The significance of the unification of contemporary Britain, the disadvantages of the British monarc

1. Unification without rule creates the most basic premise for the British king to win the love of the people rather than hate. If the power is weakened, the king will not be able to abuse his power to do harm, and the people's resentment and antipathy towards the king will be greatly reduced.

The British monarch and royal family, in order to meet the requirements of the development of the times, constantly compress the royal privileges, enhance the openness of royal activities, consciously accept public supervision and constraints, and still maintain the image of the royal family in the context of the decline of aristocratic politics, and win the recognition and support of the majority of the public.

2. Because he is above partisan politics, the monarch can use the rich political experience accumulated over a long period of time to put forward reasonable proposals, and can maintain his symbolic status of the state and nation, tradition and authority.

"Rule" refers to the fact that the rights of the head of state, that is, the British king, are limited by the laws enacted by Parliament, and have no real power, but are only a symbol of the power of the state. The significance of this is to promote the democratization of politics in the United Kingdom. Constitutional monarchy.

It has existed in the United Kingdom for more than 300 years and is still the British royal family.

It is still standing, both because of the theoretical basis for its existence and the needs of reality.

Although there were calls for the abolition of the monarchy during this period, the British royal family always kept pace with the times, implemented reforms, and won the support of the British people. This spirit of cyclical and gradual reform is still very much needed in today's society. It is sad that a nation has no faith, and the British have their own beliefs and their own spiritual strength, and that is the British royal family.

At the same time, the existence of the British royal family is contrary to the democracy that prevails now, and may be abandoned later. But as long as the British royal family continues to reform and win popular support over time, it will still exist for a long time.

The disadvantages of the British monarchy are mainly reflected in the insufficient control of power by state institutions, and the monarch as the head of state, although he has no actual political power, still has huge influence and can interfere with and influence political decision-making, which limits the efficiency and fairness of national governance.

In addition, the maintenance cost of the British monarchy is also high. In addition to the financial expenses such as paying for the living expenses of the monarch and members of the royal family and maintaining the royal palace, it is more significant that the British Parliament spends on the annual celebration and activities of the monarchy. The extravagant nature of the monarchy's activities also wasted a lot of public resources that could have been used to improve the lives of the people.

The British monarchy also has the potential to have a negative impact on political stability. First of all, on the issue of succession to the throne, because the succession rules of the British royal family are based on blood relations, rather than according to ability and performance, it may lead to the lack of ability and quality of the next generation of kings, which will affect the governance of the country.

Also, the British monarchy can have some negative effects on Britain's relations with other countries. Since the monarch is the head of state, in international relations, the monarch will represent Britain in matters such as meetings and consultations with other countries. But because the monarch does not have direct control over politics and decision-making, there are times when there are differences of position and opinion between the monarch and the cabinet, which can lead to mistakes in foreign policy.

In general, although the British monarchy also has some advantages and has unique value in the country's image and history, in modern society, this national governance structure will also bring some disadvantages to the country's political, economic and social development, which needs to be continuously improved and perfected. <>

Strength is difficult, and more importantly, there is no need for that. Britain's basic strategy is purely "overseas dominance", "continental equilibrium", and "offshore balancing". Discussing strength is easy to cause controversy, so I won't say much.

It is only necessary to talk about whether it is necessary, firstly, the role of the colony, to plunder resources and become a consumer market for domestic goods. Apparently there is not so much to plunder in Western Europe. Second, at the cost, Britain was the strongest maritime commercial civilization at that time, the world was so big, there were so many places to bully, there was no need to fight with the traditional land power countries in Europe.

Third, Britain is geographically located in the westernmost part of the Eurasian continent and is the safest place. Compared to the HRE at that time, Germany and Central European countries are now the lowest in Europe's World War IV. The presence of these countries made it possible for Britain to threaten from the East (Ottoman, Russian, Germany in World War I and World War II).

Fourth, modern Europe has influenced the world not only with the industrial revolution and the bourgeois revolution, but also with nationalist states. This is the basic underlying identity of the Western world. Although it chooses to ignore the oppression of other peoples, it is still relatively fair in the entire Western world.

Any sensible person will know how unstable it is to break democracy and forcibly integrate by force without hands in the Western world, unlike overseas, where this bomb is planted on the doorstep of the self-made sedan chair. Fifth, civilization and culture are the core of human behavior, transcending interests, and perhaps because of some periods of extremist ideas and powers, the country will lead the way sideways, but in the long run, brothers are brothers, breaking bones and connecting tendons.

To sum up, Britain is more willing to be a leading big brother, respond to every call, occasionally quarrel, and lead other brothers to kick it is enough, and it will not destroy others.