By Graham Smith
The recent debate on changing the rules of royal succession has only served to remind many people in this country what an absurd and out-dated constitution this country has. Why, in the 21st century - or in any century for that matter - do we consider the freedom of one family to marry whom they choose a constitutional question? The answer is simple: the monarchy is about power and privilege, it is designed to protect that power and privilege by masking it in the 'magic' and 'majesty' of royal mythology.
It is one of the great deceptions of our age - the idea that the monarchy is 'harmless' or that it simply doesn't matter. Even Evan Harris, an otherwise intelligent and accomplished MP for whom I have a great deal of respect, suggested this most bizarre of institutions could stay for those very reasons - and because it is 'popular'. But the monarchy isn't harmless, and this issue really does matter.
There are two key themes to the republican argument, both are strong arguments against the monarchy. The first is what I often refer to as the 'princes and palaces' argument. This basically makes the case that inheritance of public office is wrong in principle, it doesn't work in practice, it generates greed and deference and it corrupts those it touches.
The second, and perhaps more important, theme is the question of 'power and politics'. The monarchy isn't just some harmless decoration, it is the core of the British constitution. It is the source of all political and legal power in this country, it is what allows the Prime Minister to take us to war or to sign treaties without the consent of parliament. It is what enables parliament to whittle away our rights and freedoms without the consent of the people. The Crown is all powerful. It has been placed in parliament, which in effect means we now have King Gordon wielding the power while Queen Elizabeth lives in the big house. But the PM's control over monarchical power doesn't make it any more acceptable.
There is no higher authority than our parliament. Yes, EU law has direct applicability in British courts, yes there are treaties we've signed which put obligations on us to, for example, not use the death penalty. But these are only binding while our parliament agrees them to be. Parliament is sovereign, it has virtually all the power. What power it doesn't have the PM has through the use of the royal prerogatives. Oh, and the PM pretty much controls parliament too. So when the nation was debating whether or not we should sign the Lisbon treaty it really came down to one-man-one-vote. And that one man was Mr Gordon Brown.
Britain has the least intelligible, least democratic constitution in the western world. It is a train-wreck of a constitution, deliberately kept vague and mysterious so the people can't quite get to grips with how it all works. It isn't and never has been based on the principle of popular sovereignty. Our constitution is based on the power of Kings - the power has shifted slightly, but still 'we the people' rarely get a look in, save for the occasional chance to elect less than half our parliament.
All of this can be traced back to the monarchy. That isn't to say the monarch herself is to blame, although she isn't above criticism. It is the institution that is at fault. It is open to abuse, it masks the truth about power behind the façade of royalty, it deadens debate and holds back reform.
Our democracy should inspire aspiration amongst our young, it should instill in all of us a sense of responsibility for our politics, a real sense of 'we the people'. Britain is a great country, a union of nations we should all be proud of, and for that reason we should have the best of everything - and that means the very best democracy possible. That means a democracy based on the notion of popular sovereignty, one where the power of the politicians is limited, not limitless. A democracy that has no place for inheritance of public office, deference and servility.
Tinkering with the succession really is a case of shifting deckchairs. Forget reform, abolition of the monarchy is the challenge and a democratic republican constitution for Britain is the answer.
Graham Smith is Campaign Manager for Republic.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Yours, a one time Labour voter for 32 years. Never. If I had to - which I don't - I would vote Tory to get rod of you. However, it seems you are doing a good job of that already; the only question remains - how much more damage will you cause the country before you go?
I asked Graham several times (scroll down) who he'd propose as president in republican Britain (virtually ALL republics have presidents).
He brushed that off: "Is that really the best you can do to argue for the monarchy? It's a bit lame."
Well no, I wasn't defending the monarchy, I was asking Graham to make a constructive suggestion to support his proposition.
It seems to me that Graham has thought this through about as thoroughly as Blair thought through the abolition of the Lords, as in not at all. The Lords are a mess, in a state of constitutional limbo, and with Graham at the helm the position of head of state would be as bad.
