In our new Brexit world do we still need a monarchy

[Craiglxviii]

1649- The English Commonwealth, it had a few faults but was better than what it replaced...yes, I would like a republic but with a ceremonial President.
I do not want the French, Russian or American type of elected "king".
Ireland, Germany, Italy, Austria and Israel all have ceremonial elected presidents which for us would leave our Parliamentary Democracy intact. Don't get too sentimental about it though we have only had democracy since 1928.
When Australia kicks out the monarchy my best guess is they'll choose the Irish Presidency as their role model...we could do worse than follow suit

The Commonwealth of England was that ace it lasted until 1688. No one looks back at it with sentimentality.

Germany, Italy & Austria have governments that stem from entirely different routes to the Westminster System- the Holy Roman Empire and the second Italian Empire. To copy that would require a complete and total, root and branch change of our governmental system. That's going a lot too far for the will of the people to support.

Erm, democracy since 1928. I'd be interested to hear your understanding of that? Equal suffrage? Because before that the governments weren't voted in, so democracy was an illusion. Is that right?

When Australia... you mean, if surely, unless they have you as their policy advisor on the subject? The polls are pretty evenly split on this and also rather limited in scope. The most vociferous one doing the rounds, 51% in favour of the republic, shows an unusual male/ female and generational split. Interestingly that support is very sharply prevaricated on whether or not Charles ascends the throne; the support on the other hand of one of his sons being crowned instead polls around 83% in favour of keeping the monarchy.

 

[prwales]

The Commonwealth of England was that ace it lasted until 1688. King Craig doesn't look back at it with sentimentality.

Germany, Italy & Austria have governments that stem from entirely different routes to the Westminster System- the Holy Roman Empire and the second Italian Empire. To copy that would require a complete and total, root and branch change of our governmental system. That's going a lot too far for the will of the people to support. Irrelevant, they are ceremonial

Erm, democracy since 1928. I'd be interested to hear your understanding of that? Equal suffrage? Because before that the governments weren't voted in, so democracy was an illusion. Is that right? You've got 1 right so far

When Australia... you mean, if surely, unless they have you as their policy advisor on the subject? The polls are pretty evenly split on this and also rather limited in scope. The most vociferous one doing the rounds, 51% in favour of the republic, shows an unusual male/ female and generational split. Interestingly that support is very sharply prevaricated on whether or not Charles ascends the throne; the support on the other hand of one of his sons being crowned instead polls around 83% in favour of keeping the monarchy.

A republic = progress, a monarchy is archaic, backward and a somewhat silly relic of an oft embarrassing past. If Brexit is to succeed it can't be about pretending we still live in the 1950's

 

[Yugguy]

So your argument against it is basically that you don't like it.

As I said earlier, does the monarchy REALLY affect you in any way?

 

[M80]

On the bright side,
in our democracy that defends our right to free speech there is a right to alternate views.
In a healthy debate the pro's and cons can be explored. Some points, of course, are just opinion that won't be changed. But for some they can evolve their views by, perhaps, seeing the benefits of the alternative argument.

I drink with a couple of Socialists on Wednesday eve's, one being more blinkered than t'other. Last week he stormed out of the pub early because he couldn't accept the arguments against his view. If he can't grow up then there is no loss, IMHO.
Being able to debate without insult, and even consider the others thoughts can have value, and if we don't like the debate we aren't forced to participate.

I've no problem with the 'get rid of the Monarchy' attitude. Although I'm generally in favour of their presence and their meaning for the UK and the Commonwealth, though there are individuals that maybe wouldn't be missed.

Anyway sometimes a debate can help enforce my views as there hasn't been a good argument presented to show my wrong thinking, as long as not extremist I'd rather the arguments were there though.

 

[Craiglxviii]

A republic = progress, a monarchy is archaic, backward and a somewhat silly relic of an oft embarrassing past. If Brexit is to succeed it can't be about pretending we still live in the 1950's

And that is entirely your opinion on the subject.

Why is our past oft-embarrassing? Are you an apologist? Please provide examples that a reasonable man would agree with that cannot be tempered against other examples to the contrary.

Why is a monarchy silly and archaic? What is the functional difference between a monarchy and an elected ceremonial head of state? Why do the countries that maintain figurehead monarchies, like Denmark, absolutely love them? Is Denmark silly and archaic?

If Brexit is to succeed it can't be about pretending that everything that has gone before is bad, and thus must change for everything else to be good. The monarchy existed before 1974 remember. To succeed means that we have to plan very deliberately and carefully, and act accordingly in order not to make grave mistakes. That requires a strong government and a strong system of government. Our system is that strong that it hasn't failed us since 1640.

The Commonwealth of England was that ace it lasted until 1688. King Craig doesn't look back at it with sentimentality.

Germany, Italy & Austria have governments that stem from entirely different routes to the Westminster System- the Holy Roman Empire and the second Italian Empire. To copy that would require a complete and total, root and branch change of our governmental system. That's going a lot too far for the will of the people to support. Irrelevant, they are ceremonial

Erm, democracy since 1928. I'd be interested to hear your understanding of that? Equal suffrage? Because before that the governments weren't voted in, so democracy was an illusion. Is that right? You've got 1 right so far

King Craig tends not to look at anything in history with sentimentality, not in this context. I try very hard to view things completely objectively. And viewed objectively the Commonwealth of England did not work. It was not popular at the time amongst the people, it had flawed policies. It DID have the saving grace of setting the regular armed forces on their feet as a permanent force though so we have that to be grateful to it for. I'm sure you'll agree with me there.

