15 Oct 2009
We hear a lot of silly arguments for the monarchy on this blog. One of the more exasperating is the one that goes: “I support the monarchy because the majority of other people do.”
It strikes me that those who use this argument aren’t really very staunch monarchists at all, for they seem to be saying that they’ll back whatever the majority does. Presumably, if the majority were republicans they would be too.
I’m being a little unfair – I’m sure most monarchists are unswerving in their support of our current constitutional arrangements. It would take far more than a shift in public opinion to convince them that abolishing the monarchy was right for Britain.
But it raises an interesting question: is there anything that would change your mind on the monarchy? Can you envisage any political developments or new evidence coming to light that would force you to rethink your stance?
This entry was posted on Thursday, October 15th, 2009 at 10:16 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
October 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Ahhhh….. but your forgetting a three important points James. The Queen is universally LOVED by most in this country, she is appointed directly by God, and the moon is made of Swiss cheese!
October 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I am a monarchist because the alternative is to have Tony Bliar back as head of state…
October 15th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Thanks @mmonyte.
So can I take that to mean that if Tony Bliar (I see what you did there) wasn’t elected President, you’d support a republic?
October 15th, 2009 at 11:26 am
“I am a monarchist because the alternative is to have Tony Bliar back as head of state…”
I am a republican because the alternative is to have Charles Windsor as head of state. Or perhaps one of these folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne
If Tony Blair were head of a republican Britain, it would be for a specific term of office, assuming he was able to be elected in the first place. Currently Charles Windsor is line to be head of state for life, whether you want him or not.
‘
October 15th, 2009 at 11:42 am
PS: If you insist on leaving it to genetic lottery, I’m rooting for this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Karol_Czartoryski
he’s 2165th in line, but stranger things have happened. Certainly this Polish nobleman is better equipped to serve as head of state than anyone the British people could elect.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Monarchists do not say – “I support the Monarchy because the majority of other people do.”
Monarchists say – “Majority support Monarchy thus republicans have no need to alter Monarchy.”
Silly me, I always thought republicans believed the will of the people was paramount. 75% of the public support Monarchy. Surely it is now time Republic admitted the will of the people is satisfied with Monarchy.
Therefore, I am not surprised you are “exasperated” James.
So would I be if my dreams, my hearts desire, were being thwarted by that unnecessary inconvenience and nuisance called “public opinion”.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
@Neil
Democracy is not about majoritarianism, majority voting is simply a mechanism for decision making. Majority opinion polling is of no consequence whatsoever, as the will the people must be expressed in free and fair elections, not simply implied through ad hoc opinion polls.
If monarchists do say “Majority support Monarchy thus republicans have no need to alter Monarchy” then they’d still be wrong. The need to change our constitution is not based on the current majority view, it is based on an understanding of democracy, constitutional government and how Britain can be improved by having an intelligently designed, accountable and transparent political system.
Do try and keep up.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Monarchists say – “Majority support Monarchy thus republicans have no need to alter Monarchy.” Neil Welton.
This argument is moribund. It presupposes that nothing ever changes. The world is full of alternative views which are presented and maintained every day to challenge the mainstream. It is no argument just to aver that those with alternative views just go away. Republicanism is a legitimate position. Those who embrace it are seeking to demonstrate that a democratic republic is a far better alternative to monarchy, which proposes an eventual shift in public opinion, although most republicans would challenge monarchists’ readymade figures of support. Anyone can see that there cannot be an ad hoc altering of monarchy.
What on earth leads you to believe that republicans think that the general will of the people is not paramount? Do you think that a republic will be insisted on despite the will of the people?
October 15th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Hi Neil
That’s no better than my original phrasing of the argument. If the majority supported abolishing the monarchy, would you stop advocating it? I doubt it.
What do you mean “admitted”? We openly recognise that there is currently greater support for the status quo than there is for a new republican constitution. (Although we don’t believe that translates into “love” for the Queen as some monarchists have suggested).
Neil, our sole objective is to persuade a majority to favour a republic. Public opinion is not a nuisance or inconvenience, it’s our raison d’etre. No radical constitutional change or the kind we are advocating could or should be enacted without a referendum.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I’m a Republican until god reveals him/her/itself to be real. And then, only if he goes on TV and declares that, yes, he/she/it really did appoint the Windsor family as head of state for all eternity.
October 15th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
It’s a daft argument for monarchy-the majority support it, so there. Public opinion CAN change.
It seems to suggest that they are not forming their own opinion at all but supporting merely what the majority supports.
That said, people who argue this do tend to be monarchy supporters (why would a republican say ‘75% support the monarchy so let’s keep it?’) but they’re not saying why they personally support the monarchy, only trying to ‘gang up’ on republicans, based on an unfounded monarchism. Bandwagon jumpers!
I wonder what fraction of the alleged 75-80% support the monarchy for this reason!?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
They do make you smile don’t they? My grandfather was a wheelwright and so was his father. My father (born in 1905) was also an apprentice wheelwright until one day he saw a motor-car and realized his future as a wheelwright was limited. He then changed tack and became a builder, making a reasonable living in the process and raising seven children. None of us became wheelwrights. Change is the only true constant in life and if we persist, eventually the change we want will come, all we have to do is keep on doing what we’re doing.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Change will happen, the question is what direction will that change be. You lot may hope we go down this dangerous path of republicanism. Plenty of us hope we go down the other path, with a government that is willing to stand up, promote and defend the British monarchy and culture, one that stops caving into liberals who think they know the best form of democracy but would have no problem destroying our country in the process or selling it off to Europe.
Let us hope in 10 months time Her Majestys Government addresses these problems, so we can all come together and show our support for our wonderful Queen. Im looking forward to the Queens Diamond Jubilee, which happens to be in 2012 along side the olympics which is good news.
Lets hope that those organising the opening ceremony have a bit of British culture and show off the monarchy, instead of the disgrace we saw for our 8 minute part of the closing ceremony in china, a bunch of clowns dancing around like it was singing in the rain. Never seen anything so pathetic, and it is typical of this New labour multiculutral obsessed government. And people wonder why theres a British identity crisis for some people, when our own government has to try asking the people what it means to be British because the government doesnt know. Makes me mad as hell.
October 15th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Simon – It truly is amusing how you have to prefix the words queen and monarch with either “wonderful” or “glorious”. Why not go the whole hog and try “absolutely fabulous”? Don’t you realize how ridiculous it appears?
It’s patently obvious that constitutional monarchy is not the best form of democracy. If it were so we would be installing monarchies all over the world instead of the republics we have been doing, and there would be campaign groups in republics calling for the introduction of monarchy, and hoards of people praying to God to anoint someone for the job for life.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Another thing that amuses me is people constantly moaning about the EU, and yet each time I have traveled on the continent (I have relatives in Norway and have visited France, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Italy), the natives seem to enjoy a better standard of living than we do. Why is that I wonder? Could it be due to better governance? Sorry for going off topic.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Bob Wiggin,
She is indeed and absolutely fabulous Queen, as reflected in polls showing the overwhelming majority think she has done a good job, even some of those who support a republic would be honest and say she has been a great Queen, if she hadnt then this country would already be a republic wouldnt it?
The question is will changing to a republic make us a much better country, despite about a month of posting on this site i still have not heard evidence that it will be the case. Ive seen no reason why we should suddenly adopt Irelands system, or Frances system, or the American system. I am still waiting to hear a name of who people here think would make a better head of state than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I think the only name mentioned in jest was
Joanna Lumley. Whilst she has done a great job with the Ghurkas campaign, she is not as internationally known or respected as Queen Elizabeth II or the Princes.
You are right that we do not see lots of republics wanting to become monarchies, so what? Most of europe was catholic, were we wrong to be different? Its their country’s, their systems, their choice. If a republic is like paradise, emigrate. Ofcourse there is no great republican example that looks so wonderful to the people of this country we want to suddenly give up on our own traditions and adopt theirs.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
@ Bob
I find it strange that Europe has a better quality of life too – it is a topic that is never discussed in Britain -and yes it is no coincidence that all of the countries that you mention are much more careful about democracy (monarchies or not) than here.
Polls results are massively influenced by the way that the question is asked and the presence or absence of accurate information.
October 15th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Bob Wiggin: “There would be campaign groups in republics calling for the introduction of monarchy, and hoards of people praying to God to anoint someone for the job for life.”
Actually there are campaign groups and people do pray. Just the other week I received an e-mail from someone in Hawaii. When George Bush was in office, an American wrote to me begging help to save America.
People often do not realise what they have lost until they have lost it.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Bob Wiggin,
You make a good point about other european countries quality of life, although as you mentioned i would like to point out Norway, Sweden, Canada and Australia for example always usually do pretty well on international rankings on quality of life, and they all manage that despite being monarchies.
Now this is going very off subject and its open to debate, but i could give you a few reasons why i think theres a difference if you really want.
1) Alot of people do not realise how many european countries maintain national service or only gave it up recently.
Maintain some form of national service – Austria , Germany , Denmark , Finland , Greece , Switzerland, Norway.
Ended national service – Spain 2002, France 2001, Italy by 2006, Belgium 1994, Hungary 2004, Netherlands 1997,.
National Service formally ended on 31 December 1960 – United Kingdom
Now i do not want to overplay this matter, but the idea of national service even if its not military service is an important one. Helping to build a good society as far as im concerned. Lets not forget there has been a radical decline in respect and certain standards in this country and many think some form of national service would help improve matters… The conservatives want some form of National citizens service, just for 6 weeks over the summer and it wouldnt be compulsary… but u get the general idea.
2) Sadly negativity is something very British these days, people moan like they have things very bad here, and yet people growing up in the 3rd world would be more positive about their future than people here. Its a bit of greed i guess, people here want everything now and dont take the time to treasure things that are important.
3) Family, this is an important issue, Its interesting to note one of the main messages from david camerons speech last week.. “Family, Community, Country” you cant go wrong with a message like that, but its something we have been grossly lacking over recent decades. We have to accept the fact we have ALOT of bloody awful parents who cant raise their kids properly.We have also focused so much on getting both parents to work, it means families hardly see each other any more.
4) Immigration. Over the past 40 years England has been radically changed, this is a small island, yet we are one of the most populated places in Europe. Because of a failure by our government to ensure migrants integrate and feel British, we have been left with the mess of multiculutralism which is going to take a generation to sort out. When you dont all feel part of one community it becomes problematic.
5) Spending, many European countries for decades have spent more on education and health than we have. This country has spent more on its Defence budget than many other european countries do. They spend like 1.8% or 2% of GDP, where as the UK has spends about 2.4% and it use to be far higher. European countries have benefited from the security of NATO and American military power. Whilst some of those european countries just give up, we have continued to spend although i accept not as much as we should have. Also ofcourse budgets have radically increased during the past 12 years of labours binge spending, but quality hasnt risen to match it. billions has been wasted because of incompetent government.
6) Drink, we have a drinking culture and we have had this problem for generations however its only in recent decades as the rule of law has failed because we have become so damn liberal allowing people to do as they please and as drink has become so affordable as we all got more wealthy. If we took really serious action against the drinks industry, you would see a radical change in our standard of living.
Anyway that was a little off topic rant, but u asked the question. Bottom line is, yes ofcourse we have had incompetent government which is to blame for many of these problems, but some of the countries with the highest quality of life are monarchies… 6 out of the top 10 countries on the Human Development Index are infact monarchies. With Norway and Australia at the top. Considering all the republics in the world, thats pretty interesting isnt it?
October 15th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Woops i forgot another one..
7) A country like Republic of Ireland does quite well in international rankings on these things. I would just like to remind people that over the past 30 years Britain has given 10s of billions of this country’s wealth to the European Union and the former EEC. Today Britain despite being the most anti european country in Europe, is infact the second biggest net contributor to the European Budget. France pays more in but they get more back for their farmers. Ireland has been given billions over these past few decades to help improve their country, only a year or two ago did it start actually making a net contribution. So we have actually been funding their happiness in some cases.. thats especially the case for the little countries like Belgium and luxembourg, they profit very nicely from being core parts of the EU administration.
Cant miss out a nice little attack on the European Union ; )
October 15th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Tim Sharp, you have tried to touch that issue carefully but it does not wash for one second.
We all accept our democracy isnt perfect. Our parliament needs radical reforms and peoples time here would be better spent on that subject than trying to abolish the monarchy, but you can not get away from the fact that European constitutional monarchies happen to be some very good countries and have high standards of life. In some cases the best in the world.
our government often wants to copy scandinavian countries, they often say.. over there they do this that or the other be it education or health etc. So i find it interesting that republic asks us to ignore those great countries that “are much more careful about democracy ” and still conclude that monarchy is a good thing, instead asking us to go down the path of becoming a republic. Norway and Sweden are clearly greater role models than France or Germany.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Our democracy is not perfect? You can say that again. And what is at its very heart? The crown. You cannot rectify our lack of democracy with tinkering around the edges, unless you get rid of the cancer at its heart ,(yes I said cancer), we will ultimately go on down the same path we have been trundling along for hundreds of years.
October 15th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Bob Wiggin
This country has done pretty well for itself over the past few hundred years, i do very much hope we carry on trundling along the same path for hundreds of years. That is one of the most positive things ive heard here for a long time, instead of dangerous revolutionary ideas which aim to destroy this country’s culture, identity and our system.
I think removing the house of lords is far more vital to improving British democracy than getting rid of the monarchy. Whilst i support removal of the house of lords, we do need some form of council or board where the government of the day may appoint experts to roles in government without the need for them being an MP. I suppose using the american system where they can randomly pick people of their administration but get the top jobs approved by congress.
If Norway can be the most democratic country in the world, why do we have to get rid of our monarchy to improve British democracy? it makes no sense. Ill tell you what, when our wonderful european friends, who have better standards of living and “are much more careful about democracy” (your words Tim), decide they must become republics then i will think more carefully about our democracy, until then lets just accept Norways verdict, they are far superior arnt they? Although i should add, if the rest of europe got rid of their monarchies and that just left the UK one, it would be a great selling point and reason to keep our own as wed be unique
so i guess it works both ways really.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Without wishing to labour the point Simon, we have been in steady decline for years, probably hundreds of years. Governments of all persuasions have failed the people repeatedly, resulting in what we have now, a broken society. What is at the heart of our system of government? The crown. Successive hereditary heads of state have presided over this steady decline, not a single one of them has had a democratic mandate and so has been unable to intervene on behalf of, and probably immune to anyway, the suffering of the people. Because people have been and do suffer Simon because of misgovernment. The flower of our youth is again being sent to put their lives on the line in foreign fields whilst some of their political masters are busy getting apoplectic about being brought to account over the fiddling of taxpayers. This is what a constitutional monarchy has resulted in. The executive has unlimited power and will not be giving any of it up easily. Where does that power come from? The crown.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Without wishing to labour the point Simon, we have been in steady decline for years, probably hundreds of years. ”
Id say for about 40 years, from about when we became so damn liberal and soft, although things have got so much worse under labour, i accept its not just labours doing.
Again dont try and remove the monarchy because you will fail so its a waste of time, if you want better democracy, spend more time seeking for parliament to reform.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Simon:
Again don’t try and remove the monarchy because you will fail so its a waste of time, if you want better democracy, spend more time seeking for parliament to reform.
That’s an interesting point. Obviously, staunch republicans argue that true parliamentary reform will never be possible as long as power derives from the Crown; but without wishing to get into a debate as to whether or not this is true (despite those examples of other Western monarchies being among the world’s most democratic countries), why don’t we look at the whole thing the other way round?
Specifically, James, does Republic acknowledge what I believe to be the very real danger that if we do eventually get a referendum on the monarchy, a Yes vote for its abolition could merely result in what I would describe as a ‘cosmetic republic’ – i.e. the Crown is removed but the elective dictatorship remains, with no written constitution and no real reform of the parliamentary system or limits on the power of the executive?
Obviously, your campaign material thoroughly explains how what you perceive to be the wrongs of monarchy manifest themselves in the way we are governed on a day-to-day basis; but from an objective standpoint, I wonder if most people are constitutionally-minded enough to grasp the concept of elective dictatorship as opposed to true democracy, or possibly even the idea that government could be much more transparent than it is now. I’m NOT saying the people lack intelligence, far from it; but many people do see the very concept of government as far more evil a necessity than I do. So even if you could generate enough republican sentiment among them to force a referendum, could you guarantee that that referendum would not only cover the monarchy but our entire constitutional system and the powers of government?
October 15th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
@Neil
“Silly me, I always thought republicans believed the will of the people was paramount. 75% of the public support Monarchy. Surely it is now time Republic admitted the will of the people is satisfied with Monarchy”.
My opinion is that 79% of the British people support republic, and less than 10% support monarchy. My opinion poll is greater than yours. Only an official ballot is determinative — to break the tie of the dueling opinion polls.
On a serious level, the issue of Republic vs. Monarchy is not a substantive issue, rather, it’s a procedural one. To get to know what the will of the people is, the monarchy cannot even be in the running. The options that should be presented to the people to decide MUST not include monarchy, especially, hereditary monarchy. The Monarchy is an anachronous institution (– that belongs to an earlier time).
I have silenty observed your arguments for the Monarchy, whereas they are full of anecdotes, I’m disappointed that, hitherto your true reasons remain undivulged.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
eclub,
The people vote every 4-5 years in general elections. When they elect parties that want to remove the monarchy then it will be time for a referendum. The exact same thing applies to separatists who want to destroy the United Kingdom.
