15 Feb 2010
Fairly frequently during the course of this debate I’m asked: “Do we need a head of state at all?” My answer is an unequivocal “Well, yes and no”. While theoretically it is not essential, I believe it’s a job that needs to be done and which can play an important role in our political system.
Strictly speaking, we can do without a separate head of state or any person being granted that title. There is no law of nature that says we must have a head of state, and we could no doubt do just fine with just a prime minister as head of government. However, whether we like it not, there will still be duties to perform that were previously performed by the monarch. There are also duties that could be performed by an elected head of state that cannot be carried out by a monarch.
For the past 200 years we’ve seen the international stage become dominated by the ‘nation-state’, until by the time of the post colonial period every square inch of land on the planet (aside from Antarctica) was enclosed within a state’s borders. This process has been matched by a growth and deepening of formalised international relations. This formalisation has marked out a distinction between heads of state and heads of government, even if in many countries the two positions are held by the same person, and with that distinction comes a set of duties each state is expected to assign to someone – whether in terms of state visits or the issuing of diplomatic status and so on. So getting rid of the office of head of state won’t remove the duties of head of state. Yes, the PM could do this, by why give the head of government more responsibilities and more work?
I suspect that what lies behind the original question (do we need a head of state?) is a perception that it is purely ceremonial, and that it will always be purely ceremonial. Certainly looking at the monarch one can be forgiven for thinking that it’s a pointless position. But it can in fact be a very important and useful office of state.
Republican democracy is about separating or diluting power so no single person or office has the power to enact decisions without there being proper checks and balances, without accountability. In a parliamentary democracy a president can play a useful role in this regard. Parliament can debate and decide laws, government can set the political agenda, opposition parties can play their role in holding government to account – and the head of state can act as umpire and arbiter.
The Queen has this role too, but because she is entirely unaccountable, and because she knows that to use her power would be to jeopardise the monarchy, she abdicates that role and leaves the nation without an effective head of state. As a result we have a parliament left to police itself at a time of scandal and crisis and a government able to do as it pleases for stretches of four or five years.
A president would be accountable for their actions, and that accountability empowers them to act when necessary. I can cite a few examples of the role a president of Britain could play.
Over the past twelve months politics has been in crisis, with around half of all elected MPs accused of abusing the expenses system and with confidence in parliament plummeting. Some conservatives have gone so far as to call for the Queen to intervene, but of course she couldn’t do a thing (and nor should she). But a president could have acted. She could have instigated her own investigations and she could have insisted that she, not MPs, conduct inquiries and bring forward recommendations, thereby providing an independent but democratically legitimate response to the crisis. If parliament got into a more serious crisis the president could, as a last resort, dissolve parliament and call fresh elections.
In a republic the people should be sovereign, so it stands to reason that there are certain ‘red lines’ which parliament should not cross without specifically asking the people first. In other words, some actions by parliament would be unconstitutional unless popular consent is received by referendum. Examples would include the signing and ratifying of treaties, whether with the US on extradition or with the EU. If parliament passed an Act that the president deemed unconstitutional she could refuse to give it final assent, sending it off to the constitutional court for judgement.
There is a lot of speculation at the moment about the prospect of a hung parliament after the next election. It’s happened before in Britain and no doubt it will happen again, if not this election then another. If parliament finds it difficult to agree on a stable government, or finds it difficult to agree any government, the president can act as arbiter, bringing parties together and assessing which leader has the best chance of forming a stable coalition or minority government. The Queen can do this too, but this is a difficult task to perform with many potential hazards for the head of state. Get it wrong and the people have the right to hold you to account for your actions and choices.
I have just written to the Queen asking to know the criteria that will help her decide who to ask to form a government in the event of a hung parliament. In the letter I asked:
It is entirely possible that Labour could win more seats than the Conservatives, while the Conservatives win more votes overall (or vice versa). Would you make the decision based on number of seats or number of votes? Or would you take the view that the incumbent (regardless of votes or seats) should be allowed to remain in office until they lose a vote of confidence in parliament, should they choose to do so?
As you are aware, your decision in the hours and days immediately after election day could give a political advantage to one or the other of the two main party leaders. A perception of royal approval could quickly change the dynamics of a debate about who should rightly form the next government. That could be dangerous for parliament and for the monarchy.
This is not a clear cut decision, and I believe the electorate should be told how the decision will be made before the election result is known, to avoid any doubt or suggestion that the decision has been made to favour one side or another.
The importance of the decision over who to call is of huge importance to the country. It is a decision that must be made by someone who is accountable and who answers to the people. It is not a decision that can be made by the prime minister, obviously. The only sensible candidate is the head of state, but it’s not a job that can be left to someone who knows no accountability and who lives in secrecy, shrouded by deference.
The job of head of state is an important one. Yes, much of the time it is tied up with ceremonial duties, representing the nation. We shouldn’t underestimate the value of that work. But from time to time there are crucial political and constitutional decisions to make, decisions that cannot be left to a monarch. There is a job to be done for a British head of state, now we need a head of state who can do that job.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 15th, 2010 at 1:23 pm and is filed under A future republic, British constitution, Case for a republic, Constitutional reform, Models of republics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
February 15th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Well the United States of America manages by just having one guy be both head of government and head of state, i guess thats working so well that something we all agree on here is the fact the american system is dangerous and we dont want it here.
I would just like to say to our American friends.. Happy President’s Day! Let us all celebrate and honour the great American presidents. Sadly ofcourse some take it a step too far and start worshipping the President.
I came across another video today as i was looking for clips about presidents day. This one is a classic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYoHXpbHD4E
School children singing a song about praying for their president, it should have a content warning because i came close to throwing up. I just cant wait for a political leader who has powers to get involved in matters of government who we can all worship here. Bring on the republic, all hail the President.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
As for the point about who would the Queen ask to form her next government, that would be the party with the largest number of seats, the number of votes do not matter in our current electoral system even if people think they should.
The conservative party actually got more votes in England in 2005 than labour did, it didnt stop the labour party winning by far the most seats and having a right to govern.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Simon, the point about Tory votes in England is irrelevant here. In 2005 Labour won an absolute majority and so there was no debate about who should be in government. If you have an issue with the fairness of that particular situation then you need to look instead at the Union or the electoral system.
It isn’t simply a matter of who has most seats. In 1974 Wilson had the most seats but Heath was allowed to stay on and try and form a coalition. He failed and Wilson was given the chance to form a government instead.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
We do not want , or need, any kind of leader at “the top”, be it president ,king,queen or whatever ,who is worshipped . We just want someone elected who can do the job. “Worship” of any individuals makes me feel a bit sick too.
February 15th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
“School children singing a song about praying for their president, it should have a content warning because i came close to throwing up. I just cant wait for a political leader who has powers to get involved in matters of government who we can all worship here. Bring on the republic, all hail the President.”
Isn’t that like accusing Buddhists of idol worshipping?
February 15th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
LOL, I almost fell to the ground laughing at Simon talking about “Worshiping” the President by School Kids….
Simon calling someone Idol worshipper is almost like being called Ugly by a Frog..
[Still laughing ]
February 15th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Britain’s constitutional monarchy is one of its greatest strengths as well as one of its greatest attractions. The monarch is detached from party politics in a way no president could be. For years, the existence of a monarchy was the guarantee that no would-be dictator could stage a coup by deploying troops, as the monarch controls the armed services. No latter-day Cromwell could win power by force. We have had no civil war since Cromwell’s and much of that is due to having had a constitutional monarchy as a focus of loyalty.
