So... you would rather save a drop in the bucket then rid yourselves of an amoral institution that places higher value on individuals because of birth then on anything else?
The British Monarchy
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
So... you would rather save a drop in the bucket then rid yourselves of an amoral institution that places higher value on individuals because of birth then on anything else?
Who seriously thinks that the queen has a higher value than anyone else? Putting someone in a powerless position on account of their birth does not oblige the people to place a higher value on them.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Boot 'em, bring in a federal republic, although we'd probably call it a "Commonwealth" out of lingering anti-European spite. Man might be a sticking point, but if she wants to maintain that petty Lordship, she's really welcome to it.
And, to the thread at large, there is such thing as a "parliamentary republic"; we happen to share a border with one, in fact. Don't assume that "British" and "American" are the only two political systems in existence. A President need have no more effective power than a monarch, while actually fulfilling a halfway usual role as a statesman and ambassador.
If you run a London gift shop, maybe. Nobody North of the M25 will be shedding tears over it, and those North of the border will be laughing. It's not like dissolving the monarchy necessitates the demolition of all castles, cathedrals, country houses, pre-modern towns, follies, galleries, museums and miscellaneous neolithic distractions, the levelling of all hills and mountains, in-filling of all lakes and rivers, or the painting of the White Cliffs a uniform grey.
That merely reflects the dissonance between popular opinion and the letter of the law which so undermines their authority. When your monarch is seen as nothing more than "some guy with a crown", you know that it is become an irrelevance, if not a burden.
And, to the thread at large, there is such thing as a "parliamentary republic"; we happen to share a border with one, in fact. Don't assume that "British" and "American" are the only two political systems in existence. A President need have no more effective power than a monarch, while actually fulfilling a halfway usual role as a statesman and ambassador.
Do you think before you post or do you truly not see how idiotic your post is?
Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Do you think it's an irrelevance, or a burden? I think it's an entirely harmless (and maybe even mildly useful as a source of dosh and as an inspiration for certain old-fashioned people among the population) irrelevance that serves to make the country more interesting.
@The Imp: Explain?
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Yeah I don't see why people insist on broadly comparing models and then just going from there with the assumption that the institutions that are most like each other in the respective systems do the same thing.
Along with the insistence that there is some sort of conflict between the idea of a Republic and Parliamentary system, the need for a bicameral legislature was overstated in this thread. Theres a chance we might abolish the upper house and just stick to the lower house. If the main opposition party gets in here they are planning on having a super referendum on abolishing the Senate along with other stuff like creating a citizen's assembly.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
A burden, although morally and culturally, rather than financially. That we dare drape ourselves in the pretence of modernity while a hereditary monarch, of all things, claims dominion over our nation is both absurd and insulting. Whatever novelty that it may offer tourists, and whatever "inspiration" it may provided the chronically out-of-touch, I, at least, find the fact that we entertain such an archaic system nothing more than embarrassing.
In reply to Traitorfish:
On the concept of a parliamentary republic, it clearly works well enough for many countries. However, in such countries, the president tends to have at least a bit of power. In the UK, the queen has none to speak of. So, the question is what power the president would have.
1. They could take over real power of the sort that the presidents get in France, for example. This would cause a real consitutional change, and would be possibly chaotic, and would undermine the power of the Prime Minister and Parliament. This might not be a bad thing, but would have to be thought through extremely carefully, and no doubt it could not even please all the republicans in Britain, let alone the monarchists.
2. They could take the queen's theoretical powers, including the ones she never uses. This would cause unpredictable results, and maybe altogether undesirable ones: the queen's powers are not designed for application to a parliamentary republic.
3. They could take the queen's actual powers, and become equally powerless. As I said before, who would you want as such a figurehead? Who would want to be such a figurehead? The queen is, in my opinion, the most viable and iconic candidate.
So, how would one integrate a parliamentary president into the Westminster system?
On the subject of "draping ourselves in the pretence of modernity", I think that there is very little problem in blending this modernity with a bit of the old for the sake of interest and tourists.
Besides, those few who think the queen is supreme will still continue to think so even if she is constitutionally abolished, won't they?
