Royal Family)…… Yes I'm anti EU

 
Anyone who could really ‘think’ wouldn’t trot out such hackneyed claptrap. When there is pageantry taking place, how do you know who are tourists rather than just the usual fawning sycophants who the BBC has cultivated with its usual gut-wrenching reporting of every piece of royal trivia? Are you seriously suggesting we can’t have pageantry without the Windsors? Have you ever been in Paris on Bastille Day?
 
I’m glad you mentioned the buildings, but of course you showed yourself incapable of thinking it through once again. Buckingham Palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open, the visiting public is only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. If the place wasn’t inhabited by mega benefit scroungers, it could be open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits might well increase considerably.
 
Buckingham Palace is in a state of disrepair and palace officials have been demanding more cash from the government. On the other hand, the uninhabited Tower of London's funding is entirely independent of government grants; the tourist revenue it brings in allows the buildings to be maintained to a high standard - without taxpayer support.
 
Paris attracts more tourists than any other European city, and the Palace of Versailles, free from all monarchs since the 19th century, is the single biggest tourist attraction. When ‘VisitBritain’ surveyed 26,000 tourists about what attracted them to Britain, the monarchy was well down the list. More specifically, when ‘VisitEngland’ compiled a list of the top twenty paid attractions in England in 2012, the Tower of London came top and Buckingham Palace wasn’t even on the list. Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy (a minority probably outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible Buckingham Palace), such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy still wouldn’t be doing anything for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.
 
http://www.visitengland.org/Images/Top%2020%20Paid%202012_tcm30-38455.pdf
 
If it could be shown that having a monarchy brings in a few extra quid, it would hardly be a good reason to surrender our democratic right to choose our head of state, but then democracy only seems to bother you when it suits your agenda. The EU is far more democratic than a hereditary monarchy; the EU Parliament is elected (even if UKIP members don’t often bother to turn up but happily claim the salary and expenses), and the Council of Ministers have all been elected in their respective countries. Sadly, your profound ‘thinking’ hasn’t worked that out yet and, without questioning anything he says, you happily peddle any old tripe that a nutcase like Redwood utters.

Typical Independent OTT coverage of Royal Event


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXUeOnKCMAAUKhX.jpg

Aye, if the royals are such "good value for money" as they "bring in hordes of tourists" then why not stop the civil list altogether and let them open up their palaces etc. to all these people coming to the UK to see them? Everyone's a winner.

Why Prince George will never be king
 
Former BBC royal correspondent Christopher Lee says there's little chance the new prince will ever wear the crown.
 
Very speculative and not a great deal of substance, but some of you may find this interesting:-
 
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/10/why-prince-george-will-never-be-king

My apologies to Shakespeare, but something is very rotten in the state of Britain.

I wonder why the paedophile allegations about Sir Jimmy Savile, Sir Cyril Smith and Sir Edward Heath only emerged after they were dead? Why weren’t they confronted when alive? Might they have taken others down with them, maybe even members of our so-called ‘royal’ family? This scandal appears to go to the core of the Establishment.

The names of a former Tory home secretary and an ageing pop star (yet another ‘Sir’) occur frequently in internet blogs about the Elm Guest House and a paedophile ring which went to the heart of Thatcher’s government. Do we have to wait for them to die as well before the truth emerges?

Edwina Currie claims she has 'nothing to hide' after it emerged that in 1988 she appointed Savile to be head of a task force at Broadmoor high security psychiatric hospital, where victims say they were abused. But why was Savile given access to the place and allocated an office there? His role at the hospital has been described as “akin to giving Dracula the keys to the blood bank”.

Why did Thatcher entertain Savile at Chequers on every New Year’s Eve - eleven in total - that she was PM? Was Savile blackmailing her, maybe threatening to bring down her government if he didn’t get everything he wanted? Savile was given an OBE in 1971 (when Heath just happened to be PM), but Thatcher had to ask five times before Savile was eventually given a knighthood in 1990. If the civil servants who kept blocking his elevation knew of his behaviour, why didn’t they tell Thatcher? Or perhaps they did?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2366576/Revealed-Lady-Thatchers-five-attempts-secure-knighthood-Jimmy-Savile.html

There are many extensions of this story swirling around on the internet, some no doubt bordering on fantasy. At least one account suggests that the ‘Crimewatch’ presenter Jill Dando was murdered in 1999 because she was about to expose Savile’s activities.

Why are the names of some people who are arrested – such as Freddie Starr and Paul Gambaccini – made public, while others, for example “a 74-year-old man”, are given anonymity?  (I note that at least one former Tory home secretary is currently 74 years old.) Stuart Hall and now Rolf Harris (who painted a portrait of Mrs Windsor) appear to be dispensible and can be thrown to the wolves; maybe they don’t know where the bodies are buried?