They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic?
February 15th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Graham,
I dont have a big problem with the current electoral system, the basic principle is that the number of seats matters the most and it has nothing to do with the number of votes. Even if a government is given the chance to form a coalition its based on seats that one party + a second party are able to obtain, not on their numbers of votes which are totally irrelevant. This ofcourse is the same as in the United States where George W Bush lost on the popular vote but won on the electoral college. It took some time to decide who had won the Scottish election in 2007, i would think constitutional experts would be taking that into account in the advise they give to Her Majesty on this matter. But its very unlikely we are in that position, labour or the conservatives will clearly win this election.
Barry,
Sadly in republics the system of having someone “at the top” remains. I quite like Switzerlands methods when it comes to a head of state in a republic. That sounds as though it would be the sort of thing you would prefer aswell.
Ash + Eclub2
There is a big difference between being loyal and respecting ones Queen compared to hero worship of a politician who is heavily involved in politics and the governing of the country. It is dangerous and clear indoctrination in favour of a certain political party or agenda. I love how in this country we feel no real loyalty to our Prime Minister, he is there to just “do a job” as Barry put it.
When the Queen comes on a visit, everyone waves their flags and engages in patriotism. I do not want that sort of thing taking place towards a president as we see in the United States.
There is nothing sick about this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUTeRGigUjU
It fills me with great pride. This is British Culture and tradition, it is such ashame that some would have us do away with it yet they would be the first to defend other cultures and nations, like the right for african tribes to carry out some of their disgusting things that we would call torture or abuse here.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Jack:
No one could become the dictator because that slot is already occupied.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I notice that the constitutional monarchies are the most democratic countries of Europe. I can’t understand how there could be any debate about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_index
February 15th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
@Simon:
Let me start off by saying something in response to the topic at hand so we don’t get heckled for going off topic, then, I will respond to your comment, Simon, please stay with me on this, don’t abandon the debate afterwords, stay and debate.
First to Grahams post, I find it rather timid that we are debating whether a Country needs a head of state, of course a country needs a head of state. Secondly, why re-invent the wheel? The United States have been in the business of a republic for a very long time, and most of the founding fathers were of the British extract, why not do a wholesome embrace of the US format? Why buy into the notion that the American system is somehow flawed? Only someone who doesn’t understand the American System will even make such assertions. The American system is truly government of the people as much as can be humanly possible. Yes, it can be tweaked in better for those starting from scratch to put together a written constitution, they can for instance trim the edges on the excesses of both power and money in the system, but the basics must not be tinkered with. Britain should copy the American system almost verbatim. There! I said it. The Republic should have a model ready before this campaign continues; it’s more difficult to try to recruit supporters without giving them details of what type of republic we are talking about. Embrace the American model, that’s my suggestion.
Now, to Simon on the following quote:
Once an American’s President retires or is voted out of office, they lose their aura almost instantly. They become just another citizen. They are at times unable to attract attention of the press; some even get the finger in super markets. Try a search on You-Tube, and you’ll get some results on that. That shows you that the respect they enjoy during their tenure as President is mainly for the office of the Presidency. Not the individual. To further buttress this point, the United states has currently about 4 living ex-Presidents. Contrast that with a Queen or King, oh I forgot, there is no such thing as a retired King or Queen, or one voted out of office. That speaks volumes.
February 15th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
A dead squirrel is also detached from party politics, what’s your point? As the monarch isn’t capable of playing a meaningful role without jeopardising the institution she occupies this is irrelevant.
A classic monarchist fantasy. How many coups have their been in monarchies around the world? Lots. How many coups in the US? How many in post-war Germany, France, Italy or Finland? Greece had a coup, they also had a King. Spain had an attempted coup, and a King.
It’s a fair bet that none of it is due to having a constitutional monarchy. If you have any evidence to the contrary I’d love to hear about it.
@eclub1 – there is nothing timid about debating the question of the head of state. It seems a rather odd point to make. We have a head of state. Some people question the need for one. Nothing more to it than that.
There is no reinvention of the wheel going on. The US constitution is not the only model of republic in use, parliamentary republics are common in Europe, most notably with our nearest neighbour, Ireland. That is a model that best fits the British tradition of parliamentary democracy – it also best avoids the un-republican desire for hero worship and idolisation of individuals. Parliamentary democracy is about collective rule, the people coming together to work out their own problems, not selecting a single leader to sort the problems out for them. Personally I think it’s a far superior form of government to what you have in the US.
I fully appreciate that originally the US Congress was supposed to be the dominant body in the constitution, but clearly putting one office on a pedestal has caused it to attract power much the same way the office of PM has in this county. So a better entrenched form of parliamentary democracy would be preferable… one which emphasised the role of parliament over that of individual offices of state.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
There’s a BIG difference between playing a role in SECRET and not playing a meaningful role when it comes to politics and a nation. The monarch at the minimum is doing the former. The monarch is not Apolitical.
[oh look my recapture says 'donut' and it's making me crave one]
February 15th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Monarchy is often criticised for being a lottery, but so is an elected presidency. Britain last had to play the regal lottery in 1952, when it won handsomely. It has not had to gamble again since then. In the past 45 years Ireland has had to vote in seven presidents, few of them memorable, most of them just grazing.
We have had just one head of state, who has performed her duties superbly. Throughout a time of immense social change, indeed revolution, the centre of the British system has remained calm and outside party politics. That is an incalculable asset which no republic can come close to matching.
________________________________________________________
‘Monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all.’
Aristotle, 322-384 BC.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Eclub,
The American system of republic is deeply flawed, one of the few things i agree with most of the republicans here on is that if we became a republic we shouldnt have the US system.
Well thats not entirely true, Americans still call their former presidents “president”. I must have heard President Clinton atleast 50 times on the news this year alone. They keep their access to high level CIA briefings, the same that sitting presidents get. So they aint just back to “normal citizens”. Bush still has his cult following and once Obama leaves office so will he.
But this is my concern. People feel a sense of respect and in many cases loyalty towards the office of the presidency and the person who holds it. Thats dangerous, we do not have such loyalty towards our prime minister here.
When the British people want to remove the monarchy we can. The Australians had a referendum on becoming a republic but the people rejected it.
Queen Elizabeth II has been on the throne my whole life, i know nothing other than being one of her many proud and loyal subjects. I like that sort of stability in a time when this nation has radically changed over the past few decades. Sure much of that change has been for the good, we are a more tolerant, open nation. Old traditions which were bad have been washed away with time, i fail to see why we should rid our nation of our monarchy. It is part of our history, culture, tradition and identity. Why do we have to copy France, or Ireland, or the United States? I see flaws in all of your republican systems.
Following the Queens death it will be time for reflection, more will certainly want to become a republic then than they do now but unless there is a solid plan for this grand new republic which people here want, i wouldnt put any money on it coming about. The trouble is people here can say “the best system is… and we will do this and that to ensure we create the best republic, but people here aint and never will be in power. The people who are in power are the ones Republicans say support the monarchy because it gives them power… So why would they give that power away when becoming a republic? theyd create a flawed unaccountable system. No one can put their hand on their heart here and honestly say they trust Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron to design a perfect republic.
I fail to see why we should change our current system which still has many benefits until that “perfect republic” is obtainable, and even if it was id never be so disloyal to as to support a republic whilst Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Eclub..
Whilst i strongly oppose the US system of Republic, there are certain things in the United States if we were to become a republic that i would love to see here.
