Queen Elizabeth II

[ncurd]

That's not really suggesting a change if you could change it. Hence why republicans always struggle to offer an alternative vision or option. My one would at least get rid of the inherent hereditary aspect of monarchy which is fundamentally unfair.

I don't want to change that area system of government. My issue is the expense for no good reason on a purely ceremonial position and force people to live a life of privilege to do it. If its purely ceremony/symbol make it that.

Elected house of Lords, voting systems all need to change just not part of that area of issue.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I think that it all goes with the whole written constitution and parliamentary democracy. House of Lords for sure needs to be turned into a Senate with defined role of proper scrutiny of HOC.

But monarchy is tip of the iceberg for me and its symbolic role, whilst still only "ceremonial", -'d change could have a knock on effect. Otherwise, always accepting of the status quo.

 

[General Melchett]

Didn't Charles (or at least his charities) accept a massive bung from a dodgy Saudi in exchange for British citizenship not so long ago? Yet anyone crossing the channel gets flown to Rwanda (at least if the Govt had their way). That is totally wrong. Also Andrew supposedly used his own 'private money' (cough) to pay for lawyers to get him off the hook with massage-gate.

That is probably the tip of the iceberg. For me the royals should be squeaky clean and they're far from it.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Good point Oggmonster the lack of accountability of the monarchy is another reason for move away from this outdated institution and at least to an elected head of state.

The Queen removing HRH status from Andrew, who paid off a known Sex trafficking victim without admitting any guilt. What happens to him now? Does he have his HRH ***le returned in the event KC3 becomes ill and he has to step in.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I wouldn't mind betting that Charles, and the late Queen, genuinely think they were chosen by god to be king/queen much like the kings and queens of old.

I don't get that same feeling of delusion from William and Harry but best we just strip them of their ***les, assets and wealth and be done with it.

 

[ncurd]

Why are they cheering a guy going to a funeral to his mother?

******* idiots.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Why are they cheering a guy going to a funeral to his mother?

******* idiots.

Go easy on them. They're grieving.

 

[McTallshort]

I wouldn't mind betting that Charles, and the late Queen, genuinely think they were chosen by god to be king/queen much like the kings and queens of old.

I don't get that same feeling of delusion from William and Harry but best we just strip them of their ***les, assets and wealth and be done with it.

Best for who?

 

[Which Tyler]

Question for republicans here - who would you replace the monarchy if you could?

I'm not really a republican, or even particularly anti-royal; but I am anti-the monarchy having any special rights / privileges; so my answer may be different to others.

I'm not sure they need replacing, but they need massively reducing; and there's no better opportunity than right now.
Keep the royal family to just the descendants of the monarch (which is why it's got so bloated currently); no privileges, no exemptions from the laws that apply to everyone else (eg taxation), no crown lands, no ***les (and same goes for all hereditary ***les) etc etc.
Pay them a stipend from the public purse if you must, decreasing amounts for those further from the throne. Relegate them to ceremonial role only, a head under a crown, and something to print on the stamps and coinage.


I'd also be happy to completely dispose of the need for a royal family at all - have the house of commons, with a PM, and an elected house of Lords, Senate, whatever - with a leader of their own - 20 year terms for the HoL (rolling 5 yearly), no opportunity for re-election (I don't want them having to go populist in order to keep their jobs) and some powers to actually keep a check on the government of the day. Leader of the Senate (or whatever you end up calling it) can be the ceremonial head of state, whilst the PM wields more power.
Might as well keep the name "House of Lords" and name everyone in it a Lord/Lady - purely for the sake of tradition and pageantry. Allow each major trade/profession to elect from within to hold office there (sadly, including politicians), same for the big charities, and some direct votes from the public, likely for celebrities and sports figures.

None of the above is particularly thought out and worked through - for now, the tastk is to severely shrink the size of the royal family, and eliminate all of their privileges.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Question for republicans here - who would you replace the monarchy if you could?

Personally, a President elected in line with ROI would be my preference with a fixed term(s). Still, largely ceremonial with no real constitutional power, but taking away the hereditary wealth and influence aspect.

Edit: and if Charles wanted to be the first President of the UK he should then put his name forward for nomination/election. Even William. But it should no longer be hereditary IMO.

I'd want a presidency with limited power to begin with to keep things largely the same, trying to overhaul the entire system in one go and completely shifting around roles would be a bit too much imho and can be done over time. I think something we've seen is the PM can be completely unchecked at times and make a mockery of the whole system.

I'd want the following to be how the presidency works:
- Must not have had any role in Parliament, the government or been a member of a political party in the last 10 years and must never have been the leader of any party (to basically make it difficult for the current government to also control the presidency and hopefully get a less political candidate)
- The president must have been living in the UK for at least 25 years or be a natural born citizen
- The president will be elected to a 10 year term with the option to run for a second term but not a third.

Powers
- The president shall have the power to veto legislation and refer it to the supreme court if they suspect illegality. This cannot be overturned by Parliament
- The president shall also have the power to block legislation if they simply wish for it to be reconsidered (in a similar way to the Lords), this can be overturned by Parliament.
- The president rather than the Prime Minister shall be the upholder of Parliamentary rules. These rules are to be strengthened and the president will have the power to enforce compliance and recommend punishment as required.
- The president shall have the power to declare any member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister as unfit for office if they are shown to have breached serious rules. The supreme court will examine the case and, if found to be true, that person is removed from their seat and barred from Parliament or the presidency.

Basically I'd want the role as head of state to be to oversee the government and ensure they aren't being absolute ***s like the current lot rather than being a leader as the US president is. I'd also want the lords reformed to be a proportionally representative senate but there you go...