On the concept of a parliamentary republic, it clearly works well enough for many countries. However, in such countries, the president tends to have at least a bit of power. In the UK, the queen has none to speak of. So, the question is what power the president would have.
1. They could take over real power of the sort that the presidents get in France, for example. This would cause a real consitutional change, and would be possibly chaotic, and would undermine the power of the Prime Minister and Parliament. This might not be a bad thing, but would have to be thought through extremely carefully, and no doubt it could not even please all the republicans in Britain, let alone the monarchists.
2. They could take the queen's theoretical powers, including the ones she never uses. This would cause unpredictable results, and maybe altogether undesirable ones: the queen's powers are not designed for application to a parliamentary republic.
3. They could take the queen's actual powers, and become equally powerless. As I said before, who would you want as such a figurehead? Who would want to be such a figurehead? The queen is, in my opinion, the most viable and iconic candidate.
So, how would one integrate a parliamentary president into the Westminster system?
On the subject of "draping ourselves in the pretence of modernity", I think that there is very little problem in blending this modernity with a bit of the old for the sake of interest and tourists.
Besides, those few who think the queen is supreme will still continue to think so even if she is constitutionally abolished, won't they?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I'm afraid I cannot state which I find to be preferable, as I am simply not in command of all the necessary information, and doubt I would be able to make much more than a vaguely informed guess if I was. I'm sure this would, in itself, be the cause of much debate were the monarchy ever be dissolved, and far be it from me to pretend that a solution is self-evident. All I can say is that the Irish have made it work, and plenty of Australians seem convinced that they can too; why we are so less able?
What I will suggest, though, is that there is a stark difference between a non-hereditary, accountable and popularly elected figurehead, and what we have in place at the moment. If the value of such a role is to be merely symbolic, after all, then surely presenting a station which is open to any British citizen is preferable to one which is limited exclusively to aristocratic white Anglicans. The latter does not represent the Britain I want to live in, nor, if I am to be optimistic, does it represent the Britain that we have thus far achieved.
To confusion tradition and archaism is simplistic and potentially dangerous; it certainly does not provide a cultural or social precedent appropriate to the modern age. Britain does not depend on the monarchy for a sense of itself, nor have we ever.
And they're free to, much as there are those who recognise Franz, Duke of Bavaria as King. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to take an interest.
nonconformist
Miserable
I think it's important to point out that the Brits etc. here are, overwhelmingly happy with the monarchy, despite all ideological opinions.
I imagine there's a couple monarchirsts (FPig, I have you down as a nominal monarchist duue to your army service and such, but I imagine most Brits are ideologically republican; G&T would, I imagine, have the most similar view to me regarding republicanism), however, we see our system works and that it's not actually detrimental, and the effort to change it is so huge, we're content with our monarchy.
I imagine there's a couple monarchirsts (FPig, I have you down as a nominal monarchist duue to your army service and such, but I imagine most Brits are ideologically republican; G&T would, I imagine, have the most similar view to me regarding republicanism), however, we see our system works and that it's not actually detrimental, and the effort to change it is so huge, we're content with our monarchy.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This is quite true, I must admit- only diehard pinkos like myself actually feel strongly enough to care about it. The majority of Brits are merely indifferent, assuming that it will simply whither and die at some non-specific future time. The Scots and Welsh may show a little more enthusiasm for the prospect of republicanism, but it's generally part of a broader nationalist package, and there isn't much call for republicanism among politicians of either nation.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
What do you refer to by this 'modernity' in which we seek to drape ourselves?
If you're referring to things like egalitarianism, we find that Norway, Sweden and Denmark seem to find monarchy and equality perfectly compatible. Japan shows that monarchy of even the most traditional kind is compatible with economic success, and we would hardly say monarchy has held the Netherlands back from liberal and non-conservative legislation. Modernity by any measure seems perfectly compatible with constitutional monarchy, indeed one is most likely to find constitutional monarchies more 'modern' then the average republic; there is no correlation between republicanism and modernity. The argument that monarchy somehow 'holds us back' from modernity (or indeed not even that; the pretence of modernity!) holds no water.