I love the patriotism that exists in America. Id love to see kids here pledging to flag and country in all our schools like American kids do. There are dangers to flag worship like you have in the states, i happen to think its safer for us to care about Queen and country, instead of making such a big deal on a bit of cloth that can be made in china and burned by the truck load in the middle east to annoy americans. There the flag is seen to represent everything the American republic stands for, but you see in this country many of us feel the Queen represents our nation and what it stands for. Our tradition, culture etc.
But if we get rid of the monarchy, we would have to place a bigger deal on the flag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB8UmuCQt2U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLDean37gR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOMWqFngOcY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04uT5IZnqlU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX3rv6Nn2PI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHdKcecaSvY
Id love to see that sort of thing in British schools if we become a republic. Its very cool. We would have to just make sure patriotism is not directed at the president, because thats what often happens in the USA and its that which i find dangerous, disturbing and in some cases sickening.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
To: Graham,
I started off writing a very long counter argument to your post, I decided to erase it and wait for a more appropriate and direct Blog to tackle the issue of the Best Type of Republic, this is very very important debate to have, and to decide once and for all what type of Republic the Campaign should pursue.
However, I can counter punch now with the following ‘Do Nots’:
I don’t think tradition has any role to play when it comes to making a decision on what type of system is best for a country. I fervently urge you to always follow the best way of doing things regardless of who gets the credit, or what conservatives and traditionalists say. I know because of your duties, you hear a lot of suggestions and counter-suggestions, and you try not to step on any toes, and you try to massage the public into buying the change we desire, but we must not sacrifice principles, especially compromise for the sake of compromise. Britain is the most anti-republic country I know because of the the tradition of monarchy, therefore, we must borrow very little from her traditions when we seek Republicanism.
The proximity of the nearest republic should not be a factor. The fact that Ireland is closer to Britain than United States should not make Ireland’s republic a better model. I know you didn’t mean or imply that, but, just in case an unscrupulous reader, or even careless one, misses a spin on your comment’s interpretament.
The sort of hero worship enjoyed by Presidents in a republic, any republic that is democratic, that is to say, open for competition and anybody can be one according to their talents and wit, is normal and human nature. Nobody should begrudge a popular President from being liked and worshiped even, as far as it is not mandatory or automatic. You will always have political stars. But the real issue is that the President got their by the choice of the people, not by hereditary. Let us take President Obama for example, he came into office as one of the most beloved, respected, hero-worshiped of all Presidents in USA, but that has not translated into passing many of his agenda. So, what does it matter if he is beloved as long as it doesn’t make him a King or dictator? People should be free to hero-worship anyone they want to. Please do not choose or dismiss the type of republic based on this factor.
Finally, you speak as if we only have the Presidency; remember we also have the congress? When you said
I was surprised. Why are you comparing the British Parliament to the Presidency of the US, or equating it with republicanism? You should compare Parliament to Congress, Monarch to President.
[Do not fall into the trap of comparing Prime Minister to President because it is absurd, I will hold that debate with Simon].
February 15th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Simon,
What can I say? You just made me watch almost a dozen You-Tube Videos for nothing. I have no disagreement with you on your post#16. The President of the United States is not worshiped by anyone I know. It’s the most powerful position in the free world, so naturally it has it’s perks. But it is only as powerful as his popularity. If you recall in the early 1970’s ( you probably were just a blastocyct, if anything at all, at the time) a President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon stated “If the President does it, it means it’s not against the law”, and he was removed from office because of that statement, after he had just won 48 out of 50 states, a landslide victory. So, that should tell you something. The US indeed government of the people by the people for the people. Imagine if a King or Queen says that, everybody will likely chorus “Yes, it’s your government”!
February 15th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Simon
“When the British people want to remove the monarchy we can.”
…and how do we do that then?
” i know nothing other than being one of her many proud and loyal subjects”
So you are a subject, a chattel of the Crown?
“I like that sort of stability in a time when this nation has radically changed over the past few decades.”
Some stability. Since 1945, Britain has been involved in 40 armed conflicts only one of which was predicted well in advance. (Not including domestic conflict from 1972 and international terrorism right up until the present day).
“But if we get rid of the monarchy, we would have to place a bigger deal on the flag. “
Says who? Many Republicans would prefer to place the attention of power on a formal Constitution. How that is symbolised is up for debate. And besides, what would be wrong with respecting the symbolism in a flag?
February 16th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Simon: NOT SO FAST
What do all the above names you mentioned have in common? THEY ARE MONARCHISTS!
If you want to give examples of people putting together a republic, try Graham, Gray, Martin G, Liam, Cooper, and so forth….
February 16th, 2010 at 8:18 am
eclub – Republic has decided on the best model of Republic. It has nothing to do with which country is closer (obviously) but which system is preferable. “The Irish system” is just shorthand for the sort of republic we aim for, it is not being proposed that we copy and paste the Irish constitution and use it over here.
It is necessary to look at a country’s political traditions. This is not tradition in the sense normally used – habits clung to out of nostalgia or fear – it is about creating a system that fits the people of the country it is there to serve. Politics and constitutional reform cannot be done as some kind of thought experiment, ignoring the people, it has to be done in the context of the society it is supposed to help.
The comment about parliament v president is clear: there is a choice between a parliamentary republic and a presidential republic. In the latter the head of government is quite separate from parliament, in the former the head of government is a member of parliament. That is a crucial difference. The PM is not (at least shouldn’t be) a ’supreme’ leader, a ‘commander-in-chief’. The PM is supposed to be ‘first among equals’, little more than the Chair of Cabinet Government. It is the Cabinet collectively, all drawn from parliament, that should be holding executive power.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Graham,
I thank you for taking your precious time to respond to mine.
However, I must say this to you, I am unhappy about the whole thing. I do not see how this is going to garner any momentum at all.
First, on the issue of the best model for a republic, there’s no way the Irish Model can be it. When anybody thinks about a republic, which do they think about? The US model of course. There’s only one type of republic, the rest are simply hybrids resulting from compromises to the powers that be. The further a model strays from the US model, the more flawed it is; which means the closer it is to the US model, the more democratic and genuine it is.
Secondly, the type of democracy and republic cannot be dependent on the traditions of the people because there’s only one type of republic like I stated above; perhaps the pre-ambles of the constitution can recognize certain traditions and customs as long as those customs are democratic. I say there’s only one type of republic because, many countries have setup military dictatorships, and others similar authoritarian regimes and proceeded to put a ‘republic’ in the name of their country. Iran is one such country. But it doesn’t stop there. Any country that doesn’t have three branches of government: Executive (presidency), Legislative (congress), and Judiciary (the courts), clearly separated powers with check and balances between them, is not a republic in the terms we are speaking about. They are something else and just going by the name republic. A republic must have this factor in my opinion. The President cannot be ceremonial; the President must be elected by all eligible voters. The President’s powers must be clearly delineated in the constitution, as well as the powers of the other two branches. In essence what I am saying, the republic must be like the US set up or it is flawed.