Until a majority vote for such groups then there is no reason for a referendum on change.
I have mentioned this before although it was dismissed, we should mark all republicans who stand in mainstream parties clearly on the ballot paper. That way we can see if those MPs who have broken their oaths they have taken are punished or rewarded by the electorate.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
@ Simon, you said:-
“(we have been in steady decline for years) Id say for about 40 years, from about when we became so damn liberal and soft”.
Not true. Since 1997, Labour has introduced some 3,500 new laws. Hardly the act of a liberal regime. In other words, there are more laws now than there have ever been.
You also said: “Britain has given 10s of billions of this country’s wealth to the European Union and the former EEC”
……much of this has been spent in the UK. I think your Queen may have been on hand, for instance, to open buildings that have been constructed and funded via this money.
And finally, you said: “if you want better democracy, spend more time seeking for parliament to reform”
Yep. That’s exactly right. We can start reforming Parliament by getting rid of the monarchy and the political machinery that props it up and uses it to its own ends!
October 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
@Simon
You must remember that not all procedural changes are determined by the majority. At one point, the monarchy came into existence without a majority vote. I hope you’ll concede that point. Further, here are examples of major changes without majority opinion polls: after the Hanoverian George I ascended the throne in 1714 through an Act of Parliament, power began to shift from the Sovereign, and by the end of his reign the position of the ministers — who had to rely on Parliament for support — was cemented. Towards the end of the 18th century the monarch still had considerable influence over Parliament, which was dominated by the English aristocracy, by means of patronage, but had ceased to exert direct power: for instance, the last occasion Royal Assent was withheld, was in 1708 by Queen Anne. At general elections the vote was restricted to freeholders and landowners, in constituencies that were out of date, so that in many “rotten boroughs” seats could be bought while major cities remained unrepresented. Reformers and Radicals sought parliamentary reform, but as the Napoleonic Wars developed the government became repressive against dissent and progress toward reform was stalled.
Furthermore, the principle of ministerial responsibility to the lower House did not develop until the 19th century — the House of Lords was superior to the House of Commons both in theory and in practice. Members of the House of Commons were elected in an antiquated electoral system, under which constituencies of vastly different sizes existed.
And, the supremacy of the British House of Commons was established in the early 20th century. In 1909, the Commons passed the so-called “People’s Budget”, which made numerous changes to the taxation system in a manner detrimental to wealthy landowners. The House of Lords, which consisted mostly of powerful landowners, rejected the Budget. On the basis of the Budget’s popularity and the Lords’ consequent unpopularity, the Liberal Party narrowly won two general elections in 1910. Using the result as a mandate, the Liberal Prime Minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, introduced the Parliament bill, which sought to restrict the powers of the House of Lords.
Now, Simon, I adopted all these texts above to make two key points to you:
!. The issue of Monarchy vs. Elected People has been contested, and the Elected People (Parliament) won. The monarch was stripped of his absolute authority, and was merely relegated to ceremonial role. But because the times, 19th Century to late 20th Century gave a lot deference to people like Popes and Monarchs, that message was not delivered in the manner that a recalcitrant Monarch wouldn’t pack his or her bags and leave, the monarchy hung around, plotting and maneuvering to come back to life; and it has succeeded. It no longer looks at itself as a mere ceremonial play thing. My suggestion is that the people or the Republic should not relitigate an issue that had been settled awhile back. The monarchy was rejected when Parliament ascended. What is left now is reformation of Parliament by getting rid of the Crown in Parliament, the HOL, and even the ceremonial-but-regenerated-real power-Monarchy.
2. Simon, I can assure you that Britain will become a democratic country without a monarch sooner or later, there is no doubt about that. So, you should spend your time constructively, so as to bring this about. Everybody knows what Britain have now is a Fraudulent democracy, I’m sorry. I have noticed that you like to say “our beloved queen blah blah blah” to antagonise some.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Martin G,
Umm i fail to see what difference that makes. The fact this government wastes endless amount of time and money making new laws, doesnt mean they are tough on crime. What it means is, they make some laws.. then they fail to get to grips with something (like anti social behaviour), so they go back to the drawing board and thats whats happened for the last 12 years.
We have some tough laws on the books, we just have a government that refuses to sort out our courts and prisons so criminals are punished. We have a government that refuses to take action against religious extremists who preach hate, there is such a thing as treason but our government is too politically correct to try using it. Our prisons are like 3 star hotels, almost every single cell has a television.. What the hell is that all about? people are meant to be punished in prison not lay on a bed watching tv!, especially as the scum dont even pay the license fee.
We are a soft touch and like i said before i accept its not just labour. Over the past few decades we have undermined God (no problem with that but it takes away a powerful authority), weve undermined parents, police, schools which has led to chaos in certain parts of the country as people run riot.
On the European Union. No, i was talking about net contributions.. We have given 10s of billions in net contributions to the European budget over the past 3 decades (thats after taking into account money that gets spent at home like the CAP or other projects). Where as a country like Ireland, has been subsidised for years and it was only a year or two ago they started making net contributions. The figures are shocking. People wonder why this country is anti european then u see how much we are paying compared to many other countries who are profitting from it. Im sure if our country got a few billion every year for nothing, it might mean there was less opposition to the EU here.
I honestly dont understand this view that you must do away with the monarchy to reform Parliament. The monarchy is the strongest institution in our system and the hardest to bring down. The house of lords isnt, theres far more support for doing something about that than touching the monarchy. Why go for the monarchy that so many will defend and is clearly an impossible struggle.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
eclub
Are you trying to suggest that we should remove the monarchy even if the majority of the people support keeping it? Thats what mentioning previous changes done without consent of the majority sounds like to me.
To call kicking Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II out onto the streets like a commoner a “procedural change” is shocking.
Oh and if a republic is going to come about sooner or later, why bother campaigning on it.. go with the flow and wait for it to happen.
I have noticed that people here refer to their Queen as “Ms Windsor” in an attempt to pretend that she is not our Queen. Support change all u like, but show respect to your Queen please.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@ Matt Showering
From what I can see, Republic put as much emphasis on the Written Constitution than they do on the Campaign for an Elected head of State, Rightfully in my opinion.
Monarchists like to argue that Republicians want “Change for changes sake”, but if you look closely, that is not the case.
You could also argue that even if we were granted a written constitution, they would be no guarantee that it would be adhered to. At least we would have a say in who goes and who stays.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
@ Dave
Ha!
@ Simon
Please start using some apostrophes, mate!
@ Bob
A constitutional monarchy ISN’T a democracy full stop!
@ Les autres
Of course I would be willing to change my mind. You’ve GOT to be open to other people’s arguments and views. I would willingly declare myself a monarchist tomorrow if someone gave me a decent argument in favour of it. But no one has yet been able to defend choosing your head of state by their DNA and believing that this person is intellectually, morally and spiritually superior to everyone else.
I’m still waiting…
October 15th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Ash, thanks for picking up on my comment.
“Republic put as much emphasis on the Written Constitution as they do on the Campaign for an Elected head of State, rightly in my opinion.”
Absolutely. Throwing aside our differences vis-a-vis the continuation of the hereditary principle and the practical/moral issues at stake there, I commend Republic’s commitment to a written constitution, and Graham’s previously said that they would support it in principle even if it didn’t accompany the abolition of the monarchy. However,
“You could also argue that even if we were granted a written constitution, they would be no guarantee that it would be adhered to.”
Very good point. Because clearly, for the constitution to be upheld, the powers of the courts would have to be increased (though not dramatically so). And that’s why I don’t think the masses would connect with the idea of a written constitution even if they did support a republic: right now the Telegraph seem to running a bit of a mini-campaign against judicial activism, and in doing so I think they are perfectly capturing the mood of the majority for whom this means ‘government by the courts’ (not an accurate assessment in my opinion) and for whom even the current status quo of the all-powerful executive would be preferable. Sure they will support transferring much of the practical wielding of power from the government to parliament, and if Republic achieves its goals then they will be mindful of the fact that power is ultimately vested in them. The hurdle, then, will lie in persuading them to accept that the judiciary must be given more power to uphold the constitution and, if necessary, keep the executive or indeed the legislature in check.
Liam, sorry to go totally off-topic, but you have absolutely no idea how much both of our contributions to this ongoing debate could benefit from a little bit of footie on the side!
October 15th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
@ Simon
We’ve had this conversation before – “prisons are holiday camps, blah, blah, blah”… hanging is too good for them…..yah-de-yah……”.
And I see that you have picked up on another of the Daily Mail’s regular rants about the EU. The money that is spent (as with all public spending) is not placed in a box and blasted into outer space where it remains untouched. It stays within the economy, provides jobs, keeps the economy going and gives social worth.
The primary reason we have taxation is to ensure that the amount (and velocity) of money in circulation does not overheat the economy. A by-product of this is public spending. Check out Irving Fisher et al. However, economics lessons are way off topic so I’ll stop there….
The EU does have its good points. For instance, under the EU treaties, at least we (and Mrs W) are all treated as citizens. I believe that Tony Benn once canvassed Mrs W for her vote in a European election some years ago.
Finally, Parliamentary reform must include eventual abolition of the monarchy. The very existence of a monarchy prevents debate and reform. It would also be an opportunity to ensure that MPs and ministers are properly accountable to the electorate rather than the crown (or more correctly the realm).
October 15th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
@ matt
done
October 15th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Got it Liam, thanks. Will reply in some depth tomorrow.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
@ Matt Showering
Thanks for your response.
It’s refreshing to exchange ideas with Monarchists who is serious in thought and objective in thinking, though I do get the impression that You’d support the Republician cause if Republic got everything it wanted in One swoop. Would you say that’s a fair assesment?
I would say that persuading the public of the Courts adopting slightly more powers to uphold a Written Consititution as well as statory laws would not be a problem as it would mean we would by then we would have lifted the illusion of the current conventions.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Ash:
You’d support the republican cause if Republic got everything it wanted in One swoop. Would you say that’s a fair assesment?
Insofar as I’d choose the republic this organisation envisages over the current status quo of all-powerful government under the Crown.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Simon: “People are meant to be punished in prison not lay on a bed watching tv!, especially as the scum dont even pay the license fee.”
Poetry to my ears.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:19 am
@ Simon “The people vote every 4-5 years in general elections. When they elect parties that want to remove the monarchy then it will be time for a referendum.”
I can’t help but point out that our political system is dominated by two party, neither of whom would publicly say they would abloish the monarchy. Primarily this results from the fact that the electoral system favours geographic based party dominance. Smaller parties who cannot build up high levels of support in a particular region cannot therefore compete with the more dominant parties.
@ Simon “show respect to your Queen please”
As we have had no choice in whether Mrs Windsor is our queen she does not deserve our respect. Respect must be earned, not given unconditionally because of the chances of her birth. Moreover just because you feel the need to be servile towards a disinterested authority figure does not mean that I have to subscribe to you formalities.
Your arguments regarding the state of the prison system etc are an issue of governance in the sense of what the government do. This is not connected to the issue of political equality within a republican system.
I would also like to point out that Human Rights law, and anti-discrimination laws have developed under the auspices of the EU and Labour. However this rights and protections would be better pretoected under a codified constitution.
Matt, regarding the courts, I think it is important that we are clear what we mean when we say increasing the power of the courts. For a start not all courts would become more powerful, a constitutional court certaintly would have the power it limit and strike down laws if they violated a codified constitution. At the moment the Supreme Court (as the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords has now become) can only certiy that a law is incompatible with human rights. I know this is off topic but I wanted to address the issue of a reformed government after the removal of the monarch.
Matt, I am also not sure why you think removing the monarch would lead to an elective dictaorship? If the position of head of state were vacant then the basis of the whole system would be gone and an overhaul would be needed. Also aside from the monarch we do not seem to have a history of dictatorships in the UK.
In response to the intial question, I do not think I would be able to change my mind on the monarchy because the institution itself repesents civil and political inequality. Even if it could be shown that the monarch was better qualified than anyone else to be the head of state, with reserve powers, I would still object to the fundamental principles of the office. Although if they were shown to be better qualified, in their abilities than any other possible alternative, then it would make rational sense for them to remain.
However none of the monarchists have demonstrated this, mostly they seem to treat the monarch as an object of sentimental value, rather than an ethical and principled position.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Sam Walker: “Our political system is dominated by two parties, neither of whom would publicly say they would abolish the monarchy.”
Do you know why, Sam?
They wouldn’t get elected.
October 16th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Neil,
My point was that the current voting system limits the introduction of new parties, minimising the potential to debate different state structures. You seem to be suggesting that the lack of alternatives is the same as support.
It seems that the lack of competition between our parties means that they have become very similar and disinclined to raise new or challenging issues.
Of course it easier for the parties to accpet the status quo but that doesn’t mean the public should be deprived of the oppotunity to challenge the outdated monarchical system.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:52 am
@Simon
You posed this question to me:
“Are you trying to suggest that we should remove the monarchy even if the majority of the people support keeping it? Thats what mentioning previous changes done without consent of the majority sounds like to me”.
My answer: Respectfully, yes. I will explain.
Now Simon, you do enjoy one advantage in this debate, and it is a formidable one at that. The current monarch has a sympathetic appearance, grand-motherly, and seems to have always been with us. That said, her role as monarch is villainous, if truth be told. One individual commandeering all the glory that belongs to a people: their God given right to choose their leader. You see without the above, I would have refered you to the removal of Sadam Hussein. He was enjoying 100% in opinion polls from Iraq before his removal. He had the society connected, analogous to the Monarchy in Great Britain; I know it will take acrobatic imagination to see the resemblance; all you have to do is remove the euphemistic British names, and replace it with their Iraqi counter-parts, and you’d see it. Unelected head of state, is unelected Head of State, whether you call it “President”, “Queen”, or “Banana”. Simon, let me give you one anecdote here. Imagine some space aliens landed from Andromeda, and you, Simon was their unfortunate encounter. Imagine further that, they sought from you the governing structure of Great Britain. When you are done with the contortional explanations, and done with describing the monarch and her role, they will come off picturing a villain, a strongman, a Saddam Hussein of some sort, a dictator! I am assuming you told the aliens the truth ofcourse: that the Queen is unelected, never stands for re-election, she reigns for life, she lives in many castles paid for by tax payers in the tune of millions of pounds, her images are on the stamps, currency, she should be exempt from FOI acts, she can only be succeeded by her family members, she is above the laws of the country, her immortality is the only concern of the national anthem, not the nations, and so on and so forth…).
The British Monarchy is a creaking, time-barnacled barque that will crack at the first signs sunlight (heat).
Simon, I invite you and your fellow monarchists to address the real issues and stop chasing shadows.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Morning Sam
I have no problem with your position on the role of the courts in upholding a codified constitution. However,
Matt, I am also not sure why you think removing the monarch would lead to an elective dictaorship?
My apologies, I have completely misled you. When I say “the Crown would be gone but the elective dictatorship would remain,” I am referring to the fact that what we have now is an elective dictatorship – i.e. the government enjoys unlimited power whilst in office and the people have no real say in what happens except during an election every 4/5 years – and as per my last comment, despite my wish for the monarchy to continue in a revitalised democracy with a codified constitution (see my recent article on impartiality, particularly the later comments arising from it), I would support a republic if there was a straight choice between the one envisaged by this organisation and the continuation of the status quo unreformed. What I am getting at here is the danger that, even if republican sentiment forces a referendum which yields a positive result, all we actually get is a cosmetic change from monarch to president, with no codified constitution, no curbs on the power of the executive (or indeed parliament) and no democratic reform of the system whatsoever. In that scenario, the elective dictatorship continues. Unless, of course, the president reasoned that he had a democratic mandate by default and thus decided to try overruling the government. But I’m sure none of us want to see that happening.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Matt,
Thanks for clearing that up. I mentioned the courts only as an example of how the judiciary would operate in a codified constitutional set up. The way I outlined above is the most common way.
I can see your point regarding only the removal of the monarch, however if that were to happen I think it would create a situation where a constitutional document would be needed. I wouldn’t support just the removal of the monarch, as I don’t think that would solve any of our problems.
I would support replacing the current system with a republic founded upon a condified constitution. From what you have said it seems that this is what you would want to see if the monarchy were abolished. Is this accurate?
October 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Eclub: “Saddam Hussein. He was enjoying 100% in opinion polls from Iraq before his removal.”
Yes he did. Sometimes with a gun at peoples heads and with all opposition to President Saddam Hussein banned. Very much like the United Kingdom then.
Ecub. People do not have a God given right to choose their Monarch. The Bible makes it clear that The Monarch is The Supreme Ruler within a nation and, as a consequence, it is God’s role to Choose Him or Her.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
@ Liam
A constitutional monarchy ISN’T a democracy full stop!
Sorry Liam, I cannot recall missing out “what we laughingly refer to as…” before the words “our democracy”, but I will be more careful in future. I’m in the same camp as you, I am nearly 60, I’ve been a republican from a very early age and during all that time no-one has given me a single reason to change to a monarchist, other than the usual, which doesn’t cut it.
Neil : not that it’s going to sway me one iota but what verses in the Bible are you referring to?
October 16th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Hi again Sam
I can see your point regarding only the removal of the monarch, however if that were to happen I think it would create a situation where a constitutional document would be needed.
