16 Apr 2010
For the first time there is one party leader who supports the republican cause, whose party supports the republican cause, who has a chance of winning a seat in parliament at this general election.
Now this isn’t a pitch for that party, Republic draws its support from across the political spectrum and will continue to do so after May 6. But I thought I’d highlight the long-standing policy of the Green party, led by Republic supporter Caroline Lucas MEP.
The Green policy states:
The Green Party believes that the hereditary principle should have no place in government. Therefore the Green Party advocates that:
a. No person shall acquire the right to any office of government by inheritance.
b. An hereditary peerage shall confer no right to sit in Parliament.
c. The monarchy shall cease to be an office of government. The legislative, executive and judicial roles of the monarch shall cease.
d. Peers and members of the royal family shall have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as other citizens.
e. A settlement of property held by the current royal family shall be made, to divide it between that required for the private life of current members of the family and that to be public property
That’s pretty clear and unequivocal. And Caroline Lucas is tipped to win the Brighton Pavilion seat, defeating Labour and pushing the Tories into third place. The more optimistic Greens think they may even win two or three seats, although this is less likely. But even if it’s just the one, that would be a big breakthrough for the party and a welcome addition to parliament for republicans.
Whatever else you think about the Greens it is no doubt going to be interesting seeing them represented in Westminster, and if they will use their opportunity to push the republican message, then all the better.
Tweet this post
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 16th, 2010 at 11:33 am and is filed under General, Politicians.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are now closed.
Facebook
April 16th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Having checked out the Green Party website, my vote was pointing in their direction anyway. Nothing I’ve heard from any of the other parties is swaying me away from that. Unfortunately, I don’t live in Brighton, but who knows what may happen in my local area.
April 16th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Having looked at the skeptical-voter wiki, I could not vote for Caroline Lucas, had I been resident in that constituency, due to her views on animals in research and on alternative medicine.
She may have republican views, but these do not outweigh other, more dangerous, views.
April 16th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
It will be welcome if an openly republican MP is elected. It’s a shame some of the other republican sympathisers already sitting in the House aren’t more forthcoming. I often wonder what would happen at the swearing in ceremony if a republican were to steadfastly refuse to swear allegiance to Elizabeth.
April 16th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Bob, that’s what Sinn Fein MPs do. They can’t sit.
April 17th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Thanks Liam I had forgotten about the Sinn Fein MPs. I wonder then what is the Green Party’s plan regarding the swearing in ceremony for when or if they get any candidate elected.
April 17th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
@Graham, Bob and Liam,
What a shame if Caroline Lucas won Brighton for the Greens but then was unable to take her seat because she refused to take an oath to Mrs Windsor. Convetion suggests that this is indeed the case.
I’m also assuming that Sinn Fein refuse to sit because their allegiance is with a united and independent Ireland. The extent of the ballot box in their case ceases with a majority vote for Sinn Fein in an election.
April 17th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
She will just cross her fingers or something like that. She realises that, as abhorrent as it is, she needs to go along with it if she’s going to try and make the world a better place.
April 17th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
If the trend after the tv debates continue she may lose out to a liberal democrat. It will be interesting if labour and the lib dems do form a coalition government or labour remains in power. We will end up with a written constitution, thankfully there is strong support for the monarchy at this time so it would have to be included. Maybe i was wrong, it would be safer to have one written up now rather than sorting it out after the Queens death when the monarchy is at greater risk. Get the debate on the monarchy over and done with quickly and easily.
This election is very exciting. People do seem to want change, we do not have to chop off the Queens head to do it as Mr Clegg shows.
April 17th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Simon,
Clegg’s remarks about the queen and Gordon Brown were just plain silly,as you must realize. He completely begged the question about the monarchy when Liam brought the issue up.Of course the queen has not broken promises about this that or the other,–she is not a politician !This is not the issue. This was plain for even the simplest thinker to see.Clegg insulted people’s intelligence with his remarks. He also ignored the fact that republicanism is growing in our country,and constitutional change is a developing issue.Such matters deserve respectful and thoughtful answers,not “gobbledeegook”. He chose to ignore that fact,instead of giving a more sensible reply, and turned his answer around in order to indulge in some blatant Brown Bashing. This was the level he sunk to ,and he lost my respect and my vote immediately. I am sure Clegg was unwise to do that as I am now sure that many people felt like me .I was attracted to Clegg’s ideas in the first instance because they had some kind of sensible semblance to “socialist” type policies ,( which Labour should have promulgated). Such policies would make our country a fairer place.