Finally, there’s is nothing novel about some members of Parliament forming the government. That was simply an accidental system based on the tug and fight for power between ‘The Monarch’ and members of ‘Parliament’. Nobody can start of devising such a system. The Parliament should only make laws. The Parliament should not make laws, interpret it, enforce it, and so forth. The Prime Minister as I have been saying to you, is a member of Parliament. I know you want to sell him as President or King or whatever, but I know what he is. He is a member of Parliament that due to political party gains in Parliament becomes the leader and forms a government; yet nobody voted for him to be President or king. Why is that a big deal? In the US congress, say in the House of Representatives, the party that wins the most votes also selects one member to be ‘Speaker’, another member to be ‘Majority Leader’, and yet other members to be this and that…., and in the Senate, you have the same thing. Why should the rest of the world jump up and down because a member of Parliament was chosen to be first amongst equals, and to be in charge of the government? Why is that unique? We have the same thing in the US, and many other countries have it as well. I know it it doesn’t substitute for President tho. Everyone in Britain wants to sell it like it is a substitute to electing someone, where every Citizen voted for. It is not. The equivalent of the President of the United States in UK would have been the Monarch, but the monarch came to power by dictatorial means, and consequently doesn’t have a mandate. It doesn’t make the monarch above the President, it makes the monarch less than the President. So we have a dilemma; the Prime Minister is simply a party boss and the monarch doesn’t have a mandate. We need to tell it like it is.
Unless you decide to discard other models and use the only model, the US model, I’m sorry, i will stop visiting and contributing here.
February 16th, 2010 at 9:38 am
eclub
There clearly isn’t only one type of republic, there are many. To assume that the US system is the only form of republic is rather bizarre.
I haven’t said the choice is dependent on tradition, but the political tradition of the country is always a factor, whether you or I like it or not.
Thirdly, in terms of momentum, all the evidence is that any move to get Britain to adopt a US style system would be dead in the water before it starts. The US system is not popular here, it is in fact one of the first objections people raise to the whole idea of being a republic, they say “what, like America? No thanks.”
Your penultimate paragraph seems to be going round and round in circles about monarchs, presidents and prime ministers. I’m not really clear what point you’re trying to make.
Funnily enough the membership of Republic are not going to change their views on what kind of republic they want in order to satisfy an anonymous blogger from the US.
February 16th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Graham,
The type of republic and democracy in the US doesn’t belong to the US, it is simply the best way to have the people govern themselves. It actually came about to free subjects from the reign of the same British system that you are fighting today. Why you don’t embrace it is what is bizarre. Sure, America is not popular in Europe, not just the political system, anything American. That is understandable. That only means that you do have work to do in educating the people that the system utilized in America doesn’t belong to America. You simply don’t abandon it because it is not popular, and settle for less. People become anti-American for many reasons. Some rae negative such as envy, jealousy, fear etc… and some reasons are justified, such as recent foreign policy adventures undertaken on America’s behalf. Some Americans don’t like the American system. But, the question is which system is more democratic and more republican, not which system is more popular. The average Brit will have a clear understanding of the American system above anything else. When you describe the system in Ireland, they will simply say “what’s the difference to what we have now? You are simply replacing her Majesty with a series of entities. Ceremonial is Ceremonial; Parliament is Parliament; No thank you, we’ll keep what we have”.
If the objection you get first is that they do NOT want to be like America, then you have an easy job. Make them understand the system in America. Based on Simon’s comments, you can see that people with average intelligence do not understand the political system deployed in the US. This is something a little education can cure.
The Brits love America deep down, they may not admit it; try pushing the American system and you will have support from everywhere, especially in Britain. Sure, there will be the macho talk of “America? forget it” and such. But, sooner or later, you’ll have a republic.
Let me just say this now, if Britain doesn’t go to republicanism and real democracy, democracy and republicanism will come to Britain.
Finally, on your final point about me as an anonymous blogger v the rest of the Republic members, you are right, but the real issue is what is best. What will ultimately succeed, not how many members you have now. How many members will you ultimately have, that is the question. Once you are guided by the principle of what is true, what is right, what is best, then you will succeed.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Yes, it is about what is more democratic and not what is more popular. I agree. And a parliamentary system is superior. It just so happens that it’s also more popular here too. I wasn’t suggesting we campaign on what’s popular (otherwise we’d campaign for a monarchy!), I was just answering your point about momentum.
It isn’t settling for less, it’s campaigning for the best system there is, a parliamentary republic in which our representatives collectively govern.
Not really. Most people think the president has all the power and have no real understanding of or interest in Congress.
Your point about Ireland is contradictory – you say if people don’t want the US system then explain it to them, but if they don’t want the Irish system we should just accept that and not explain it to them. How about campaigning for the best system and explaining whatever it is that needs explaining?
February 16th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Graham / eClub1
One of the main criticisms levelled at a system such as the American system is that it is too political (i.e. the political parties have a monopoly of power). This often results in impasse between the Senate and Congress such as seen recently with the attempt at healthcare reform in the United States.
Whilst the House of Lords in the UK has a fair smattering of political parties, fewer than a third of the members are crossbenchers (although the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform First Report acknowledges that there should not a majority of any one political party in the Upper House).
We are alos getting blurring around the edges with the tripartate balance of power with the executive now having judicial powers, the legislature also meddling in judicial matters and the judiciary also making up laws as they go along.
Reform may be needed root and branch but especially in the Pariliamentary system.
As I have mentioned on these pages before, one suggestion is to grant seats in the upper house to “chartered” organisations who can meet certain criteria regarding membership, openness, accessibility and so on. These organisations could include trades unions, professional bodies, voluntary sector, etc.
Citizens would have one vote to the legislature through the House of Commons (as at present) but would also get a vote to nominate their representative in the House of Lords (as is) by casting a single vote through their chosen “chartered” oragnisation.
The new upper house (let’s call it “The House of Constitution” for the time being) would essentially ratify new legislation against the formal Constitution.
The leader of the House of Constitution would effectively be the President and his or her primary tasks would be to act as keeper of the Constitution and act as Head of State.
In order to simplify elections for President, the House of Constitition may nominate, say, six people from their midst to stand in an open election.
By doing this, we can retain the present poltical format in the House of Commons, but create a more democratic and apolitical upper house and democratically elect (and unelect) our head of state. We all get one vote to the legislature, one vote to the Constitution and one vote to the head of state.
February 16th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Hi Martin
There’s no such thing as ‘apolitical legislators’. If people are being asked to make legislation that is a political act, and so opinions, philosophy and ideology will come to bear on those decisions. That’s why those who make legislation must have the consent of the people who will be bound by it.
The US political system is no reason to have anything other than a fully elected parliament. US politics is dominated by two right of centre parties for (at least) two reasons: money and the electoral system. A fully elected upper house in Britain would not suffer the same fate as we are already well down the road of creating a multi-party political culture and a decent electoral system will ensure that culture is properly represented in the upper house.
I’m not sure I get the point of the chartered organisations idea. All it would do is limit the choices of the people. Who would decide which organisations can be ‘chartered’? Why can’t the people elect candidates not representing organisations?
February 16th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
eclub1
I find myself in the rare situation of agreeing with Graham.
You said “The average Brit will have a clear understanding of the American system above anything else. ” In the next paragraph you go on to say “you can see that people with average intelligence do not understand the political system deployed in the US.”
These two statements are explicitly contradictory.
Perhaps you could explain your statement “Let me just say this now, if Britain doesn’t go to republicanism and real democracy, democracy and republicanism will come to Britain.” Is it really your belief that America will attempt to impose some sort of regime change on Britain?
Finally, you state that “Unless you decide to discard other models and use the only model, the US model, I’m sorry, i will stop visiting and contributing here.” This statements is more a reflection of your own intolerance rather than a valid criticism of the aims of Republic.