Our president would not be a trivial appointment, s/he would be THE pivotal politician whatever their actual constitutional position. So for Graham to have (apparently) given no thought to who should be our first president gives his game away.
If it were MY article on abolishing the monarchy, I hope I would have had the courage to give half a dozen alternatives to King Charles!
It may have slipped my mind, but I can't for the life of me remember when the election for the current head of our state, was held. Purely as a matter of interest, what was her majority and who were the other candidates?
Your comment is a classic example the red herring that is always used in desperation to divide anti-monarchists by demanding to know their proposal for its replacement before abolishing the monarchy. It is true that it is the only still-successful tactical move left to the indefensible institution's defenders.
No monarchy in history -anywhere on earth- was ever peacefully abolished with an alternative proposed and agreed to replace it. Not even Italy in 1945.
No Monarchy in history was ever successfully abolished by agreeing that it should go - but only after the next system was agreed. Not even in Sweden where the Social Democratic Party, committed to a Republic, has won every election but four since 1932 and yet the King still presides at Cabinet meetings!
Every attempt to abolish monarchy by arranging the alternative first has failed. Everywhere.
The issue is clear and simple. Monarchy must be abolished - immediately. Once its gone, the House of Commons can exercise Sovereignty through the Speaker and summon a National Convention to debate a Constitution to be presented to the People in a Referendum. If we cant agree on that, we have already lost.
As to my own preference for what should replace it, of course I have a point of view.
I prefer the Swiss model where there is no Head of State and no Head of Government.
Swiss sovereignty is vested in the Swiss People and the Swiss Government is obligatorily a Coalition.
The Speaker of the Unicameral Parliament arranges the negotiations between parties so that the Government (the Federal Council) allocates its jobs between themselves by agreement.
The members take it in turns to be presiding officer (Chair) and Vice-Chair for 6 months each.
The Chair signs Ambassadors appointments and receives foreign Ambassadors.
The Chair also goes to the Airport to greet or wave goodbye to visiting foreign Heads of State.
I remember when Reagan met Gorbachev in Geneva, they arrived on 29 June and left on 3 July.
It was the Minister of Education who went to greet them and the Minister of Transport who saw them off.
The Swiss waste neither time nor money on any of the useless functions of State President or Prime Minister.
They have no cult-of-personality national ‘leader.
Parliament appoints and controls the senior officers of the Swiss Armed Forces and when war clouds gather the Parliament elects one officer to be ‘The General who is mandated to do whatever is necessary to ensure that attacking Switzerland would be a bad idea for any potential agressor.
The General is required to deliver a full accounting of actions taken - once the danger is past.
That is how Switzerland kept both the Kaiser and Hitler at bay.
I like that system.
It works.
Switzerland is the only country on earth with monuments commemorating Generals who never fought a war.
Who needs a Head of State?
What use are they?
Who needs a Head of Government?
What use are they, either?
You're right most, if not all, republics have some variation on the theme of a "president". There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we want to go down that road or come up with something radically different and perhaps eccentrically British e.g. a council of elders with a rotating chair, thus deriving the strengths of numerous individuals(as someone below suggested was a benefit of monarchy). Graham and his organisation acknowledge the debate to be had about form and character of a republican alternative to monarchy. I think they also acknowledge, or at least should, popular involvement in selecting a model of republic, thus avoiding the Australian republic vote failure and Lords reform fiasco.
However let's suppose we go down the ceremonial president route for a moment. Is it possible that Graham hasn't reeled off a list of celebrity runners and riders because he genuinely believes, as he's said, that from our thronging ranks some exceptional candidates will be forthcoming? These individuals may not be well known, they may not even be known to Graham, but we can realistically conjecture that they exist when we look at any field of endeavour, from the law & politics to the arts, sport and industry and to schools, hospitals and the voluntary sector. There are leaders, ambassadors, people of character and substance who'd we'd happy to throw our hat on their stand and say they represent our "home".
For what it's worth I think Elizabeth Windsor would make an outstanding president. For her sins, she exudes dignity and ironically knows her place. The suggestion has been made before but let's make her Elizabeth the Last, the first honorary President of Britain. She can keep her title and serve for the rest of her life or until she chooses to step down, allowing us a calm period for reflection and planning for our new republic.
