Subscribe to RSS feed
What has always struck me about monarchists is that they rarely, if ever, base their arguments on fundamental principles. It’s always about cost, tourism, tradition, fear of the unknown and a desire to idolise others. Republicanism on the other hand is based on certain key principles and fundamental ideas. It is from these principles that the specific ideas and proposals about our constitution flow.
On Saturday our Annual General Meeting agreed a new Statement of Principles upon which our campaign is based. Here is what we agreed:
“Republic is committed to peaceful, non-violent and democratic action to pursue its aims. Republic believes that our principles and objectives rightly cross political boundaries and is committed to remaining unaffiliated to any political party or other political movement.
Republic believes in the following principles, which are inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:- That all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of citizenship;
- Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
- All citizens should have an equal right to participate in the democratic process;
- The rights of citizens must apply equally, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, disability, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status;
- The will of the people should be the basis of the authority of government.
- Citizens have the right to be protected from tyranny, whether the tyranny of one or the tyranny of the majority;
- The British constitution should be based on the principle of popular sovereignty, so that there is no political authority above the people and so that the rights and freedoms of all people are protected and respected by our nation’s political institutions.
- There can be no place for hereditary public office in a democratic constitution;
- The Crown must be abolished and the British constitution must be based upon a new principle of popular sovereignty;
- The monarchy must be abolished and the position of Head of State must be a democratically accountable public office.”
Tags: principles, UDHR
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Whilst I am not particularly open to persuasion by monarchists, because I believe heredity and democracy are incompatible, it’s frustrating to be met by the same none-arguments from monarchists all the time, tourism, spectacle, tradition, charity etc. etc. In my opinion there might be many people out there who are not fooled by the palace PR, but they are apathetic because they think they are powerless to make a difference. Can’t we somehow get those core principals published in a national paper?
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Yes, this is a good article once again. I didn’t really need to read this. I am a republican anyway. I don’t need convincing.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
It would be interesting to discover if monarchists can come up with a similar statement of principles. A challenge for Simon the wind-up Royalbot, perhaps.
How about something along these lines:
1. That all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of citizenship. Members of the House of Windsor. however are to regarded and treated as superior in all these aspects ;
2. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, but only members of the House of Windsor are capable of taking on the role of Head of State;
3. All citizens should have an equal right to participate in the democratic process, except Chales Windsor, who can use his influence at will;
4. The rights of citizens must apply equally, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, disability, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Except members of the House of Windsor who, being genetically superior, are to be regarded as a special case;
5. The will of the people should be the basis of the authority of government. The will of Charles Windsor and his family, however, is paramount.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The thing is though, many monarchists such as Neil and Simon use abstract notions of religion and ‘love’ when describing the British monarchy. Neil has gotten it into his head that attacking tha concept of monarchy is the same as attacking Christianity. And then there’s Simon, good old Simon! He seems to think everyone in this country should and must ‘love’ the Queen because she “represents the nation” without expaining in detail WHY in either case!
These arguments on the one hand are easy to argue against and destroy. On the other, because they are abstract, the creators of such arguments often end up taking all who argue against them on a long scenic route to nowhere. They cannot argue their points based on solid fact. For example, if someone argues that the Monarchy cost £X,000,000’s, Simon or Neil will say “Well, I’d pay as much as it takes to keep the monarchy” or when Neil makes a point about polititians breaking oaths, he dismisses the fact that Charles broke on oath on his first wedding day in front of 800 million people! Difficult to argue with people who just won’t listen!
The challenge for monarchists is to write a concise article similar to the one abouve by Graham pointing out reasons one by one why Britain NEEDS a monarchy without bringing in unstantiated personal feelings into the mix.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Loyalty to ones Queen, Country and Traditions perhaps.
This country supports and accepts human rights. Nobody is forced to support the Queen against their will, they have the right to oppose the monarchy openly and it appears mislead the British people in the media in an attempt to bring about a republic.
The people of this country do have the fundemental right to decide if they wish the monarchy to continue or if they want to become a Republic and they will always have that freedom. We choose stability and a continuation of British traditions, rather than becoming some incredibly dull republic where we elect some random political figure to become our head of state for a couple of years.
This obsession with “popular sovereignty” and “people having the power”, is that really what happens in every republic? I question if thats the case in the USA and Italy for example.
I am not a fan of religion, i often wonder how 5 billion people on this planet can have faith in an all powerful God that refuses to act to bring an end to suffering in the world, but they do rightly or wrongly. Its their choice in the end just as its our choice if we want the monarchy to continue or we want the country to continue. Separatists and Republicans may disagree but the only way to bring about change is through our democratic system which means you stand for parliament on a platform of abolishing the monarchy.