April 18th, 2010 at 8:34 am
Simon
We would certainly welcome a debate on a written constitution. It would need the support of the people in a referendum and it would give us an unparralleled opportunity to make our case. Even if the monarchy is then included in it, it would make it a lot easier to campaign for change if there is a single written document to amend and an agreed process by which to amend it.
April 18th, 2010 at 10:02 am
Maybe if either of the big three parties realised that (if certain reswearch is to be believed) one in five people would be keen to see a republic in Britain, they would understand that there are some serious votes to be won here.
All three parties are proposing some sort of Parliamentary reform. Even the BBC’s former Political Editor, Andrew Marr, concedes that the next “unknown” issue to be tackled by the incumbent Government could well be further reform of the political landscape.
However, all three parties have a tagline that includes the theme “fairness for all” so it seems that in not acknowledging the need to open debate on republicanism, the words “hoisted” and “petard” immediately spring to mind!
April 18th, 2010 at 10:03 am
@ Liam,
As far as I am aware, crossing fingers is no proven defence against perjury!
April 18th, 2010 at 10:55 am
barry
I agree that Clegg did duck the question although i agreed with his message that there is far more important reform and that is to clean up parliament / the executive, not worry about the monarchy. That is something i have said here on many occasions.
I must confess i am rather surprised by your response to his comment though, i understand it was not the answer you guys would have been looking for but it was hardly a wonderful defence of the monarchy, at no point did he declare himself a great believer in the monarchy, he simply said he had a bigger problem with Brown.
Considering Nick Clegg is a Privy Counsellor and has taken the Council oath you would think he would do a better job. As it got shown on the BBC news and got a lot of attention i would hope someone would have had a quiet word with him to tell him to do better and not just say he hates Brown more.
Graham,
There would be a need for a referendum and if a constitution was written it would certainly require debate on the issue of monarchy so that does provide a big opportunity to you and it would make abolition of the monarchy an easier process.
However it would also weaken some of your arguments. The claim the monarchy is a block to political reform would be gone, the British people would have voted for a constitution supporting the monarchy, defining the role of the monarch, limiting the power of the executive all of these sorts of issues are how you attack our constitutional monarchy, there would there for be less justification or urgency for removing it.
It would be safer for that debate to happen whilst the Queen is alive than following her death and the monarchy at the moment remains very popular. I hear rumours on the internet we may be getting a royal wedding soon and there is ofcourse the wonderful Diamond Jubilee celebrations in a few years time. There would be difficulty dealing with the line of succession issue, although maybe that will be the main focus of the debate on the monarchy rather than if we have one at all.
I still do have concerns with a written constitution, it will probably contain some awful crap but i guess we will just have to live with it.
Martin G
4/5ths of the population support the monarchy 1/5th do not. If one of the parties supported becoming a republic they may gain that 1/5th but they would also open themselves up to huge attack from other parties and many more people would choose not to vote for them because of it.
They do not see the need for debate on keeping the monarchy, republicanism is seen as a very foreign and unnatural thing. It is there and should remain there, if we are going to go to such levels perhaps we should have a vote on if we want to be a country at all because we never all agreed to that either. Its unthinkable.
April 18th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Simon,
Thanks. Good points.
April 18th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Support for a republic is well over 25%, not just 20%. Most people are completely ambivalent towards the situation. They think that the monarchy is good for tourism (wrong), for patriotism (wrong) and for keeping politicians in line (wrong). Once you expose those myths you would not believe how quickly people change their tune.
A few republicans have made it abundantly clear when taking the oath that they don’t agree with it. You’re not going to be prosecuted for it. Look at people like Dennis Skinner.
April 18th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
If it is correct that people see no need for a debate on the monarchy, it is because they are brainwashed from birth. When a few of the myths surrounding royalty are fully exposed, then they will be interested, as they became interested when MPs’ abuse of the public purse was exposed.
April 18th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Simon, you’re assuming that the referendum would take place and that it would result in a yes vote. It is because the monarchy would come under so much scrutiny during such a process that any moves toward a written constitution would be resisted by those who wish to preserve the status quo.
Sure, if we succeeded in getting a written constitution that enshrines all other reforms but keeps the monarchy, the argument about it being a block would fall away. But that doesn’t change the fundamental issues against the monarchy and doesn’t change the fact that having a clear constitution and a set of procedures by which to change the constitution would be a good thing.