Paul.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Eclub,
This is indeed the case, you get hero worship in presidential systems and i think this is dangerous. I accept in more recent times thanks to the media we have a bit of that here with the likes of Tony bliar, but is still very much the case in this country that the party is bigger than its leader, labour is currently carrying Brown right now and without the party behind him he would be nothing.
If hero worship is normal and human nature then isnt it far better and safer for people to focus that attention on a sovereign who is not setting the political agenda? I am loyal to my Queen, i feel no loyalty to a prime minister. I still would like to see a conservative victory this year in the election, even though i dont really like its leader. Not feeling any loyalty to the “office of the Prime minister” means i can remain fully open minded about their actions and its not seen as unpatriotic to oppose the PM on certain things in the way disloyalty to ones President in the USA sometimes is, especially in times of war or crisis which are the most dangerous times to have such loyalty, like to Bush following 9/11.
No one should be forced to be loyal to the Queen here and i dont think that currently happens. Republicans in Britain do not live in fear or face any form of oppression, their biggest complaint i hear here is them moaning about the BBC being too nice to the monarchy. A monarch has to earn the respect and support of the people, if they fail then the monarchy will fall and this country will become a republic. Most people in this country and many internationally think the Queen has done a very good job in the almost 60 years she has been Queen, she earned our respect and support.. had she not done that we would be a republic today. Following her death people will be free to decide if they are satisfied with King Charles or King William, if they are not then we will become a republic. I do not see the point in getting rid of a popular sovereign, if we are happy whats the problem?
Ive said before id support some form of change to our constitutional setup so that following the death of a monarch it triggers a referendum on if we wish to keep the monarchy or not, wed basically be able to vote the new monarch to that position for life. We could also have a clear path to becoming a republic written into the constitution if one was created, but we are a democracy and the only way its going to come about is if people vote for republicans.
You mentioned Nixon, what punishment did he face for his crimes? He got off free. If we have a monarch who goes around shooting people or seeks to restore absolute monarchy in this country they will also be removed. If they need to be removed, we will remove them. As of yet ive seen no reason why we need to.
I do not understand how the US is more of a government for the people by the people than we have here. Just because we call it Her Majestys Government doesnt mean we dont decide who forms that government. The American system because it is depended on corporations and rich people is less about the people, even if that was the original founding principles of the American republic. Just because a constitution says “We the people” doesnt make it a reality. The Spanish constitution talks of the people being sovereign, yet it still has a monarchy.
Those democratic leaders are monarchists. As far as im aware Graham, Gray, Martin G, Liam, Cooper, and so forth are not running for Parliament or the leadership of a political party. Only when republicans are elected things may start to change. But very few republicans stand and theres only two minor parties which want a republic.
I have said this before but i think if someone is a republican it should be displayed on the ballot paper and all their campaign material. That way those wanting a republic can vote for them, but at the same time those who support the monarchy and a political party that supports the monarchy dont accidently vote a republican into parliament. That certainly happens with a few of our labour and lib dem MPs.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Martin G,
By voting for republican MPs or a Republican political party who will introduce a a bill calling for a referendum on abolishing the monarchy and creating a republic. This has happened in Australia and some of Her Majesty’s other realms. If the monarch attempts to block the wishes of our democratic representives then i think you will find attitudes towards the monarchy would radically change, including those of us who currently consider ourselves fully loyal to our Queen, we trust her to do the right thing and whilst some may have concerns about Prince Charles lobbying on matters relating to climate change or the enviornment, no one here i hope seriously think hes some form of dictator.
Supports of the monarchy shouldnt suggest that if we become a republic this nation will become a dictatorship, but republicans shouldnt be suggesting that the monarchy poses a direct threat to our freedom and they could control everything and take over or refuse to stand aside if thats the wish of the people.
I am British citizen that remains loyal to our glorious Queen.
I am not talking about stability based on peace and war. I mean British society has radically changed over the past few decades and its nice that one thing, the monarchy which represents our tradition and heritage has remained, it would be ashame to do away with that aswell.
There are dangers to making such a big deal of a constitution as well, ive mentioned some of the reasons why i think its risky to move towards a written constitution in present times. Important to remember the US president when he takes the oath, takes it to protect the constitution.. NOT the American people.
The flag is a symbol of the nation, i support that and think we should make a bigger deal of our flag here like the Americans do but many of us see the Queen and monarchy as a symbol of our nation and its heritage so why can we not respect that as well? Some in America take the flag very seriously, many would like to see flag burning banned and on several occasions politicians there have tried to pass such laws. It plays on the sort of nationalism which is dangerous when all you need to do is stick a cameron in some foreign country and show a group of them burning the US flag, we do not get as offended by seeing our flag burned as many in Americans do.
If a bit of cloth can be a symbol of a nation, why cant a living breathing person?
February 16th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
The only advantage to being on the other side of the Atlantic, for all of us, is the time difference; as I sleep, you blog, and as you sleep I respond.
I will be responding to Graham, Simon, and Paul in this one. This time around, it will be pithy comments due to time restraints.
Graham:
My comments were not contradictory at all. I was simply saying that if you explain the Ireland’s model to the Brit, he/she will immediately recognise it as the same system he/she currently have to wit: Parliament, Ceremonial Head of State etc; he/she will proceed to reason thus: “Why should I go through all these changes to have a parliament and a ceremonial head of state? That is exactly what i have now”. Granted he/she doesn’t in fact have a ceremonial head of state currently, he he/she believes that he/she does. But, if you do the hard work necessary to promote the system used in America as not the Property of Americans, and all the virtues that it brings, who can resist it? A government of the people by the people for the people; a government where the people delegate power to their representatives, a government with complete check and balances; a government where everyone is truly equal and have equal opportunities; a true republic; no micky-mouse experiments; no ceremonial shenanigans; just a clear cut republic, and not the hyphenated type. Whenever you see “the peoples republic”, or “parliamentary republic”, or “Islamic republic”, or “Her majesty’s republic”, or “the Military Republic”, or any other hyphenated republic, be wary. There is only one true republic, and that is the plain vanilla republic used by the US. Graham, when you said “Most people think the president has all the power and have no real understanding of or interest in Congress”, that is where your job becomes clear, to educate the poor souls about the Congress. The Congress of the United States is the most powerful, the most democratic, the most deliberative body the world has ever produced, and is far more powerful than the President of the United States. Only Congress has the power to declare war, spend money, and so forth, in the US. If you know that the average Brit doesn’t know or care about The US congress [no wonder this campaign has floundered], how lucky can you be? Make them understand Congress and 99% of your job is done. You will be mugged on the streets with people trying to sign up for this campaign!
To Simon:
You should look more into the US constitution; you should ascertain WHO is speaking, to WHOM, and on WHAT Occasion.
The Flag as a symbol represents something. The fifty stars on the flag represent the 50 states and the 13 stripes represent the original thirteen colonies that rebelled against the British monarchy and became the first states in the Union. Nicknames for the flag include the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory. There are etiquette involved with the flag as well as symbolism. I believe this is the case in most countries. The US just stands out more due to her role on the world stage. I have no problems with your interpretation, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to them. If you want people to have reverence for the Flag in the UK, the flag has to mean something to them. You simply can’t come out one day and command them to revere the Flag as they do in the US.
To Paul:
You started off by saying that you found yourself in rare agreement with Graham, I find myself in rare disagreement with him; which keeps me at 100% disagreement with you, and we have to do something about that.
