Britain and the monarchy

[Anarcho-Socialist]

What should we do with it? I thought it was worth doing a poll on. Please share any other thoughts or comments you have on the subject.

[Burma Jones]

1. Keep the Monarchy, Get Rid of the Germans, get a Brit

The British Royal family are a bunch of Germans. I think the Royal family should now consist of Keith Richards and his descendants......

[sweetheart]

2. end the royal perogative and all constitutional powers

Simply change the role of the monarch to be purely ceremonial and the
simplest change will leave the UK much more powerful and dynamic as
a nation FINALLY celibrating human equality under the law.

[non sociopath skin]

3. As the late King Edward VIII used to say ...

"Something must be done .... SIEG HEIL." Oops, sorry about the last bit ...

The Skin

[Vladimir]

4. Get rid of the monarchy

the rest is immaterial...

[mr blur]

9. Agreed. Well said!

The number of times I've argued that we should dump these parasites only to be have someone whine, "But what would you replace it with?" - as if they actually did something of any importance that would be missed.

[TyeDye75]

5. How about a bloody coup

Anyone up for it...:evilgrin:

[non sociopath skin]

6. I'd prefer a bloodless one, if that's OK with everybody ...

The Skin

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Hmmm, I'm interested. Can you provide me with a informational pamphlet?

:)

[TyeDye75]

8. Oh there wont be a paper trail of any kind

but you'll know when its time to strike.

[D-Notice]

10. Count me in!

I can't do worse than the current politicians

I can come up with a Bill of Rights & constitution without much hassle - I've already got draft versions of each!

[keymaker]

11. To be honest...

... government action in going to war on a lie, the endorsement of US torture methods and then the introduction of detention without trial on the strength of yet more lies have proved the democracy experiment to have been a failure. Having given the matter due consideration, I have decided that some powers should be withdrawn from the government and gradually restored to the monarchy... starting with the Royal Prerogative.

keymaker

[tjwmason]

12. Beware the law of unintended consequences

Abolishing the monarchy would really require the whole of the constitution to be revised. If we're going to do this, let's do it properly; let's put everything on the table.

Where does power lie? What about an English Parliament (or federalism more generally)? What powers are held by local government? What/who is in Parliament (upper chamber reform, by which I mean real reform not Blairite 'reform')?

The monarchy reaches into every single tiny part of government (even if in name only); to take it out as a single surgical exercise would be impossible. I'm thinking more of a large constitutional convention (with real representation, not like that European one); which would take time and discussion - then put the suggestion/suggestions to the British people.

I'm not suggesting that the British will ever go for such a proposal; but honestly unless it's done like that I suspect that abolition would simply pass yet more power into the hands of the political class.

Need I say more than President Tony? I'd rather keep the Queen personally.

[Wat_Tyler]

13. We could do something along the lines of Canada's Charter of Rights

and Freedoms. Obviously the UK needs some sort of written constitution if the monarchy is to be replaced, but I don't think that's an insurmountable obstacle.
As far as I'm concerned, the Irish model works, and it'd work for us too.

However, what happens if, say, the UK and Australia decide to become republics, but Canada and New Zealand wish to remain constitutional monarchies - what would the status of the Queen be then?

[tjwmason]

14. To abolish the monarchy would probably require her to abdicate

Or at least she would have to consent to its abolition (unless we're talking about lawless thuggery). It would seem odd for countries to keep her as monarch in those circumstances.

That said, she is (technically speaking) independently Queen of Canada, New Zealand &c. (getting for 20 states I think); and if they want her but Britain doesn't surely that's up to them. In one sense her ceasing to be Queen of the United Kingdom (b.t.w., we'll need a new country name) is like her ceasing to be Queen of South Africa, in that it does not necessarily affect the other countries.

Am I right in thinking that republicanism not much of an issue in Canada? I heard that it only really arose in Australia after the Governor General sacked Gough Witlam's government, and nothing like has happened in Canada.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Republicanism may have started in Australia over Whitlam

but it has kept going far longer than that incident could explain. I think that about 50% of people in Scotland say in surveys that they'd like to abolish the monarchy. It's quite a popular view.

[tjwmason]

16. Yeah I know

But when things are pottering along reasonably well few people will desire to change them. It was the Whitlam incident which got things going, then it developed a momentum of its own. My point was just that there has been no similar 'push' in Canada, so whilst most people are not ardent monarchists (though there are some), neither do they see any great reason to change.

More generally, I think that we have to accept that there's no chance of a British republic whilst H.M. Elizabeth II is on the throne. She has massiver personal respect which holds the whole institution firm.

[keymaker]

17. Popular view

I s'pose it's equally unpopular?

keymaker

[Vladimir]

18. Give me the thuggery any day of the week

the royal family should be stripped of its positions, however ceremonial, stripped of its possesions (which can be turned into museums) and given the number to their local job seeker's centre. This thuggery should be accomplished by our elected government, acting out the will of the people to be citizens and not subjects... it should most definitely not be a choice given to the royals.