You want a short list Ceila? I have no problem getting it going. If Betty Boothroyd were ten years younger she'd top it, in fact, phooey to ageism (!) she still tops it! Sir Redgrave anyone? Trevor McDonald gets a shout, for sure!
I've stressed though that the president may be an unknown, drafted perhaps after a Facebook group set up by a dozen former pupils and members of the numerous schools she's transformed and youth projects she's convened reaches 3000 members & sparks a media frenzy. Captivated by her dedication, integrity, warmth & achievements touching the lives of thousands, people talk, the dead tree press gets wind, so does SKY News, Richard and Judy aren't far behind, before you know it over 300 "tweets" a day contain her name before she's even agreed to stand ...
As it goes Ceila I strenuously disagree the president would be THE pivotal politician, in fact most advocates of the ceremonial presidential model envisage that role decidedly politically circumscribed, thus preserving the "above politics" mantle of a monarch without the insidious symbolism & material inequity of inheritance. The Irish President isn't as restricted as British republicans often suggest our president should be and yet their head of state remains relatively detached from the political fray. We need only look to an example from our system, the institution of Speaker of the House of Commons to see how easily this can be achieved (& before you go for the predictable jugular of lamenting the current Speaker, we should expect the performance of individuals to be variable, republic still trumps monarchy because we get a say in selecting them and a way to get rid of 'em!).
To take your paragraphs one at a time...
I never claimed it was my article, which is why I wrote "If it were" my article. Not sure what point you were trying to make there unless Graham didn't want criticism. Moving on, I gave a list of likely candidates along with some not so likely - it's called irony, or humour (I don't believe Nanny Labour has banned them yet?). What is the use of a ceremonial president? Boothroyd would be fine, dignified and non-partisan: the other two are famous for paddling boats quickly and reading autocue. Great. In this celebrity mad culture, if it went to a popular vote we'd get Jade Goody, Cheryl Cole, David Beckham or Ossie Osborne. Pointless.
If you think Lizzie Windsor would make a great president, leave the monarchy alone, it's working.
I've covered your suggestions already: the latter pair would look like two spare parts stood next to Presidents Sarkosi and Obama et al at the G20.
Finding an effing president via a Facebook campaign plumbs the absolute depths of desperation. Some stick thin blonde woman plucked from obscurity that women envy and blokes fancy... I think her name is Chantelle. In fact, lets have a cross between Dancing on Ice and Big Brother to choose our president - populist and democratic enough for you?
The monarchy may be pointless in this day and age, though very cost-effective given the tourist dollars and tens of thousands of jobs they bring us, but a ceremonial president would be equally pointless and bring us nothing. A political president would be divisive for decades, as it would be a system foreign to us and our way of life. Many generations would be needed before the monarchy was forgotten and a president respected in the same way. I won't even get into the current speaker, I think most people are greed where he's concerned.
And yes, I know Jade's no longer with us, but I guarantee the Sun would start a campaign.
I think Elizabeth Windsor is a good head of state because of the way she conducts herself. I don't really care for her son so leaving the monarchy alone doesn't really help to address that problem. If he did happen to be elected president and decided to adhere to a political neutrality code I'd feel better than having him as a lose cannon monarch, abusing royal privilege to advance a personal political agenda.
Your tack of trying to defeat the republican argument by criticising individual candidates as I pointed out before is complete scare crow fallacy on a hiding to nowhere. I happen to think Charles and several of the in-line to the throwners look and sound like spare parts. You won't catch me arguing for a republic or against the monarchy because I think it would produce better looking candidates for G20 photos. You're scraping the barrel if that's your defence of the monarchy.
As for you retort to the Facebook campaign suggestion. I don't share your cynicism. I think a presidential campaign would be exciting and I think new media would be a big part of that. I also don't harbour your contempt for the electorate's ability to select a decent candidate. I would have zero problem with a reality tv format forming part of the presidential campaign, if not being the focus of it. In fact I think it's a tremendous idea.