"indeed one is most likely to find constitutional monarchies more 'modern' then the average republic"
Lovett you sneaky man. You're not comparing like with like. By specifying the type of monarchy you're neatly excluding the distasteful and unmodern absolute monarchies, whilst not applying the same selectiveness to republics.
Lovett you sneaky man. You're not comparing like with like. By specifying the type of monarchy you're neatly excluding the distasteful and unmodern absolute monarchies, whilst not applying the same selectiveness to republics.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
Well, it's rather convenient that one can divide monarchies into 'constitutional' and 'absolute' pretty easily and with good reason; there's no similar division for republics. Incidentally, that sentence originally read 'almost certainly' until I decided it was a bit unfair to include Africa in the analysis. Even so, I see no reason to exclude India, Turkey or Russia from 'republics' just like I would see no reason to exclude Malaysia, Morocco or Thailand from 'constitutional monarchy'. In such an analysis I actually do think it likely that we would find constitutional monarchies on average more 'modern' then republics on average, although probably for largely extraneous reasons. Nevertheless my point is that there is no correlation between republicanism (Vs. constitutional monarchy) and modernity, and there is no evidence that constitutional monarchy is contrary to modernity. Given it is indeed a constitutional monarchy we're talking about, this stands!
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
True enough; I suppose my comment was largely rhetorical. However, I maintain that it reflects a certain moral truth- no nation which elevates an individual to such status can be considered truly democratic or egalitarian, which is what I suppose I mean when I say "modern". It represents, if nothing else, a certain lack of dedication to those principals among the populace; after all, would true democrat would suffer a system in which sovereignty was invested in the High Chieftain's oldest child?
Of course, the British aren't a democratic people, not really. We're so steeped in compromise, so weak in resolve, so sure that stability, at any cost, is preferable to justice... I'm not sure if there's really a word for what we are, but it is quite pathetic.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
If the septic tanks (yanks) don't like it they can try and invade us and force regime change.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Oddly the only argument for the abolition of the monarchy that has any real traction in the UK is to elect a president to make our system less presidential. People will gladly kick in a quid a year to not-have a president - though how electing and funding a whole new office of state could possibly be cheaper is beyond me. The problem people have had with Thatch and Blair (apart from them having the 666 birthmarks and suchlike) is that they acted as if they were presidents, and had the elbows to do so. The argument for a castrated president is to force the PM to fulfil their role as the first among equals, the chairman, and not try ti be a bloody president.
In some ways it rather parallels the issue underlying the expenses rotten parliament. The MP's wanted to be treated like senators - after all their opposite numbers overseas were. But they represent only 100,000 souls, give or take. The people overwhelmingly dont want their MP to be senatorial. They want to be able to give the guy hell, face to face about whatever absurdly local issue is at hand. Which from a practical point of view rather precludes a senatorial salary and trappings.
The only plausible sell for a president of the UK is that by directly electing the head of state we could give them some very limited teeth to keep the pm's feet on the ground. Not worth the hassle and vast expense.
In some ways it rather parallels the issue underlying the expenses rotten parliament. The MP's wanted to be treated like senators - after all their opposite numbers overseas were. But they represent only 100,000 souls, give or take. The people overwhelmingly dont want their MP to be senatorial. They want to be able to give the guy hell, face to face about whatever absurdly local issue is at hand. Which from a practical point of view rather precludes a senatorial salary and trappings.
The only plausible sell for a president of the UK is that by directly electing the head of state we could give them some very limited teeth to keep the pm's feet on the ground. Not worth the hassle and vast expense.
I think this argument could be altered to instead have a non neutered House of Lords. To have it representative but also to have it balance the Commons, stops the virtual dictatorship of whatever government is elected.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Is electing the Lords the answer though?
It's an interesting question. Electing the Lords will make it party political.
It's an interesting question. Electing the Lords will make it party political.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
I'm all for having peers of the great and the good, but how do we make sure they are the great and the good rather than the oilers of wheels? I mean if they are to be given parity with the commons we have to have faith in the blighters.
Similar threads