Its still not clear why we must give up on a system and monarch who without doubt the British people support for Republican ideals. Now is not the time. We have a union to maintain, a war to win and a country to clean up. If Republic thinks they have all the answers and its what the people want, become a political party and campaign for change via the ballot box.. do not snipe from the sidelines.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
If we had a referendum and the people chose the continuation of the monarchy by a clear majority (70%+) would Republic end its Quest? Would we respect the wishes of the British people to have a permanent head of state rather than holding elections for one every 5 years?
Or would you still demand change because the British people are wrong? So much for our rights to decide our own future.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Simon
Should such a referendum be held, and the results did not go our way, why should this stop Republic’s campaign? Change is a gradual process.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Is that blind, unquestioning loyalty?
If a right cannot be exercised then it is not a right. When did we last get a chance to decide on this issue?
That’s not a principle, it’s a desire. And you cannot claim ’stability’ as if that’s an inherent feature of monarchy as it is no such thing. We also desire stability.
There we go, resorting to the tired old monarchist tactic of rubbishing our great country. Britain will be dull without a sycophantic need to idolise the Windsor family. What utter tripe.
And you may want to reconsider the use of the word “random”. Elections are systematic. Basing a public office on who is next in a hereditary line of succession is random.
No, it doesn’t happen in every republic. But that is what we aspire to for Britain. I’m sorry you have no aspiration for Britain other than to keep telling people we’re a useless nation that is incapable of being anything special without clinging for dear life to a feudal institution.
And when were we given this choice?
Oh? So you’d be happy to have a republic once we’re sure about the Union surviving and we believe the country is being well run? Let’s keep an eye on opinion polls then and have a republic as soon as the indicators are right. Or are you saying it’s only appropriate after you think the Union is safe and the country is “cleaned up”.
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Really, please, please try to understand the political process. And do try to present some solid defence of the monarchy as a constitutional system. It would be refreshing.
Of course we’d carry on campaigning. Did you expect the Tories to wind up after the last election? Did the fox hunters stop after the hunting ban was introduced? Did Wilberforce accept slavery after the first Commons vote to ban it was defeated?
It is our right to campaign for what we believe in. It is our duty to represent the millions who share our beliefs.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Everyone should be loyal to their country, without excuse. You dont need unquestionable loyalty towards the monarchy, we must always see the flaws in everything but respect for ones monarch is important even if you disagree with the system and want change. I consider myself loyal, it doesnt mean i oppose many reforms which would improve things.
Thursday, 5 May 2005
Would you put your quest for a republic on hold to ensure continued stability whilst we deal with some very serious problems in the coming few years? I have said it before but my first priority is to the union. I know people here refuse to accept that a debate on republicanism is a distraction, but it would be.
We know who will be the head of state of this country for the next 50 years atleast if we remain a monarchy, that is stability. Goodness knows who we will elect to become head of state if we become a republic. As i have said before, theres only one republic on this planet i respect, that is the United States and their system gives me very little confidence. I see left wing americans going crazy because of 8 years of Bush, Now my republican friends are going nuts because of Obama taking their republic down a bad path. I hated Bush, i celebrated when he finally left office, i cant believe how bad things are with Obama though.
I did not rubbish Britain. This is the greatest country in the world, something we should take great pride in. Our monarchy and traditions along with our glorious Queen are also things we can take pride in.
Americans take pride in their Republic because its linked to their independence. This is one of the reasons i think theres a much stronger case for a republic in Canada / Australia, its the final step to clean up what remains of Empire. We just dont need to do that here, it is the British Monarchy. Do you picture people celebrating on the streets after becoming a republic? What would be so special about it? We alraedy have freedom and democracy, will we be out on the streets waving flags cheering freedom? i think not.
I’m sorry you have such an aspiration for a republic you refuse to condemn separatists who would destroy Britain itself.
Thursday, 5 May 2005
I would be more happy to have the national debate at such a point, i did not say i would be happy to have a republic then.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Simon – you may as well stop winding us up and stop recycling the same tired old cliches – Just concentrate on making your bunting for the next establishment choreographed media extravaganza connected to your beloved royal family, where you can go along and celebrate being a subject, safe in the knowledge that your queen is up there still on that pedestal you put her on. Do you have absolutely no aspiration for your fellows except that they should continue being subjected to this backward looking, tawdry spectacle of royalty, abandoning all hope of ever having a proper say in their day to day lives but just expecting to be governed over and know their place. You’re sad.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Indeed it is your right to campaign on such issues and you have total freedom to do this with out fear of violence. You have a right to express your views in public as well as in the media. Our MPs have the right to violate their oaths taken and openly support abolishing the monarchy. Despite having a constitutional monarchy, your freedoms and rights are respected.
But we must also respect the right of the majority who support the continuation of the monarchy, even if a minority think the majority is wrong.
Bob Wiggin,
Its British democracy
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Simon
I’m not sure how you have come to the conclusion that the last general election somehow equates to a referendum on the future of the monarchy; I doubt that such an issue crossed the minds of many people when they decided who to vote for; there certainly wasn’t any major debate about it, and it was not a key element of the major parties’ manifestos.