Others have addressed the monarchy tourism cash cow argument so I shan't, save to say I agree there's scant evidence to support this thesis and plenty to discredit it.
You seem to have so little faith in the British people. If they take the step of choosing to have a political president (which I doubt they would) then logically a critical mass would already have become comfortable enough with the idea for it to happen & therefore the prospects for your foretold 'divisive' 'decades' just seems fanciful and really not predicated on anything but irrational conjecture.
By reeling out the likes of Jade/Cheryl/Beckham or Ossie it reeks of snobbery. Are you claiming to have had a detailed look at these candidates credentials or are you making snap judgements based on shallow media caricatures? If any of these people stood I would examine their prospects and I would have confidence in my fellow countrymen and women to do the same. You say the president wouldn't be respected but I wonder if we need to challenge what it is we respect. Is it money? Is it posh accents? Is it breeding? It sure seems like it. Shouldn't it be commitment & suitability and all that jazz, whether or not that person fits your stereotype of a regal head of state who won't stand out @ gatherings of the world's elites. It's a good thing to stand out sometimes. I don't want a joke president and I don't happen to think we'd get one. Let's suppose worst case scenario that we get an embarrassment of a president, shits happens: in a republic you clean it up, you move on. In a monarchy? You wait and wait and wait and suffer indignity to the power of ten until it dies ... How is that better? It's not!
The British Constitution worked best, on the whole, when it was run by men and women who respected its historical development - including the great struggles of those who wanted reform down the ages - which put some brake on the abuse its many inconsistencies or loopholes while allowing sensible reform.
One thing that the years of New Labour government certainly proved was that our Constitution was certainly extremely vunerable to abuse once people with no sense of history and a dry, check-box ticking, technocratic mentality got their hands on the levers of power, and drove a coach and horses through its many conventions. Take, as one example, the utterly grotesque abuse of the Parliament Act during the Blair years to force through legislation on fox hunting.
However, the second thing that New Labour taught us is that purely technocratic solutions to issues with no regard for historical or cultural development rarely work either. New Labour never tired of telling us that we were a 'young' country, and everything was 'New'. And what has it given us? Its promises were almost all unfulfilled, and it has left a culturally confused and divided country unsure of itself in its wake. The failure of New Labour's approach stemmed largely from the fact that it didn't understand what really constituted a successful society. In the words of Edmund Burke, a society is a contract between the dead, the living and the not yet born. In other words you have to at least understand the past to mould the future. New Labour never understood our past, our even tried to beyond a few shallow right-on platitudes.
You can argue with a good deal of justice that the Monarchy and our unwritten Constitution didn’t stand up very well to the assault on our freedoms and liberties that has taken place in recent years, but let us not forget that it did so extremely well against other, far more sinister political movements thought to be ultra-modern and technocratic in the first half of this century. A historical throwback it maybe, but Id much rather take that than the horrors inflicted on Europe in the last hundred years (mostly by countries with Republican forms of government, by the way) in the name of modernity.
Ah, but you say…we are all civilised democracies in Europe now…the past doesn’t apply. This is utterly false. In recent years we have seen rise and rise of the supranational European Union: a technocratic institution par excellance, and supported by all Europe’s elites. It has such contempt for democracy that you can have as many votes as you like, but only those with the right answer will be noted. The so-called superior democratic structures of Continental Europe hasn’t stopped its onward march and usurpation of power from national governments, any more than we have, but at least the British people are far more sceptical of its over-weening ambition, institutional arrogance and anti-democratic progress than any other European country. I am willing to bet our Constitution and Monarchy will in the end see of this threat to democracy as well.
So…in conclusion, I would suggest that rather abolishing the monarchy, we instead abolish the technocrats.
In my honest opinion I believe that Britain would of course cruise along fine as a republic but the monarchy is a symbolic figurehead of our nation and I can't agree that it is an outdated, subversive institution. Each type of institution, whether a republic, or a monarchy, has its advantages and disadvantages, and our government is the result of centuries of political evolution, resulting in a combination of these polities that prevents the different institutions in government from becoming too powerful. Therefore, the monarchy help prevent parliament from ruling arbitrarily and vice versa.