There is, indeed, only one republic in the world without an entrenched constitution, which is Israel; but then the only two monarchies without one are Britain and New Zealand. Interestingly enough, if I’m not mistaken, the NZ Republican Movement don’t have an official policy on such an institution: they are right to argue that their country is already a de facto republic with the Governor-General as head of state, meaning that the switch to a republic would be more cosmetic than if it happened here; but they appear to believe that unentrenched legislation codifying the reserve powers of the new president would be sufficient to reshape the constitutional framework, despite the fact that the NZ government is, if anything, even more powerful in its own country than the British one is – which would be true even if we weren’t in the EU.
I would support replacing the current system with a republic founded upon a codified constitution. From what you have said it seems that this is what you would want to see if the monarchy were abolished. Is this accurate?
Pretty much. I want a codified constitution and redistribution of power regardless, but if the monarchy was abolished then I would want a parliamentary republic with the president elected in the German model.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
@ Neil – You really are a laugh. Just thinking about the monarchs from the past and their propensity for murdering others. They were all chosen by God eh? Absolute baloney and I suspect you probably know it.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Hi Bob
You might want to continue this conversation in the ‘MOJ Royal Prerogative Report’ thread. I’ve asked Neil to tell me what he thinks of the Australian ‘Crowned Republic’ – arguably the world’s finest democracy and existing under a monarchy – and his answer may be interesting in relation to his comment in which he compared Saddam’s Iraq & Britain under New Labour, because he seems to be implying that the reason for that shameful (if slightly exaggerated) status quo is lack of respect for the Crown; but what I’m arguing is that the Australian model of the Crown (the institution, not the Queen herself) representing the people’s sovereignty, demonstrates how the democratic reforms most of us here seek can be instituted without abolishing the monarchy. Obviously many republicans will disagree with me on that, but I’m trying to suss out whether Neil has a truly Sir Humphrey-esque view of British democracy or if he really is just having a laugh.
Wonderful Captcha text: foi potsdam – maybe we could use the same Act which enabled the Telegraph to expose the expenses scandal, to find out exactly what was said at the conference on the rebuilding of Europe after World War II!
October 16th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Bob Wiggin.
“It’s not going to sway me one iota but what verses in The Bible you referring to?” Well, with that attitude – look them all up yourself.
“You really are a laugh.” I like to please – it’s a weakness of mine.
“They were Chosen by God – absolute baloney.” But think of all those youngsters dying in Afghanistan who believe this. Giving up their only chance of life on this planet for God’s Queen. Amazing – that’s power.
Matt Showering. “I am trying to suss out whether Neil has a truly Sir Humphrey-esque view of British democracy or if he really is just having a laugh.” It is the latter fool, it is the latter. Honestly, some people.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Young men enlist in the armed forces for many and various reasons Neil. Way down on the list of reasons is their belief that the queen has been chosen by God. They take an oath of allegiance yes, I do not like oaths as I have explained previously. If the armed forces take an oath at all they should take one to defend the nation. You will say the queen embodies the nation which is why they swear an oath to her, but I disagree with that also, she does not embody or represent the nation. She represents an unaccountable, privileged clique who are divorced from us the people. She may be an extremely nice person, I don’t know and I hold no personal animosity towards her, but she has suffered no hardship or deprivation on my behalf or indeed the nation’s behalf.
I’m not going to be scouring the Bible any time soon to verify the veracity of what I instinctively know are just preposterous statements from you.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
“You really are a laugh.” I like to please – it’s a weakness of mine.
“I am trying to suss out whether Neil has a truly Sir Humphrey-esque view of British democracy or if he really is just having a laugh.” It is the latter fool, it is the latter. Honestly, some people.
That does it! I never thought I’d hear myself saying this, being a fanatical believer in free speech, but Neil, you have admitted that every single thing you say on here is a joke, yet still you persist with your high-blown oratory about God’s Queen! James, please ban Neil from the Blog!
October 16th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I was only joking Matt.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Of course you were only joking, because by your own admission EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS A JOKE!!
October 16th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@ Neil
Would it be fair to say you believe in Plato’s God?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noble_Lie
October 16th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Bob Wiggin: “The young men enlist in the armed forces for many and various reasons, Neil. Way down on the list of reasons is their belief that the Queen has been Chosen by God.” I think you would be very surprised Bob. Many moons ago I served in the Army. The men under my command genuinely loved The Queen. I realise it must sound odd and ridiculous – but soldiers actually love The Queen. Indeed, a part of Army training is to instil that love within them. For once you have that love, you have their minds also. They are then prepared to fight and die for Her. I was prepared to fight and die for Her Majesty too. I was prepared to end the only life I will ever have on this planet, the one life my parents gave to me, for The Queen. That thought, about parents, it often crosses your mind. It was there when I took the Oath and signed all my papers to enlist. Yet, at the end of the day, as extraordinary as this will sound – I was happy and willing to be vapourised defending The Queen. It comes from the heart. It is difficult to explain. You love The Queen, Her Kingdom and, of course, England. England is very, very special. The people of England don’t often realise that. You see, even though I am Welsh, I’d die for England – it’s difficult to put into words.
Mind you, I’ve always felt that way – ever since I was a child and, more specifically, as a cadet as a teenager. There is just this mystery about The Monarchy. You see something there. I’ve seen it since I was aged about eight, when I celebrated Prince William’s birth at school, and I just can’t ignore it or shake it off. Religion is part of it, I think. In school and in the military they are big on religion. They teach you that The Queen has been been Chosen by God and that you must die for Her. People who I knew, people who I was at school with, they have been blown up. They have died for The Queen. I wonder what Her Majesty thinks of this overwhelming willingess to die for Her and for Her Family.
In fairness Matt, I think you have misunderstood what I wrote earlier.
Eclub: “Saddam Hussein. He was enjoying 100% in opinion polls from Iraq before his removal.” Neil Welton: “Yes he did. Sometimes with a gun at peoples heads and with all opposition to President Saddam Hussein banned. Very much like the United Kingdom then.” I was comparing the unwilling support for Saddam Hussein in Iraq to the very willing support for Her Majesty The Queen within the United Kingdom.
As for The Noble Lie.
You might think that but I couldn’t possibly comment.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Neil, you sound truly deranged! If the Queen is chosen by god, then presumably Charles is too? How do you feel about him commiting adultery (cheating on Diana with TWO women) and breaking one of the 10 commandments as a result??!! No conflict there then???
October 16th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Fine words Neil, very good post and thanks for your service in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:16 am
@ simon
Sorry if I touched on the successful monarchies of europe too lightly – I have never said that all monarchies are crap places and all republics are excellent – I do think that there is a european consensus which is more thoughtful about public engagement and good governance than we have here.
October 17th, 2009 at 12:25 am
I agree, certain european countries are far more politically active and engaging than we are, although a country like Italy which is basically a dictatorship shows its not the whole of the continent.
The general point was though, if certain high standard european countries, with some of the best democracies, i dont quite understand why we need to do away with the monarchy here? Surely we should be looking to reform parliament and make it more like those countries rather than scrapping it despite them seeing no problem with keeping the monarchy.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Neil,
As you are the one asserting the Bible specifically states that the monarch is to be the head of state of the UK, or even England, you have to provide us with the verses and source of you argument. Your the one with a duty to prove all of your statements if you want us to accept them. However the reason you do not and attempt to joke about everything is because you know that you have no basis for what you say. Aside form the fact that the Bible was codified before the existence of the our country, the history of the Windsor family shows that their position is a result of political developments.
Your post regarding the military and schools, not only sounds like indoctrination, but demonsrates why religion and the state must be spearate.
Simon, the monarchy needs to be removed because of the principles upon which it rests. Principles which offend against popular governance and civil equality between citizens. Thus while the monarchy remains the fundamental problems with our society will still be there.
James, I’m hesitant to say this but I think you should consider banning Neil. He fails to conrtibute anything of value and simply reiterates his personal religious views and atttempts to impose them on the country. Furthermore he fails to provide any sources for the figures he uses, and avoids repsonding to request for him to reference them. He also fails to repsond to challenges of his arguments.
For example, when Bob asked for the verses that Neil was referring to his response was “Well, with that attitude – look them all up yourself”. This kind of behaviour is not only very childish but demonstrates that he is simply is trying to prevent a meaningful discussion.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Sam Walker,
The point was that Norway and other European countries which have some of the highest standards of living in the world and are considered the most democratic, do happen to have monarchies. We have many flaws in this country, voter apathy and problematic houses of parliament.
But if Norway can be so perfect with a monarchy why cant we? Why try to remove the Queen, when she is protected from all sides, be it parliament, the media, the elites, the educated classes, the established church, and ofcourse the commoner. Why try to bring her down? it aint going to happen. There are so many moderate reforms to our system which would be accepted by people on all sides and improve our democracy, without the need for throwing an 83 year old lady out onto the streets.
Also there seems to be this endless war on the class system, as if getting rid of the monarchy will somehow make us all equal and do away with the different classes in society. Republics have elites too.
As for Neil, i think he makes some very good contributions and ive seen him answer many questions directed at him.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Thank you for your kind words Simon. It was a great honour and a great privilege to be able to serve my Queen – as well as Her son and grandsons as Princes of Wales. Thank you England for our Princes.
I never meant to offend Sam or Matt. You now appear to want to ban me. Is this the country I was prepared to fight and die for? All because you disagree with what I say and how I choose to say it. I have told you and Bob repeatedly – read the 1953 Coronation Service. Google it, it is online. All the main Bible quotes and references are there. There are plenty of other references too, but why should I bother when the tone here is this – “It’s not going to sway me one iota.”; “God doesn’t exist!”; “It is all mumbo jumbo.” Surely the real question is this – why do you seek proof when you think it is all mumbo jumbo? For all I’ve said is this. “The British believe in God.” Try Google. You’ll soon see.
To my knowledge, I’ve never failed to respond to a challenge or proper questioning of my arguments. For I’ve laid out my case clearly and concisely. Just because you don’t agree, doesn’t mean I am wrong.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Neil,
It is not that fact that I do not agree with you, it your conduct that I take issue with. As I stated your childish responses and unwillingness to provide backing for what you assert. You have failed to provide the details of the poll upon which you base the 75% argument.
I think I have pointed out how you failed to respond to Bob’s comment and you don’t provide a rational or cogent counter argument to any points made. You simply make statements and expect that they are accepted at face value. It is failure to engage with this blog seriously that I object to.
I would much prefer that you are not banned, and are able to express your views, but I do not think you are making a constructive contribution. Rather you seem to be here with the aim of antagonising and provoking people. I do not wish to labour the point, and I think it would be best left to the adminstrators to resolve.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:56 am
I truely, second Sam Walker’s motion to ban Neil, and I’ll add Simon to the list. This is a serious endeavour that the Republic is engaged in. Who wants a busy blog page for busy sake? We certainly don’t engage in change for change sake, therefore we must treat these sycophants the way they treat us. We can’t always turn the other cheek. If any one comes here to play around by posting stupid smileys, and redundant, illogical comments, and at the same time think they are doing us a favor by being here, once they violate the moderation policy, they should be banned. I have found none of Neils comments to be funny, I have not laughed one time reading his posts. And especially not Simon’s.
October 17th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Hmmm – I wonder what free speech will be like in Republic’s republic?
October 17th, 2009 at 3:03 am
Sam,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7967142.stm
British monarchy to continue? – 76% yes
Carried out by ICM 20-22 March 2009.
ICM is one of this country’s leading polling groups.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:03 am
@Neil
Here in USA, we have free speech; but it does have its limits. For instance, it is against the law to yell “Fire, Fire” in a crowded theater without there being fire indeed.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:09 am
eclub,
I did not find your suggestion that we should somehow become a republic against the wishes of the British people funny. I seem to recall from a previous conversation some weeks ago having concerns about exactly what sort of action you were proposing, because it sounded troubling.
I fail to see the harm having more people respond here, surely a more active blogsite is a better one. As i have suggested before, if some form of chat room could possibly be established it might take away this problem of going off topic. The only moderation policy that ive broken is going off topic from time to time, but i think thats something everyone might be found guilty of. It takes two to tango as they say.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:14 am
eclub,
You live in the United States? Are you a British subject or an American?
October 17th, 2009 at 3:36 am
@ Simon
I am an American.
Ordinary, I find you to be conversant, and involved, and that is a good thing. But, your inkling that advancement of democracy is a local issue that should be decided by indigenes (–perhaps even autochthons) is flawed. As you know, Britain was proactive in removing Saddam Hussein from power, with the leadership of the US of course, but she was involved non the less. Over the past centuries, Britain has condemned many despotic regimes, and rightfully so. That does not make Britain immune from criticism. Currently, Zimbabwe is one such country that Britain finds reprehensible due to her undemocratic ways. So, do not imply that I should mind my own business in America. I am working to make America more democratic, and a more perfect Union, concomitantly working to bring democracy to Britain.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Eclub,
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however this is an internal British matter that will be handled the British way. Whilst i am very glad you have concerns about our democracy, id just like to let you know i have similar concerns about the United States. Americas system is flawed, its media is totally corrupt and you have a president that thinks he can print more money than our own prime minister.. its like a race to see which country can be bankrupted first.
Britain is a global power, a former superpower that had responsibility for a large area of this planet. It is our duty to try to help bring about reforms in former parts of the Empire that are not as democratic or respectful of human rights as the people deserve. Zimbabwe is a country that does require alot of attention by Her Majesty’s Government when dealing with African issues. Are we wrong to try to help encourage democracy there with our allies? That is not meddling, it is an obligation both as the former colonial power and as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a body that is meant to be working to ensure continued world peace and security. Zimbabwe is not a democracy, the United Kingdom is. The Queens supporters do not round up and beat opposition as takes place in Zimbabwe.
As for Saddam. The British and American governments were not responsible for the invasion of Kuwait by the Republic of Iraq. Following military action by the United States and her allies, including the United Kingdom, Saddams forces retreated and a ceasefire was agreed. That ceasefire was very clear about the obligations the Republic of Iraq had to meet. Sadly a decade later, after endless violations of United Nations resolutions and the ceasefire agreement the time had come for action. United Nations Weapons Inspectors clearly said Saddam was not fully complying, despite a chapter 7 resolution ordering them to. When your enemy no longer respects a ceasefire agreement, you take action in this case we got to witness the worlds super power in action, it was an amazing few months. We should have great pride in the fact 26 million people now live in a free republic.
Anyway back to the original point. As an American your insight into a republic im sure is very informative, but at the end of the day it will be for the British people to decide, and British sovereignty will be respected. Right now the overwhelming majority of the people oppose abolishing the monarchy.. there for we keep it. Democracy in action, not bad for a constitutional monarchy is it
?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:40 am
@ Simon
I thank you for the post above. Most of your comments are mainly politics. Some of them I agree with you, and the others, I disagree. I have read all your comments on this blog regarding President Obama, and you are entitled to your opinion. I have not once admonished you to be respectful to a duly elected President of the United States, because I shouldn’t. I have not asked you to limit your obversations to the polity in UK, because it is inappropriate for me to say that. I only ask that you accord me reciprocal treatment.
Simon, may I use this opportunity to clarify something for you? When I refered to a ‘revolution’, it in no way endorses a “violent revolution”. I meant peaceful revolution. I’m against violence of any type.
Now, on the topic of the blog, is there any scenario aside from breaking up of the Union that will make you consider Republicanism? Any scenario?? Thanks
October 17th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Simon,
Thank you providing a source for the poll.
I must however point out that your argument that eclub should not really be involved, and to then suggest that the UK has a right to tell other nations what to do is vile and absurd. Britain was a global super-power, we are not any longer. People have to accept that the UK is not a world leader or a vital member of the global stage. We have a seat on the security council through past power, and eventually this will have to change.
Our domination and conquest of areas of the world does not entitle us to be the decider of other democracies, that is simple imperialist arrogance. I object to your assertion that the UK is somehow qualified to dictate to other nations how they should operate.
You say we are a deomcracy, I would argue that we are far less democratic than the US. While I personally find some aspects of the US consitution problematic, they at least can elect all of their governing officials. Of the three components of Parliament, only the House of Commons is elected, both the upper house and head of state are not.
With regards to Neil, freedom of speech is not absolute, however more important is the fact this blog has a specific aim of discussing the republican agend and possible approachs to solve the many problem our system has. It does not seem that Neil contributes to this.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Simon,
Can you comment on this.
I want to demonstrate something.
Let us use Zimbabwe as the country. Currently Zimbabwe is a Republic, with a constitution; it is marred by economic mismanagement by its President Robert Mugabe, who is also the Head of State. We know he is a bad actor in the international eyes.
Let us for one moment make him a monarch, in the British style. Let us give him every power and privilege accorded the Queen of England: power to rule for life, power to be immune from FOI, power to dismiss prime ministers, power to be above the law, power not to run for election or reelection; power to be succeeded by his next of kin only, power of immunity from prosecution, power to be free from criticism, power of secrecy, power not to have any changes plotted or spoken against his government, and all powers afforded a monach. Further, let us give the respect you demand from me, power to have only indegenes of his state engaged in any discussion about his country, in essence, power of non inteference from outsiders.
Do you think it will be proper to have such a Zimbabwe and a Mugabe? And if not, why?
October 17th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Okay everyone! The question was “is there anything that would change your mind on the monarchy?” Can we get back to that?