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Dan Gilpin,
That is the point. Where is the democratic demand for reform to the monarchy or even abolishing it to demand a republic if the peoples representitives do not campaign on the issue or put it in their manifesto.
This is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. We elect representitives to act on our behalf. When we elect 300+ republican MPs. That will be the time for a full referendum on the abolishion of the monarchy. Exactly the same things apply to the separatists. We know theres a bunch of them out there, their support in Scotland is much larger than support for a Republic and yet there is no justification to hold a referendum until the majority of those elected by the Scottish people are separatists.
You want a republic vote for it via the green party or you want reforms to the monarchy vote for it via the liberal democrats. If the greens are no good Republic should become a political party like the separatists have. 27 million British citizens voted in 2005, less than 1 million voted for parties that stand on a platform of removing the monarchy. Democracy in action!
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“Or would you still demand change because the British people are wrong? So much for our rights to decide our own future.” Simon
You describe a world of absolutism in which no-one may question anything. There is significant support for a republic and a campaign is exactly that – a concerted effort to persuade through cogent, accurate argument. You appear not to understand the concept. If 70% (or in fact far less) voted for a monarchy it would undoubtedly continue – and all that would tell me is that we need to try harder to uncover further the secrecy and the lies, disseminate information and build up collective esteem and confidence. Your way is starry-eyed thralldom to those who ‘know best’ genetically. (That’s not you by the way and under your system it never will be.)
Things will change Simon. As you clearly feel that Republic has no right to present alternatives, at what point do you stop regarding yourself as a ‘monarchist’? Would weight of numbers make any difference to your beliefs? Since you dispute that republicans are many, what have you got against minorities anyway? Siding with the gang are you? Safety in numbers?
And still you are exhorted to make more sense, understand the arguments, address the issues, make a cogent case for monarchy and supply anything other than hubristic personal opinions…
And still you carry on, clogging up the forum with your artless comments and servile fawning.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Simon
Sorry, the point I was trying to make is that you can’t use the general election as some sort of guide for monarchy support (or lack thereof) because for certain voters other issues take preference (as in your case the union is a more important issue than the monarchy). That is the difference between the election and a referendum which is solely about the one issue.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Simon:
It’s a British democracy
Which, according to Sir Humphrey, means “aristocratic government tempered by the occasional general election.”
For God’s sakes man, even if you can’t be persuaded that such a system is wrong, can’t you at least accept that it doesn’t work any more?! How on earth do you explain all the problems this country faces, on which you and I are in agreement, if you believe that the system still works?!
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:43 pm
SIMON – You keep banging on about this country having massive problems that need fixing but have you ever wondered why we have those problems, and why we the people have been unable to intervene by proxy via a head of state for instance? Take Gordon Brown’s alleged pensions plunder for instance. When he became chancellor, one of the first things he did was to remove the dividend taxation allowance on pension payments, which meant that pension providers had less money going into their pension schemes and that the treasury collected an additional £5 billion a year in tax. He also did something to MPs pensions, he increased them, so that now they are the best in the country. In fact their scheme is so generous that an MP with only twenty years in the job can retire with a full pension which pays out almost half their salary of £63,000 a year. What were we able to do about it? Nothing. If we had found out about it and had written to the queen, (well perhaps you might have), do you know what reply you would have received? Can you guess?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Tim,
How accurate some of Republics claims are is still unclear. On my other post i highlighted what i see as a flaw of the claimed cost to security, yet despite from what i can see the 100m figure being based on a single source from 5 years ago, the highest amount is used in the total cost of the monarchy. Its between “50-100 million” although the site says its 100 million, despite the facts recent reliable sources estimate it to be 50 million.
That is not going to happen whilst Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne, things may change in the future but until then i respect our Queen and i am sorry the people here feel differently.
Dan Gilpin
I think you will find i can. I view the general election results as a guide to how people in Scotland feel about the union. When the majority of people vote for parties which support the continuation of the union then that reflects those voters priorities. There is no justification for holding a referendum until the majority vote for separatists.
I view the republican debate in the same way. When you have a reasonable number of people voting for the sort of change you are calling for, then will be the time for a referendum on the matter. The 3 main parties support the continuation of the monarchy, even the lib dems although they are the weakest link.
Matt
I am a big fan of Sir Humphrey, i wanted to link the video clip of his comments on it but i couldnt find that one on youtube.
Our system is not perfect, the country is in the state it is today because we the people have elected awful governments. The Queen respects the right of her people to decide the government of the day. The first people to complain about the Queen getting involved would be republicans, and yet they are the first to blame this country’s problems on the fact we have a monarchy. She cant win and there is no evidence that having some presidential head of state would make much difference. Between 1997 – 2001 this country was under the influence of Tony Bliar (we are suffering now because of it) but i fail to see how in a republic one of his cronies or the man himself wouldnt have become President and let all the same things happen.
I support reform, im prepared to accept major reforms to the monarchy aswell but now is not the right time, we must focus more on securing the union.