Also I disagree that inheriting offices is wrong in principle, sure the Queen did not earn her power like our MPs but this is has advantages because it means she is not a politician, affiliated with any party or having a political agenda, and this impartiality is beneficial because she lacks bias like Gordon Brown would if he was president.
Finally I believe that the flaw in many peoples logic, including yours, is that the belief that our government should operate at the nation's behest, rather than in the nation's interest. This is a dangerous ideology, as we cannot be ruled by every person who is politically motivated. First of all because everyone's opinions are swayed and influenced too easily by the media, and secondly because our nation's matters should be handled by those who actually know what they are doing rather than an army of ignorant armchair spectators. However, I do agree that change is needed in our constitution, but I don't think the abolition of the monarchy is the way to do it, that is the obvious, simple choice to take. Government needs prestige, especially in a proud country like ours, and the public's perception of contemporary politicians is one of dullness, sleaze, corruption and a distinct lack of dignity.
But the same applies to MP's to,Smith,Cohen,Mcnulty,Wintertons,Mr & Mrs expenses Keene's ring any bells?
Actually, before we do that can we please have a referendum about the Lisbon Treaty - as was promised?
Hey I know we could add a third question about which Prime Minister we would like to run the country.
On Franco: I didn't mean the Fascists were horrified that King Juan Carlos arrived on the scene, they were horrified that he ushered in democracy when he got there. Spain held democratic elections within 18 months of him taking over from Franco.
On Thailand: without the monarchy I rather suspect the country would have gone the way of Burma a long time ago.
Scrutiny: the policians do a very good job of protecting themselves. Just watch the Labour MPs at PMQs
Notion of the state: No, I don't think people concern themselves with bits of political philosophy, but the state is not an aggregation of the citizenry - I cannot resign from the state, and withdraw my consent to be taxed (for example). The government is not the voice of the people, they are Ministers of the Crown, and if they were reminded of that occasionally they might act with a bit more humility (Harriet Harman take note).
Permanence: What I mean is a proper national identity - of which the monarchy is a key component. It is any wonder, that after continually trashing our national institutions we are now said to be in the grip of an identity crisis. If we gave up on this sixth-form-esque fetishisation of textbook democracy as the answer to every political ill we might better understand the world around us. We are currently embarrassed, thanks to people like Republic, of institutions like the monarchy and the Lords - so when we go abroad we giddily encourage everyone to have elected Presidents, Senates, and Houses. We then leap back in horror when we find they get dominated by tribal politics and warlords. If we allowed ourselves to be more comfortable with our own constitutional arrangements we might be more comfortable recognising for example, Somaliland which has built a potent Muslim and African success story by combining democracy and traditional tribal power structures by having a Commons and a Lords in it's legislature.
Crown Estates: They do belong to the Windsors. That's why the Queen has to agree to hand them over to Parliament in exchange for the Civil List. They'd only 'revert' to the Republic, if it's first act, was biggest case of theft in British history.
The Whole Family: It means we get a whole family's worth of people to do the diplomatic turns and charity sponsorship we ask of them. Ask yourself, what does the President of Germany do for his country?
If only other writers had the courage to follow your excellent example.
It works, and performs it's functions wonderfully
It's useful for reminding us that the state is not an aggregation of the citizenry
It's very good for providing something to be loyal (much better than our politicians)
It gives us a permanence, and if we embraced it, an opportunity to understand and engage with a lot of the rest of the world
It actually doesn't cost a penny, thanks to the Crown Estates we make a net profit of IIRC £300m a year from the Civil List
And for all this we don't just get one Head of State, we get an entire family
Further down someone alleged that the Spanish monarchy was a figurehead for Franco's fascism. They're wrong. The Spanish monarchy had been removed by the Republicans. Franco ousted the Republicans in the Civil War and set up his dictatorship. King Juan Carlos didn't return from exile until after Franco had died, and much to the fascists horror, introduced democracy and constitutional monarchy to Spain. The general record of monarchies around the world is pretty good - Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, Leichtenstein, Japan, Thailand, Bhutan, UAE etc..
