Subscribe to RSS feed
This week my Russian wife is to attend a formal ceremony in County Antrim to become a British citizen, a formality that represents the final unreasonable hoop of many through which we both have been forced to jump since and long before we married. But for me in particular, as a British republican, a fundamental element of this is a step too far: the mandatory affirmation of allegiance to the monarch and all heirs in perpetuity.
It seems odd that on the one hand, one may choose to merely affirm allegiance rather than swear an oath, ostensibly on conscientious grounds where one’s religious convictions prohibit oaths (pretty much as per Franklin Pierce’s US presidential inauguration workaround) and yet on the other, one cannot opt out of making any kind of commitment to the monarch at all on a conscientious basis. For instance, the entire idea of unconditional loyalty to a monarch is anathema to certain Christians and opens up a whole Pandora’s box of moral issues that first exploded in these isles during the days of the Scots Covenanters, who rejected the Erastian doctrine of religious subservience to the king upon pain of persecution and often death. So why should prospective new citizens be expected to do something immovably at odds with conservative Christian beliefs? One could of course be cynical and suspect that perhaps – along with practitioners of other non-conformist faiths – that is precisely the kind of person the framers of this monstrous imposition had in mind when they proposed it. If the conviction is strong enough, there is the likelihood such an “extremist” (to use the Orwellian Newspeak of the current post 9-11 age) candidate will simply do without becoming a British citizen.
Indulging the conscientious objection theme a little further, there is the added difficulty some people will inevitably have in referring to a mere mortal as “Her Majesty”, an attribution that cannot be avoided even in the affirmation recital during the citizenship ceremony. Doesn’t the government realise that foreign cultures don’t all gasp in awe at the mere idea of the Queen’s existence, and that instead it is both ludicrous and demeaning to have to use flattering titles in connection with a person whose ancestral lineage is far from noble or honourable? Or indeed, whose own persona is so far from being majestic, glorious or whatever other term of fawning but absurd supplication the establishment would have us bestow upon her?
It isn’t simply a religious matter either. The oath / affirmation is a de facto political statement that new citizens are being forced to make, to the effect that they are basically promising to comply with the establishment and thereby waive the right to ever fully dissent. That instantly condemns them to being second class citizens, bereft of the (albeit increasingly whittled away) dissension rights that natively born citizens are supposed to be free to enjoy. Hence I myself am permitted (for now) to abhor and repudiate the entire concept of a royal family, but the wording of the citizenship affirmation means my wife is not meant to enjoy parity. Then again, maybe that’s another objective, viz, to remind each new citizen that they are not quite the same as the rest of us and really ought to know their place in our society, and not to be getting any fancy ideas about challenging our longstanding customs.
Finally, the oath / affirmation assaults what for many truly defines Britishness. After all, the French did not become any less French after they removed their royals, so why is acknowledging the monarchy pleaded as a means of bestowing quintessential Britishness upon anyone? Is the royal family really the only unifying icon of British life? Should citizenship even require a conscious position on such matters at all, given that millions of natively born citizens are utterly indifferent to it and yet remain 100% British?
Alas though, I am sad to relate that my wife is insisting on proceeding with the affirmation, seeing it as an unwelcome means to a partially-welcome end. For my part, I profoundly disapprove and regard the affirmation as being morally unlawful and therefore not binding upon her thereafter. But it’s a great shame on the current government that such an autocratic imposition should be thrust our way at all, plunging us into an unwelcome moral dilemma. Isn’t this meant to be a democracy? Where the ordinary people are supposed to be consulted in matters that impact upon their lives? Might not that ideal be a better choice for a symbol of Britishness than an impersonal, out of touch, out of reach and not-that-terribly-British-themselves-anyway royalty?
Views expressed in guest blogs do not necessarily represent the views of Republic.
If you would like to contribute an article to the Republic Blog please send us a short outline along with a link to your own blog (if you have one). Unfortunately we are unable to publish all the articles that we receive.
Tags: affirmation, citizenship, Oaths
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’m just glad that I am British by birth. Were I required to take an oath now, as an Atheist and a Republican I could not do so. Would I then lose my British citizenship?
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Quite right too, all new British citizens must rightly affirm their support for Her Majesty, in keeping with our laws and customs. I am no fan of the labour party, i condemn them on a daily basis, but their Citizenship ceremonies are a very welcome step forward and they need expanding.