Bob Wiggin
We do have huge problems which is why i want us to focus on the important ones, reforming the monarchy is not one peoples agenda. I have yet to understand why people think anything the current lot running the country would have been stopped if we had an elected head of state. I agree there are greater controls that could be put in place, but why does that require scrapping the monarchy?
I mentioned it before. We could elect the supreme court justicies who could be guardian of some new written constitution and keep the executive inline. Lets not forget in the United States thats the job of the supreme court because the head of state is also the head of government. We can be very imaginative and reform our system so its wonderful, but we can keep the monarchy whilst doing it.
As i mentioned before we could even go as far as to have a required referendum following the death of a monarch, to ensure the continued support of the monarchy for the new monarchs reign. But at the end of the day, even if we cleaned up this whole system. The majority of the people here will not be happy until they are living in a republic and they see us kick our Queen or her family out of Buckhingham palace. On another thread we are talking about how kicking some bad mannered Assembly Member out of the Welsh assembly might reflect badly on this country, imagine the images of Her Majesty being thrown out into the gutter as the removal vans pull up to the palace to take away her stuff. My god its too disgraceful to even imagine.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:16 pm
SIMON – no-one here has suggested the queen be dragged out of Buckingham Palace, or wherever else she resides, and thrown into the gutter, and I have come to the conclusion after reading all your annoying, interminable, fawning posts, over many many weeks, that you are trolling. You’re just going round and round in circles, dragging us around with you, and saying almost nothing in the process. Do you work for the palace?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
“How accurate some of Republics claims are is still unclear. On my other post i highlighted what i see as a flaw of the claimed cost to security, yet despite from what i can see the 100m figure being based on…[yardy yardy yah]‘ Simon
The ‘accuracy’ to which I refer in any cogent argument Simon means obtaining the best possible information we can glean given the massive levels of secrecy and disinformation generated by those who falsify or obstruct the reality surrounding these people. The constitutional and democratic issues are paramount however.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Bob,
I understand i make certain points which may make some people unhappy and i know that i go off topic alot but i do not consider myself a troll. Far from it i think i have been contributing in a positive way, i spent several hours doing some research on the costs issue. I have suggested reforms we could have which address the concerns of Republicans if such reforms are needed. I have over many different posts stated certain reasons why i support the monarchy but these things are just shrugged aside as all reasons will be by those who will never accept anything other than a regularly elected head of state in a republic.
Tim,
I accept that not enough information is available on security and it should be published, as its not meda reports are the only method available. I think using the most recent estimate in several reliable sources, which is the 50 million claim is more accurate than putting 100 million just because in one Times article 5 years ago, they said 100 million. Now the Times reports it as 50 million.. Maybe they were wrong?
The cost doesnt matter to republicans, 133 million to 183 million wont change your thoughts on a republic, so why continue to use a very questionable figure?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Thought for the Day: Why should a republic be dull ?
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 am
Would a visit by a president in a republic be something special? Would it dominate the local news, and would the president be met by loads of children waving union flags and people cheering?
We have a real lack of patriotism in this country, as ive said before the union is my main priority. At the moment the monarchy is one thing where British people come together and celebrate not just the Queen, not the monarchy but the country as a whole. I do not see the government doing enough to promote British patriotism, one thing that has escaped such silly political correctness or incompetence is the monarchy although far more could be done.
This is how a million people celebrated in London for the Golden Jubilee. That is patriotism, thats not just for making the Queen happy thats the British people coming together in unity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0tgW_vJ05U
Compare that to the small things done to celebrate the 300 years of union between England and Scotland, which is the birth of our country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrbWLWB5deo
That was the Orange Order organising that, all the British government was prepared to do was allow a £2 coin. How wonderful and because of their incompetence in May 2007 the separatists formed a minority government.
So im at a loss, under the labour government patriotism has declined yet they still are prepared to support celebrations for the monarchy, and it isnt just royal standards those people are waving, its union flags.. celebrating being British.
Its not that i view supporting the monarchy as why we should be proud to be British, although i think the monarchy is one of many reasons to be proud, its that through the monarchy we are able to unite and celebrate. Flags wave when the Queen or a member of the Royal family visit. You take away our royal family and we have even less oppurtunity to celebrate because i dont want to see people waving the flag for a president, it wouldnt be right. i hated seeing them wave the flag at tony following his election in 1997 because it shouldnt be used towards a political leader in such a way. The monarchy is different, its special, its a chance for young and old to unite in patriotism and celebration.
How would we celebrate 10 years of becoming a republic, would it be a big deal?
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 am
@ Simon,
“Would a visit by a president in a republic be something special? Would it dominate the local news, and would the president be met by loads of children waving union flags and people cheering?”
What has that got to do with democracy?
Is the number of flags waved maniacally (usually by children who get a day off school and rent-a-crowd workers on extended lunch breaks) some kind of ISO standard of democratic approval?