What I meant by saying that either way democracy and republicanism will come to Britain is that the EU and her member states are seriously doing some of the things that should be done in-house. If Britain doesn’t give her Citizens equality of opportunity and sundry, outsiders will bring it on. that plus progress in other areas.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
To me, when it come to the core of things, the British monarchy and the American republic are 99% the same.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
I’m not even going to bother with this particular blog because I know fine well, Simon and Jack, that I will end up writing the same old responses to your same old rubbish.
@ Simon
“As far as im aware Graham, Gray, Martin G, Liam, Cooper, and so forth are not running for Parliament or the leadership of a political party.”
Not quite yet, sir. Give it fifteen years and I will. Can I count on your vote?
February 16th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
@Liam Finn
Can I offer something different? If you may. I’m a monarchist and I am new here as far as commenting. And I like republic’s suggestions. I do have some reservations on the views on republic and it’s supporter’s, but NOT like Simon or Jack and would like to come to an understanding with you guys. Any feedback?
February 17th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Simon,
“By voting for republican MPs or a Republican political party ”
and,
“Only when republicans are elected things may start to change. But very few republicans stand and theres only two minor parties which want a republic.”
I repeat myself for the umpteenth time: Convention, tradition, constitution, or whatever, basically means that IT IS TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL FOR A REPUBLICAN TO SIT IN EITHER CHAMBER OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. It is also “forbidden” to even discuss the monarchy or a republican agenda in said places.
That seems incredibly strange because every other walk of life – even fascists, racists and illegal warmongers – can happily take their seat providing they take an oath of loyalty to the monarch.
“I am British citizen that remains loyal to our glorious Queen.”
It was you who described yourself as a subject not a citizen. Changed your mind now, eh?
“There are dangers to making such a big deal of a constitution ”
A formal constitution sets out who does what, when they do it, why they do it, how they do it, where they do it and for how long. That’s hardly dangerous compared to what we have now…..Nobody knows who owns the country, runs the country, for how long or why. If you know the answers to these questions then you must be the Queen.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:33 am
Eclub,
I have looked into the US constitution and the American system of government in some detail. The United States is the only republic on earth i have some respect for so their system is important to me, but i just see huge flaws in your system. I see flaws in the Irish system, the French system and others but the US system seems to be the most dangerous, placing huge powers in the hands of one president who gets to act as both head of state and head of government. Its alot easier for people here to accept the transition from having a monarch to an elected head of state, than to having a single person do both the jobs.
As for the flag, yes its a symbol that represents something.. just like our union flag does which represents the union between England and Scotland (and later between Britain and Ireland). It means something and ofcourse almost all of our overseas colonies once had the flag form part of their own be it Canada in the past, or Australia and New Zealand which keep that same flag today despite being independent.
However you seem to think that people feel the way they do about the flag there naturally, it is not the case. You feel so strongly there because you are taught from a young age to show respect for that flag and what it represents. “”I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands…” You have your flag flown everywhere there, outside all highschools, police departments etc. It was only a couple of years ago that government departments were told to fly the flag all year round instead of just on a few designated days. Our monarchy is also a symbol of our nation and its history here like our flag, it is one of the few things we still celebrate (although it should be alot more).
As for your comments about the European Union it has no authority what so ever relating to matters of our constitutional setup. I support Britains membership of the EU but the second it steps over the line by trying to somehow force us to remove the monarchy we will take certain steps. Our government can operate a policy which prevents the EU from acting in any meaningful way and making progress. We will block all accession talks with other nations, we will stall trade talks, veto all matters where we still hold a veto such as foreign affairs and defence, we can do huge damage to it from within and bring “ever closer union” to an end if need be or we just leave
. The EU is never going to cross the line and try to remove our monarchy, theres also several other monarchies in the EU so its not like we will be a lone voice. A future member the EU wants to get their hands on because of oil is Norway, they have a monarchy too. Matters relating to our constitutional monarchy will be decided by the British people alone.
Liam,
It depends on the party you stand for
Martin G,
This website lists certain Republican MPs and MSPs who have clearly violated their oaths, they do so without fear of any violence or prosecution. We even allow people to cross their fingers and announce they are not speaking honestly when taking the oath so dont suggest its only coz republicans are “not allowed”.
Ive heard the monarchy debated in the commons before, people were debating changing the line of succession not that long ago. If the British people elect a republican party, it has the power to do what it likes and call a referendum. if the monarch attempts to block the will of the democratic house of commons on a referendum about abolition of the monarchy then i will no longer support the monarchy
Legally i am a British citizen, i have no problem considering myself as one of Her Majesty’s Subjects.. i quite like it
A written constitution is dangerous, i have highlighted examples from the USA of why this is the case and as ive said before we wouldnt trust the current mob to write a written constitution which binds our nation for centuries. That is a big risk. We all know the answers to the questions you just asked, we dont need the Queen to tell you.
No one person owns this country just as no one person owns a republic.
The British people every few years go to the polls to elect an MP. The party with the largest number of MPs forms a government and “runs the country” by implementing their policies through legislation in parliament and the executive based at 10 Downing Street. We start again a few years later
February 17th, 2010 at 4:10 am
Simon,
There’s a lot of truth to what you are saying regarding the flag and it’s importance to the United States. My debate on this forum is not to defend or promote the US. That is why I am reluctant to engage you in such matters that are on the periphery, and those that are purely sentimental. I do NOT come to this debate for democracy and republic as an American. I come to it as a human being that loves liberty. I refer the Republic to the American system because it is truly the best, not because of bias. I however, do understand, I come with an appearance of bias, that is why I supply ample reasons for my positions. When you stated the following:
I agree completely with your premises, yes, the American System does have flaws; it is not perfect. It is also the only republic I have respect for. So, we agree on that. However, your conclusion is completely wrong. All the powers granted to the President of the United States is checked by the other branches, and every four years, ultimately by the people — in an election. The President does not hold all the powers. The President does not have the power of the purse. Congress can easily cut off funding for anything, or even refuse to appropriate it in the first place. It takes a lot of money to run anything in the US. Just for reference sake, the economy of the United States is the largest national economy in the world. Its nominal gross domestic product (GDP) was estimated at $14.2 trillion in 2009, which is about three times that of the world’s second largest national economy, Japan. Its GDP by PPP is almost twice that of the second largest, China. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States ). The President of the United States is the only office where every voter had a chance to elect into office, with that comes the ultimate responsibility. He is supposed to be in charge, but all his powers are checked, and in fact can be removed from office for abusing anyone of those powers. You must understand that the President is not the only one running the government. Any national cabinet post in the US is a big deal: be it the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Defense Secretary, when it comes to the cabinet, remember, none of these are members of congress like you have in the case of Parliament; if they were in Congress when they were nominated for confirmation by the Senate, they had to resign from the legislative branch; the Attorney General is not even supposed to discuss many things with the President; the Attorney General can bring a President down if the President commits a crime. Now, you also have the Judiciary. A totally independent and equal branch to the Executive branch. Anyways, you will need to study this some more. If you don’t love it, you haven’t figured it out!
On the EU, you are wrong. The EU has already taken over in the areas where it counts. When the world looks at the top dog in Europe, be it foreign policy, fiscal policies, monetary policies, fairness, might, future, they look at EU. The British monarchy tries to avoid contact with the EU because inevitably it has to play a subservient role to the EU, or risk being admonished for being undemocratic. As we have stated before, the EU has already delivered some illusive freedoms and liberties to many Brits who would have been otherwise mere subjects, instead of Citizens. Imagine that.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:26 am
I did have a very tiny point I wanted to make to Graham. I wanted to make it in a light moment, but I am so eager to make it that I guess I’m unable to wait for a lighter moment. So, hear it goes…..this is one of those candid moments that make enemies for me, sorry i have to make the point, nobody is going to like it, but it’s the truth, so forgive me, I have to say it; chalk it under one of many reasons not to use the irish model:
From what i know about the Brits, they will never accept learning or copying any model form Ireland because of Ireland’s size and history. Once you tell any prospective monarchist that you want to replace the Monarchy with an Irish thing, they will look at you like you are crazy!