We’re not going to ban anyone just yet, but please read our moderation policy.
Neil/Simon: We very much welcome monarchists here, but there’s no point in you just repeating the same old arguments ad infinitum. This just becomes trolling – our definition of which is “attempting to disrupt the debate” – which we won’t tolerate. Please, if you make statement can you back it up with some evidence? (This of course applies to everyone, not just monarchists).
As for free speech, removing comments and banning commenters is not an infringement of free speech at all – it’s an editorial policy. You are welcome to set up your own blog aren’t you? (As I believe you have Neil). We’re no more obliged to post your comments on the site than the Telegraph is obliged to print my letters if I write to them.
But, as Graham has said, we’re not in the business of censorship and will only do this as a last resort.
Oh, and Neil … as I mentioned before, the religious case for/against monarchy is something I find very interesting. That’s why we organised a seminar on it – you should have attended. It’s a subject we may well return to on this blog, but until then it’s off-topic I’m afraid.
@Matt
Thanks for your insightful comments (as usual). I think your question about avoiding an elective dictatorship in a republic deserves a full response, so I’ll try and do so in a dedicated post shortly.
October 17th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
James,
thankyou for your comments. Whilst i accept i often go slightly off topic, i do not consider myself a troll attempting to “disrupt the debate”, thats certainly not my intention. An off topic conversation does not stop someone from responding to the original blog or prevent new ones being written. Sadly things going off topic is a flaw with “Blogs” in general, they have such limitations. I have always been more of a fan of free flowing text in chat rooms, its more open, theres no single topic, its more speedy and friendly. On the other blog i posted a link to the BBC website showing comments by Alex Salmond, i thought that would be of interest to people here, especially any Scottish republicans, but that was going “off topic”. Apart from posting an entire article about it which i can not do, theres not really a way to communicate such things to everyone here, except possibly email to the site, but even then i cant see that comment by salmond justifying a whole blog article. So it could have been missed by everyone, despite it being on the subject of monarchy and intersting. Sometimes i do go way way off topic, getting into a debate about US politics (although its linked because they are a republic with problems and a head of state which is worrying), and the other problems this country faces (but the only reason i go into those is trying to highlight our country has big problems which are more urgent than addressing the constitutional setup).
Anyway, on the next blog posted i promise to try and stay very on topic (so i hope its a good one). But like a bad habbit i find it very difficult not to reply to certain comments that i see or that are directed at me. But i will try on the next one
Eclub,
Thanks for your clarification on the revolution bit, i understand although the bit about becoming a republic even if the majority of the people dont want it still puzzles me. I was not trying to suggest you shouldnt get involved in conversations here (as you rightly say i often comment on American issues), just wanted to point out at the end of the day its a British decision and right now i consider their verdict to be in clear support of the monarchy. Its the same with the union, I do not want to see my country broken up and i and many others will do all they can to ensure that doesnt happen, but at the end of the day it will be for the people of Scotland to decide their future, not me.
Apart from to save the union, the only other time id accept a republic is if we had an awful monarch or the capability of a republic i detailed on another post, but the tech capability is not available for that, and i cant see it being in my life time.
Sam Walker,
Your talk is rather defeatist if i can use that term. The United Kingdom is certainly no longer a super power and our influence is declining but we are still a great power with a powerful position on the world stage. We are a leading member of NATO, a core member of the European Union, theres still a commonwealth although this government may have forgotten that.
Understand that NO British government will surrender the British seat on the United Nations Security Council, that seat is our right and nobody has the authority to take it away. Ofcourse what we will see happen is expansion of the security council, to Japan, Germany, India and less justified Brazil, but seats are not removed.
I am not saying we should dictate to other nations how they should operate, we should encourage reform and we should do so by all methods possible within international law. If billions of pounds is leaving this country to help with aid in 3rd world countries, i see nothing wrong with us wanting certain conditions to be met on democracy / human rights or reforms to be taking place.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is most certainly qualified to get involved in these matters on the world stage, and it is our right, especially in the case of our former colonies. This is still a great nation, despite the troubling times we live in today. We may be a former shadow of our former self, but if and when the time came full mobilisation is possible. Sadly we are at war today and yet our government forgets this, which is costing lives. It would not take much, some cuts in social benefits to fund our armed forces, conscription perhaps, we are only limited today because we choose to be. That can change in the future if needed and if that time comes its important to know people are loyal to their Queen and country.
eclub,
Mr Mugabe is a dictator, as sometimes happens in republics presidents do think of themselves as kings. We have a stable democracy in the UK, theres been a civil war in the past to ensure limits on the monarchs power. We in this country have all the structures in place to ensure continued democracy. Thats something zimbabwe does not have. Sadly Zimbabwe is the perfect example of the dangers of decolonization. Mugabe took one of the most successful countries in Africa and turned it into a basket case. As i said before, as the former colonial power, we have an obligation to take a lead role in trying to help clean up the mess.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Simon, you said: “Mr Mugabe is a dictator, as sometimes happens in republics presidents do think of themselves as kings”.
I believe you have just, through Freudian Slip, revealed that a King is a Dictator.
Freudian slip
n. A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal a repressed belief, thought, or emotion.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I said nothing of the sort.
I said that sometimes republican presidents think of themselves as Kings, that was not just about a dictator like Mugabe, im talking more generally about Republican presidents. That is not what they were elected president to be (in cases where they actually get elected at all). A classic example would be the French president Sarkozy, ive heard several times on the news people accuse him of acting like a monarch.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Simon,
I see, when Sarkozy is being accused of acting like a King, you do understand that the accusers mean it in a nefarious sense, right?
October 17th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
They are republics, they do not expect their leader to act like monarchs, or atleast most of them dont. Sarkozy is just a president, he is not the people of France’s King. They have chosen their system, we have ours.
I dont expect my prime minister to act like a President or head of state. The exact same principle applies.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
@Simon
You responded to all my questions, and I thank you for that, but before I excuse you, can you tell me under what scenario short of the Union Breakup, that you will get on board the republic train (and I don’t mean during the current monarch’s reign). Please take your time and answer this for me, if you can, include exactly why a monarchy is better than a republic, enough to sway me over to your side; try to convince to write my congressmen here in USA to work for a Monarchical system here, make it that good. Thanks
October 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
eclub,
I would accept a republic if…
It was needed to keep the union together and defeat the separatists once and for al.
If we had an awful future monarch, obviously that depends on ones own point of view if they are awful or not. Whilst i dont like everything Prince Charles does, i dont think he would be an awful King (although clearly not as good as Queen Elizabeth II)
A monarch that attempts to cease power and refuses to abdicate
One world government in the future
Or as i mentioned on another page, an ideal republic but we do not have the technology and not enough citizens interested in politics to make it workable.
Those are the sorts of things, if i see a perfect republic out there then i may change my mind, but right now.. America, France, Germany, Russia, Ireland, Italy, none of these countries system give me confidence or make me see a need to change to their systems.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Simon,
Have you been to the United States? (I have not been to the UK).
I do remember your ‘perfect republic’ blog. I had complained that it was absurd to go from ardent monarchist to a desire for a perfect republic. Seems to be a leap there. Like in metamorphosis, one would be expected to go from caterpillar to the pupa and from the pupa to the adult butterfly. Not you, apparently? In essence, I expected you to be like Matt Showering, first seeking a hybrid of Crown and Republic, I believe he called it ‘crowned republic’ (I do not support such hybrid by the way), before you seek a perfect republic.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Thank you for finding that poll Simon. Free speech is important and the people have spoken. However, it looks like I have made a big mistake and deliberately misled you all. 76% back The Monarchy. Not 75%.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Eclub,
I do not see a need for change and id only support change under those sorts of conditions or if there was a perfect republic. Id rather keep our monarchy than have an inperfect republic or even just an “ok” one. At the very least i need to see another country with a republican system that i think is attractive, ive got problems with all systems ive seen.
Neil,
Something important to point out if people didnt read that whole article…
So its not like that figure is about the Queens popularity, thats about keeping the monarchy after she dies so its a very impressive result as far as im concerned.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Very much so. It is also worth remembering when Her Majesty is no longer with us (and when Prince William gets married) there will be an outpouring of love. Resulting in even more popularity for The Monarchy.
Indeed, not much has changed since I was a child some thirty years ago. Support for Monarchy was well over 70% back then too. It makes you wonder what Republic has actually been achieving over the years.
Why don’t they just admit they are going nowhere?
October 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
@ Neil – “I was prepared to end the only life I will ever have on this planet, the one life my parents gave to me, for The Queen. That thought, about parents, it often crosses your mind. It was there when I took the Oath and signed all my papers to enlist. Yet, at the end of the day, as extraordinary as this will sound – I was happy and willing to be vapourised defending The Queen. It comes from the heart. It is difficult to explain.”
I haven’t caught up completely with the blog tonight, I just got as far as Neil’s post. Neil, you are a lot younger than I am and if you served in the armed forces I salute you, as I salute any soldier. Our armed forces are doing a wonderful job with meagre resources and we should all be grateful for what they are willing to do on our behalf. However, your post tells me you’re in serious need of some form of counseling. I’m sorry, none of that sentimental guff washed with me. It’s a habit of mine to shake the hand of any ex-serviceman or woman I am introduced to, whether monarchy supporter or not, and I would not make an exception with you Neil, but please mate, get real.
Incidentally, I work with an ex-soldier. He has no affection for the queen.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Lol i thought it was very moving and honourable, like something from a different age, an age many of us today could learn from. We have such problems in our society today because the very sort of thing you dismiss as “guff” is seriously lacking in 21st century Britain.
Nothing wrong with honour, a love for Queen, country and God. Such things in the past would not have been dismissed as sentimental guff, which kind of shows how backwards we have become in some ways.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
To get back on topic – what would have to change to change my mind about the monarchy? We would have to have a British Republic with a codified constitution. All legislators would be elected, one house PR, the other AV+. The Head of State would be elected, therefore the monarchy being the providers of hereditary heads of state would be no longer needed and consigned to history. There would be no elected dictatorship because the people would be sovereign. If the royal family saw what was on the horizon, saw that it was high time the people became sovereign and went quietly, expediting the tradition from feudal quasi-democracy to republic, my respect for them might then increase. We will never be a democracy with the crown at the core of our constitution.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Bob Wiggin,
I know our parliamentary system is not perfect and id like to see lots of reforms, but i dont accept this idea that whilst we have a monarchy we can not be considered a democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Why are 4 of the top 5 countries listed on the democracy index monarchies, Or 8 of the top 12? Surely thats an important point, when you consider how few monarchies there are in the world today.
Why not try to reform our parliament so its in line with the greatest democracies in the world?
October 17th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I also cant understand why people obsess over proportional representation. That is not the British way, we must maintain first past the post, otherwise you will simply strengthen fascists like the BNP or the loony left.
PR is so very dangerous, we will end up with incompetent coalition government like on the continent. This is another reason labour must be defeated, that silly Brown wants to hold a vote on changing our electoral system to make it easier for labour. Its not a good idea
October 17th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Bob Wiggin: “Work with ex-soldier. He has no affection for The Queen.” The Forces, particularly in the lower ranks, are very representative of our society. A society in which only 18% actually want to see a republic.
I salute you back Bob and I shake your hand – as I do with Simon who speaks such sense. However, was it necessary to suggest that I need counselling? Imatt has already suggested that I am deranged. Do you have any idea how hurtful I find that? To suggest there is “something wrong with me” because I’ve outlined what I believe. Your Army would be a funny one if there were not young men prepared to die in it. I am such a young man. I didn’t say I wanted to be vapourised, I said I was willing for my life to be extinguished if that need arose. If it happened I’d no longer be alive and I’d exist no more – but I was prepared to do it for The Queen. That makes The Queen pretty special, don’t you think?
However, please note, I would only do this for The Queen and for Her Family. I would never do it for a corrupt, expenses grabbing politician. Corrupt politicians who have sent members of my generation to their deaths because of “meagre resources”, whilst claiming for moat and chandelier cleaning bills – paid for out of the troops taxes. It makes me furious! You believe soldiers are going to salute a MP as the president. Get real. It’s you and the Imatt who need the mental health treatment.
Who cares if people need mental health treatment anyway? Should people be shut away and excluded from having a say in public because they might (or might not be) ill? What sort of society do we live in? I’ll tell you the sort of society we live in. It is a society in which you have to be half nuts to make sense of it – let alone to fight and die for it.
I realise I am young(ish) but that doesn’t mean my beliefs are any less valid. You describe my loyalty to my Queen as “sentimental guff”. How offensive is that. The majority of soldiers believe in all this sentimental guff. You should see the attendance at our religious services. God and His Chosen Queen always invoked. Soldiers are prepared to fight and die for Her as opposed to politicians – that was the point I was making.
Anyway, I had better shut up now and stop talking – as we’re off topic.
You’ll be telling me I must be banned next. What a terrible Country this has become. People talk of respect and gratitude but so often in our daily lives all we experience is this – “shut your gob, your irrelevant”.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Simon – I’m not au fait with the constitutional arrangements in other countries that have monarchies but I suspect that if they are placed highly in a democracy index they must be different to ours. The democracy index you linked me to categorizes the U.K. as a ‘full democracy’ so that tells me the methodology used may have been flawed, since there is no way we are a ‘full’ democracy with us having an unelected Head of State and an unelected upper house. Clues to what the flaws may be can be seen in the text – \The democracy index is a kind of weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted alternative answers. Most answers are \experts’ assessments\; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of The Economist or e.g. independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public opinion surveys from the respective countries. \In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.\ And finally it says \There is no indication that this report has been presented or is planned to be presented in any academic context, or has been checked by or will be checked by a peer review\. As an ex quality engineer I can see holes in this survey, and including survey results from similar countries in the case of countries for which survey results are missing is in my book, (from an ex quality engineer’s point of view), fiddling the figures.
I could be persuaded over our voting system, but not to stick with the status quo which has not served us well, judging by the pickle we are currently in.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Neil – I apologize unreservedly if have offended you. Your sentiments are your sentiments and I should not have been so dismissive, sorry. I do disagree with you that all soldiers love the queen but then that’s just my view and I hope you understand that. You will see from my previous posts that I don’t believe in banning people, least of all you.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Bob Wiggin,
The list is not an exact science ofcourse, however if respected international organisations (not just that, but most) view the United Kingdom as a demoarcy i fail to see why we are not one. Even in that list we do come low in the group of full democracies which highlights the fact we have problems. But at the end of the day our elected parliament has the ability to overrule the unelected house of lords, if it wasnt for the parliament act giving the commons the power to ignore the lords then we would be described as a flawed democracy.
Monarchy is not a barrier to being democratic. We have a parliamentary democracy which gets its power through our Constitutional monarchy. Infact i hear more Americans reminding people the USA isnt a democracy, its a republic! than people saying the UK isnt a democracy. Google “USA is a republic not a democracy”
The point was though, ofcourse those other european countries with monarchies may have better constittuional setups, although im sure the main reason they do so well is because of high voter turnout and better parliamentary democarices. I suppose at some stage comparing European monarchies would be a good idea, i know Norways monarch has immunity from prosecution just like ours does. I dont know what other things we have in common. But bottom line is why do away with the monarchy if we can have a far better democracy whilst keeping it?
October 17th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Now, staying on topic. “What would have to change to change my mind about The Monarchy?” I’m afraid, even if there was a revolution, and the popularity of The Monarchy was at 0%, I’d still be one of those sad deranged people guarding The Royal Family in The Palace. I’d also be helping them to escape to a safe country if need be. Indeed, I think we’ve all seen the films. I’d be the one with the sword in his hand. Whilst also struggling to carry the young Prince, The Heir, in my arms.
That’s true loyalty for you.
Unlike most things in modern Britain, you can’t buy it or corrupt it.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Simon,
I did not eman to sound defeatist, but I am very cautious of any apporach that says one country has a right or should intefere with other coutnries. While I recognise that some country have difficulties I also think that direct involvement from the UK is counter productive, even involvement from an international organisation is problematic. I also feelt hat as long as we retain the monarchy we cannot tell other nations to be more demoncratic.
In relation to PR, as a voting system it allows for the most direct representative democracy. This will ensuring that parties over 5% (usually) will be represented, yes even the BNP, also prevents domination by one party. As it stands a party can get a higher percentage of seats than national vote. While PR systems do lead to coalitions and require more work and compromise it is far mroe demoncractic than having one party dominate based upon a flawed geographic majority.
The FPTP system also means everyone who doesn’t vote for the winner is not represented (at a constituent level) which would not happen under PR. I personally find the German system the most usful for the UK as the Bundestag also has members elected by region. Thus the upper house could be elected by regions to represent the different countries, while the lower house could preresent the most direct democracy we can achieve. I hope this has claridied why people support PR.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Sam, now who is going off topic?
October 17th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Sam Walker,
Whilst republicans may not view our country as a democracy, what matters is Republican governments around the world and international organisations do view us as one. For countries who seek our help through aid or more free trade, we do have a right to request developments for the sake of their own people. We should not be ashamed to accept that western style democracy is the best thing in the world, and its vital that we spread it around the globe, vital for the people of those countries and vital for future international security. We do not seek to impose monarchy on any country or tell them the exact style of government, ofcourse that would be wrong.. we simply encourage democracy and greater human rights.