 

[Welsh Exile]

Best for who?

For everyone. Even the Royals themselves.

 

[McTallshort]

For everyone. Even the Royals themselves.

Yeah, not convinced we would be better off as a republic. Can understand the thinking behind it but not sure it would make things in Britain any better.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Yeah, not convinced we would be better off as a republic. Can understand the thinking behind it but not sure it would make things in Britain any better.

I guess it depends on what you define as "better"

If you're looking at it from a purely democratic point of view then it's not really subjective. Having more representation in a democracy is obviously a good thing. Getting rid of an unelected head of state and replacing with an elected one is better. I don't see any debate there.

And that's before you even get into the symbolism of empire and inequality which the monarchy epitomises. So even if you said to me that getting rid of the monarchy in the short term will lead to political unrest and/or financial troubles, I would see the need for moving our society into a more fair, equal and representative democracy as outweighing that. Needless to say I don't think you would see those things but just laying out how I would prioritise things.

And I'd add that the Royals will be better off as we'd remove that so called heavy burden on them that Royalists always bang on about. They could vote in a republic and be a normal person.

 

[die_mole]

tyfys mike tindall

 

[McTallshort]

I guess it depends on what you define as "better"

If you're looking at it from a purely democratic point of view then it's not really subjective. Having more representation in a democracy is obviously a good thing. Getting rid of an unelected head of state and replacing with an elected one is better. I don't see any debate there.

And that's before you even get into the symbolism of empire and inequality which the monarchy epitomises. So even if you said to me that getting rid of the monarchy in the short term will lead to political unrest and/or financial troubles, I would see the need for moving our society into a more fair, equal and representative democracy as outweighing that. Needless to say I don't think you would see those things but just laying out how I would prioritise things.

And I'd add that the Royals will be better off as we'd remove that so called heavy burden on them that Royalists always bang on about. They could vote in a republic and be a normal person.

It's only better if the elected head of state is separate to the party in power. What I do like about our system is the head of state is separate and neutral to the coming and goings of party politics. Seeing the Queen sitting on her own at her husband's funeral made Boris and his mobs lockdown **** ups look particularly bad.

I'm also not convinced that getting rid of the monarchy as head of state will make society any fairer. Is society fairer and more equal in the states? There are many reasons for an unfair society and I'm not sure the royal family has made that situation worse.

The biggest concern I would have would be the process of getting rid of the monarchy. What ever the process would be it would be very decisive and very emotional, far more than Brexit and we are still very very sore about that 7 years later.

Like I said I believe in democracy so I do see the democratic argument for a republic but I also don't believe it's the complete answer and that the current problems in our society have very little to do with the royals and more with our political process and that really needs solving first

 

[Welsh Exile]

It's only better if the elected head of state is separate to the party in power. What I do like about our system is the head of state is separate and neutral to the coming and goings of party politics. Seeing the Queen sitting on her own at her husband's funeral made Boris and his mobs lockdown **** ups look particularly bad.

I'm also not convinced that getting rid of the monarchy as head of state will make society any fairer. Is society fairer and more equal in the states? There are many reasons for an unfair society and I'm not sure the royal family has made that situation worse.

The biggest concern I would have would be the process of getting rid of the monarchy. What ever the process would be it would be very decisive and very emotional, far more than Brexit and we are still very very sore about that 7 years later.

Like I said I believe in democracy so I do see the democratic argument for a republic but I also don't believe it's the complete answer and that the current problems in our society have very little to do with the royals and more with our political process and that really needs solving first

It's not meant to solve all of our problems. It's good that you concede the democratic point as that was the main one I was making. You say you're a democrat so I assume you wouldn't want a return to the feudal system. That's it.

And again, speaking of democracies then America is a fairer and more equal society. Obviously they have their own present day problems caused from their past just like we have but the best thing they did was saying **** you to the King of England.

Getting rid of the the biggest landlords in the world that they have gained from a long history of oppression is infinitely, by definition, making the country a fairer place. I wouldn't let a potentially tricky process stop me from doing something I believe is morally right.

I honestly don't know how people can watch this and not feel sick. ****, you only have to look at that disgusting crown of which upon it have jewels we stole from countries we deemed barbaric and uncivilised as a present day reminder of how unequal and unfair we oppressed numerous people from around the world. Looking at the establishment and more depressingly ordinary people being proud of this is gross in the extreme.

 

[McTallshort]

It's not meant to solve all of our problems. It's good that you concede the democratic point as that was the main one I was making. You say you're a democrat so I assume you wouldn't want a return to the feudal system. That's it.

And again, speaking of democracies then America is a fairer and more equal society. Obviously they have their own present day problems caused from their past just like we have but the best thing they did was saying **** you to the King of England.

Getting rid of the the biggest landlords in the world that they have gained from a long history of oppression is infinitely, by definition, making the country a fairer place. I wouldn't let a potentially tricky process stop me from doing something I believe is morally right.

I honestly don't know how people can watch this and not feel sick. ****, you only have to look at that disgusting crown of which upon it have jewels we stole from countries we deemed barbaric and uncivilised as a present day reminder of how unequal and unfair we oppressed numerous people from around the world. Looking at the establishment and more depressingly ordinary people being proud of this is gross in the extreme.

How is America fairer and more equal?

It's certainly more divided and unstable.

 

[Welsh Exile]

How is America fairer and more equal?

It's certainly more divided and unstable.

It's more representative. They don't have an unelected Head of State.

 

[Welsh Exile]

I'd get rid of the electoral college but that's another matter.

 

[die_mole]

say what you want about the electoral college being "disenfranchising" and "undemocratic" it sure as hell makes election night and the period leading up the actual casting of electoral votes exciting as hell.