There, i said it— with tongue and cheek
<—-.
February 17th, 2010 at 4:45 am
@Simon
Trust me, once you really get to know the system of government the US have, you will find out that it’s fundamentally flawed. The only republics I give respect to is South Korea (Republic of Korea), Taiwan (Republic of China), and most parliamentary republics. The United States and their creation of a presidential system has cause a mess in every nation that used this horrible form of government. And has made a vast monopoly on democracy in “the land of the apathy and the home of the ego”. And to think, this was inspired by the British Westminster parliamentary system. An originally good idea for Britain, now mirroring it’s American cousin in a very fast rate.
February 17th, 2010 at 5:09 am
@Simon
If you are going to fear a written constitution that will provide a clear-cut way of how the government of the nation will run, then yes, entrusting the creation and framing of the constitution on a few will just screw things up for you guys since it’s not a good idea and certainly isn’t a democratic way of doing things. But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a written constitution. I suggest a democratic convention in which the people reasonably choose what to put in that constitution. Then a referendum is put in place to see which ones the best by an overwhelming majority. This will provide a sound agreement for the handling in constitutional matters and the visible presence of the general will.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Graham, (#27)
Finally I get round to replying to you…….!
I use the word “apolitical” in the sense that a layman currently only has an interest in the political world in the UK just once every five years (or so).
In terms of electing members of the House of Commons, that may be desirable but the for the vast majority of people who hold no membership of political parties nor are active in political office it’s a case of “give us your vote now shove off”.
The culture is almost at the point of perception where the public serve the politicians and not the other way around. This example is typified in the self-interests of FoI exemptions and the contempt shown over the expenses scandal.
Opening up the upper chamber to laymen and women simply widens the political process and gives everyone a stake in their own governance.
Regarding the “chartered organisations” argument, both Houses are currently steered by lobbyists who are paid for by companies and other organisations to emphasise their particular interests. By “chartering” organisations, it simply democratises that process and allows individuals to choose how their vote in the upper house will be aligned.
The conditions of “Chartering” is a detail but, for instance, it might be that the right to representation requires an organisation to have a minimum membership of 10,000 people, open constitution and rules and a code of conduct.
It is then for the individual to decide through which “chartered” organisation his or her vote is recorded.
Sure, this needs thinking through but in keeping with the tenet quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (who will guard the guards?) the above suggestion does provide full participation, full accountability and a head of state who is there by unequivocal popular choice.
And if people think Mrs Windsor is the ideal person for the position of head of state and guardian of the formal Constitution, surely then she will stand for election and people will vote for her?
February 17th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Simon,
“This website lists certain Republican MPs and MSPs who have clearly violated their oaths”
So they broke the law, then.
It would be far easier to remove this “convention” – practically and publicly – and allow prospective MPs to stand for Parliament on a republican ticket.
“If the British people elect a republican party, it has the power to do what it likes and call a referendum.”
That can never happen until the conditions in my previous paragraph allow it so.
“Legally i am a British citizen, i have no problem considering myself as one of Her Majesty’s Subjects.. i quite like it”
Enjoy!
“A written constitution is dangerous……”
You are going around in circles here. There is no danger. A Constitution may be amended at any time with the consent of the people. Currently, we are in far more danger since the world is a much less safer place because our Government was allowed to prosecute an illegal war.
February 17th, 2010 at 9:49 am
@ Kanaris Blog
Hello! That is absolutely fine with me. I am sure that I am speaking for us all in saying that it’s always great to have new monarchist bloggers on here who are prepared to put forward intelligent thoughts instead of endless lists of youtube videos. Our only reluctance comes in replying to Simon’s arguments, which haven’t changed since last August.
I’ll try and respond to your comments today or tomorrow.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Hi Martin,
Why would any Republican want to replace Monarchy with Polyarchy?
In addition to the safety net of a Written Constitution and power to vote for all members of Government, it is possible to add one more proposal to the list.
The Citizens Convention Bill proposed by Unlock Democracy!
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=2033#q1
February 17th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
As was said above, the only republican constitution worth fighting for is what has become known as the American one (although it is derived from the British model)
Look at the countries that are parliamentary republics in the western world. The biggest are Germany and Italy. But both became such because of their recent histories of dictatorship which meant they feared that a powerful president might resemble, or become, a dictator.
Apart from these two there are Portugal, Ireland and Greece. These countries are much smaller than Britain in population and Gross Domestic Product and so not good as examples. They are all incidentally economic basket cases and it well could be that this is because they are badly governed and this could well be because of their constitutions.
If you want to look for other famous western parliamentary republics then why not cite the Weimar Republic? It displays fully the major flaw in them. The weakness of the office of President meant that when President von Hindenburg died in 1934 Hitler as Chancellor (i.e. Prime Minister) could simply abolish the office and so become a dictator.
We have a similar situation with the parliamentary monarchy that we currently have in Britain – although in not quite such extreme form. The absence of a powerful head of state means Thatcher, Blair, Brown, et al, rule as “elective dictators” (to use Lord Hailsham’s phrase).
The replacement of the monarch by a president with only reserved powers would preserve this situation and all the evils that go with it.
February 17th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Hi Ash,
Thanks for your comment.
I am not sure whether you seem to think that I’m advocating such but the above example is not really a polyarchy.
In the above example, the legislative power remains with elected delegates as now. The chief difference being that they would create laws within the bounds of a formal constitution. Nothing too different there.
However, the presence of a formal constitution, proper accountability and scrutiny applies. The current expenses scandal has shown that Parliament is sovereign to itself. MPs make “rules” for themselves that is why many of them were utterly convinced that they hadn’t broken any rules.
The upper house should be able to scrutinise legislation against a formal constitution instead of as now, only in certain circumstances can they amend or delay Bills. The House of Lords is still aligned largely on party political lines (only around 200 of the 690-odd Lords are crossbenchers). And none of these are elected, of course.
I suppose what I am really saying is that, like the monarchy, the current House of Lords is not representative, not accountable and not scrutinised. We really deserve something better than what we have at the moment which is a retirement home for old politicians.
If we take this further by assuming that a formal Constitution will clenaly separate the balance of power between legislature, judiciary and executive, we will be able to ensure that laws, that are created by the legislature will be enforced by the executive and interpreted by the judiciary.
This clearly does not happen today and, as a result, we get folks arrested for taking photographs of public buildings, Police issuing cautions that are effectively a court sentence and politicians who create laws to remove trial by jury.
February 17th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
@ eclub1 post 38
Well said. The word “Irish” also has another meaning this side of the Atlantic that it may not have where you are. It is a bit complicated to explain if you don’t know it but it is not a description you would want to apply to, say, a contract, or, come to think of it, a constitution!