Who did the BBC cover up Savile’s crimes? The broadcaster Bill Oddie believes it was because he was a close friend of Charles Windsor:-

http://swns.com/news/jimmy-savile-scandal-bbc-covered-abuse-friends-prince-charles-claims-bill-oddie-26272/

Why did the late Princess Diana say that Savile was “a sort of mentor” to her husband? What wisdom and knowledge was Savile supposedly imparting to him? We know that Charles Windsor sent Savile a Christmas card in which he asked him to “give my love to your ladies in Scotland”, although that’s hardly a crime. We also know that a cover-up was ordered to hide the close links between Savile and Charles, who had agreed to be a patron of one of Savile’s charities; in 2012, someone currently in power decided we shouldn’t know that fact. Why the need for an attempted cover-up if Mr Windsor wasn’t doing anything wrong?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/celebritynews/9584755/Sir-Jimmy-Savile-Prince-Charless-love-for-Saviles-ladies.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/314185/Charles-links-to-Savile

So many questions and so few answers. Maybe if the whole truth of this sordid saga was allowed to come out, the day when the UK gives up its so-called ‘constitutional monarchy’ and becomes a republic might come sooner rather than later. Or maybe not.

Mostly variations on the theme Power corrupts.

Which has not been much of a novelty for several thousand years.

Now here's a funny thing ....



.. and here's another:

Are we really living in the 21st century? I don't think this man is:-
 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bj6iyVKIYAA8gdl.jpg

The Royal publicity machine has been rolling since King Solomon married his first wife.

It's one of the things they've become very good at.

I see in the news this weekend a rich old woman with bad teeth has had her photo taken

If you read between the lines, it would seem that old Ma Windsor is not in the best of health and has been gradually letting her useless son replace her in various roles. I loathe the very idea of a hereditary monarchy and consider it incompatible with a true democracy, but I will acknowledge that the old girl has kept her nose clean throughout most of her reign. It’s stating the obvious to say that members of a family born into an environment of vast wealth, privilege, entitlement and elitism will be natural Tories, but Ma Windsor has usually been discreet and kept her prejudices to herself.
 
However, I think she was very wrong to recommend her fifth cousin twice removed, one David Cameron, to the Tory Party. Why couldn’t he try to get a job on his own ability? (I guess we know the answer to that after the last four years of his incompetence.) I also think she was wrong to go to Thatcher’s funeral. It’s not been customary for Ma Windsor to attend the funerals of former Prime Ministers (although she did go to Winston Churchill’s in 1965), and Thatcher was an extremely divisive figure, almost certainly hated by a greater number than those who liked her.
 
Perhaps her biggest mistake concerns the William and Kate wedding in 2011. She was very involved in the arrangements, although some reports have claimed that her son and heir was responsible for the guest list. Two former Tory PMs, Major and Thatcher, were invited to the wedding, though the latter was too ill to attend. Two former Labour PMs, Blair and Brown, were not invited. I would have thought that protocol requires a supposedly non-political head of state to either invite all former PMs or none of them. It has been suggested that Charles was ‘punishing’ Blair and Brown because they stopped him from hunting foxes. If, when he inherits, he’s going to behave like his ignorant and politically incorrect father has for decades, the monarchy could be in trouble.
 
But what really sticks in my craw is that so-called ‘royalty’ from around the world get invited to various functions, just because they’re royalty, however despicable they might be. You can be firing on people in Bahrain, cutting off heads in Saudi Arabia or shagging schoolgirls in Swaziland, but if you’re ‘royal’ you’ll get an invite. King Mswati III of Swaziland had 15 wives and 27 children at the last count, and he marries another teenage girl every year. His wives are often kept under virtual house arrest, and at least one of them was kidnapped and forced to marry him. If the Windsors can be discerning about which former British PMs they invite to their functions, it’s a shame they can’t do the same when deciding which scum from around the world to entertain at our expense.
 
This article was written in 2011:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/swaziland/8686424/I-am-a-prisoner-says-Swazilands-Queen-No-12.html

No time for any of them - load of parasites, in my opinion

Their place in Society must surely be under the umbrella description of "Showbiz".

Not even that significant imho

I do not usually have anything to do with politics, the simple reason being I nor any other single person, nor a considerable number of persons, can dictate or have any reasonable imput as to who or why certain people are elected.

Those standing for election are decided by a few privileged people,
they are funded for political reasons, you have only the choice of those so selected.

Recent revelations regarding all manner of politicians and their general failing from theft to child abuse, drug abuse and any manner of perversions proves the system stinks.

Here is an interesting page on Facebook called the Antirepublican Crusade. It consists mainly (if not entirely) of users who "hate" republicans. Not US republicans but anyone who fits under the banner of anti-monarchy. I'm fairly sure there is nothing quite like it in existence.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/477063135667422/?fref=ts

player1. The only problem with providing links to Facebook is that those of us who don't have accounts can't read the source. And speaking personally, I don't want a Facebook account, since I have more than enough to occupy me already.
 
