Royalist or Republican?

[Bazdavies79]

It wont make government stronger, it wont benefit you, it wont harm you, it wont really change your life at all. The monarchy are as important to our democracy as Mickey mouse is to the American constitution.

But what it will do is it will put right a moral wrong, and that's what we should all be striving towards every day in our own personal lives and in the societies we live in.

[ozvillafan]

But what it will do is it will put right a moral wrong, and that's what we should all be striving towards every day in our own personal lives and in the societies we live in.

Forgive my ignorance of English history - but what "moral wrong" are you referring to?

[Ads]

If you’re going to overturn centuries of constitutional evolution and balance by explicitly vesting the royal prerogative in the executive, then you’re going to need to codify it.

You give the executive a document that the judiciary has little option but to uphold and in the same stroke weaken them by essentially stripping them of their powers to temper the executive’s power by virtue of interpretation of multiple pieces of Common Law. Further, you have granted the executive the opportunity and the legitimacy to exercise all the powers of the Crown and make it even less accountable to parliament than it currently is.

To say removing the Monarch will not strengthen government is a fundamental misunderstanding and to do all the above for the purposes of what has literally been described by its proponents as both a folly and moral crusade is nonsense.

[bickster]

That depends on what constitution with checks and balances you put in place

[Bazdavies79]

But what it will do is it will put right a moral wrong, and that's what we should all be striving towards every day in our own personal lives and in the societies we live in.

Forgive my ignorance of English history - but what "moral wrong" are you referring to?

You don't need a history lesson. Monarchy is immoral.

Everybody should live under the same law and be accountable for their actions, and respect should be earned fairly and morally not through birth right.

That apart, we should celebrate people for achievements in life. If you celebrate Royalty, that's just weird, what are you celebrating?

[Ads]

That's not really answering his question.

I’ve not had mine answered either, so don’t worry Oz.

[Bazdavies79]

I've answered his question.

[snowychap]

That depends on what constitution with checks and balances you put in place

Indeed.

Though the points Ads makes about it not being as simple as just binning them are important to look at (as alluded to earlier in the thread, I guess, by tomzep) and deal with. to say that removing one check or group of checks will necessarily mean a strengthening of the hand of the executive is to suggest that no other checks would be put forward in their place.

[mjmooney]

TBH, I think the whole business of titles (Mr, Mrs, Miss - and the big "Ms" argument) is an anachronism. I would rather everybody called me "Mike", and I'd rather do likewise.

"Mike Mooney - meet Elizabeth Windsor, who's here to open the new toilet block. I expect you've seen her on the TV".

Windsor is an assumed name, something solidly English chosen to try to deflect anti-German sentiment during WW1. I gather the name is actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Sure, I know. But that's an easy dig.

Everybody is legally entitled to change their name, that doesn't really bother me. The stupid use of titles and protocol does, though.

[mjmooney]

I was more interested in what kind of background the elected head of state would come from, ie, a politician, a famous ex sportsman, a respected mega businessman etc etc..

How would you whittle down the candidates, what would be their key skills in being able to perform a job like that.

If we were to have an elected head of state, then how would Baz go about initiating the process of finding one?

Do you watch that X-Factor thing a lot? See in the real world you don't need to "whittle down" candidates, you vote for them and the one that wins… wins.

Oh, I don't know, I think that has potential.

"All the votes are in, don't phone now, your vote won't count and you may be charged.

"And I can announce that, definitely leaving the contest tonight, and NOT ruling next week, will be...............................

...................................{drum roll}..........................

"............... CHARLES AND CAMILLA!!!"

[Bazdavies79]

If you’re going to overturn centuries of constitutional evolution and balance by explicitly vesting the royal prerogative in the executive, then you’re going to need to codify it.

You give the executive a document that the judiciary has little option but to uphold and in the same stroke weaken them by essentially stripping them of their powers to temper the executive’s power by virtue of interpretation of multiple pieces of Common Law. Further, you have granted the executive the opportunity and the legitimacy to exercise all the powers of the Crown and make it even less accountable to parliament than it currently is.

To say removing the Monarch will not strengthen government is a fundamental misunderstanding and to do all the above for the purposes of what has literally been described by its proponents as both a folly and moral crusade is nonsense.

I've read that second paragraph three times, I cant make head nor tail of it.

I think the way around what I believe you're saying would be to have an elected non executive head of state with limited powers and a fixed term.

This stuff ain't rocket science.

[peterms]

TBH, I think the whole business of titles (Mr, Mrs, Miss - and the big "Ms" argument) is an anachronism. I would rather everybody called me "Mike", and I'd rather do likewise.