PR is a horrible system, you may be prepared to give extremists like the BNP more influence and power but many of us are not. Our MPs represent everyone of their constituents, if they voted for them or not. Thats how it works. There is such a thing as winners and losers in this world, this left wing obsession with rewarding failure is just so silly and the fact it leads to coalition government is not something to celebrate.
Coalition government is a living nightmare, the British people vote for a government, that government is then judged 4-5 years later. When the people have enough of them and their failures they are kicked out and a new bunch elected. Its vital that Her Majestys Government speaks with a single voice, that it has a majority to make instant decisions and push through its agenda that the people elected it to do. Coalition government either weakens policies down which means the majority who won the election dont get the agenda they wanted, or it means more radical policies (like when the italian government includes right wing extremists and give them a position of power over immigrants). It sall so very very dangerous. We see it here within our own shores in Scotland, the separatist administration attempted to get its budget through it needed the support of the greens, so they offered £10,000s of tax payers money on green projects in an attempt to get a party to back them. Now imagine if that was the BNP. What would the BNP ask for in exchange for their backing of a government? Salmond says he wants a hung parliament in 2010 so he can use it to his advantage to destroy the United Kingdom.. he best not get his wish.
You mention Germany, i do not know their setup. Reforming the house of lords into some form of senate is fine with me, however as England makes up over 80% of the population its still going to be be equally as probelmatic as the commons is for some people.
One final thing on Germany.
Their federal election took place almost a month ago, and they have still yet to sort out a coalition government. I have a huge problem with that and it just isnt the way we do things in this country. I happen to like our methods of replacing governments. Election night, by the early hours of the morning we know who has won. The loser then leaves Downing Street, the leader of the winning party then goes to the palace to kiss hands with the Queen. Then back to Downing street to govern this country. Its quick and to the point, none of this weeks of attempts to agree policies between different parties.
Sorry but we must never try to copy European PR for our national elections, im ok with it for certain local and ofcourse devolved assemblys.. but not for a national government that has to make important choices like on war and peace.
In the words of Ian Paisley : Never never never!
October 18th, 2009 at 1:15 am
As Neil has helpfully pointed out the electoral system is off topic. However I would like to say one final thing on it, and this links in with why it would be difficult for me to change my mind regarding the moanrchy.
PR does not reward failure, it provides a more accurate reflection of the political views of the whole of society. This will lead to a more balanced system which removes the simple winner/loser scenario. I think if all parties worked together with the aim of improving the nation rather than simply winning we would be better off. I also think the limit on a single party’s power gives the people more power and prevents abuse, i.e. the anti-terrorism laws.
Representation is also the reason why I do not support the monarchy, for the reasons I stated on the Unspoken Constitution blog. A President could validly represent the nation, while the moanrch can onyl represent her own limited social class.
Apologies for going off topic.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Neil, please do not think that what I’m about to say is said to offend you. While I disagree with you regarding the basis of loyalty in the military (I firmly believe it should be the nation and not to one particular office) your statements provide a good exmple of the dangers of the monarchy. Namely that the institution encourages a lack of critque. While you have obviously thought through your position, I would argue that by premising the purpose of the military as serving the monarch it demonstrates that the primary conern is not the nation but one family.
For example you say that you would defend the Windsors by being at the palace helping them to leave the country if need be. However if that came about as result of an invasion and a large civilian population, say 100,000 people, were about to be attacked, then I feel it would be repugnent to divert essential military forces to save one family.
I do not wish to offend, you have served our country in accordance with your beliefs and I am not impinging upon that. I simply wanted to use the example you have provided to demonstrate the problems with uncritical loyalty to an indiviudal or one family.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Sam Walker: “I would argue that by premising the purpose of the military as serving the Monarch it demonstrates that the primary concern is not the nation but one Family.”
I take it you haven’t served in the military. If you had, you would know that we are taught that The Queen and The Royal Family represent the nation. They represent to us what we, just like our fathers before us, must serve, protect and obey. The Queen is not only the embodiment of a nation. She is the nation. If you lay a finger on The Queen, you lay a finger on the nation and the people. That is why I was prepared to die for Her and for Her Family – they personify the nation as a whole.
When I said I’d defend the Family by being at The Palace and helping them to leave the country, I was referring to “an internal revolution”. However, you ask me what would happen if there was an invasion and a population, say of 100,000 people, were about to be attacked. It depends on whether it was a choice between saving the 100,000 people or saving The Royal Family. In that event, as a serving Officer, I’d order my men to save The Royal Family first and hope the 100,000 people could defend themselves. Here is why – in the same way I believe I am expendable for The Queen and for Her Family (because they are the nation), I also believe you are expendable for them too.
I realise this sounds ruthless. However, you have to realise that The Royal Family are the nation. They always come first before everyone, even my own life, at all times and no matter what. What I am about to say is a difficult thing to say. But here it goes – if there was a revolt and you or your family tried to hurt my Queen or Her Family, I’d have to shoot you. I’d shoot you and your family. It would be unpleasant, but I would do it to defend my Queen and Her Family – “the nation”.
You see, wherever The Queen is there is England. As long as there is a Royal Family, England will continue to exist. Even if The Queen lived in exile in Switzerland, there you would find England – sitting in a chair.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Sam Walker,
Im sorry but PR does reward failure. Nick Griffin and the BNP got 10% of the vote, that means 90% of the people voted for alternative parties, yet now that yob is on the payroll, with access to huge amounts of public funds and is meant to represent all the people in that region.
If ever there was a reason not to go down this dangerous path of Proportional Representation it was that disugsting European Election result. Understand that one of the many reasons this country is stable is because majority rules, yes that does strenghten mainstream parties positions and weaken small minority parties.. Im not ashamed about that, im very glad that is what happens. Otherwise you give power to left wing nutters who feel free to riot outside powerstations causing public damage, whod vote for the nutty greens and you get the far right voting for the BNP and winnings seats in our parliament. It is a bad idea, and again its this left wing nutty idea obsessed with change for change’s sake.
First Past the Post is our system, we should not import some awful system from europe.
As for your response to Neil, the Royal Family is the most important family in this United Kingdom, ofcourse the Queen must be defended at all costs, good lord this is not something unique with monarchy. Who do you think is guarded the most in the USA? The President has far far more protection and security than our Queen does. Perhaps if the 1000s of people responsible for protecting obama every time he leaves the whitehouse actually helped police america they wouldnt have over 15,000 murders each year? This idea the royal family would be abandoned by the armed forces is just silly, they know their duty.
The Queen is a symbol and represents our nation, to hurt the Queen is to hurt the people and the country. Its like in a normal battle, the general or commander is protected or is meant to be if we had a competent government who funded our armed forces, because to lose the commander hurts morale. And thats what happened when we saw the Lt Col of the Welsh Guards killed in Afghanistan (highest ranking serviceman killed since the falklands), such losses have bigger implications even though all British loss of life is a tragedy.
Loyalty to our Queen is very important and should not be undermined, although that has certainly happened in recent decades with such liberal thinking.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Neil,
Well said and id understand why such a call would be made in that situation. Whats your view on the flag?
In America they take great pride in their flag and view it as a symbol of their republic and everything they stand for, hence the pledge of allegiance taken often by most school children
They take the flag very seriously, far more than we have in this country throughout history as far as im aware, although the colours in battle would be an exception. I see comparisons with how the Americans view their flag and the monarchy here. Many Americans would sacrifice and put their life on the line for the flag. Where as here i see its more a case of for the Queen or indeed to protect the Queen.
Im no military man or expert on any of these sorts of things, but to me its always seemed like our Queen is a symbol that must be defended the way the Americans feel about their flag. To me loyalty to Queen and for efforts to be made to defend the Queen, a living person has always seemed more “human” or understandable, than towards a cloth, which ofcourse in some cases probably isnt even made in the USA. Also alot more safer when you have alot of violence which sparks from flag incidents or hatred when they see the american flag being burned.. far safer and easier to care most about the monarch who can be defended, rather than a flag.
Id rather pledge to Queen than pledge to a flag or a constitution
October 18th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Simon, The royal family is not the most important family in our country. There just ain’t no such animal as a “most important family “. Also the queen does not represent our country, only a part of it ,perhaps.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Thanks for your reply Matt on the MOJ thread. This is a repsonse to that but also relates to the changing your mind thread.
Too sum up, what your saying is that both Australia and New Zealand are countries that would be able to adopt a republican system more easily than ours, given the specific social factors.
With regards to the question of character of a president, I think that with a system that had a non-executive president the ‘power-playing’ kind of person would be discouraged as the position would only be able toe exert their powers in specific ways and under specific circumstances.
Vis-a-vis the issue in general of politicans, and as demonstrated by the recent expenses debacle, I agree that our politicans have lost any tenuous claim of moral authority. However I also feel that it shows the problems of a system developing from a land ownership basis and without proper regulation from an clearly defined model. If structural changes had occured from the adoption of a repubilcan constitution perhaps the lack of control would have been less. I also think that such risks are present in any system but are exacerbated by the current basis of our nation.
I am not naive enough to think that the risks would not be present or exist, I do feel though that such a system would have greater levels of limtation and more public accountability. Unfortunately we are now in a situation where confidence and trust in politicans is lower than ever.
I must admit that this s just an initial reply as I have not yet read your impartiality article, I will try to read it in the next few days and provide a better response.
In relation to the ‘changing your mind’ topic, I would like to say that while I would not want to retain the monarchy under any circumstances, if the monarchy had to be retained then I would still insist on codification. A system such as the Belgian would be a good example, this would create a ‘crowned republic’ and is essential. I realise this is not really a ‘change your mind’ but rather a compromise, but if it was the only possible development then I would support. Although I do not consider it to be the only option. I would still oppose the monarchy on principle and what they represent and so would continue to advocate abolition.
Neil, while I understand your view and respect the decisions that would flow from it, it seems that your basis rests upon the monarch being the nation rather than the 59 million other people who make up the country. While I have not served in the military, and I do not believe you are implying this, that does not change the validity of other theoretical foundations for the military. However I do not wish to focus on military ethics but simply wanted to highlight how narrowly focussed unconditional loyalty to an individual can become.
Simon, I have not suggested that protecting the head of state is bad or should not happen, I was merely pointing out that the answer to a choice between thousands of civilians and one family depends entirely upon the acceptance of the monarchy as necessary for the UK to exist as a country made up of millions of people. For my part the choice would be clear for ethical and moral reasons based upon serving the nation, i.e. the millions that truely constitute this nation.
In addition, I find your dimissive and insulting attitude towards left wing politics offence. Just because you do not agree with their more liberal views does not make them ‘nutty’. Regarding the BNP, while I find their views repugnent, they must be dealt with head through the demoncratic process. Furthermore while the current system does produce incredibly strong governments, the idea that a party who has less than half the national vote should have unfettered license to do what they want is not all that democratic. PR on the otherhand would force more discussion while the dominate parties, reflected by their actual vote count, would still be able to drive the agend and governance of the country. Surely our country can be adult enough leave behind the current unevenly distributed system.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
barry kingsley,
Ummm, even other animals or living things have leaders. Queen bees? Queen ants? etc. Ofcourse the Royal Family is the most important family in the United Kingdom, it would be crazy if it wasnt. In the USA, they have the “first family” which basically means the most important family. With the “First lady” taking a huge role (unlike our prime ministers wives) despite never being elected.
The Queen does represent our country and everything it stands for and has fought for. I do feel very sorry for those who look at Queen Elizabeth II and just see “Mrs Windsor”, she is so much more.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Sam,
If it was a choice between 10 people and the Queen. The Queen without doubt must be protected and saved.
If it was 100 people, again without any doubt at all the Queen comes first.
It does become more difficult when we get into the 10,000s or 100,000s when faced with such an unlikely scenario. I would expect people to live up to the oaths they have taken to their Queen and to follow orders. However, if it was a clear cut choice that had to be made (not just guessing like if these soldiers go here we might save a few lives) then i have faith that the Queen would defend her people and order the soldiers to do what they can to save the people. We have a very gracious Queen who has served the people for her entire life, i think if the time came she would sacrifice one final time to defend her people.
However thats a scenario that will never be needed to play out. The defence of this island is secured, We will launch all our nuclear weapons to flatten the enemy before we see this island invaded today (although thats somethin else the left want to take away from us which risks our security), not to mention the fact we are also part of NATO which guarantees a huge military response against our enemies.
If it came to an internal revolution then as ive said before, the people are on the side of their Queen and there would be no shortage of people prepared to defend her till the end. Those guilty of any form of violent action to overthrow our Queen would face true British justice. Treason laws whilst they may not have been used for some time, are still on the books. They may not swing although if there is a full scale revolution, our obligations to any international treaty or ogranisation comes second to the security of the state and the monarch.
As for the “nutty” left, sorry i was only meant to apply that to far far left and extremes on both sides, i view the far right as nutty and dangerous too. I do not see the justification for changing our electoral system, although boundary changes are needed, its wrong that a vote in one area is worth far less than a vote in another area.. but we must maintain first past the post. A stable government is more important that appeasing those who lose in elections. I will never understand this Proportional representation thing, its so very dangerous.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Sam, thanks for continuing our exchange in this thread.
To sum up, what your saying is that both Australia and New Zealand are countries that would be able to adopt a republican system more easily than ours, given the specific social factors.
Not entirely. I believe Aus & NZ would do a better job of adopting republican systems because they are far more morally virtuous than Britain – Aus primarily in the democratic sense, and NZ primarily in the social sense.
With regards to the question of character of a president, I think that with a system that had a non-executive president the ‘power-playing’ kind of person would be discouraged as the position would only be able toe exert their powers in specific ways and under specific circumstances.
As you say, we can discuss this in more detail when you’ve been through the impartiality thread (starting with my article). But I will say, in summary, it’s not the whole idea of ‘power play’ that worries me, but mainly the fact that being a ceremonial president is not the natural culmination of any career path you can think of, which begs the question of exactly what motivates a person who wants the job. This is why, if Britain did become a republic, I would prefer a German-style president to an Irish-style one – so that he/she could be headhunted by Parliament without ever needing to put him/herself forward. Even then, however, I would question their motive for accepting the job.
If anyone new on here wants to take issue with that point, I would urge them to go back to the earlier thread and continue the debate there.
October 18th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Dear Simon, I am back on my Sunday Soap Box again,as you obviously are . You are just being awkward now,aren’t you ! Admit it. The human race is nothing like ants and bees,and you know it. “You’ve gotta be puttin’ me on man !” Female spiders often eat their husbands, ——do humans do that ? Some creatures eat their own young, as well as their own excrement .You are getting carried away with your own type of fanaticism. Did you not realize that the human race, for all its sins , does have a conscious brain, a mind ,which is supposed to have a degree of intelligence and ethic, and an ability to evolve socially ,for the better. The royal family cannot possibly be the most important, or “first” family as you put it. This would imply infallibilty ,which they just do not possess. Just look at their record. I agree the queen is O.K, as far as we know. In the same way that the pope cannot possibly be infallible,then no royal personage can be infallible. No human being on earth is infallible. President Obama’s family is no better than any other family, or worse for that matter. It just happens to be the family of the president at the time,and is therefore expected to behave in a certain way.It also attracts media attention because of its position. Again, I have to re-iterate the fact that the queen does not represent our nation as a complete entity. If this were the case then there would be no republicans,or Republic Blog, which you love to contribute to. The queen can only represent the people who believe in her,and that is certainly not 100 per cent of our population.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
@ Simon – “The British people vote for a government, that government is then judged 4-5 years later. When the people have enough of them and their failures they are kicked out and a new bunch elected.”
Simon – this is a big problem with our so called democracy, it’s like being on a see-saw and does not serve the people well at all. The executive is so all powerful under our constitutional arrangements so that when either of the main parties get elected they become an elected dictatorship who govern over us. This usually means swings in ideology from left to right and vice-versa which isn’t good for stability and continuity. The government can withdraw our rights at a stroke without recourse to parliament. If we want to become more of a democracy and take away the power of the executive, power that is derived from the crown, the removal of those powers means the crown ‘monarch’ then becomes superfluous to requirements. We cannot in my view have a full democracy and also have a monarchy because the constitutional reform required to make our country more democratic needs, in my view, to break that link between the crown and parliament.
I would prefer a more consensual sort of politics than the partisan pantomime we have now, not a consensus between the elite but between the public. This might be achieved by revising the voting system to better reflect the public’s view, (the alternative vote system perhaps). If we did have a more consensual sort of politics it might help to strengthen the union too. PMQs just about sums up in a nutshell what our politics is all about for me. They remind me of two squabbling children in a pre-school play group.
I disagree with Neil’s comments about the queen representing the nation. As has been said before, she and the rest of the royal family have suffered no hardship or deprivation on our behalf so how the hell do they embody us? I just cannot get my head around that concept. If we ever got the best democracy we possibly could get, then a hereditary head of state is not part of the equation.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Sam Walker: “I agree that our politicans have lost any tenuous claim of moral authority. However, I also feel that it shows the problems of a system developing from a land ownership basis and without proper regulation from a clearly defined model. If structural changes had occured from the adoption of a republican constitution perhaps the lack of control would have been less.” So, after condemning politicians, Sam and Bob Wiggins would then trust politicians to alter the Constitution. Indeed, it would be very interesting to know what a president would do “with his troops” in above circumstances – save the people or save his bacon. I’m afraid the expenses scandal has given us an insight.