To see new citizens take the oath, and everyone singing God save the Queen makes me very happy and proud. It is most certainly not an assault on Britishness. Its just not the Britain and “Britishness” you support, thats your choice. Besides, they also take the pledge to the country, to respect its laws etc, so its not like its only a oath / affirmation to the Queen and anyway its not legally binding sadly, like with MPs they can violate their oaths.
Rights to become a citizen are still far too easy today though, you are lucky your wife is taking the wonderful step this week, because in a couple of years times it will be much harder.
God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
Dave
Taking the oath/affirmation is compulsary for new British citizens from what ive seen. Its ashame that British citizens by birth do not go through something like this, but dont worry, all in good time
If you republicans had your way we wouldnt even have new citizens stand for the national anthem.
November 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
So her first act on becoming a British citizen with all the perks such citizenship holds will be to lie when taking the oath/affirmation. How wonderful, but you see thats where the democracy bit comes in. She is free to make that lie and im sure many others do aswell.
I hope your wife has a nice day.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
It is a disgrace that the many people who believe monarchy to be wrong are made to take the oath, or else. I know a university professor who would like British citizenship as it would make her life much easier. She cannot do this, however, as the idea of swearing allegiance to a monarch is completely absurd to her as someone born in a republic, and she refuses to do it. She has been making a very valuable contribution to the British education system for the past 10 years and we would be bloody lucky to have her on board. It is very sad that this archaic ritual prevents her, and other people like her, from becoming British citizens.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Simon
If only we had a national anthem worth standing up for. Instead, we have a tuneless dirge asking a non-existent deity to preserve the life of a little old lady who clearly doesn’t require such intervention.
It really makes me cringe.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Swearing of oaths is meaningless. As I pointed out on a previous post members of the SS took an oath of allegiance to their beloved fuhrer. They worshiped him rather like Simon worships anything remotely connected with royalty. Are we to admire them for doing so? Oh, they slaughtered Jews by the million, but they were loyal to their fuhrer until death in accordance with their oath, very admirable I must say. What a load of ********. Far better that people are educated to respect their fellow human beings, and not to put any one of them on a pedestal to be worshiped unquestioningly.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
I pledge no allegiance.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
@ Simon: I wasn’t aware “being free to lie” is a unique liberty within British democracy, given that people in every culture under every kind of political setup around the globe may consider themselves “free to lie”.
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Sophia,
Your friend sounds like a very worthy British citizen and its nice that she stands firm to her principles and does not want to become a British citizen by lying. To become a British citizen one must accept our customs, laws and traditions. They rightly must pledge to their future Queen. Atleast they dont make em kneel! lol
Dave,
Whilst i love land of hope and glory and see it as a possible contender for a national anthem if we must replace God save the Queen, i think we should stick with the current anthem, most people have no problem at all singing it. And even if you want a republic one should stand for the country’s national anthem, as you would stand for a foreign anthem as well.
Bob,
Interesting quote i saw on another website the other day..
The Queen does not involve herself in politics, there for it does not create the sort of danger you suggest. Lets not forget it was a Republic that had school children pledging to their flag and doing what we now know as the nazi salute.
http://elbauldejosete.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/american-school-children-bellamy-salute.jpg
Richard
Not even to your country? How patriotic of you.
Jonathan,
In some countries including Republics those who disobey their leaders are punished. When people take some oaths in other countries they must obey it. Because we live in a free democracy and have a very gracious Queen such disloyalty is allowed.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Simon, I’ll give you another two quotes from Churchill, just for the sake of balance in the matter you raised:
“You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all.” (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)
“Germany’s unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world’s trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.” (Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War.
So for Churchill to claim that the absence of a monarch in German territory created a vacuum that allowed Hitler in was quite an impressively disingenuous wresting of historical facts to mask the actuality of longstanding Anglo-American intent in the European theater. Yes, Hitler was a monster, but for a time it suited Anglo-American goals for him to rise to power.