April 18th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Why do any of us respond to Simon? He has destroyed any level of debate that there was on this blog. Just ignore him!
April 18th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Bob:
When a few of the myths surrounding royalty are fully exposed, then they will be interested, as they became interested when MPs’ abuse of the public purse was exposed.
The problem there, I think, is that the expenses scandal – having clearly made a lot of people feel completely disenfranchised – might have had the knock-on effect of adding to the illusion of the monarchy providing “sound moral leadership above the filth of politics.”
This makes it all the more important for us to work to expose the myths of monarchy now, rather than waiting for an expenses-esque time-bomb to detonate within the monarchy itself – almost inevitably in the form of revelations about the true extent of Charles’s political meddling when he becomes king; for the longer we wait, and the more the masses misguidedly look to the monarchy for leadership & inspiration in the interim, the more devastating the potential consequences could be for the public peace should that time-bomb detonate. In campaigning for complete transparency on the monarchy in order to expose the myths surrounding it, we are working to defuse the bomb.
April 18th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
If Labour gets back in, Brown reckons we could have a referendum on the Lords in October 2011.
The next phase will be ensuring there’s a vote on the future of Monarchy in the same referendum.
April 19th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Liam,
Given that support for a republic is “in the region of” 20-25%, that compares with support for the present Government!
Regarding the oath, if you don’t agree with it (and your policy is based on that fact) why should you take it? The point about MPs who have had to either compromise their position or lie under oath should not be taken lightly. Discussion on republicanism is not allowed in either chamber and that’s exactly where the debate should start.
(I appreciate I am being a little rhetorical here!)
Bob’s point on removing the myth is very important. Maybe the decision on exempting the royals from the FoI was driven by the furore that arose following the application of the FoI over MPs’ expenses? In other words, “if the general public can do that to the lower orders of Government and public office, think what might happen to the higher echelons?”!
Incidentally, I have written to the major parties querying their position on republicanism. To date, I have only received one reply from the Labour Party pointing to the House of Lords reform in the manifesto.
April 19th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
In the past few weeks I have received six different leaflets from Caroline Lucas the Green candidate in my constituency and none of them have mentioned anything about the monarchy.
Graham Smith, as you are a friend of hers perhaps you could find out why this is the case?
April 19th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Matt – i agree with you 100%, (Post 19).
Bruno – You could always write to Caroline Lucas yourself.
While there is such disparity between the public perception of the monarchy and what the truth is behind the myths and propaganda it is understandable, but regrettable, that some politicians may choose to adopt the tactic of being less than forthcoming on the subject. However the Green’s policy is there for anyone to see on their web-site. http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/democracy-liberty.html
April 20th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
This is good, Caroline may lead the revolution. Though I will not hold my breath. Nothing lasts forever, and it may bound to dissapoint. Other examples exist.
April 21st, 2010 at 8:44 am
Graham
I am confident a referendum on a written constitution maintaining the monarchy would pass, infact it is more likely to fail if it was a constitution making us a republic.
The only one difficulty i can see with the monarchy question is dealing with the line of succession. This is something i would like to see changed too but it is very difficult to get Her Majesty’s 15 other realms to agree and could cause political difficulty there.
Considering most other monarchies in the world have written constitutions there is no reason why we can not look at how they do it and copy parts. I did take a look at the Spanish constitution which was very interesting.
Gordon Brown wants a written constitution, as far as im aware he is a supporter of the monarchy. It is thankfully unthinkable to most people that the head of state would need to be changed simply to create a constitution.
The written constitution if done well would take away a lot of Republics concerns and methods of attacking the monarchy, that could be a good thing and result in less need for debate on the topic in the future when the monarchy maybe at greater risk.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
We don’t want a constitution that protects heredity and no constitution worth the paper it is written on, (or not written on if we take our current shambolic arrangement), would do that. A constitution should be in place to protect the people, to enshrine their rights, and not to try to perpetuate what we have now. Nor is it, by the way, to enshrine the servility of the masses to any other person, be they Elizabeth Windsor or anyone else that the likes of Simon have an unbreakable emotional attachment to. God these sycophants make me seriously bilious.
April 21st, 2010 at 12:58 pm
So why not call the party “Green Republican Party”.
That should get a few more heads turning?