[keymaker]

20. Subjects and Citizens

This thuggery should be accomplished by our elected government, acting out the will of the people to be citizens and not subjects...

Subjects have been citizens since the British Nationality Act 1948.

keymaker

[Vladimir]

21. Yeah, and the monarchy has no real power

but then again the Labour government has introduced these citizenship pledge where you swear loyalty to the Crown... i.e. to an unelected hereditary caste of reactionary swine, so you may as well still be a subject for all the word citizen is worth.

[tjwmason]

22. We've actually been both for even longer

The terms were used interchangeably for centuries.

[keymaker]

23. Terminology

The terms were used interchangeably for centuries.

I believe Vladimir was talking about a person's official relationship to the State so my comment was really about those terms as imputing a legal status as opposed to their informal use.

keymaker

[tjwmason]

24. The Nationality Acts which makes me a British Citizen

Did not redefine my relationship to the state. I am as much a subject of the state as before (and incidentally I would remain the subject of the state in a republic as well).

The Nationality Act was to distinguish between those from various parts of the Commonwealth who could claim to be British Subjects, and those of us from Britain (and therefore possesed of the right to live here).

I do not see that the two terms carry fundamentally different meanings in Britain.

Welcomes to D.U. :hi:

[keymaker]

25. Agreed...

(The 1948 Act) Did not redefine my relationship to the state. I am as much a subject of the state as before (and incidentally I would remain the subject of the state in a republic as well).

I didn't say it re-defined a person's relationship to the State - the statutory status of 'British Subject' goes back to 1915. The 1948 Act established the status of 'British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies' thereby equating the two terms, which was my original point in answering Vladimir.

I do not see that the two terms carry fundamentally different meanings in Britain.

Exactly so.

keymaker

[Wat_Tyler]

19. Republicanism in Canada is stymied by two arguments

firstly, that if we remove the monarchy and elect a President, what is left to differentiate us from the US (an odd argument, but one that is heard quite often), and secondly, that to mess with the constitution in such a way may unravel the ties that hold Canada together, causing some provinces to consider leaving Confederation (Quebec, Alberta, BC)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

26. I wonder if it's just fear of the unknown?

I think Canada would go along just fine with a ceremonial presidency. The Governor-General isn't far away from this (albeit she's still the Queen's representative in Canada).

Maybe Canadians don't give themselves enough credit on how distinctively different they are to their American neighbours.

I think Canada has something special going on - Canada doesn't have the race problem of it's southern neighbour, nor inflation or budget deficits. Canada is rich in natural resources. The way Canada chose to defend democracy so quickly in both the world wars tells me something about the Canadian character that distinguishes itself from it's American counterpart.

It just needs some bravery and confidence for Canada to reach it's potential: as an independent, distinct and responsible nation.

I believe that the day when Canada gains a Canadian Head-of-State we will be seeing Canada assert itself and strengthening it's identity. This concept will further decrease any notion of Canada becoming submerged into the U.S.A.

[AP]

27. How about a unicameral legislature and no monarchy.

The thing about the UK system is that there are no checks and balances.

Blair has been separating the legislature from the judiciary, which is very important. However, other than those reforms, there's no check between the legislature and executive -- they're pretty much the same thing.

That's fine if you want every new government to be able to radically change society. I think people don't realize how labour has been using it's domination in the legislature to change society in ways that will result in a society more inclined to vote against Tories -- so sometimes that's a good thing. But if the Tories get back in power, they're going to be able to undo everything just as quickly (unless people feel they're entitled to the improvements, in which case, they'll punish the Tories -- but then, if the Tories use fear...)

[D-Notice]

28. We've tried that in the past

After the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell abolished the House of Lords & ruled as dictator...

[D-Notice]

29. Anyway...

we need to be reducing Bliar's powers, not increase 'em

[LeftishBrit]

30. I agree that we should not be increasing Tony's powers

I do not think we should move to an American system where the political leader of the country also has ceremonial importance. While I could do very well with no ceremonial leader at all, obviously this is of importance to some people, and I think that it is best if the roles are separated.

Whether this needs to be the traditional monarchy-with-all-the-trimmings is another matter - I think the Irish system works quite well from that point of view. I would really like to know the economic costs and benefits of the monarchy as it is: i.e. do the royals bring in enough money through tourism to justify their cost to the taxpayer?

If so, then keep them, but confine 'civil list' to the nuclear royal family, and reduce the number of costly hangers-on who benefit from our taxes and don't contribute anything in return.

If not, then consider getting rid of them, but I don't think that it should be the main priority at the moment. Reducing the Prime Minister's powers to what they were pre-Thatcher should be.