Simon: “I’ve faith The Queen would defend Her people and order the soldiers to do what they can to save the people.” I very much agree.
Simon: “Many Americans would sacrifice and put their life on the line for the flag. Where as here, I see its more a case of for The Queen or indeed to protect The Queen. To me its always seemed like our Queen is a symbol that must be defended. The way the Americans feel about their flag. To me loyalty to Queen and for efforts to be made to defend The Queen (a living person) has always seemed more “human” or understandable, than towards a cloth.”
That is mine and the military’s view too Simon – with a few exceptions. When I took the Oath, I held a Bible and stood before a Union Flag. I also had to stand before a portrait of Her Majesty and a portrait of Her son. I must admit, even though I was in my twenties, I took it all very seriously. However, there were around three that didn’t want to take the Oath. It offended their dignity because they wanted to be soldiers, not slaves. They wanted to defend their Country, not a Queen and a rich, privileged and privately educated family in central London. Quite naturally their names were taken and they were told to “have another think”. They all took the Oath in the end. However, oaths are sacred and should only be taken if you actually believe in them. My heart was pounding when I swore my allegiance. It was amazing. I felt so loyal.
I have therefore concluded that I’d like to see children taking similar (but not the same) oaths before the flag in schools in Britain. When I was young the flag was displayed in my school hall and we would all sing the national anthem two or three times per week. On very special occasions, like a Royal birth, we would even salute this flag or march around the yard with it to show our school’s loyalty. This all sounds terribly quaint now and something to be ashamed of. I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Bring it back! It never did me any harm – clearly.
Colours are different. It is difficult to put into words how you feel about them. They have a sort of sacred and mystical quality. I cannot begin to describe how powerful and moving it is when you see The Colour paraded before you. When you see The Colour, you just think of The Queen. You think of your forebears who, like you, were just subjects. You think of their glorious sacrifice – and know you’d do the same too.
The analogy with ants and bees is very important. When a bee is born, for example, it is trained to be loyal and obedient to The Queen Bee. To help with this “education” process something is administered (in the case of a bee, some fluid) to help ensure that the new bee grows up to be loyal and obedient for his Queen. For in the hive there can be no Republican Bees, there would be chaos in the hive, bees would die as a result – and it would also threaten The Queen. Sounding familiar.
However, from time to time, errors occur and one irritating, annoying little bee will be resistant to what has been collectively administered. He will refuse to serve and obey his Queen and will not do so – as he considers it deeply offensive to his dignity to have been born a mere drone. He will not become a slave like others because he sees sense and, quite unlike his foolish generations before him, he will resist. Do you know what happens to such a bee? All the other bees turn on him and exterminate him. They do so because it maintains order and a fully functioning hive. They also know, I’m sure, that it pleases their Queen immensely. Therefore, the human race is rather like the ants and bees. For we’ve been endowed with a deep inclination to obedience, loyalty and service – to something greater than “the self”. I thus argue here that Monarchy is the most natural form of Government known to man.
Like Simon, I also feel very sorry for those who look at our “Glorious” Queen and just see “Mrs Windsor”. Yet strangely, I do not find myself offended by the term Mrs Windsor as some republicans might imagine. I just see it as a sad reflection of those who say it. For Her Majesty is so much more to those who believe and who can see. She is wonderful.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@ Neil
The Old Testament has 613 rules all of which are supposed to be of equal importance. One of them says something about a man should only wear a garment of one colour. Are you suggesting, therefore, that we should imprison people who are wearing clothes of more than one colour (like me currently)?
To use Christianity, the Bible, religion, anything like that to try and justify the monarchy is, in my view, shallow. If you believe the Bible is the direct, literal word of God then I am afraid that I cannot continue a debate with you because that to me is complete closed-mindedness (and this is coming from a practicing Catholic chaplain who is currently undertaking Biblical studies)
October 18th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
@ Neil – “The analogy with ants and bees is very important. When a bee is born, for example, it is trained to be loyal and obedient to The Queen Bee. To help with this “education” process something is administered (in the case of a bee, some fluid) to help ensure that the new bee grows up to be loyal and obedient for his Queen. For in the hive there can be no Republican Bees, there would be chaos in the hive, bees would die as a result – and it would also threaten The Queen. Sounding familiar?
It’s sounding all too familiar Neil. You’ve truly excelled with that analogy.
@ Neil – “On very special occasions, like a Royal birth, we would even salute this flag or march around the yard with it to show our school’s loyalty. This all sounds terribly quaint now and something to be ashamed of. I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Bring it back! It never did me any harm – clearly.”
What the hell type of school did you go to Neil? It wasn’t even like that in the fifties when I was a young republican. Maybe you have a Tardis.
@ Neil – “we’ve been endowed with a deep inclination to obedience, loyalty and service – to something greater than “the self”. I thus argue here that Monarchy is the most natural form of Government known to man”
Dream on Neil. What’s it like in Cloud Cuckoo Land because that’s where you’re at.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Dear Neil, With great respect, I would urge you you to consult a psychiatrist about you royalty obsession. I know a very good one if you want to get in touch with her. I have kept bees in the past,and one thing is certain about them. This is that the ONLY function of the queen is to be fertilized by a bee in order to become “Mother of the Colony ” . This is nowhere near a good analogy to our constitutional situation. The drones are cast out too,as you say,but this is a reflection of cruel Nature. Do you really believe that our human society is like a Bee colony? Where is the ethic in casting out those who have done well, and have exhausted their duty. ? Human society is supposed to have an Ethic. Your ideal is to go back to the Law of the Jungle. We do not wish to “get rid ” of the queen , in any case. How crude this accusation is. The aim of Republic is to eventually influence the establishment of a republic in our country. Whenever the queen ends her natural stint as monarch is a good time to evaluate and aim for the republican ideal.When I look at the queen in our country , I do not see Mrs Windsor. I see an elderly lady who is a mother and grandmother. For this ,and this only ,she deserves respect in my book. She is there by accident of History, and inheritance,and nothing else. Concerning “God”, nobody knows if there is a god or not. I personally would love there to be a loving God, but I do not know the Truth about this. I do not see how anyone can. As for claiming that a god has appointed a king or a queen, this is just pure delusion,not to mention medieval bunkum. I feel sorry for you too !
October 18th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
To be fair, Bob, what Neil is describing and advocating vis-a-vis bees in the hive and ‘eliminating impure thoughts’ isn’t reminiscent of our current constitutional set-up. It sounds more like a Communist Dictatorship to me. I therefore completely refuse to respond to any more of Neil’s comments, after I have said this:
So, after condemning politicians, Sam and Bob would then trust politicians to alter the Constitution.
POLITICIANS CAN ALREADY ALTER THE CONSTITUTION ON A WHIM – IT’S NOT EVEN ENTRENCHED!
October 18th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
@All
What Neil stated above are the facts. I believe him.
I had blogged earlier that if it ever comes time to realise a change, any serious change, in constitution, or instituting a republic, the sticks will come out; there will be no difference between what students experienced in Tianaman Square of China, and what students are experiencing in Tehran, Iran, and what republicans will experience at Trafalgar Square. The British Monarchy is a military dictatorship I argued in that blog, and of course I was laughed at. Here, Neil, is one of those soldiers that will pull the trigger. Why condemn him for telling the truth?
October 19th, 2009 at 1:06 am
*ADDENDUM:
This I specifically address to fence sitters such as Mr. Showering. You couldn’t really be a complete, and honest Monarchist without subscribing to Neil’s devotion. The oaths taken by the military, by Parliament, and virtually every authority in the UK, is a solemn attestation of the truth of each one, of their words or the sincerity of their intentions; specifically accompanied by calling upon God as a witness, to defend and protect the Monarch and the monarchy. So, why is it often regarded as a mere formality or ceremonial role? All of the monarchy’s powers are for real. And if they are for real, it is dictatorial institution. There is not one negative you can point to in a republic that it isn’t present, if not abundant, in a Monarchy. And there are multiple positives in a republic that does not have a trace in a Monarchy.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I appreciate your comments Eclub. I have tried to give my opinions and views as a monarchist. You are all entitled to have a good laugh at them and to dismiss them, in the same way that I have been privately laughing at and dismissing some of your comments – but not actually saying so on here. What I have stated above are the facts and the truth as I see them. I admit the bees and the ants stuff was a bit of a joke. Yet, even then, I’m sure you could all see the comparisons. The views I have given (even though you may vehemently disagree with them) are also the views of many within the Royal, political and military Establishment. For the British Monarchy is run as a military dictatorship in some ways. However, that only happens because it has successfully ensured the continuation of The Monarchy over countless centuries – against amazing odds. A Monarchy that has enshrined our democracy.
Barry Kingsley. I don’t have a “royalty obsession”. I am a monarchist. There is a difference, so please don’t feel sorry for me. If you could put me in touch with YOUR psychiatrist, I’d be very grateful. “Do you really believe that our human society is like a Bee colony?” Yes sort of. The idea appeals because society is like that – we all serve a Queen (as one) for the greater good of a nation. I’m sort of half-joking I guess, but I see the benefits. Where is the ethic in casting out those who do well, and have exhausted their duty? Your argument is based on this modern concept of “expectation of reward”. When you do well, have exhausted your duty, or are no longer of use, you say “I am grateful that I could serve”, not “I want a reward now”. Call me old-fashioned.
Matt Showering. Politicians can change the Constitution on a whim. However, you also have to elect said politicians first – those politicians who are prepared to alter the Constitution at your whim. Good luck.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Several people seem to have a problem with my comment on bees and ants. It was just an example in response to ..
You mentioned animals, so i just wanted to highlight humans are not the only living things that have someone, or a certain group thats “more important” than others. Queen bees / Queen ants being the first two i could think of.
I just can not disagree more about your view our royal family is not the most important family in this country, it clearly is just as the family of the acting president is the “first family” whilst in office. As such they need protecting more than commoners. Now i would rather my “first family” include Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh, than Tony Blair and Cherie Booth. But i guess its a matter of taste.
The Queen does represent the whole nation, it is true that there are sadly some people who have lost their way and refuse to recognize and support their Queen, however that doesnt change the fact she is a symbol of our nation the way the US flag is to Americans, or the way the president of the USA is meant to be. Ofcourse in the USA 60 million people (45% of the vote) voted against Obama becoming president supporting the other guy. So of all the systems out there, monarchy and Queen Elizabeth II most certainly does represent this nation more than any Republic or Republican president could. I know that some people are unhappy with our country, its history, traditions etc but that really is no excuse.
As for the bit about our government and system, ive said many times parliament needs some reforming. However you may be prepared to support some form of coalition government which is unable to act on important matters because its too busy with infighting. Or where we must bribe minority parties to get their support. like offering to waste £10,000s of tax payers money on saving the planet from climate change, just to win over the Greens support for a budget (as we saw in Scotland). But thats not something i think would be good for this country.
As for your attack on Prime Ministers Questions, thats part of our culture and tradition, we see the same thing in some of our former colonies, its something to take pride in. I love how its acceptable for British culture to be attacked, if i attacked cultures of other countries in such a way, im sure people would be offended. I wish people wouldnt keep trying to destroy everything.
The Queen feels pain and has loved / lost as we all do. She has had some very hard years, but throughout her time as Queen (almost 60 years, alot longer than most people work in a lifetime) she has always served the people and done her duty. She did service during WW2, she could have been evacuated to the saftey of Canada and stayed there. The Duke of Edinburgh served in the Royal Navy during WW2, a dangerous job back then not like the saftey of the royal navy today. Prince Andrew took part in the falklands war. Prince Harry did service in Afghanistan and would have been there alot longer had it not been published by American media. Do you not think that Prince Harry and Prince William had some feelings when their mother died whilst they were so young? Ofcourse they did, and its hard for anyone to accept the loss of loved ones, much harder when its in the public eye. So do not give me this crap that they live a life of luxury and do nothing, and know nothing or feel nothing us normal folk do.. its simply not true.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Dear Neil,
Thanks ! I have succeeded in drawing your sting ! Oh,you are catty ! I realize your remarks about Bees were half “tongue in cheek” , actually, but Simon started the zoological comparisons. Funnily enough , Bees prepare a special food that they feed to the potential queen in the colony called Royal Jelly. A bit like caviar really , I suppose, but with a more relevance to the good of the community. As you seemed so condescendingly to “feel sorry ” for people who didn’t agree with you I just thought you might like to have a taste of it yourself . I was once a royalist, you know, but happily I am now cured . Perhaps you might seek a cure one day ? I did not quite understand your final remark. Did you mean that you thought that people who have done well in society , but then become “useless” are no longer worth bothering about ? I might have got you wrong about that actually. Seriously, now, as a republican I think that it is possible and desirable to try to reform the monarchy while the queen is still in office. Eventually,and evolutionally /developmentally, I think the best idea would be to establish a republic. It might take Time,but so what ? It is an ideal worth pursuing.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Neil Welton,
Thanks for the reply i agree with your views. Ive said several times here i think its important that young people get the oppurtunity to make some form of pledge. I dont think taking the oath to our Quee should be made compulsary for young people, however given the correct enviorment, i have no doubt that many would step up to take that oath out of choice as its a great sense of pride for so many people, as we can see by many of those who become British citizens and must take the oath.
That is something that should be encouraged. Whilst i dont want to get into politics again, the conservatives plan for National Citizens Service has huge potential. The current plan is just a voluntary 6 week course for young people, with a week or two away from their home like spending some time with the military or just other activities to challenge them and develop social skills. At the end they would be some form of ceremony which they could take part in, be it at town halls or perhaps a march. The proposals are a very interesting read although still in the early stages, and could have some form of chance for people to take an oath or pledge to the country.. There may be a chance for one to the Queen too. It certainly has more potential than anything labour is doing or prepared to do at the moment.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Bob
We do not wish to “get rid ” of the queen
I am sorry but that is exactly what Republic is trying to do or would want to do, but because the Queen is so popular it can not do it.
I still also do not see why someone whos loyal to Queen and God should somehow be in need of medical treatment. Thats like us supporters of the monarchy saying Republicans need medical help.
Eclub,
If the Queen was to take over as you seem to suggest we are in some form of military dictatorship, well this country would have many of its problems solved. The Queen has great judgement and with her long experience she could certainly run the country better than the current bunch, we the people so foolishly elected.
The trouble with government is theres too much politics! Endless debate after debate, not enough actions to address the serious problems of the day. Life would be much simpler if we did live in a time when the Queen could act, but ofcourse republicans would moan. Sadly the Queen cant win either way. She respects traditions and her peoples right to decide who governs the country, but then republicans blame the monarchy for the flaws in our political system.
We cant have it both ways. People either need to stop blaming monarchy for flaws in our constitution and parliament, or they must be prepared to encourage and support Her Majesty taking action in the interests of the people. I would support her to act in our best interests, far more than i trust brown or cameron.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Dear Simon,
You state that you do not like to receive “excrement”, ( to be polite ), about royalty living in luxury etc. However it is a fact that they do live in excessive luxury, which is completely un -necessary, and is part of the “monarchy problem ” we have in our country. I do not think it is true that royalty “does nothing “. Obviously they do plenty, and I for one would not want to be in their shoes. In many ways they are “prisoners “, of the system of monarchy.A lot of what they do could be done by an elected president ,which is what republicans would like to see in our country. You might call that “duty”. Monarchists would probably say that royalty gives great sacrifices, and does all this for “duty” ,but so do others in less highlighted walks of life. Of course royalty suffers pain when they have bereavements etc. This is part of our human condition. The fact that royalty is thoroughly human ,means that they cannot be aggrandized as something they are not,for example “majestic,glorious or wonderful” Concerning the concept of the queen representing our country, well technically she does. But, and this is a very big But, the queen cannot possibly represent all those in our country who are committed republicans, or even those who do not care one way or the other. Why be so arrogant as to call those who don’t believe in the queen as having “lost their way” ? We think you have lost yours ! P.S. The zoological comparisons were fun !
October 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
I find myself repeating myself. The royal family et al have suffered no deprivation or hardship on my account, so they do not embody me and mine at least. Although I am a republican I am not also a sort of rabid left-wing fascist and Simon – I have never advocated doing physical harm to anyone. You know very well what ‘get rid of’ means in the context of a republic v monarchy debate. It means to consign the monarchy to history.
Matt – you make a very good point about politicians being able to alter the constitution at a whim and it’s not even entrenched. This, Neil, is why I am so scathing about politicians of all political persuasions but not, thankfully, scathing about every single one. There are still a few with a bit of integrity. Hopefully after the next election we might get an influx of people who are there for the right reasons. I can but hope.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
barry kingsley
Ofcourse they have a privileged position, but as you say they are in certain ways prisoners to their position. It is certainly not a position i would want either, so it is hard work. That was my main point about talking crap, those who say they do nothing or cant know how real people feel are just wrong as they do feel pain, care, love etc. Many of our MPs have a good background, it doesnt stop them from understanding the needs of the people.
Bob Wiggin,
Sorry i wasnt trying to suggest people wanted to use violence, but \get rid of the Queen\ is exactly what this place aims to do. You can hurt our Queen without using violence, and ofcourse to hurt the Queen hurts her people and the nation.
October 19th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I just want to clear something up. Some people here seem to have a problem with the suggestion that the Queen represents the nation, but that is something built into republican systems too, the head of state / President is meant to “represent the nation”. Ive googled a few quick examples..