April 21st, 2010 at 1:01 pm
@ Simon
Your assumption that a referendum would support the monarchy is based on the fact that the monarchy is a secret organisation about which we can conjecture but which we are not even allowed to debate.
The people have not been given the full story nor the facts.
Allow free poltical discussion to happen and I will counter your assumption that many people will be appalled by the existence of a monarchy.
April 21st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Bob,
All my life Queen Elizabeth II has been on her rightful throne, of course i have a huge amount of attachment and admiration for the woman as many around the world, not just her own subjects see how wonderful she is.
You as a republican may not like a constitution that clearly maintains and strenghtens our constitutional monarchy, thankfully the majority of the British people, the major political parties (yes even Mr coolboy clegg), the media and other institutions do support the monarchy. There for it will not come as a shock to people when we reaffirm our support for our head of state.
Will Republic be campaigning for a NO vote in a referendum on a written constitution if it keeps the monarchy but cleans up many of republics concerns? Would be an interesting dilemma and a big conflict of interest for you guys here. A YES vote in a referendum on a written constitution giving power to our current head of state would give the Queen an even bigger mandate than she currently has and will mean there is no need for major alterations to our system following the Queens death
Martin G
That is because most people who vote for them probably do not know they are a republican party and if it was in the name it would put some off. The Scottish Greens are a band of separatists, they dont campaign on the issue but they support it.
We allow free debate on the monarchy, you guys at republic are not silenced the BBC even often publishes your views. If we were to write a written constitution im sure the monarchy will come up but the political and public view is very strongly in favour of maintaining the monarchy there for it is certainly not a controversial issue which needs to be ripped apart by the media.
Oh and i would just like to take this chance to say Happy Birthday to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Long may she reign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkAjqxRayTo
April 21st, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Simon,
What we say on these pages is as a result of our ancestors’ efforts to create free speech.
On many occasions, this has come about following resistance from the Crown and the State.
Unfortunately, the Realm does not afford such free speech in the place of legislature.
So you are completely wrong about allowing free debate on the monarchy. It is simply not allowed.
April 21st, 2010 at 4:47 pm
I flatly refuse to become involved in Simon’s never ending merry-go-round of never ending twaddle. Just carry on, as I’ve told you before, being happy in your servility. You’re very welcome to it.
Roll on the public debate on a written constitution. That will be our chance to get our message over to the blinkered public.
Give power to a hereditary monarch in a written constitution? Don’t make me laugh.
April 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Oh, and Simon,
I hope that will be wishing your queen a very happy birthday in June, too.
Unlike everyone else, one appears to have not one, but TWO birthdays no doubt to illustrate the divine right of monarchs.
April 21st, 2010 at 5:02 pm
IGNORE HIM!
April 21st, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Martin
We have free debate on the monarchy today, i hear them debate the monarchy in the British parliament and MPs are able to be open republicans without fear of punishment for violation of their oaths.
Our Queen respects peoples right to free speech and she respects democracy. She sadly comes under attack by people here for respecting democracy when the governments we foolishly elect do things we may disagree with. Sadly she can never win and do the right thing in some peoples minds.
Yes i will be celebrating the Queens official birthday, i love watching the Queens birthday parade which is a great celebration and event for the British people. Our sovereign is certainly special and clearly deserves two Birthdays.
BOB
When it comes to the debate on a written constitution republic will simply be one of many organisations and groups seeking to influence part of it. As ive stated before i have concerns about a single written constitution, it will probably be full of green garbage demanded by environmentalists, human rights for prisoners and terrorists demanded by Liberty. It will be a nightmare. The monarchy issue will not be a huge debate, it will be one of the least controversial parts of the constitution.
Its something most of the people and population agree on. lol
April 21st, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Does the fact that the queen have two birthdays mean that she expects two sets of presents and birthday cards ? It is surely just plain daft for anyone to expect to have two birthdays. Whoever thought this nonsense up in the past.? It must have been a dyed in the wool sycophant. If some people had their way no doubt the queen would have even more birthdays. As it is she is apparently showered with unwanted and un-needed gifts from all sorts of “well wishers”. Absolutely plain daft,especially when some people are genuinely needy.Does Simon send gifts ? Are these unwanted presents sold for charity ? Does anyone know?
April 21st, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Barry,
The Queen having two birthdays is very important as it ensures the celebrations that take place can happen in the summer when there is hopefully good weather, something that would be less certain if the we had a sovereign with a birthday in the winter.
