Republic v Monarchy

[caminito]

Now the "wedding " is nearly over . It will probably be reported for weeks yet !
Do we really need or want this unelected family as head of state .
The Republis campaign says this .....


The monarchy is not only an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain, it also gives politicians almost limitless power.

It does this is in a variety of ways:

    The royal prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament

    The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament

    The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

We believe our democracy should inspire a common sense of "we the people" - together we should own, control and take responsibility for our political affairs. We believe Britain deserves a republican constitution in place of the monarchy because you deserve the very best democracy possible.

Today there are few who believe our democracy is the best it can be. So often we hear about politicians not being accountable, about government centralising power, about parliament and cabinet having little control over the prime minister. We call ourselves a democracy yet we elect less than half our parliament. We get to vote once every four or five years yet between elections the government's power is limitless.

We believe most of the problems in our democracy can be traced back to one source: the Crown. And we believe too, no matter what the political and constitutional arguments, it is simply unacceptable for the monarchy to continue. No nation that claims to value democracy can also value an institution based on elitism, exclusive privilege and hereditary public office.

We believe a republican constitution is best for Britain.

[Chrisjay]

Well I would have voted for a 'President' Thatcher but would have not been as happy to have had say President Blair or Brown

I have always thought it is easy to vote to remove the Crown but becomes a little more difficult to replace it with something else acceptable to all the people including a presidency (and if we just had a prime minister where would we be with a coalitian?)

I also believe we need two houses and they should both be elected but we would need to be careful they are not bought as in the USA system tends to be.

One thing this country has never looked at is federal and provincial taxes (i.e. federal being central government and provincial being our counties) In Canada all taxes are raised in this way with the federal taxes paying for infrastructure, defence etc and provincial paying for the schools, welfare health care etc the richer the province the lower the taxes and they are deducted in two parts from your pay slip.

Here taxes are such piece meal such as income tax, road tax, council tax, TV licence tax, airport tax, VAT, petrol tax etc which all produces its own bureaucracy in collecting and spending - think of how many pen pushers we could get rid of by having just two taxes collected

Then the idea of a republic becomes more appealing as the county would have its own government and the country its own government which would then create two natural 'houses' on which agreement would be sought to pass laws and spend the money.

One suggestion on how to replace the current system any others?

Just a note though in a recent survey 80% of the country wanted to keep the Monarchy 

[caminito]

So many people argue against a republic by saying they don't want president Blair or president Thatcher it is safe to assume that we wouldn't get either.

Democracy is about the people getting what they want. If the people are overwhelmingly against the idea of former Prime Ministers becoming president then you wouldn't get former Prime Ministers as president.

Ultimately it's for the people to decide. If you don't want them, don't vote for them and you won't get them. If you do want them, do vote for them and you will get them.

If they were elected then that would be the people's choice. That's democracy. So the question really misses the point. We're not campaigning for a particular president, we are campaigning for the right of the people to decide. Simply put, if we don't want them we won't get them, and if we get them, then don't like them, they can be voted out.

The monarchy is not as popular as you think.

Opinion polls consistently put support for a republic at around 20% (various Mori polls), and some have put it as high as 43% (GMTV/Mirror 2008). That means that at least 10 million people would vote to abolish the monarchy - the same number that voted for the winning party at our last general election.

There has also been a steady increase in the number of people who do not think the monarchy will survive in the long term. A 2002 poll showed that 70% believe Britain will be a republic within 50 years (Mori 2002).

Aside from direct arguments about the monarchy, there is a clear demand for a new relationship between individuals and government.

The majority of British voters (63%) believe our system of government needs improvement, with only 3% believing it works "extremely well" (Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust 'State of the Nation Poll' 2004). Republic's message is that the monarchy is our system of government, distorting and infecting our entire political culture.

The truth is that we don't know exactly how popular a republican constitution would be until we put it to the British people after a period of full and open debate.

An opinion poll is not a substitute for a referendum or an election.

[Chrisjay]

The truth is that we don't know exactly how popular a republican constitution would be until we put it to the British people after a period of full and open debate.

An opinion poll is not a substitute for a referendum or an election.

Now your talking a referendum bring it on - the public have been asking for a referendum on many things and the only one we got was on AV because it was part of a 'deal' now if getting a referendum was in any way possible can we have one that covers everything (saves money) including membership to the EU, Pension Increase, Immigration, war and anything else we can think of - one main stumbling block is the British people don't get out and vote so the majority are ruled by the wishes of a minority and this happens at every election.