Secondly, I resent your continued inference that you somehow have to have an insatiable (and sometimes unhealthy) attraction to the Queen to be a patriot.
I consider myself a patriot and a republican. I also pay may taxes, fill in my tax returns, do a full year’s work with only five weeks’ holiday and subject myself to the law.
I consider these actions are a minimum pre-requisite for any patriot – Do you at least agree with me on this point?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 am
Martin,
That is part of the problem. I certainly wouldnt be waving the flag for some common president or prime minister and i doubt most people including republicans here would.
You just want a head of state to carry out the constitutional role, like signing acts into law. I want a head of state that we can celebrate and honour, a truely uniting figure for all be they liberals, mainstream or conservatives and thats what we currently have with our Queen. When there is a Royal visit 100s sometimes 1000s come out to celebrate, again they are not just celebrating the monarchy they are engaging in patriotism (”Britishness” as the government likes to call it). Any oppurtunity to show pride in our country (as people do on last night of the proms for example) is good in my book and very needed these days.
This is why i have suggested some form of council who we elect every 5 to 10 years instead of electing the head of state. We could elect 7 people who form the council that does part of the constitutional role Republicans seem concerned about. The Council would act inbetween the Monarch and the Prime Minister/Government/Parliament. The Council would ensure the PM and government are obeying constitutional law, and they would look over new acts of parliament, with a right to send something to the Supreme court of the United Kingdom if they view it as unconstitutional. If they think its fine or the Supreme court then rules its fine it gets passed to the Queen for her to give Royal assent.
I have said i would even be prepared to accept a referendum following the death of a monarch so the British people could reaffirm their support for the monarchy. Whilst it wouldnt be about a single person, in a way it would be like voting the King to reign for life. That way every time we have someone new, the people can choose and there is a clearly defined constitutional way to bring an end to the monarchy.
Id support the above things, although now is not the time for radical change. We have a union to secure, this sort of thing is the least of our country’s worries.
Being a republican doesnt stop you being a patriot, although it depends where your first loyalty is. Is it to a Republic or is it to your country? For example i have always said union first, monarchy second. I would be prepared to live in a Republic if it was the only way to secure the continuation of the union between England and Scotland.
Paying taxes and following the law makes you a good citizen, im not sure if id use it in the same line as patriotism though. We recently saw that in the USA, the Vice President Biden said that about making people pay higher taxes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCqgNWRjmAc
To pay taxes and follow the law is the basics of a good citizen and something vital for society. Patriotism is far more indepth and an inner feeling that comes from the heart or soul as they say. Im not sure inner feelings say one should pay taxes, thats just doing the right thing and following the law of the land.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Right or wrong? Really? What if the country decides to begin mass exterminations of people or declares war on the rest of the world? What if we decide it would be a good idea to nuke Paris?
Do you have a broad view of ‘country’ or do you equate it with the state and with state institutions? Are you talking about loyalty to the citizens or to the nation state?
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:31 am
SIMON – You have never addressed the point often raised that becoming a republic could actually strengthen the union and very well may be its saviour. Or are you so obsessed with your vision of flag-waving children dutifully lined up to pay homage to your queen? Actually that happened to me when I was 12 years old and the queen visited Wolverhampton where we YamYams come from. We were all led to Molineux and told to cheer as if our lives depended on it. As soon as the teachers retreated I, already a republican, sat down on the terrace whilst my classmates blindly jumped up and down like dervishes. Here’s the link of footage for you Simon, I know you enjoy this sort of crap, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AYaa3Wqdy0. One thing to note is that in 1962 there were approximately 30,000 in Molineux, many of them schoolchildren like me. Something else of note, and which no doubt you will also approve of, is the crowds lining the Waterloo road on the approach to Molineux. How times change hey Simon, I doubt if those same numbers could be mustered to line the streets of Wolverhampton now. You see, people are gradually becoming more enlightened, very gradually because people like you and your ilk are doing everything in their power to ensure the stultifying moribund system we endure is continued without meaningful or democratic change. We may be in the minority now Simon…………..
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Bob
“We may be in the minority now Simon…………..”
At one time, so was Galileo.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“I accept that not enough information is available on security and it should be published…I think using the most recent estimate in several reliable sources, which is the 50 million claim is more accurate than putting 100 million just because in one Times article 5 years ago…..” Simon
It is NOT just the woeful opacity surrounding security Simon, as you well know. Yours is a one-man campaign isn’t it? One which is trying to derail this forum by constantly addressing the minutiae rather than the core issues.
You have provided innumerable artless posts with little content other than to state and re-state you own personal obsession with monarchy, which has succeeded in eliciting responses from all and sundry who have had the courtesy to answer politely what I regard as your naive assertions.