I don't think so. "On 22 November 1975, two days after the death of Francisco Franco, Juan Carlos was designated King according to the law of succession promulgated by Franco. The Spanish throne had been vacant for thirty years in 1969 when Franco named Juan Carlos as the next ruler of Spain". The decision to make him King was Franco's as confirmed by the Spanish monarchy's own website.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Thai monarchy has a good record? Do your homework.
As for your list: "It works" really depends on what it is supposed to do. Yes, it works in that it gives us a head of state and protects power from proper scrutiny.
Do you really think people in this country think to themselves: "it's great to know that the state is not an aggregation of the citizenry"? meaningless.
How about loyalty to the nation and our fellow citizens?
"Gives us permanence"? Meaningless. It does not such thing as no such thing exists.
The Crown Estates does not and never has belonged to the Windsor family. As the CE would remain in the hands of the nation in a republic you cannot offset the extravagant cost of the monarchy with the revenue from that land.
How is getting the Windsor family into the bargain a plus side for your monarchist views? All that means is that we spend yet more money on people who do nothing in return.
Try dealing with the serious constitutional issues.
Protecting power from scrutiny? Extravagant cost? In light of recent news that's something I associate more with our current government. The fact that you think the Windsor family "do nothing" (sounds familiar...), shows that this article is nothing but an ill thought out opinion piece. I'd like to know what you've done recently for the country?
For all the talk of MPs expenses, the royal expenses are 100 times as insulting to the taxpayer. Wake up and smell the coffee!!
It's not the expenses I have a problem with really, they're a drop in the ocean compared to what's been wasted on failed IT projects and appeasing minorities, it's the fact that at the end of their career a politician swans off into the sunset, usually taking even further advantage of his previous position. The royals are there for life, thay've been prepared for it since birth, and they know it. They have a genuine loyalty to the country that is conspicuously absent from our current Labour front bench.
And as to what I think would happen? On current form I think they'd probably get away with it.
I'd like to know what you've done recently for the country?
it was me who made the inaccurate statement about Franco. I knew he was technically 'regent' and I knew that his right-wing coalition contained monarchists. But I wrongly said that he used the Spanish monarchy as a figurehead. Thanks for the correction. I should check my facts before I type!
I totally disagree with your idea that the monarchy 'functions wonderfully'. Wonderful for whom? I like the state to be an aggregation of citizenry. I want my head of state to be loyal to me, not the other way round. Don't understand what you mean by permanence. I disagree with the cost-effectiveness argument; this is an ongoing dispute, with figure-twisting on both sides.
Final point: I would say that the general record of monarchies, when viewed through history, is not particularly good. Most of the examples you give are surely more neutral than good; 'good' requires some positive contribution rather than no net negative one.
Yes, far better we have an elected technocracy, unaccountable and utterly shameless, greedily claiming for 88p bath plugs and £10's worth of grumble flicks from the taxpayer.
Graham, look around at any republic, including the much-vaunted USA: politicians are scum. At least the Royals know how to do pomp and ceremony. This dissolute shambles of a goverment (and their pointless opposition) are as much use as tits on a bull, and as edifying to look at.
1 - one of the key points against the monarchy is that it gives the politicians all the power they want. Don't like politicians? Have a republic.
2 - politicians are chosen by the electorate. If you don't like them you really have only yourself to blame for not electing decent ones.
As for comments about greed - honestly, the Windsors take the biscuit (and anything else they can get their grubby hands on).
2. I have a choice between a cretin who thinks nothing of eating his own snot in Parliament, a say-anything slippery weasel and a vacuous fence-sitting nonentity. Which one would you go for? Flip a coin, perhaps?
The Windsors are rank amateurs in the thievery stakes, when compared with our own sainted political class.
"The first is what I often refer to as the 'princes and palaces' argument. This basically makes the case that inheritance of public office is wrong in principle, it doesn't work in practice, it generates greed and deference and it corrupts those it touches."
But really? That's part of your argument.