The HRE and Second Italian Empire's roots of government in Europe today define the styles and system of government in those countries. That the Head of State is purely ceremonial is not irrelevant at all as it is completely relevant to that style and system of government. For us to adopt a purely ceremonial Head of State means looking at those governments and how they work. That is, they work really very differently to our own. And to make sweeping changes like that in a country like this, is neither practical or realistic. Except very possibly in your imagination.

On the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, just so I understand your direction, you believe that before this there was no democracy in the UK. DO I have that right?

 

[LostKiwi]

If the head of state is ceremonial does it matter whether your call them King, Queen, or President?
They will still cost the same and at least with a monarchy we are spared the expense of an election....

 

[dry run]

Please don't abolish the Monarchy before David Beckham gets his knighthood or it will all kick off again!

 

[Craiglxviii]

If the head of state is ceremonial does it matter whether your call them King, Queen, or President?
They will still cost the same and at least with a monarchy we are spared the expense of an election....

With a monarchy one also has the very real benefit of centuries of institutional knowledge passed down through the family. When Her Maj ascended the throne, she was not exactly ignorant of the role that was expected of her, or of how her role would and could affect events around the country and Empire/ Commonwealth. More than one PM has remarked on how utterly indispensable the advice given during the weekly meeting was to the effectiveness of the premiership.

 

[PovertySpec]

But if there was no Monarchy you wouldn't have anyone to complain about Mr W!

Oh yes he would!

Who here has their lives materially affected or influenced by the monarchy?

I lost a tripod cover because of Princess Anne

 

[JBell]

Yes

 

[prwales]

So your argument against it is basically that you don't like it.

As I said earlier, does the monarchy REALLY affect you in any way?

I am personally embarrassed to live in a Monarchy and b4 the smart ar5es suggest I go live in Russia, I would say that I am of these islands [unlike our Monarchy I am not German]

 

[LostKiwi]

I am personally embarrassed to live in a Monarchy and b4 the smart ar5es suggest I go live in Russia, I would say that I am of these islands [unlike our Monarchy I am not German]

I was sure the queen was born in London...

 

[AMGeed]

I am personally embarrassed to live in a Monarchy

Why?

 

[prwales]

I was sure the queen was born in London...

If a German is born in Timbuktu they'd still be German according to German law people of German descent have the right of return. It would apply equally to the Duck of Edinburgh, more so as both his parents were Germans whereas Brenda had an English mother.

 

[LostKiwi]

If a German is born in Timbuktu they'd still be German according to German law people of German descent have the right of return. It would apply equally to the Duck of Edinburgh, more so as both his parents were Germans whereas Brenda had an English mother.

But this isn't Germany. Under British law she's British.

 

[Naraic]

I am personally embarrassed to live in a Monarchy and b4 the smart ar5es suggest I go live in Russia, I would say that I am of these islands [unlike our Monarchy I am not German]

Where does it stop..is Prince George also German?

 

[littlebrooklyn]

If a German is born in Timbuktu they'd still be German according to German law people of German descent have the right of return. It would apply equally to the Duck of Edinburgh, more so as both his parents were Germans whereas Brenda had an English mother.

Does that mean I can go and live there

 

[Naraic]

If a German is born in Timbuktu they'd still be German according to German law people of German descent have the right of return. It would apply equally to the Duck of Edinburgh, more so as both his parents were Germans whereas Brenda had an English mother.

Drumph the grand father wasn't allowed back

 

[prwales]

Does that mean I can go and live there

as Eu citizens we all can

 

[SL63 Mark]

The two things are not connected except perhaps by the OP. He is a self-avowed republican and he has mentioned before that he would like to see the Crown gone. That's fine, it's his opinion after all but as to how it links to our breaking with the EEC, that doesn't exist.

In terms of the HoS vs HoG issue, well the US has both a double-easy and double-difficult system, POTUS is both at the same time. That complicates things. France might be a better analogy as there is clearly a Prime Minister and a President of the Republic. Please NB how much the French PM makes the news in relation to the French President...

The Monarch does have real political power. It is in the Monarch that resides the right to make or dissolve governments (actually in any country that he or she is HoS of... see Australia!), appoint Prime Ministers, make war and peace, command the armed forces and most importantly to regulate the Civil Service. That is not to be taken lightly; in its own way it is the ultimate arbiter of power (as in, which political party is appointed to wield the power). Remember who the Oath of Allegiance is sworn to and who issues Commissions, Warrants, Offices of Constable and so on. There are very real reasons why that is so. There are also other very real reasons why we have the oldest, most stable modern system of government around, and one that does not rely on any one specific person. That is because it works and, despite what everyone might think subjectively, when viewed objectively it works well. It doesn't matter whether it's Lizzy II, her grandmum (about whom many said the same thing, at the time remember) or Mad King George on the throne. The Monarch still holds those duties and Parliament still maintains the same relationship.

It's ceremonial only Craig. In theory yes, the monarch has those powers, but when have they ever exercised them against the will of parliament, or ever would ? They are monarch in name only, a constitutional monarch if you will.

If ever a monarch tried to dispose of a prime minister, there would be an immediate constitutional crisis and they would lose their powers entirely.

Parliament runs the government, and the people elect Parliament. (in theory) that is how it should be.

The last time a monarch tried to get rid of a government was in 1640, and look what happened then. James II also tried to interfere in 1688, and he was ignominiously forced to flee at night in a rowing boat, as far as I recall.