You are unable to produce one shred of reasoning why a hereditary monarchy should continue to be justified in this society and you are also unable to address any debate surrounding issues of egalitarianism, democracy and the ways in which some people think that birthright allows them, in perpetuity, to interfere with the negative freedoms of others. If we have any sense at all your febrile protestations will be ignored.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Graham Smith,
A British government would not do such a thing. Loyalty is to ones nation state although respect for the other citizens of that nation is also important. But yes without doubt as British citizens we must be loyal to this country, its laws and customs. Whilst people always have the right to oppose the monarchy, for many loyalty to ones Queen is also part of the mix. But its loyalty to ones country that should not be opted out of.
Take the separatists, they are free to decide if they want a break up of the United Kingdom, but they need to understand they are traitors to this country. Whilst no violence will be used, every single arm of the state will be used to ensure their little separatist agenda fails. Certain things are working out rather nicely, this recent economic crisis has been most useful to restore some order.
Loyalty to ones country does not mean loyalty to government policy of the day. The Lib Dems are not traitors for opposing the Iraq war. The people who use violence or protest against British troops in our own country are though.
Bob
Very nice video footage. As i tried to explain its not actually about having children come out and show respect for the Queen. Its seeing them engage in patriotism that is important. On what occasion currently in this country do we have to come out and wave the union flag celebrating being British? Theres a Canada day in Canada, and Australia day in Australia, America has independence day as do most countries.
Britain being the imperial might we once were has no independence day. When it was suggested we needed some form of British day it was seen as laughable and the government backed away. This is where my problem is, if the only time i see children waving the union flag is at sport or a royal visit, why do i want to do away with one of the only chances for them to wave the flag?
On strenghtening the union, id love to here exactly how it would do that. Considering the lead separatist is prepared to support Scotland keeping the Queen, it really doesnt make a huge difference, although i accept many separatists are republicans, but a large number wouldnt suddenly accept the UK if we got rid of the Queen. Im only prepared to scrap the monarchy if its a deal breaker for the union, is just obvious at the moment thats not the case. There are also huge complications for Northern Ireland if we become a republic and i wouldnt want to give republican terrorists a boost, you know theyd celebrate.
As for times changing, its true although there is still strong support for the monarchy. I wouldnt have thought wed see 1 million celebrating in The Mall for the Queens Golden Jubilee and ofcourse there were huge events around the country. Only a couple of years before her Diamond Jubilee, which happens to fall in the same year as we host the olympics.. so there will be huge celebrations. Especially if we elect a decent government next year.
Tim,
I am sorry but i consider it important that the figures used are as accurate as possible, i just dont think basing 100 million for security on a single source from 5 years ago is justifable. All the sources recently say its about 50 million.
I also dont know why people are so nasty to me, i have answered a huge amount of questions people ask, Ive explained reasons why i support the monarchy, ive been honest about where the monarchy needs improving, ive suggested ways of addressing republics concerns without becoming a republic. I think i have done all that in a respectful way, the only moderation rule i may violate from time to time is going off topic, but in many cases thats because i want to reply to other peoples comments.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
So rather than having loyalty to people, to friends, family, fellow citizens, you believe loyalty should be to an abstract and artificial creation, a ‘nation-state’ that has only been around since the 1920s.
That’s very odd indeed.
What if loyalty to the state conflicts with loyalty to family, friends and fellow citizens? Which side do we choose?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@ Simon
“To pay taxes and follow the law is the basics of a good citizen and something vital for society.”
So how does the Queen fit in since she gets special treatment regarding taxes and the law that no one gats?
(Sorry, Simon. You walked right into that one!)
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
The birth of this country was the union between England and Scotland just over 300 years ago, not when Ireland joined or part of Ireland left even if thats when the modern title was formed.
People wonder why some may question republicans patriotism, that sort of comment highlights the problem i think. “To an abstract and artificial creation”.. This is our country, i thought you wanted the best for it, but we cant even expect people to be loyal to it??? Lmao im odd for thinking people should be loyal to their country? In these troubled times maybe thats the case, but it shouldnt be!
I think David Cameron put it well in his speech…
As for which side do we choose, difficult question. Should a policeman arrest his friend or brother because they commit a crime? Should a soldier deploy to Afghansitan even if his lover begs him not to go?
There are times when country comes first.
Martin G,
The Queen does not make the tax laws in this country. She should follow the tax rules, but if the tax rules exempt her the way many people on lower incomes are exempt from certain taxes, its not her fault.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Must we continue to be subjected to this never-ending stream of tripe. I need to ignore Simon for a while.