Links are a good way of verifying sources, but if there is something which you think might whet our appetites, it's a good idea to give us a taste of it by quoting up to 14-15 lines of an article here (followed by the link). Thanks.

Well, thanks for posting that link - they seem to be quite a small group, and slightly 'batty' (if that doesn't sound too judgemental) - but on the whole harmless, as long as their wiser neighbours manage to restrain them from pelting 'simple' looking youths with rotten vegetables.

I know there are people who respect and revere the royal family - that is their privilege - it is my privilege to think they are mistaken.

Personally, I wouldn't call myself a republican - I don't care on the whole what the the Windsors  do, as long as they don't keep on about it, and they pay their taxes - just like any other obscenely rich family, really.

Ivan wrote:player1. The only problem with providing links to Facebook is that those of us who don't have accounts can't read the source. And speaking personally, I don't want a Facebook account, since I have more than enough to occupy me already.
 
Links are a good way of verifying sources, but if there is something which you think might whet our appetites, it's a good idea to give us a taste of it by quoting up to 14-15 lines of an article here (followed by the link). Thanks.

The page is dynamic and has to be seen to be believed. There is no article, it's a community page with contributions from users.

I can't recall any argument for a "Republic of Britain" which detailed financial advantage for the rest of us as a result.

So how would the nation benefit from dismantling Royalty? Apart from giving the government of the day a temporary windfall comparable with the exploitation of North Sea Oil.

The debate shouldn't focus purely on the royal family and whether or not we keep them. I'd rather much more was made of why a small handful of aristocrats own half the countryside and large areas of our cities. No wonder property costs so much in the UK when it's in the hands of a small bunch of parasites. Take it off them, just like their ancestors did to others.

The Attlee government of 1945-1951 wielded a mighty axe on the aristos in the form of Death Duties. It's the reason why so many Stately 'omes now repose in the National Trust, and others have been opened to the Public.

Inheritance Tax is still a topic high on the agenda of Gideon Osborne & Co.

oftenwrong wrote:-
I can't recall any argument for a "Republic of Britain" which detailed financial advantage for the rest of us as a result. So how would the nation benefit from dismantling Royalty? Apart from giving the government of the day a temporary windfall comparable with the exploitation of North Sea Oil.

In theory at least, money for the government is supposed to be money for all of us. However, one can’t help but be cynical when MPs are unable to do anything to stop themselves getting an 11% pay rise while Jeremy Hunt has no difficulty in blocking a 1% increase for some people in the NHS.   
 
‘Republic’ calculated that the financial cost of the UK monarchy in the year 2009-10 was £202.4 million, more than five times the figure of £38.3 million published by the Windsor household. This was broken down (in millions of pounds) as Civil List 14.2, Philip Windsor 0.4, property grant 15.4, communications, media and public relations 0.4, travel 3.9, government departments and Crown Estate 3.9, Charles and Camilla 25, Lost revenue from Duchy of Lancaster 13.2, security 100, and cost to local councils for visits from Mrs Windsor 26. And that was all before William Wales got married and started breeding.   
 
If you must have a hereditary monarchy, you could have a much cheaper one. For comparison, in that same year the monarchy of Denmark cost £10.5 million, that of Sweden £10.2 million, Belgium £9.7 million and Spain £7.4 million.
 
Do we really need to spend thousands of pounds on an unelected head of state opening a supposedly democratic Parliament, just to tell us that plastic bags in Sainsbury’s are going to cost 5p each? If we didn’t have a monarchy, isn’t it possible that we would get more tourists visiting all those palaces, since they could be open all the time and not have no-go areas because of residents? The Palace of Versailles is the most visited tourist attraction in Europe; the absence of a royal doesn’t appear to have harmed its popularity.

QUOTE: "The Palace of Versailles is the most visited tourist attraction in Europe; the absence of a royal doesn’t appear to have harmed its popularity."

Perhaps because the apparatus surrounding the President of France is every bit as gilded, gaudy and pompous as anything in Britain.



The Salon doré (Golden Room), office of the President of the French Republic.

It's been said many times before, but just imagine what we would get if we had a President.

It doesn't bear thinking about...          

It doesn't bear thinking about...

Yes it does. What's wrong with the system used in Ireland and Germany? Just because the French appear to have created a lavish existence for their elected head of state (which Sarkozy only enjoyed for five years, not for life) doesn't mean that we have to do likewise. I bet you didn't even know that Joachim Gauck is President of Germany, did you?  

Does it bear thinking about what we will get when old Ma Windsor pops her clogs?   

Savour the possibilities, Phil ....

President Thatcher

President Blair

President (Boris) Johnson or

President Farage ...

Roll the names around your tongue, and then decide ....