In principle i have nothing against the oath / affirmation you mentioned new Americans must take although its a bit of a mouthful and should be alot shorter. I think its important that new citizens declare they give up their loyalty to previous states and leaders on becoming Americans, sadly here in this country we have grossly failed in an attempt to create some form of State multicultural utopia which even Her Majesty’s Government has started to realise has flaws, thankfully Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition who should win the next election in less than 10 months have declared it a disaster or Britain and will take action on putting it to an end.

American patriotism and identity is a very interesting thing to me, it is great how everyone feels American at the same time as still remembering and respecting their ancestors homelands, especially in the case of Irish Americans. Here sadly in too many cases some people only feel attachment to their parents/ grandparents homelands instead of to this country aswell. It is much harder here as its not a nation of immigrants like America, but we could still learn alot on these matters from you guys.

Its also important for people to be loyal the country and serve it if required int he armed forces, but to have to say the entire thing you quoted is overkill.

I think our pledge that new citizens must also take,

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen

Covers everything, as national service is a duty and obligation for British citizens if there was a need for conscription. Sadly here though only new citizens must take the oath and pledge. We do not encourage young people in schools to make any form of pledge to country or oath to Queen where as so many schools in the USA have the pledge of allegiance.

I agree with you that following the Queen’s death the monarchy will be seriously weakened. Once she passes away, Australia and Canada along with many if not all of the other commonwealth realms will become republics. However whilst it will be weakened here in the UK its far from clear if it will come to an end, a recent poll showed 76% in favour of the monarchy continuing after the Queen’s death, so theres very little support for full change yet. If Prince Charles is an awful king then the monarchy will fall, but its quite possible that Prince William becomes king if the Queen does live a few more decades which she hopefully will do.

Agreed on the loss of the ww2 generation will mean theres less loyal supporters of the monarchy, although this is partly down to a failure in our education system. many young people here are not just disloyal to their Queen but disloyal to our country because we have become so liberal. Plenty of young people do still support the monarchy and especially the Queen but time will tell.

Interesting question on who would we have as president. This is one of my concerns, i can not think of anyone id rather have as my head of state than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. We would end up with a political head of state and im sorry but there is just no one from politics that i would want as my president. it just doesnt feel right. It makes me cringe the way Republicans cringe about the monarchy.

I do not oppose reforms to the monarchy and entire system of government in this country, i have suggested many things that could be done to address many of Republics concerns. However now is not the time. British troops are involved in a war our government does not take seriously, the government should not be distracted even more. We have an endless amount of urgent problems that need to be addressed at home for the survival of the very country, not least crushing separatism and radical islamist extremism. Reforms will take place following the Queen’s death, its not a priority right now.

All i am saying is, when you vote for a person as President someone like Tony bliar because of his talents is more likely to win. The different set ups and distribution of power is another matter. Ofcourse it does create a complication when you must elect two people to be leaders of a country. This is a bit like the problem if England got its own parliament and first minister. Would i want david Cameron to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? or First Minister of England? One things for sure i would not want him to be my president and head of state, despite wanting him to win the next election. I do not view Cameron, Brown, or any of the others as a unifying force the way Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is who has support from people of every political POV including it appears some separatists.

The point about other countries costs rising was to highlight its not just the Queen and monarchy that has to increase its spending sometimes. I think considering the level of support for monarchy the fact it hasnt been increased for so long is rather shocking. When every other budget in the past 10 years has seen huge increases, with the exception of defence sadly.

I think you will find the British people can remove the monarchy if we want, we just do not want to. Following the Queens death that may change, but that is a matter for then. Right now, without doubt the British people will never want nor seek to remove Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from her rightful throne.

The only oath I’ve taken similar to this was when I volunteered for military service. It was odd for me because I came to believe that George W. Bush and his administration were “domestic enemies” of the U.S. Constitution.

I chose to go into the U.S. military, but I don’t like new U.S. citizens being compelled to agree to “bear arms, perform noncombatant service,” or do “work of national importance” — the involuntary aspect of those things (being forced into the military or forced to do vaguely define “work of national importance”) isn’t very democratic or free.

If the UK becomes a republic, I imagine you would have a citizenship oath (and a new oath for your military personnel) affirming fidelity to your nation’s new constitution and your laws (instead of to a monarch). I hope you don’t compel new citizens to agree to involuntary military service or “work of national importance.”

I don’t believe the UK monarchy will survive very long after the demise of the current monarch. She seems to have been mostly careful to remain aloof from partisan politics and her personal life hasn’t been as publicly messy as her oldest son’s. I think several factors will contribute to the UK becoming a republic: Charles becoming king (I don’t think he will be popular), the gradual dying off of the WWII generation (who may tend to have more traditional views of the crown), reform of the House of Lords (maybe into an elected senate like Canada – seems like this could facilitate other major and radical changes), increasing economic pressures from globalization, a non-Christian or openly atheist UK prime minister, and perhaps a strong executive in the European Union. Could a reformed House of Lords have elected members from non-geographic constituencies (e.g., seats for universities, charities, spiritual/ethical leaders, industry, arts, etc.)?