[phyllis]

Hi Chrisjay, I have 'lurking' again, busy lately so have not commented.

I think most of our countrymen and women, have no thoughts on politics at all, never mind knowing that AV is a poor substitute for Proportional Representation.

A number of countries do have AV including Australia where, after finding they are now too frequently being governed by coalition governments have decided because of the low turnout at elections to make voting compulsory.

I would be for compulsory voting here gladly if the population had more political awareness, it seems to me that too large a proportion is happy to sit on backsides not working and let others take the financial strain by working and being the subsequent new form of ruling classes.

The monarchy does at least earn us money by being there, I have always felt our income from foreign visitors would be considerably less if they were not there.

We all need to look to looking after our country, the country cannot look after itself.

[caminito]

Hi Phyllis
Good to see you back posting . Here is the answer to your question about royalty bringing money into the country through tourism !


Tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, the suggestion that the monarchy promotes tourism is also untrue. There is not a single shred of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today. The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of the UK as a tourist destination.

The tourism argument has been dreamt up to distract people from the real issues. There is no evidence that the monarchy is good for tourism, in fact, there are good reasons why the opposite might be true. Imagine the potential for Buckingham Palace if it was fully opened up to tourists all year round, where visitors can explore every room and courtyard and see the grounds and the magnificent art collection. And of course popular ceremonies such as the changing of the guard will continue.

[avalonmpk2]

If you really do want a true Democracy the the head of state MUST be elected by the people it is an insult that YoYo drawers could in fact be a joint head of state - I wonder what she does while her second husband is hugging trees? - Their judgement leaves a lot to be desired - give them a proper job - like beta testing living on a state pension for a five year stretch. I'm a Citizen Not a subject! VOTE for the Republic
I have just cast my vote against AV if a change is needed it should at least be proper proportional rep. and a maximum of a four year term - No politician be allowed to serve more than three terms in any position ie you can only be an elected representative for a maximum of 12 years!

[caminito]

The British constitution is unwritten or, to be more precise, 'uncodified'. This means that, unlike in most modern democracies, there is no single document which explains how we are governed.

Instead constitutional experts point to 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. It is one of the least intelligible, least democratic and least accountable constitutions in the democratic world. Contrast this with, say, Ireland, which has a simple and readable written constitution, clearly setting out who has what power, how they got it and how they can be removed from office.

Who gives power to who in Britain
In any constitution, power has to come from somewhere and must reside with someone. In Britain it comes from the Crown and resides with the government and parliament. The people barely get a look-in, being given only the occasional chance to participate in the formal political process.

One key feature of the constitution is the continuation of arbitrary, unlimited and unaccountable power - all of which derive from the Crown. Most of these are exercised by the government, some continue to be exercised by the Queen.

[babyboomer]

  Im a Royalist..............sorry 

[Chrisjay]

Don't be sorry lots of us are 

[caminito]

Why  

Republicanism is as much an integral part of British tradition and history as the monarchy - perhaps more so. Constitutional innovation and reform have been crucial in Britain's development, and much more relevant to modern times than our mock-feudal monarchy. The Magna Carta of 1215, the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Great Reform Act of 1832, and the introduction of universal suffrage in 1920, are all pioneering political advances.

Since the earliest days of recorded British history, our nation has aimed to curtail the power of the monarchy and expand the power of those with the greatest stake in the welfare of our country - whether medieval Barons, or, in the democratic age, all British citizens. It is important to remember that history has to be made - and each age will make its own history.

It is useful to remember that much of the so-called 'tradition' of the monarchy is a recent invention. The ceremonies surrounding Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard, the coronation and the State Opening of Parliament have all been invented since the reign of Victoria. They are part of the monarchy's continuing PR campaign - dressing up a shabby constitutional arrangement in fancy uniforms and flamboyant occasions so as to distract the casual observer from the more serious questions about why the monarchy exists.
 

[Deetta]

Don't be sorry lots of us are 

......and lots of us are definitely not......

[Dottie1943]

great to have a difference of opinion dont you think?   

[Chrisjay]

Very true so long as we play nice 

[caminito]

“i had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”

Letter from Cromwell to Sir William Spring. Sept. 1643.