Last night, I hesitate to admit this, but I actually sat and watched on TV the Graham Norton show, mainly because I am a fan of both Rob Brydon and Harry Connick Jnr who were guests. Harry Connick was asked by Graham Norton about being introduced to the royals recently, and Harry Connick seemed genuinely bemused by the protocol involved when meeting a royal, and revealed that he had been told in preparation for the meeting not to actually speak to a royal until he was spoken to by a royal. Are we really in the 21st century? I was acutely embarrassed whilst sitting in front of the TV set in my own home, in fact my wife noted my flushed complexion and asked if I had remembered to take my blood-pressure medication.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
“I also dont know why people are so nasty to me…” Simon
It’s called argument and debate Simon. Some of it is always going to be robust. ELEVEN posts out of 35 so far then from you – all saying basically the same thing – does not qualify in my humble view. I think you are here to subvert and little else.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Bob Wiggin,
We need to try and avoid going off topic but i just watched part of the show you talked about. Its interesting to note despite him being confused with the protocol he did say “That was pretty cool” and “But that was an amazing experience”. I though the whole clip was actually fairly good and nothing to be embarrassed about. A show on the British Broadcasting Corporation, freely making jokes about the monarchy and taking the piss. We’re hardly living under an oppressive regime if such things are allowed are we?
Also did you catch the first thing he said before getting onto the royals, it was something like..
Tim,
I respond to the points people question me on, that is usually how i end up going off topic, when im responding to other peoples questions or comments. In future to avoid going off topic and to stay with in the rules i will decline to comment where such a response may take us too off topic.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
If the queen really knew what was going on in our country,and what makes it “tick”, she would have offered to pay tax long ago. The tax escape for her was a “loophole.” She did not make the tax laws ,but nevertheless was prepared to take advantage of them, just as a lot of M.P.s have taken advantage of the expenses rules recently and argued that they only followed the rules, ( did she ever really “know” that a lot of British people have been taxed on pittances ? Perhaps not.
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
SIMON – “Its interesting to note despite him being confused with the protocol he did say “That was pretty cool” and “But that was an amazing experience”.
As usual you miss the point Simon. Harry Connick also said “It’s difficult for an American to understand the concept of monarchy”. I would imagine there are a lot of puzzled people from foreign lands wondering how a nation of 61 million people, in the 21st century, allow themselves to be expected to kow tow, in the way we are expected to by the likes of you, you sad pathetic creature, to one of their fellow human beings, and treat them like a deity purely because they entered this world as a windsor.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Bob
Those who come into this country should respect our laws and traditions, nobody is forced to meet a member of the Royal family, and whilst there are protocols in place for how one should behave in the presence of someone with royal blood it is not legally required. There are no punishments if you “get it wrong”. Besides, i am sure there will be a relaxing of certain protocols in the future, Prince Charles would bring his own style and unique personality to the throne so there would be some reforms.
Ofcourse if we are lucky, the Queen will live a couple more decades yet, if thats the case our next King may be William, someone of this generation who would help modernise the monarchy even more. King William V certainly has alot of potential to be a great King, but thankfully we are blessed with Her Majesty for the time being, long may she reign over us.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Simon, We do not want to be “reigned over !”
November 4th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Simon,
You need to drop the separatism issue. It has been stated repeatedly how a federal republic or some other form would accommodate the nations without breaking up the Union and you have never countered this, you have ignored it. Separation is not directly an issue and there appears to be no rational reason for you to keep bringing it up. I would ask that any further comments relating to this issue are removed by the moderator. You’re wasting our time Simon.
You also contradict yourself. You have stated in the past that the Americans have a great deal of loyalty to their president, and then you say that Britain could not have that same loyalty. Even if not the office would have a moral legitimacy which is lacking with a monarchy. You say you respect the US system but then say you cannot stand their elected leader. You blame Obama for the state of US while at the same say that Tony Blair is responsible for the state of the UK. In one case you do not accept the influence of past governments and in another you only accept that. This demonstrates that nothing you say it rational or logical.
You say people should be loyal to the government, whether they like it or not, which only justifies the continued imposition of your view on everyone else. The USSR was one of the most powerful and repressive regimes in history but by your view everyone should accept it because that it the way is. The Politburo had as much moral authority as the monarchy.
You also say that a general election is our chance to remove the monarchy if we wish. This only shows how you try and distort the way the system works to support your view. You are not stupid so do not make such suggestions. A general election is hugely different from a referendum. I’m sure many people vote for numerous reasons and because they is no direct option regarding the monarchy or coverage or debate regarding it, it is not an option in a GE. A referendum on the other hand, focuses on one issue, and does not link to other issues regarding the tax or foreign policy of the government. Your suggestion that a general election is the chance to abolition the monarchy is not only unfounded but a gross distortion of the process. It only further highlights that your support the current electoral system solely because it maintains the status quo which you seek to impose upon everyone because of vague and emotive irrational ideals.
Your childish and rose-tinted argument that people would not wave flags for a president, is not only in contradiction to the evidence of republic around the world, but also shows you do not care about good governance or a political system. You only care about the monarchy because it gives you something to gush and fawn over. You may want to reduce yourself to a vassal of a self-interested family but do not try and convince others to so as well, simply because you cannot be objective and rational about this.
You also have an appalling lack of knowledge regarding our nation. We only became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when we subsumed Ireland. The only we even have Northern Ireland is because to influx of unionists after we slaughtered the people of Ulster. Graham is right, the country we are now has only existed since the 1920’s, hardly a long an enduring national identity.