February 17th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Mr. Kellow, as always, I learn a lot from your input. Thank you.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Im a Irish Nationalist but i have a Love for the Queen
think Charles Prince of Wales is a Real Wankknob tho,
so i say let the Queen Do her Job shes been doing it since 1952
and shes a Real Nice Lady, but after she either Abdicates, Or Demise {God Let Her Rule Forever] then the Throne if continued should pass to
either William or Harry instead of Charles and Camila, or Discontinued.
id like to have a Federal Writen Constitution for the United Kingdom,
and less powers at the center, but i wouldint call myself a republican
there already the South which is a Republic but the President is abit to Political Lately, i dont agree with the Sovereign of Any Kind of a Parliament it should be the People of the Nation that is Sovereign
i wouldint Call Myself Unionist as its Drawen into Protestantism and Orangism over her, so i guess im a Moderate Reformer [more reform Federal writen constitution, More Powers , less power for Westminster,
i only call myself an Irish Nationalist for my love of everything irish, and its Better than Orangism and Protestatism that comes with the name Unionist]
February 19th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Martin #46
Sorry for not coming back straight away. It was the talk of “chartered organisations” that made me think of what the true definition of Polyarchy is. By licensing which organisations can or cannot lobby Government, isn’t that taking the license of power from one and giving that license to a few more parties?
In terms of who should set the agenda and who should monitor Parliamentarians & Government, it is the people who are the best agents of democracy, therefore I stand by my assertion the Citizens Convention is the best method.
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?page_id=2033#q1
February 19th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Hi Ash,
Thanks for your reply.
“By licensing which organisations can or cannot lobby Government, isn’t that taking the license of power from one and giving that license to a few more parties?”
…not if every receives one vote through their chosen “chartered organisation” which represents them in the upper house.
This would still enable anyone to write to their MP (as happens now) but it would also widen the inidividual’s capability to lobby by giving each individual an accountable representation in the upper house, too. I speak from experience having written to a member of the Lords and not even had an acknowledgement.
In addition, I read of the conflict between FPTP and PR on these pages and a solution would be to try to accommodate both as both have got strengths and weaknesses.
February 21st, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Where on earth has KanarisBlog gone? This is only about the third or fourth time in the space of a month or so that a monarchist has entered the fray promising us a fair and constructive debate, only to disappear off the face of the planet! Something has gone seriously wrong.
February 21st, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Matt Showering
I haven’t gone anywhere. It’s just that there’s nothing to really talk about right now. I do have to agree on republic’s suggestions and arguments on the monarchy for the most part though. I also propose fundamental change in the UK government, and especially in that, change should be done with the monarchy. But, I support monarchy for practical reasons. Such as it’s convenience in succession, it’s diplomatic and juridical foundations, and it’s accountability to reach all walks of society. For the most part, I feel progressive democratic monarchies done better in these lines than in most republics. I say FEW because I am NOT opposed to any form and/or type of republicanism, even some and those applied within a monarchy. It’s just that only a small number of republics have caught my eye of attention and respect and none of them (or at least few of them) equals my respect for democratic monarchies. I recommend a UK version of the Scandinavian/Low Countries models that outlines a clear-cut way on how the government should run. Even the Spanish, Japanese or European principalities models can help Britain achieve greater democracy.
Please, if you have the time, your responses would be helpful.
Thank You!
February 21st, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Hi Kanaris
I was kind of assuming you were just going to outline your reasons for supporting the monarchy, but not to worry, I will certainly respond to what you’ve posted here.
I do have to agree on republic’s suggestions and arguments on the monarchy for the most part though. I also propose fundamental change in the UK government, and especially in that, change should be done with the monarchy.
You’re going to have to help me out here: I’m familiar with the argument that British democracy can be improved without abolishing the monarchy; yet one minute you’re saying that you even agree largely with Republic on the monarchy itself, and the next minute you’re saying that actually the reforms you believe are necessary can and should be accomplished without becoming a republic. Please clarify by explaining exactly what constitutional and political reforms you wish to see, and either why you do not believe the monarchy should be added to the list or – if you actually believe that abolishing it would make things worse – then why that is.
But, I support monarchy for practical reasons. Such as it’s convenience in succession, it’s diplomatic and juridical foundations, and it’s accountability to reach all walks of society.
Convenience in succession? Forgive me for sounding aggressive, but that could be interpreted as “Democratically electing a head of state is too much like hard work.” I’m not assuming you definitely believe that to be the case, but if not then please clarify your comment.
Diplomatic foundations? Obviously, since I personally – and Republic officially – support a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial president, we recognise that a certain form of diplomacy does form part of the head of state’s role. But how exactly is a member of the royal family, with no democratic mandate to speak for the people, better equipped to carry out these functions than an elected president who does have that mandate?
You’re going to have to explain juridicial foundations. If you’re referring to the monarchy’s establishment through several landmark pieces of constitutional legislation stretching back to Magna Carta, then – quite apart from the fact that those statutes confer no democratic legitimacy, in stark contrast to election by the people – it is worth pointing out that, with the possible exception of Magna Carta itself, any one of them could be repealed by the government of the day in an instant. Your previous comments suggest you would not be averse to the idea of a more stable written constitution; but surely you recognise that, even if the constitution expressly vested sovereignty in the people as indeed it should, the absurdity of such a document nominating a monarch and her heirs and successors even as titular representatives of that sovereignty in the 21st century, would beggar belief.
Finally, whilst I am not sure how exactly the issue of accountability is related to the capacity for a head of state “to reach all walks of society,” I am even more puzzled as to how you believe the monarchy to be accountable. Unlike a president, a monarch doesn’t have to stand for re-election, cannot be impeached if they abuse their power or their privileges, and cannot be scrutinised in any meaningful way. Sure, Parliament can cut the monarchy’s funding and/or demand greater transparency from it, but the fact that the monarchy gives politicians absolute power means that the chances of this happening in such a way as would force the Palace to provide real value for the taxpayer, are minimal. Besides, Parliament itself must undergo many sweeping reforms before it can truly be said to represent the people it purports to. Some of these reforms may well be accomplished while the monarchy still stands, but only the sovereign will of the people to assume the responsibility of self-government can create a truly accountable polity.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:23 am
Where’s Graham and Gray? I feel like a visitor who over-stayed his welcome, so much so that the homeowners left him at the house and took a walk. Oh my, where are they?? I’m not leaving, so better come back home. I’m waiting… we’ve got a campaign to do here.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:02 pm
O Kanaris, where are you?
February 24th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
eclub1,
Did you not hear about the clampdown taking place here? Leading republican figures have been rounded up and will face trial for high treason.
That is why this place has gone so quiet.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
@eclub1
If we’re away from the blog it’ll be because we’re busy working on the campaign.
@Kanaris
You’ve said you support the monarchy for practical reasons but have not supplied any.
There is no ‘convenience’ in succession by inheritance. It is an obstacle to the people choosing their head of state. How convenient would it be now if the people decided they’d like a new head of state rather than Elizabeth Windsor? Far more convenient to have regular elections so we can choose someone to do the job and then be held accountable for the job done a few years later.
It’s foundations are a practical matter. What do you mean by this?
What does “it’s accountability to reach all walks of society” actually mean? It’s not accountable. It doesn’t reach all (or even many) walks of life.
If you agree that the constitution should be reformed, what possible reason is there to keep the monarchy in it? It can’t play a practical constitutional role because it is so completely unaccountable.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Thank you, Graham.
Simon’s last comment should be removed. That is an irresponsible comment, and exposes him to being labeled a troll, or should that be re-labeled? I actually started searching the Guardian and sundry for news on the arrests. It’s not outside the realm of possibility.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
eclub – it is a long way outside the realm of likelihood. I can’t start deleting inoffensive attempts at humour.