President of the Republic of Ireland
http://www.president.ie/index.php?section=15&lang=eng
German Federal President
http://www.bundespraesident.de/en/dokumente/-,5.600338/Artikel/dokument.htm
From Wikipedia on “Head of state” ..
Presidents in Republics are meant to be a symbol of the nation or represent the whole nation. Despite the fact that in democracies not all of the people elect them. So i am sorry that some republicans do not feel their Queen represents our country and the nation, thats something most people clearly think she does. Far more people support the monarchy than supported the French president or the American president in their elections.
So ofcourse the question is, who is a better symbol of our nation than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II? Would it be Gordon Brown? Tony Blair? David Cameron? Sorry but the Queen is clearly the best person for the job today.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Barry Kingsley: “You seem to condescendingly “feel sorry” for people who don’t agree with you.” News to me. I don’t mean to come across like that. I put forward my arguments and you’re invited to respond to them. Remember, on this blog this week, it’s been suggested that I need counselling and a psychiatrist because I am deranged. I have to admit that I find these personal attacks very odd. I guess we are all brought up and/or educated differently. “I am sorry about that.”
As Simon has said “I still also do not see why someone who is loyal to Queen and God should somehow be in need of medical treatment”. This baffles me too. I was brought up to believe, and this is also what our own forefathers believed. I think I will travel in Bob Wiggin’s Tardis and go back to 1953. Where all republicans needed medical treatment.
Barry Kingsley: “I was once a royalist, you know, but happily I am now cured. Perhaps you might seek a cure one day?” So, how did you cure yourself? I am curious. Did you actually see (or still see) a psychiatrist?
Simon. I don’t think taking the oath should be made compulsory for our young people either. However, it must be encouraged along with other patriotic activities in schools. I rather enjoyed all the patriotism when I was a boy. I really did enjoy it. It is difficult to put into words how I felt. Youngsters are missing out – so what is the problem liberals have?
I was interested to learn that the Conservatives are offering National Citizens Service. I had no idea. What an excellent idea – I would vote for that. I would even campaign for it. I am thinking of supporting the Conservatives in the next election, but I’m not sure. I have my doubts. I’m sort of scared of them because of what they were like when they were last in office. They were a bit odd and zany to say the least. They made me look sane. I also reside in a key marginal constituency. A key marginal that has helped to decide the result of every single General Election since the 1950s. So I guess, my decision is quite important. Trouble is, I don’t quite know what to do for the best – sad, but true.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Simon – The very fact that the presidents of the republics you mention actually represent/embody their people is because they have some legitimacy via the ballot-box. Our head of state has no such legitimacy and therefore she cannot embody anything other than the privileged clique she is from. Do you have so little faith in your fellow Brits that you cannot see even a single one of 61 million of us having the qualifications to aspire to be our head of state? That’s very sad. Even sadder than your queen fixation.
The captcha for this post was ‘queens gleeful’. She flaming must be with people like you and Neil about.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Neil,
What your suggesting is essentially indoctrination. No one be encourged to take an oath, especially at school. If someone decides to take an oath then they should be able but certaintly not at a school. And schools should not encourage sychophantic patriotism. Schools already fail to educate people on the alternatives to the monarchy, creating a bias in favour of the monarch. If after being given the oppotunity to see and understand different models they still which to take an oath that is their choice. But it is an individual one not something that the state should determine. I also find the pledge of allengiance in the USA to in the same category, you are imposing views upon children who are then denied the chance to make a choice as an adult. We all know the influence that our childhood has upon us as adults.
I also do not believe that patriotism has to be linked to the monarch, I believe the UK can be a great country but has some significant problems, and while I oppose the current system I want to make this country better than it is now. My loyalty to my country is in no way reliant upon the Windsors. Nor would it be contingent upon the individual who was president, if we were a repbulic my patriotism would be to the system of equal citizenship.
I also agree with Bob vis-a-vis the legitamacy of the office of president over the unelected monarch.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Bob:
The very fact that the presidents of the republics you mention actually represent/embody their people is because they have some legitimacy via the ballot-box.
Tell me, Bob, just out of curiosity, do you strongly favour the Irish system of direct election over the German system of election by parliament? I ask because I’ve given my reasons for preferring the German system if Britain were to become a republic, and nobody’s made any disapproving comments on that reasoning so far; but since one of the most frequently-cited republican arguments is a president’s democratic mandate, I wonder whether a German-style president would be democratic enough for many republicans.
October 20th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Neil Welton
I agree its very important and very lacking in our schools today. It is ashame that liberals look down on such things, like Sam viewing it as “indoctrination”, as if this doesnt happen in many republics around the world. Especially the United States, i fail to see why we cant have a bit of patriotism like them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuMCzvL6Dac
This liberal thinking that people cant be encouraged to be British or take pride in our country is destroying it. That is why we have a growing separatist threat sweeping across the union, and the tories take a much stronger line on these things. Labour have done a few good things, like armed forces day, citizenship ceremonies, compulsary citizenship lessons in England, taking away stupid rules that stopped us flying the union flag many days each year, but they have not gone far enough.
http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Its%20time%20to%20inspire%20Britains%20teenagers.ashx?dl=true
There is a publication they did on it, explaining some of the proposals although its still a work in progress.
Sam,
I am sorry you have a problem with teaching children to be loyal to their country. Its not like you are just objecting to loyalty to the monarch, but you actually oppose teaching young people to feel proud of their country and loyal to it. That is soo very dangerous. Is it any wonder we have British muslims feeling more loyalty to osama bin laden than Britain? This liberal thinking is destroying this country, it has to stop.
How do you feel on religion, early you were saying we should break the link between the church and state so its not unfair to other religions. Religion does a similar sort of thing. Well im sorry but i want the British people to be more loyal to their Queen and country than the Pope sitting in Rome or Allah, peace be upon him.
We have serious enemies out there who want to destroy this country and our entire way of life. Do you not think its important people are loyal? My god i hate to think how wed of won ww2 with the types of liberal we have today. Conscription may be needed at some stage in the future you know
Bob,
Our Queen is supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people. The President of the USA / France didnt get the overwhelming majority of the vote, huge numbers of people voted against them. Surely its harder for the opposite side to look up to their president and think they represent the nation? than it is to respect the Queen who is politically neutral?
Also ofcourse, i fail to see this obsession with the ballot box. How many people in the house of commons, who we actually elect would you say would be a great symbol and reflect / represent our nation? I want David Cameron to be our next Prime Minister, i dont think he represents our nation the way the Queen does.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Simon,
I do not seem to have made myself clear. I am not suggesting that people are told not to be proud or loyal. What I’m saying is that children should not be brought up being taught that the monarch is some inffable and supreme personage who deserves unconditional, uncritical subserveance. Being proud or loyal to the UK does not require the exsitence of the monarchy.
Also you seem to think that loyalty to a religous figure such as the Pope or the Prophet is mutally exlcusive to national loyalty. It is not, a Catholic will consider the Pope the utlimate arbiter of religious concern regardless of the state church. The state church does however imply that Anglicans are favoured over others, and that this ‘christian’ country requires conformity to a one sect.
Finally WWII is irrelevant with regards to why people should loyal today. IT can be convincly argued that the intervention of the USA and Hitlers invasion of Russia contributed signifcantly to the winning of WWII. It seems you require everyone to be fantaically and unquestionaly loyal to someone who couldn’t care a less as long as her position is secure.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Sam Walker,
I am glad we misunderstood each other. I am not saying children must be taught to love their Queen and must pledge or take an oath to them. I am fine with that sort of thing being optional, but i expect loyalty to the country. You seemed to have a problem with the children in the USA being asked to pledge to their country, so i presumed you were against teaching loyalty to our children here.
On religion, its clear that Catholics in Northern Ireland, or certain muslims here in England see loyalty to their country comes second, if at all. I find that wrong and there for we need a strong sense of loyalty to country at the very least.
On WWII, i never said we won the war all by ourselves. All i meant was young men had to be conscripted to fight and die for this country, if we dont teach people to be loyal to the country like we had done in the past then how many traitors or people unprepared to fight would we have had? There are huge threats out there in the real world, we need loyal and prepared citizens to ensure this states survival.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:25 am
@ Simon
“Our Queen is supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people”
We’ve no idea whether that statement is true or false because she’s never stood for any kind of an election in her life!
We can only go on opinion polls where there is usually only person to vote for anyway. (Sounds paradoxically like some perverse form of communism?!)
Give us the opportunity to prove or otherwise the popularity of the monarch by firstly educating people of the pros and cons, secondly, allowing debate in the Houses of Pariliament, thirdly by allowing republican MPs to sit in the House and fourthly, after a proper airing of views, let’s have a vote. A job specification for the monarch might be a good start – define the verb “to queen”, in other words.
The Realm will never allow us to get to stage one of that little shopping list but it remains in power “by God and my Right Hand” – i.e. by His intervention and the rule of force.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Martin G,
Reliable polling groups that poll political elections also do polls on the monarchy and those polls show an overwhelming majority support the monarchy. the true test as it is with separatists in Scotland is when the majority of people start voting for republican parties then ofcourse a referendum on abolishion of the monarchy must be held, until then when there is political consensus across the main parties (and it appears even separatists parties like the SNP), then i see no reason for a referendum.
On your points, 1st it appears Republic is allowed to go into school already, in many cases though i doubt chlildren in schools are taught the pros either, we have become so liberal. 2)I dont think a debate on the monarchy is banned, i watched one on reforms to the line of succession, trying to stop the catholic / female discrimination, people felt free to bang on about the monarchy in general. Also ofcourse as so few MPs are republicans, there isnt much of a debate to be had is there? lol. 3) Republicans are allowed to sit in the house, This website lists MPs who have broken their oath and seek remove Queen Elizabeth II from her throne. Those MPs are not hunted down and arrested. 4) Your views are out there, The BBC often asks Republic for a quote / their opinion on things and i see articles with their comments in. We have a free press, that moans about the costs, or prints embarrassing pictures of Prince Harry or stories of William and his chopper. Republicans should stand for election, thats the way you get the vote you seem to be after
October 20th, 2009 at 1:45 am
I’ve seen where, in a contest between two candidates, the Opinion Poll had Candidate A with over 35% lead over candidate B, with months to go in the election, come election week, the polls tighten to within margin of error, and in fact, on election eve, unfortunate for Candidate B, Candidate A widens his margin over Candidate B; but a las! on Election Day Candidate B beats Candidate A with over ten percentage points, in the only Polling that counts, The Official Ballot Box!
Moral of the story? Take opinion polls with a grain of salt.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:58 am
eclub, Questions on keeping the monarchy are slightly different to a poll on voting intentions in an election, however i accept they are just polls, although all of them show majority support for monarchy.
The only real evidence is the election through the ballot box. That is what has highlighted the separatist threat in Scotland, people voting SNP on mass which has sadly led to a separatist executive trying to introduce a referendum on the break up of the election.
That is the way to do it. Run for political office and seek change. If the people really care about wanting to live in a republic as some claim here, then they will vote for it wont they? Until that changes i fail to see why we must have a referendum on change, let alone have change itself.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Simon,
Just to clarify, and I should have been clearer about this I apologise. My main problem with the pledge of allegiance (USA) and an oath taking here in the UK is not to encourage disloyalty or a lack of loyalty. Rather I object because it does not allow people to learn why they should be loyal, or to what.
If someone educated in the different systems decided to be loyal to the monarch or a republic (like on this blog) then that is great. What I do not want to children or adults to be loyal to something without understanding why they should/shouldn’t be loyal.
I hope this is clearer.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Simon, I accept, for the first time, your thinking on an issue.
Hear you: “If the people really care about wanting to live in a republic as some claim here, then they will vote for it wont they? Until that changes i fail to see why we must have a referendum on change, let alone have change itself”.
That sounds normal to me.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Sam Walker. When we teach children the alphabet or how to count or about respect and politeness – we are indoctrinating them into values. Why not throw values like patriotism, religion and royalism into the mix as well? I really don’t get what all the fuss is about. All this PC stuff is relatively new and a development which has only taken root since the early 1990s. When I was at school in the 1970s and 1980s, we had none of this. They demanded patriotism – and you even got the cane if you dared question it.
Schools “fail to educate people on the alternatives to The Monarchy” because we live in a Monarchy. Are children in the States taught about Monarchy as “an alternative to the republic”? Do parents and teachers shy away from imposing their nation’s views on their children? Surely all this creates a bias in favour of a president. For the States does not give a choice to children about loyalty – so why in weak willed Britain. Yes, we all know the influence that our childhood has upon us as adults. I’m clear of the influence it has over me – a positive one.
It is not indoctrination. It is liberation. Opening up a spiritual dimension.
Thanks for the links Simon. Much appreciated. I cannot understand for the life of me why some people oppose teaching young people to feel loyal to their Queen, Country and (dare I say it again) God. I’ve often wondered “why” liberals look down on such things. I just do not get it. They sort of hate their Country or Queem or something. It baffles me. Like you, I hate to think how we would have WW2, let alone a WW3.
Which reminds me, why do you think conscription might be needed? I mean, I’d be the first in the queue, though I expect I’d have received my call up papers before conscription was re-introduced. I’ve my own doubts about these wars, but one word from The Queen, and I’d be gone. I have my doubts about these wars. I’d still die in them though.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:51 am
Neil,
are you seriously suggesting that physical violence against children is acceptable if they do not agree with or accept the monarchy. Everyone should be entitled to refuse to accept the monarchy, especially as you have no choice into what society you are born into.
You also highlight why I oppose forcing people to adopt one particular view. I find it disgusting that you feel beating someone is justified just because they do not subscribe to your view.
I also stated that I am critical of the US approach, I think I made that quite clear that indocrination in support of a president is equally bad.
The reason religion and the monarchy should not be forced upon people links to individual expression and the equality and right of people to hold different views regarding the political structure of the country. It is not something people should just accept without question. If someone genuinely supports the monarchy after learning about other systems, as presumably you do, then that is fine but it must be an informed decision. Without questionng and learning of alternatives then any system will stagnant, as ours has.
Regarding the teaching of a monarchy in the US I think children should be taught about it, although I accpet that as a practical issue becoming a monarchy after rejecting the system is more difficult.
I would no more want to see people forced to accept a republic than a monarchy. Everyone should have a choice. I hope that not all monarchists condone violence as a means of ensuring loyalty to the Windsors.
October 20th, 2009 at 2:56 am
@ Neil
You would have been right if Nations without a monarchy are heathens or non-believers. As it is, The USA are more religious or more christian than the UK, and the USA is a republic.
Source:
British Social Attitudes (2006/7)
British Election Studies, in British Social Attitudes 2006/2007, p9. National Center for Social Research. Added to this page on 2007 Jul 19.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#BI_005
Many large-scale polls indicate that less than half the British public believe in God:
Date Details Belief in God
2008 1000 people were polled both in the UK and the USA and asked “Do you believe there is a God?”. Less than 40% in the UK said yes, compared with 80% in the USA.
2006 12507 people were polled, finding that only 35% in Great Britain believe in any kind of God or supreme being, compared to 27% in France, 62% in Italy, 48% in Spain, 41% in Germany and 73% in the USA.
2006 Poll of 4000 older teenagers in Cornwall found that only 22% could affirm that they believed in God, and 49% said they didn’t.
Source:The Economist (2008 Mar 29) article “Anglo-Saxon attitudes” contained graphical representation of poll results, making precise values hard to discern.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html#BI_005
October 20th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Sam Walker,
Ofcourse children should learn why to love our country and be loyal to it. Thats what we want done in our schools, im not suggesting children should just be made to take an oath and told every day “You are British you will love your country or else”. I just want children to learn of our external threats and for schools to teach wonderful British history, about our glorious imperial past, half the kids going through school these days have never even heard of the British Empire, let alone know it was the greatest Empire since Rome ruled Europe. How can they take pride in our history if they are not taught it or are only taugh the negative. “The nasty British engaged in the slave trade”, yet for some reason accidently leave off it was the British Empire that led the way in ending it because of our naval dominance.
I can only imagine what some of the people here feel about this video..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLqvzISwetI
eclub,
Thanks for that, We are a democracy in this country. British republicans here are entitled to run as independent candidates in elections as republicans, the British people will then have a chance to elect them to parliament. You would have to start off small like the separatists did in Scotland, but over time if you have a cause some people support then you will pick up more seats.
That is the way to bring about change in this country. Its no good people sitting on the sidelines moaning and attacking the system. We have a democratic parliament despite what people think here. That is how we bring about change, its not like MPs cant lie when they take the oath, as has been highlighted some do as they support this republican cause.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Neil Welton,
Sadly this country has radically changed, some of it has been for the better, for example we are a far more tolerant nation today.. thats a good thing, but we have clearly gone too far when its seen as wrong for children in our schools to learn about our country, its monarchy and to take pride in both. Our enemies must love the damage we are doing to ourselves with such liberal thinking.
I do not think conscription is needed right now or possible in the current climate. Thats why i have taken a huge interest in Camerons National Citizens Service, its a good start. I do not think we need something like a years service which you see in other countries. This is the funny thing, i dont know if you saw one of my previous posts but so many European countries that we would consider liberal do have conscription or only recently gave it up, yet its seen as evil or wrong here by our liberal friends. I think a 6 week course it the best bet, whilst originally only some would spend a week with the military according to those plans, id quite like to seee that become part of all the boys time, so they get a feel for the military, which will be useful if and when the call needs to go out for mass conscription. But in todays world with nuclear weapons and NATO there isnt a real need for conscription today, it would simply cause more objections. Even most liberals could live with their son spending a week with the military, theyd got nuts if conscription was introduced.