You suggestion that maintain law and order is the same as loyalty to the parasitical royal family are equal is abhorrent. Also your definition of a good national of the Britain required the paying of tax. The fact that Mrs Windsor does not, by your own definition, makes her a bad Britain. The reason the government do not tax the monarch is because they are not allowed to, the settlement which defined the powers of the commons specifically excluded the monarchy from tax. Yet another example of their self-serving nature.
The core principles above are rational, logical and equalising. This would create a much better nation than the old dinosaur system we have. There would be much more to be proud of, a nation of citizens not subjects. You have not presented any other counter principles. Dave, even did some of the work for you, although he was doing so to point the absurdity of you arguments. You have spectacularly failed to make any principle argument for the monarchy. You adoration and sycophantic devotion is degusting and show that despite the advancements we have made they is still a long way to go. Come up with some principles, set them out clearly and concisely, and stop wasting our time with your recycled rubbish.
November 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Sam,
There is a case that a federal United Kingdom with each nation having a parliament which huge autonomy might deal with the separatist threat, the Lib dems propose something along those lines. No reason has been stated as why we must remove the monarchy and have a federal republic rather than just a federal system.
However we can leave the separatist issue aside.
I have said many Americans do have a loyalty to their president, but that is dangerous because he is also head of government. I do not think loyalty to political leaders is a good thing at all. The proposed system we are talking about here is a ceremonial elected president as head of state only. I do not think we would ever have loyalty towards such a person, even if they remain popular which is not always the case. I certainly wouldnt expect people to wave flags at them.
The USA is the only Republic in the world i have true respect for, i do not respect their system, i think its very flawed and not something id want to see here.
Obama is taking the USA down the wrong path, and last night his party took a good thrashing by the American people in elections. Ofcourse Bush is to blame for many of the problems America has today like the economy, i am no fan of Bush either.. just Obama is making things worse and is doing even more damage. Here at home i blame Tony blair and Gordon brown along with the labour party for alot of the mess of the past 12 years, it doesnt mean i do not accept there have been serious issues ongoing for decades. Previous conservative governments dont have a wonderful record, they failed on things too.
no i say people should be loyal to the country. There is a huge difference, an example being those who opposed the Iraq war. That is not disloyalty to country, but to not show respect or support for our troops, like the bunch of protestors at that luton march is something completly difference. That is disloyalty to this country, they are traitors and people like that must be dealt with, if treason laws are the only tool available, so be it.
I say if people want to bring about a republic in this country they should elect republican parties like the Greens. Only when there is a majority of Republican MPs will there be justification to hold a referendum, thats my view on separatism too.
I wouldnt want them waving flags for a president, but i dont think it would appeal to many people anyway except in a country like the USA where the president is seen in such a way.. i think thats very dangerous considering he makes policy.
We did only adopt the current title in 1920s, but my country was formed when England and Scotland united in union in 1707, we added Ireland onto the end of it then lost most of it but the 303 year union remains and it must be preserved at all costs.
America considers its birth as 1776, when it was only 13 British colonies. Its now 50 states, name changes and expansions dont change the founding date. Ours was the union between England and Scotland.
those required to pay taxes should pay taxes. If we do not require people on under 8000 a year to pay a certain tax then it doesnt stop them being good citizens. The Queen is not responsible for policy at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or Her Majesty’s Treasury.
I am loyal to my Queen and my Country. Thats a principled position, even if you disagree with the principle.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Simon,
“I am loyal to my Queen and my Country. That’s a principled position, even if you disagree with the principle.”
This is just your personal justification. Indeed is seems circular as well, that loyalty is a principled position to take because it is a good principle to accept. There is reason or rational justification for this. Your personal feelings are not a reason for the state system to be based upon the monarchy. The most rational and balanced system is what we should be aiming for, and to achieve that the monarchy must go.
Tax: The point is that the monarchy put them above taxation. I think it was the act of settlement which achieved this. That is why parliament can only increase the Civil list rather than reduce it. People who earn so little that they don’t pay tax is different, because that is recognition of the privation that taxation would bring to them.
Regarding the formation of the UK, I was pointing out that it is a somewhat artificial construct, and although I do not think separation will ever happen (the damage it would do to Scotland and Wales would preclude this) it does justify a federal system and the recognition that the UK is made up of a number of countries. Very few people I know class themselves as British, mot define themselves as English, Scottish, or Welsh. The UK needs to be more adaptive and a federal republic is far better than the current system.
While a federal monarchy could in practice operate it would still be an unprincipled state, as the monarchy is inherently Unitarian and centralises authority, while a federal system it diametrically opposite. This is why the reform of everything but the monarchy is not enough, the unprincipled and outdate institution must be removed if we are ever going to cast of the servile fawning of a disinterested and selfish family. We can make this country much better and something to be proud of but the monarchy must go to allow this to happen.