"Mike Mooney - meet Elizabeth Windsor, who's here to open the new toilet block. I expect you've seen her on the TV".

Windsor is an assumed name, something solidly English chosen to try to deflect anti-German sentiment during WW1. I gather the name is actually Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Sure, I know. But that's an easy dig.

Everybody is legally entitled to change their name, that doesn't really bother me. The stupid use of titles and protocol does, though.

The point though is this.

Monarchy and nationalism go hand in hand. We are supposed to see the monarchy as the embodiment of the nation. We are taught that "loyalty" to queen and country are more or less indivisible. However, the people who make up the monarchy in this and other countries are in fact a footloose international elite who intermarry across nations, as they always have done, in order to consolidate their power and influence. They have no loyalty to the people they rule over, any more than a flea does to the dog it inhabits.

At times this goes unnoticed and unremarked. At other times it causes problems in persuading people that the monarchy has any legitimate claim to power, wealth and authority. WW1 is one example. Another is when Phil married Liz shortly after WW2. There was some embarrassment about his sisters marrying Nazis, and Liz's mother referred to him as "the Hun", until she took to calling him a proper English gentleman, presumably after someone had had a word.

Although it's quite amusing when the nationalism used to legitimise the monarchy becomes a little more transparent and backfires in this way, it tends to obscure the point that there is no link at all between our interests and theirs, not even the shabby nationalism used to encourage acceptance of their role.

I wonder why so many people treat refugees and asylum seekers with such hatred and contempt, while at the same time fawning to incomers of a far more venal and parasitic kind, like Phil.

[peterms]

...We’re a people free from tyranny or even the threat of it, with the gap between the rich and poor no more or less wide than the vast majority of the Western world...

We are already one of the less equal societies, and the gap between rich and poor is growing.

You link the threat of tyranny, and relative equality/inequality. I agree that's a valid connection. There is a large body of thought which suggests that the more unequal a society, the more prone it is to political instability.

That should give us cause for concern, since more inequality is the certain consequence of the government's policies. Perhaps we will soon pass Greece and Bulgaria, and challenge Lithuania and Latvia.

[Ads]

If you’re going to overturn centuries of constitutional evolution and balance by explicitly vesting the royal prerogative in the executive, then you’re going to need to codify it.

You give the executive a document that the judiciary has little option but to uphold and in the same stroke weaken them by essentially stripping them of their powers to temper the executive’s power by virtue of interpretation of multiple pieces of Common Law. Further, you have granted the executive the opportunity and the legitimacy to exercise all the powers of the Crown and make it even less accountable to parliament than it currently is.

To say removing the Monarch will not strengthen government is a fundamental misunderstanding and to do all the above for the purposes of what has literally been described by its proponents as both a folly and moral crusade is nonsense.

I've read that second paragraph three times, I cant make head nor tail of it.

I think the way around what I believe you're saying would be to have an elected non executive head of state with limited powers and a fixed term.

This stuff ain't rocket science.

You’re right, it’s not rocket science. I’m talking about checks and balances within the three pillars of government and essentially my belief that a move to Republican system and the constitutional work that would be needed to implement it, would strengthen the executive, when I already believe it to be too powerful.

I am not quite sure what system of government you’ve described there; an abolition of government?

[Bazdavies79]

Strengthen the executive? I don't think so, for a start we'd be getting rid of the Royal Prerogative.

I would have a publicly elected non executive head of state with limited powers, who would replace the Queen as impartial arbiter to government.

[Ads]

I would have a publicly elected non executive head of state with limited powers, who would replace the Queen as impartial arbiter to government.

What an epic waste of money it would be for such a colossal undertaking to bring about... nothing.

Vive la vacuum.

[Bazdavies79]

It would bring about the long overdue end to monarchy, which would be a step in the right direction for our society and humanity.

How much money would it cost anyway? I'd imagine in the long run paying a head of state a wage would cost a hell of a lot less than paying for the Royal family.

[Ads]

I find your position to be one of change for the sake of change, with no real positive consequences and ultimately, the whole process being entirely pointless.

[Bazdavies79]

Aside from my moral objections (which aren't just an aside), I think our system is flawed, has failed people and will fundamentally fail big time under Charles. Reform is needed asap.

[bickster]

Cost is a red herring, the cost of either system is a drop in the ocean in terms of government spending.

Replacing the monarchy and having a proper constitution isn't simply about replacing one figurehead for another, though that is necessary. There's reform of the whole of parliament, two elected chambers i.e. abolishing the House of Lords. Reducing the power of the government to intrude in peoples lives... I could go on. It's about changing democracy for the better, for the people not for the few. The status quo has left us with the utter joke of a political system we currently have imo.