Hmmmm.
Surely an unelected person in an elected office is a bigger injustice than centuries old tradition. Perhaps you should re-focus your energies on our dear PM.
Our energies are focussed on the big picture - where power comes from, who gets it and how.
Celia also makes an excellent point. Which former politician would we elect to be President? Isn't just a change in job title for the Prime Minister?
At a time when politicians occupy an affection in the heart's of the British public alongside other popular professions like Estate Agents and Traffic Wardens, perhaps MPs should get their own house in order before seeking to change our perfectly acceptable mechanism of government.
As for the 'debate' on succession, a perfect demonstration of Gordon Brown's petulance because the Head of State had the temerity of inviting Mervyn King to Buckingham Palace for a chat.
You're so-called "problem" that you think republicans have is nothing of the sort. Sure, the process of change is not easy, but it's hardly that difficult either.
Celia's point isn't remotely 'good', it just implies a complete deficiency in ambition for or faith in our country. Are you seriously suggesting that out of a country of 60m we can't find good people to be our head of state.
Well, our mechanism of government has been mimicked the world over - it is not called the 'Mother of all Parliaments' for no reason.
Of all the things 'wrong' with this country, I think you'll find that the country holds more affection for the Monarchy than the current incumbent of No.10 and politicians in general.
I would argue that the key to the success and the longevity of the Monarchy in this country (after all we have tried Republicanism before) is that it is based on the bedrock of our society - the family.
The 'problem' with our democracy I would argue is the disconnect between the 'Westminster Village' and the people reinforced by a political lobby ably assisted by the MSM.
As Dan Hannant's speech hit a chord with the electorate last week, I would argue that it is the system of Parliamentary democracy and the vested self-interest of the political class in the Commons that requires far more urgent change.
The lack of appeal for a change in democratic process will never be reversed whilst the public holds politicians with such disdain.
Yes, I am suggesting in a country of 60m we would not be served by someone worthy of being President. Unless you would consider one very selfless public servant who has served this country in an utterly exemplary manner as she promised since 1952 - The Queen.
It would just be another position for a politician to fill, one of the beauties of our constitutional monarchy is our Monarch is not a politician.
As for the process of change, change is actually easy once you have a groundswell of support in the right places. The fact you don't and also your reasoning for change being as weak as it is means that it is unlikely to happen.
How about a comment on Hilary Benn, Tamsin Dunwoody or Georgia Gould?
As a democrat and a Labour member I find it totally unacceptable that we have tolerated this family's, and its hangers on, influence over our politics and society for so long, maybe at the end of THIS Labour government we will have the courage to put forward policies for a 21st century mode of government
Labour for a Republic - that would start a debate!
How do you know that, Graham? Have you seen it written down somewhere?
Seriously, though, the first task of a future Republican government should be to produce a written constitution taking the best experience of countries more democratic than ours. And for all hangers-on of the status quo who cannot accept the removal of their hereditary priveleges, let them emigrate permanently to some other tax haven, relinquishing their UK assets to a Trust set up to benefit UK residents below the poverty line.
As it says at www.republic.org.uk/britishconstitution:
...a number of treaties, laws and conventions (another word for 'habits') which together make up the constitution. These include:
* Acts of Parliament
* Treaties
* EU law
* Common Law
* Conventions
* Royal Prerogative
* Works of authority
This means it requires a considerable amount of study and probably a degree in politics or law to fully understand how Britain is governed
President Kinnock?
President Tony Blair?
President "First Lady" Blair?
President Hain?
President McNumpty?
President Harperson?
President Lord Falconer?
President Dawn "Obama" Butler?
President Lord Myners?
President Mandleson?
President Vaz? (Throws up in bucket.)
Suggestions welcome!
;-)
Do you really believe that Britain can't do better than to have Charles as our next head of state? Do you really have so little faith in the British people? Or are you just terrified of the responsibility of democracy?
Bottom line is this: if we vote for them we get them. If we don't want them, don't vote for them. So your 'argument' falls apart.
Thought not.
Come on!