Sam,
He did not say the boy was hit for not accepting the monarchy, he showed a total lack of respect by being rude about the Queen and disployalty to the country by not standing for our national anthem.
I do not advocate reintroduction of corporal punishment, although it must remain a posibility if we fail to restore order to this country and the classroom by other means. I am not one for violence, i think there are far better ways to change peoples behaviour, im sure theres plenty lads out there who would rather a quick beating to get it over and done with than a punishment that lasts for a long time and impacts them for weeks (more than a slight pain from sitting down
). Although we have gone too far, taking away powers from the police, from schools, from parents etc.
Today the cane is seen as shocking and barbaric, something that we must never bring back and yet in 1986 (only just over 20 years ago) the vote to ban it in all state schools only passed by a majority of ONE. That opened up the floodgates and we have gone down hill since in truth. But like i say theres better ways than corporal punishment to punish children and make them reform. Today children care far more about assets, something that 20 years ago were simply not around or owned by most kids, and taking away such assets can make them see sense.
Lol @ choice. Do you think children should have a choice to be loyal to this country or betray it and work with another country to damage our own, committing treason, a crime until a few years ago punishable by death?
October 20th, 2009 at 10:22 am
eclub,
that is because for decades liberals have undermined our own religion here. I am not religious although i want and expect Christianity to remain the dominant religion in this country. In an attempt to suck up to other religions, they go out of their way to undermine Christianity whilst doing the complete opposite for other religions.
Thats why in todays Britain, if a nurse offers to pray for a patient, the nurse is suspended. Its why we have a christian woman sent home from work by British Airways for having a small crucifix necklace. At exactly the same time, a British police force is forced to pay £10,000 in compensation for asking a Sikh policeman to take off his turban to put on a riot helmet for police training. Or whilst kids with hoods, or motorcyclists with helmets are required to fully show their faces for security reasons, but women in full burkas which totally hide the face are allowed. That is ofcourse at the same time as a 21/7 bomber who attempted to kill people in London flees the country in a burka.
What a world we live in and if Obama has his way, you guys face this crap too. Obama has now declared war on Fox News the only major network prepared to challenge him, and his followers have the nerve to go onto other news channels telling those channels to fall into line and isolate fox. Its pathetic and shocking. The ONLY republic i look up to is going down a very scary path these days. It certianly doesnt give me the confidence to adopt your system.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Hi Simon,
You absolutely avoided the larger point of my last post.
You and Neil claim that the authority of the Queen to be head of state, head of church, and the monarch, is from God.
You also claim that over 75% of the British love the Queen.
And inferred that kicking out the monarchy will throw God out of the country.
I proffered the above statistics as prima facie evidence to devastate those claims, ALL of it. Please reconcile your claims in view of those statistics.
[Do not change the topic and go onto American/Obama politics. Obama will come and go, just like George Bush came and went, because we have a democracy. If he doesn't perform well, he will only serve one serve, like George Bush senior; in any case, Obama only gets two terms maximum. In the United States, democracy is vibrant; the fight between Obama and Fox will play itself out. We like the fight, it's better than what you have with the BBC and the monarchy: sycophancy. Fox is a small network in USA; it's a cable channel of minor consequence. You must enjoy the American election cycle when it comes up every four years. It is so incredibly vibrant to see candidates go at it, contesting to be the head of state of the United States. Don't tell me you don't envy it when it comes about? You can have the same thing, Simon. Switch to a republic].
October 20th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Simon,
I tell you what, let me break it down for you:
If you equate God believing people with those supporting the Monarchy, and you only have less than 35% of British believing in God, it only means that the Monarchy, in the 2007 statistics, have 35% support (if we gave the monarchy every single one of them, it’s unlikely, but let’s give all to the monarchy for argument sake), and its dropping fast. Tell me why that is not so based on those statistics and polls.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I am not religious, I do not argue anything at all when it comes to religion. All i have said is this is a majority christian country and it should stay that way. My support for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the monarchy has nothing to do with God for me. People will have their own reasons for the feelings and views they hold.
What i do find totally unfair and wrong is when someone is suggested as having mental problems because they love their Queen and God.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I do watch the American elections, they are great fun to watch. However we have elections here too, i accept they are not as exciting as American presidential elections, but is that such a bad thing? i would rather a serious election campaign that focus on the issues between the parties, than two groups of people with lots of signs and chanting like,
Obama, Obama, Obama!!
Our parliamentary system makes it more about the political party than the leader although we have sadly made it more about the leadership in recent years. As i have said before, i find it dangerous that people in America have such loyalty to a political leader, here its just not on the same level as that.
You can keep your presidential elections, we will keep the majesty of monarchy. Thanks
October 20th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Simon,
If one’s not religious, then where does anyone get the authority to declare themselves one’s head of state? On a personal level, where does one get the power to make one monarch over one? I was assuming you were doing it for God’s sake. Please answer me, i’m very curious. If God did not give one the authority to be one’s hereditary head of state, and one did not vote for one to be one’s head of state, how does one become one’s head of monarch?
October 20th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I am sorry but why would i want to replace this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTZr1OPfkaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0tgW_vJ05U
I am looking forward to the Diamond Jubilee, hopefully we will have a conservative government then prepared to celebrate it even more. This is not just about the monarchy as you can see from the second video, it gives the British people a chance to take huge pride in being British and celebrate. At a time when we have separatists seeking to destroy this country, such celebrations are needed.
Eclub, she is still on the throne today because the people support her and respect her. She is my Queen, it is just the way things are.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Dear Neil,
My apologies for letting my standards slip ,and suggesting that you could use” my “psychiatrist ! I was a bit “narked” about what I read as condescension. One must try to keep a balance obviously,and respect the views of others. If I had reflected beforehand , I would have remembered the fact that the Soviets used psychiatry in order to change the way dissidents thought about soviet communism. Obviously not a good thing ! The blog has a lot of detailed and interesting comments at present. It might well be that the two teams might never actually agree with each other, but that is Life. It seems almost as though some “creator” has created us humans deliberately inbuilt with opposing views that cause him/her/it ,much amusement when we are at loggerheads ! Rather like Zeus .
October 20th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Dear Simon,
I have seen the films,and to be quite honest, I cannot see why anyone would not want to replace it. It is nauseating !
October 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@Neil
Schools in the United States ARE taught about monarchy. I think it begins with battlecries like “No taxation without representation” and ends with a tea party in Boston harbour!
My granny and grandad didn’t dislike the monarch based on the knowledge they had then. Knowing what we know since the 1970s when the royal PR circus opened up and we started to realise the corruption and inertia that surrounds the regime, I doubt whether they would have condoned it now.
If there is a bias in favour of a presidential system that’s probably because having a president is a much fairer, democratic and socially preferable alternative to an unelected and privileged monarch.
And the inference of implying that republicans are not patriotic is a gross insult! It is BECAUSE I am a patriot that I am a republican! I cannot stand by idly and not observe some of the unjust and corruptive practices of some of our politicians and ruling classes who treat this country as a free-for-all.
As for the 1970s and the absence of “this PC stuff”, yes then we had Bernard Manning, “Love Thy Neighbour”, “Mind Your Language”, racially motivated attacks, unequal pay and unfair practices in other walks of life, too.
Ah, those indeed WERE the days! Maybe we should have stopped short at prohibiting sending kids up chimneys – it all started to go wrong thereafter!
I am beginning to realise that just as racial discrimination was the norm a generation ago, republicanism requires a similar educational process that will take another generation for the arguments to sink in. Maybe not ourselves but our children and grandchildren will one day realise the folly of our ways and they may then start to think logically and rationally.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Matt – Yes I would favour the German Model over the Irish. I like the idea of a federal convention which gives, in my view, a better cross-section of views than the Irish nomination system.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Simon,
Not only to your seem to be stuck in a Cold War mentally, its not like the KGB arew waiting to use disgruntled people as agents. The religious differences we face are linked to the state support of on faith, also as attendance is very low upon what are you basing the view that this is a christian nation, or do you have a sentimentalitly about the state religion?
I think you missed my point regarding education and punishment. I think people should be taught about our history. While I would not prefix history with the word glorious under any circumstances, it would have to be balanced. So, ye it would incluede the founding of the American colonies, the War of Independance, the slave trade and our role in abloition. History must alway be balanced.
I do not ever agree with punishment based upon idealogical reasons. The example Neil provided, and told with great relish, was one of a boy being beaten because he refused to particiapte in a system he objected to. That never be allowed of justififed, I’m monarchists would find it disgusting if they were beaten up for supporting the monarchy.
Your discussion of national service is interesting, because of my views on the use of the military I would like national service to consist solely of civil servcies, ie working with emergency services.
“she is my Queen, it is just the way things are.” This seems to sum up the monarchist position.
Martin G, Thanks for pointing out that we are also patriots that want to make our country a better place.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Bob:
Yes I would favour the German Model over the Irish. I like the idea of a federal convention which gives, in my view, a better cross-section of views than the Irish nomination system.
I agree, though I would prefer it if nomination was limited to people without prior political careers – if not necessarily people who’d never been members of political parties. Having said that, now that I think about it, I suppose there’s no reason why our hypothetical non-political headhunted candidates couldn’t be put to the people for the final vote. But certainly I believe the German selection model is far superior to the Irish one.
And Sam, have you had the chance to take a look at the impartiality debate yet?
October 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am
Sam Walker: “Are you saying violence against children is acceptable if they do not accept The Monarchy?” No. I have never suggested that religion and The Monarchy should be forced on children against their parents will. I have merely suggested that it should be taught within our school system again. As the vast majority of parents wish it to be. For I do not believe in an education system that is run by and for the children. I want an education system run by wise adults for ignorant children. David Cameron said recently that one of the problems with Britain is this – “the children are adults and the adults are the children”. Spot on. Another reason why I might vote for him, he’s talking sense.
The ten-year-old boy at school was not punished because he refused to participate in a system he objected to. The boy was beaten because he called our Queen a name which sounded like “the witch” – but which actually started with the letter “b”. Our headmaster (who fought in the Second World War) was furious and rightly so. Indeed, I never saw him go so red with anger – I was terrified. For our headmaster would often talk about The Queen and how important she and Her father were in the Second World War. He said we might have lost the war without the unifying and inspiring factor of The King and The Royal Family. You see, an independent president back in 1939 may have disagreed with the Cabinet or Parliament. He may have resigned on principle against the war or made things very difficult when trying to get public support for the war. Another dilemma your modern republic would get us into. How better then that soldiers receive an instruction to go and fight for The Queen – an instruction we obey immediately and without question.
Would a headmaster or teacher today get furious about such naughty behaviour, disrespect for The Queen, and for failing to stand up for the anthem? No. He would most probably praise the boy for “freedom of expression” and “questioning the world around you”. He’d then tell all the other boys to do the same. “As British tradition is wicked and evil.”
Anyway, nothing wrong the cane. It is argued that discipline amongst youngsters has gone out of the window since it was abolished. For it never did me harm when I had it once (at the age of nine) for a bit of back chat. Other than I could not sit down and lie down properly for three days. I never went back for more – the pain was excruciating.
Martin G: “If there is bias in favour of a presidential system that is because having a president is much fairer, more democratic and socially preferable to an unelected and privileged Monarch.” That is why so many vote for him in the elections. Remind me, how big is that national turnout. What sort of patriotism is that? Laughable patriotism.
“I cannot stand by and observe the unjust and corruptive practices of some of our politicians – who treat this country as a free-for-all.” Why have a president then, Martin? It is only asking for even more trouble.
Simon: “Many European countries we would consider liberal do have conscription or only recently gave it up, yet its seen as evil or wrong here by our liberal friends.” Good point. Liberals are having a laugh. I want a form of national service too. I’d like to see youngsters going into the scouts, the boys brigade or cadets. Perhaps the services could also be expanded, telling our youngsters to serve for a few years after school or university. I did – I’m grateful for those values it gave to me.
Eclub: “If one’s not religious, where does anyone get the authority to declare themselves one’s Head of State?” The answer is God. For you appear to believe God only exists when the mass of people believe in Him. However, I think you’ll find that God also exists even when no-one believes in Him. I would have thought that was pretty obvious. Eclub.
I have merely said here that 75% of British people back The Monarchy. As shown in the opinion polls. I’ve also said that 90% of the population believe in God – and that is why I believe it should be represented in our nation’s Constitution. For polls also show parents want Christian worship in our nation’s schools. My figure of 90% is taken from Census 2001 within the United Kingdom. The Census is a legal document which everyone within Britain must fill in accurately. The 2001 Census found that 70% of British people said they were Christian, whilst 20% said they belonged or believed in another religion. This then is 90% in total. 90% who acknowledge or believe in a God. The next Census is in 2011.
As Simon said about The Queen “it’s just the way things are”. Perhaps things are that way because God wants it that way. For I have always loved The Queen since the age of about eight or nine. I’m not ashamed of it. It’s time people took a stand before we lose our country forever. Anyway, Simon, thanks for all those video clips. God Save The Queen!
October 21st, 2009 at 11:53 am
Neil,
Caning is an extreme punishment, I would argue that teachers should be able to punish children, perhaps a power of being able to physically restrain a child would be useful. However an education system that does not provide an openess of ideas and debate regarding crucial factors of how our country in managed is rediculous. You seem to be saying that teaching children only one political view is appropriate. It is not. Children should be taught in a balanced way, that covers the spectrum of disciplines. All human advancement as resulted from questioning and challenging, pushing people to look for and consider alternatives. The monarchy is not exempt from this, especally as the origins of the monarchy have not be subject to scrutiny. Your approach would see people and society stagnant, and like is happening now to UK with the political status quo, slowly become redundant.
Also which presidential election are your talking about? And the declining voter turnout in the last two elections in the UK is equally bad, and perhaps a sign that politics is dying on its feet.
It will also be interesting to see what the next census says, particulalry as it has had a gap of ten years. Either way as has been pointed out nurmerous the religious diversity of the UK and their contradictory systems preclude them from being a basis of state governance. The recent move of Anglicans to the Catholic church demonstrates that your position regarding religious state involvement is inherently unsustainable.
I think you will find Neil, that no matter how many people in some for of God it does not make that fictional entity, for which all evidence points to the contrary, any more real. Maybe you should read the God Delusion, its extremely rational, while religion feeds off emotional insecurity and a need to justify the unjustifiable.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@ Neil
“Why have a president then, Martin? It is only asking for even more trouble.”
In what way is having a president in an accountable governmental system asking for more trouble?
October 21st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
The video clips were disgusting.!
October 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am
What!
Sam Walker: “Religion feeds off emotional insecurity.” Leave my private life out of this.
Hello Samuel. Oh, by the way, I think Samuel is a beautiful name. A lovely name. I might give my son that name. Have you read about the Samuel in The Old Testament? He’s an interesting character who God used to start the concept of Monarchy. (1 Samuel 8 to 1 Samuel 12)
I believe that The Monarchy must be exempted from questioning and challenging within schools – particularly within school assemblies. By questioning and challenging The Monarchy before children, you are also questioning and challenging the Nation and Country. Americans would also say you must never undermine the Nation before children.
My approach would not see people and society become stagnant and slowly redundant – it would revitalise Christian British subject identity.
The religious diversity of the United Kingdom does not mean religions will be alienated by a God in our State – as we all agree there is a God.
Martin G: “In what way is having a president in a governmental system asking for more trouble?” Have you heard of corruption? Or lobbyists.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
@ Neil
‘Martin G: “In what way is having a president in a governmental system asking for more trouble?” Have you heard of corruption? Or lobbyists.’
Not sure where you are going here, Neil, but with an elected president (like an elected prime minister) you can get rid of them via the ballot box.
You can also construct a political system that can go a long way towards preventing corruption and lobbyists (!?) by imposing stops, checks and accountability.
Corruption is not the sole domain of badly configured republics, you know!
Currently, with the power and wealth concentrated in such a small area that doesn’t allow scrutiny or accountability, I think it would be fair to assume that the conditions for corruption in a monarchy are pretty good as things stand!
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I hope you’re not suggesting our lovely Queen is corruptible.
However, you’re right. There is corruption in Monarchy – but within the democratically elected bits. Why extend this opportunity for corruption then by also making the head of state democratically elected as well?
Martin G: “You can also construct a political system that can go a long way towards preventing corruption and lobbyists. By imposing stops, checks and accountability.” Let MPs did with their expenses system.
Martin G: “With an elected president (LIKE AN ELECTED PRIME MINISTER) you can always get rid of them via the ballot box.”
At last you admit I am right, you do not need a president to block a PM.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:39 am
@ Neil – You consistently fail to see the point for some reason. The reason MPs got away with fiddling their expenses is because there were no checks and balances in place, they made the rules up themselves, they were/are a law unto themselves. Who is/was there to react to public anger? No-one. Our only recourse, to make our collective anger known to these pillocks, is to wait for the next chance to cast a vote. We could petition the queen, if we were all royalists, and ask her to do something about it. But do you know what she would do? Sweet Fanny Adams! So who is going to block the PM Neil? Where are they now when we have a rotten parliament and the public is crying out for an election?
Best Regards Bobby Biggin