I am sorry you think it is daft, I thought it made sense.
April 21st, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Evening gents, will I be seeing any of you in York on Saturday? Liam, I know you’re not going; but Bob, Martin, Barry?
April 21st, 2010 at 7:10 pm
@Matt – Unfortunately not Matt, I work most weekends and this coming weekend is one of them.
April 21st, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Liam,
Methinks I will follow your advice…..My head is very sore after banging it against the wall.
Matt,
I really ought to try and go on Saturday. Failing that, I’ll try to arrange business in the capital and attend one of the London meetings later on.
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Speaking of sychophancy, just heard Ken Clark MP on BBC R5L responding to the anti-Nick Clegg comments over the past couple of days. His opening comments were a blinder – “That’s Her Majesty’s press for you…” What planet, nay galaxy is Clarke from????
Now unless I missed something, I was not aware that Liz owned or part owned NewsCorp, Trinity Mirror, Guardian Media Group and Northern and Shell to name a few!
Another prime example of how inbuilt sychophancy can make people say the daftest things!
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Dear Matt,
Thanks. Sorry, but I just cannot make it.I am overwhelmed with work. Wish I was fully retired sometimes !
Barry.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Dear Simon, Thanks. A bit tongue in cheek this, but….what did the Czars do in the terrible Russian winters.? Did they have two birthdays.? Anyway, firstly I cannot understand why anyone would want to celebrate the birthday of a king ,queen etc. This is probably because I do not believe in the value or relevance of a monarchy,anywhere on Earth.
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:50 am
You’ve clearly never heard of Sinn Féin, who refuse to take their seats in the Commons because of the oath.
I’d hazard a guess that the vast majority of the Labour party and many Lib Dems have republican tendencies but the rightwing press, pretty much all of the press, would slaughter either party if they said so.
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 am
Matheieu,
Welcome to the discussion….
The position of Sinn Fein has been discussed several times on these blogs.
Given that they are an Irish Republican party, I would doubt that they would take their seat in the British Parliament even if there was no oath to the Queen.
The tactic of using the British elections as a local “referendum” in order to build political will (as they did with Bobby Sands nomination in Fermanagh and subsequent election in the early 1980s) is a tactic that has demonstrated grass roots support for Irish republicanism in Northern Ireland without having to acknowledge the sovereignty of the British Government.
Your point about the British press “slaughtering” would-be republicans is a very valid one. Considering that political funding in order to curry favour or buy influence is very much a hot topic these days, the republican movement would need to box clever in terms of PR to ensure that the principles and messages are received in a fair light, although the opportunity to debate republicanism in a live prime time television/radio show should be met with relish by many contributors to these pages.
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Unfortunately there are many MP’s who have Republican views, however often their positions are clouded by the never ending fruitful ‘gravy train’ and therefore they succumb to swearing allegiance.
Unfortunately a Plaid Cymru member had to swear allegiance so that she could be a member, however as soon as she read out the statement, she then followed it by saying “that is a lie”. So well done to her
We need more people like that and like Sinn Fein.
I note that in New Zealand they have decided to continue with the Monarchy, because they were overwhelmed by Prince William’s visit in January !! and they would only become a republic when Elizabeth dies. So, it demonstrates just how fickle people are and how they cannot see through the very idea by the royal PR machine of sending William to New Zealand was exactly to court support for the Monarchy.
Looking forward to the conference in York !!
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Hi Gloria
I look forward to hopefully meeting you at the conference tomorrow. But with regards to New Zealand, what’s actually happened is that the bill to allow a referendum has been voted down by parliament on its first reading due to prime minister John Key whipping through the “No” vote despite his insistence that a republic is inevitable. From what I’ve read and heard it would seem that Key is a moderate monarchist who doesn’t want to make any active moves towards a republic, but is convinced that respect for the monarchy in NZ will die with Elizabeth Windsor.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Did anyone know that royal assent is given in the House of Lords in French?
April 25th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
@ Liam,
Well the royal motto: “Honi soit qui mal y pense” (“Evil to those who think evil” – there’s an irony!) is also in old French.
The Prince of Wales motto “Ich dien” (“I serve” – ditto/ibid) is German.
Court language of Queen Victoria was German and the last Tsar of Russia spoke French as the court language.
Given the manifestos of the major political parties in the run up to the election, the royals could technically not be granted British citizenship and be deported!