Absolutely. Republic is an alliance of all those who support the abolition of the monarchy in favour of a republican constitution. The issue of the position of head of state is just a detail of that debate - not the centre of it as some people here seem to think. Views of our members differ considerably about what sort of head of state we should have, although we do propose a parliamentary model with a largely ceremonial head of state (similar to Ireland).
Get rid of her, you have to find another.
I know Wikipedia isn't infallible, but the first sentence under "Characteristics of republics" is "Head of state: In most modern republics, the head of state is termed president."
And it's not just a detail, the head of state says a lot about the country they head. Unless you just want somebody 'ceremonial'. In which case we may as well stay as we are.
So, the question was, who do you suggest?
I find it unbelievable that a Labour government (and many party members) goes to such lengths to defend a hereditary head of state over democratic choice.
The excuses and myths I hear justifying the current set up are almost beyond parody.
I agree though, its heads on spikes time, don't forget the cabinet.
Two particularly strange justifications I have heard for the monarchy are: it drives tourism and it prevents fascists and totalitarians coming to power.
The former argument is bizarre. The US and France are the two most popular tourist destinations in the western world. I'm not suggesting we bulldoze Buckingham Palace and replace it with a NCP dedicated to Oliver Cromwell. The Louvre and the Hermitage draw more visitors now that people can actually enter them.
The latter argument deserves more attention. Many otherwise normal people believe that the monarchy acts as some useful constitutional check. Often, supporters of this will cite Hitler's democratic rise to power and the ineffectiveness of the German President Hindenburg as a bulwark against fascism. Nonsense. HIndenburg wanted to dismantle German democracy. A president (or a monarch) may be a constitutional check on any unpleasant (or pleasant) political movement, in accordance with their inclinations. The difference being that a president is answerable to the electorate through the ballot box; the monarch is answerable only to God (apparently). The Spanish monarchy was the figurehead for Franco's fascism. My point: a monarchy is no more or less likely to prove effective against a drift to totalitarianism than a president.
The monarchy is an expensive, exclusive insult to our collective intelligence. In a secular society, how can we believe in divine rule? In a pluralist society, how can we concentrate prestige and power in the hands of a few well-established families. In a democracy, how can we have an unelected head of state (and, as G Smith rightly points out, a not directly elected proxy executive body within the legislative body)?
What system would I have in place? A directly elected executive and two fully elected Houses of Parliament. Not a perfect system, but a progressive improvement. Greater transparency and accountability. Imagine if we could have delivered a mandate on the Iraq war direct to a President at the ballot box in 2005, instead of having to make our (often blameless) constituency MPs suffer. Labour MPs against the war lost their seats because our poorly structured democracy allows no more direct form of protest vote.
The monarchy is indeed popular. So were bear-baiting, public executions and the Black and White singing minstrels. Progress is led from the front. Here's to a bloodless, low-cost constitutional revolution in the UK.
He arranged for all legal challenges to this coup d'état to disappear by changing the Oath that the German legislators, military, civil service, police and judiciary took.
Before 1934 they swore an oath to uphold the Republican Constitution; in and after 1934 they swore an Oath of Personal Loyalty and Obedience to Adolf Hitler, and to his designated successors.
From that point on nobody COULD challenge the legality of anything he had done, did or was going to do.
That Oath was denounced all over the world as the instituting of the Nazi Dictatorship.
And on what did he model that Oath?
Why, the British Oath of Loyalty to 'King George the Fifth, his Heirs and Successors according to law".
I guess there's a broader point here along the lines that structural a monarchy and a dictatorship are very similar? The head of state is supra-constitutional. This contrasts with the US president, who (despite Nixon's assessment to the contrary) is bound by legality and the constitution and is held accountable through the impeachment mechanism.
It basically comes down to whether we want the rule of men or the rule of law.
The 'check on power' argument is even more absurd because the opposite is true, as I've said in my article. The monarchy gives virtually limitless power to the politicians, while a republic provides proper democratic checks.
That would be treason! Or a new film for Jacquis husband.
I think you'll find they did. War is a prerogative power, plus, the queen is Commander in Chief.