Although I am itrigued about your ideas for reform and I wish you well, you don’t need the interference of people outside of the UK. I do think it is commendable that you are exchanging ideas and are interested in democratic reform for your nation. So many people are too apathetic and I think your engagement and initiative is great.

Just curious, can you visualize (and name) anyone as a potential UK president or head of state? Could it be a person who was previously active in partisan politics? Could it be someone who had a career as an artist, writer, or academic? Would your president have veto power over legislation (something like a monarch withholding Royal Assent). Would your president have pardon power (you don’t have the death penalty, but pardons or commutations of prison sentences, or pardons restoring certain civil rights lost by serious crimes).

If you base your loyalty to the monarchy on their conduct then why do you oppose a better system that would ensure that the head of state acted in the best interests of the country, rather than hoping they do, as in our current system.

Also you seem to think that a president would have all the powers of the prime minister, which is not the case. They would have reserve powers but would be limited by the constitution. Plus a 50% run-off system would ensure that any successful candidate was thoroughly challenged. You seem to be under the impression that the system would be as unregulated and uncontrolled as the current one.

Regarding the presidents who are increasing expenses, the same applies to them as to the monarch. You highlighting where presidents have done some the same as the increase of the civil list doesn’t help your arguments. A president may have far more checks upon their financial increase, and can always be removed by election or impeachment. None this applies to the monarch, only showing that the Windsor’s are above the system and must be removed and replaced by a democratic state structure.

I have pletny of spare time and i quite enjoy the conversation here so i dedicate a little time each day or as often as possible to try and respond to posts or make a comment if i disagree with something being said. Whilst republic may be a small organisation and we all know it will never result in the Queen being removed from her throne, considering the media attention this organisation does get which is rather alarming in some respects, i do see a need to take an interest, especially if for example i dispute certain facts. Like seeing someone say the monarchy costs…. on the BBC or say Ireland costs….. when it is not completly accurate.

On Prince Charles, yes indeed he does have to do something, as do all the royals. The Royal family and monarchy for it to remain must be productive, ofcourse we can dispute if it is or isnt productive, but it needs to be. Although in the case of Prince Charles i think he does have a genuine interest in enviornmental matters, its not like hes randomly picked it as a hobby.

I am no police expert, i dont know the inner details of the method of kettling, all i do know is that there were 10,000s of protestors, quite a few of them potentially violent ones who were in the center of this capital city, the heart of our financial center and indeed one of the worlds leading financial centers. Things could of got far more out of control than they did. The policing methods worked overall, its just a few bad officers stepped over the line in the action they took. That could be blamed on training or just on the men themselves, but those incidents were not directly caused by Kettling.

The point about the protestors must take some of the blame is because they used violence and caused trouble. Sadly as is often the case a minority act out and the majority are impacted. If it was a peaceful protest like we saw with the anti Iraq war march then there would not have been a need for the sort of policing seen. But there were anarachists involved in the g20 protests, there always are and in every single country such summits are held in the police must take a firm line. There was one recently in the USA, theres tons of videos on youtube about students moaning about their human rights being violated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-cxHC_JU8o

The Americans used some new sonic device, rubber bullets, tear gas and more. I am deeply sorry for the death of Ian during the protests here, the policeman responsible should be punished because the video clearly showed there was no need to use force to bring him to the ground. But our police tactics are so restrained and reasonable compared to other “civilized” countries. Basically, people should avoid the summit protests because they always turn violent

No one is perfect, i am sure everyone has broken one law or two at some point in their life, but in the case of serious protests on our streets, there is a need to maintain order and sometimes that requires force.

We could elect our head of government if we want without abolishing the monarchy, however i see benefits to our system where its far more about the party than the person (although i do think that a change of Prime Minister should result in an election). Gordon Brown would be totally screwed and stand no chance of winning a presidential election today because we all hate his guts, but because he is simply the leader of a party and people support that party his defeat is far from certain. The point is in a simple vote where we elect a leader, someone with blairs talents is MORE likely to be elected than Gordon Brown. Id rather have the deeper thinker like Brown (whos only real problem if we are honest is hes come in at the end and has had to deal with all the mess caused by bliar). I except in recent times we have had more of a presidential like system because of bliar, but the core principles of the party over personality is still there.

Yes i am loyal to our Queen. I have no problem being loyal to the Queen of my country. It is not unconditional loyalty, if she started shooting people in the street then even i would rethink my support for the monarchy. I think the monarchy acts in the interests of this country, the increase in the civil list is just accepting the reality that there are rising costs and considering the last time it was increased its hardly unreasonable. As i highlighted in my post the other day, even republics have had their presidential costs rise. Are those presidents no longer acting in the interests of their people and must be removed?

I have never said the monarchy is the only thing to be proud of or that people must take pride in it. I think the monarchy is a good symbol of our nation and as i pointed out with the union flag and eclub mentioned about the American flag, not everyone is happy with that as a symbol. It can never be perfect.