And “gracious queen”? If it weren’t for parliamentary democracy entering the fray (not that it’s as noble and effective today as it was in the distant past), disloyalty to the monarch would still be rewarded with crushing retribution.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:16 pm
SIMON – Have you ever heard of Historiography? You should look at Churchill’s comments, made in 1945 and 1946, in the context of that period and how people, including Churchill, viewed the world at that time. I’m not going to debate with you the cause of the uprise of Nazism, suffice to say our PM at the time, Neville Chamberlain, and the ruling classes at the time let him get away with expanding his reich and gave him no reason to stop until it was too late. My point was about taking oaths and their relevance to anything, they have none, so why take them?
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Simon
As ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ was originally composed to celebrate the coronation of Edward VII, it would hardly be an approprite anthem in a Republic.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Jonathan Woods,
I am not saying that a king on the throne would have stopped the rise Hitler although its certainly a possibility. Considering this country went out of its way to avoid world war two, its hardly far to say its what we wanted.
We do have a gracious Queen, obviously our constitutional arrangements have developed over time and that highlights the fact we are a democracy.
Bob,
There are many things i disagree with Winston Churchill on and ofcourse we can not judge all of their views or actions by todays standards. But i found that quote intersted and i thought about it when i saw the comment on Nazis.
I understand about peoples objections to an oath to the Queen although i think its perfectly acceptable that those applying to be British citizens must accept our current traditions which include being loyal to ones Sovereign. Do you object to everyone taking the pledge to the country? as takes place at citizenship ceremonies as well.
Dave,
I honestly never knew that. I guess you have just given me another reason to oppose becoming a republic then, because i can think of no other suitable anthem for Great Britain.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
@Simon: Isn’t it one of our current traditions – nay, very British characteristics – that we reserve the right to beg to differ? That is why it should be optional as to whether or not one pledges allegiance to the queen, but not compulsory.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Simon
From your previous comments, your lack of imagination is hardly surprising.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Accepting ‘our customs, laws and traditions’ doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not one accepts the monarchy, Simon. You seem to think the two things are mutually dependent. They are not. You also seem to think the monarchy is synonymous with British tradition. This suggests a serious ignorance of history and a very narrow view of what Britishness is.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Simon, as I’ve already explained, ‘Land of Hope and Glory’ is the English anthem. My choice of National Anthem for the United Commonwealth of Great Britain & Northern Ireland would be ‘Rule, Britannia!’ I also love ‘Jerusalem’ but that’s uniquely English, while ‘I Vow to Thee my Country’ is too funereal.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Jonathan, for current British citizens that is their right. I have always said i would like to see young people in schools perhaps once they turn 16 make a pledge to the country, and that should be compulsary. At the same time those that choose to take an oath to their Queen aswell, should be given that chance.
Many would step up and make take the oath, Neil in previous conversations described how he felt doing that.
Whilst the right to choose if one supports the monarchy is important, theres a silly liberal idea these days that its “unBritish” to celebrate being British. This is really not true, and ofcourse its such nonsenes that has led to some having an identity crisis, if people born in this country cant feel loyal to Britain goodness knows how we expect immigrants to.
In the past ofcourse, we celebrated our identity through imperial unity. I love this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLqvzISwetI
You know Tony Blair, i cant stand the guy but it made me laugh, he waited until his resignation speech to say..
First time id seen any sort of real patriotism and decency in the guy, then on comes some Liberal democrat, i think it was Ming Campbell attacking him for saying that. Thats the sort of thing we have to put up with. You know in countries we would consider more liberal democracies than us, they still have compulsary national service. My god is it really so much to ask teenagers to pledge to their country ? For 1 minutes of their entire life? This country has gone down hill because we have been obsessed with state multiculturalism which has been a disaster, and theres been so much focus on rights, with no focus on responsibility.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Sophia,
The monarchy is part of our tradition and history. Something we can celebrate and honour to this day. Its amazing just how much some of our monarchs in the past helped shape this country, like Henry the 8th who saved us all from the catholics and rome just because he wanted a divorce. Some of the stuff you just cant make up its simply fantastic and ofcourse by keeping the monarchy we are able to celebrate that history and tradition in a living breathing person. So much better than a flag or a history book or a portrait.
Matt,
Land of hope and glory may be used by England at something like the commonwealth games, but it shoudlnt be. Land of Hope and Glory is a British tune and the only thing id think suitable for an anthem. Jerusalem is definetly an England only anthem and im not a huge fan of it, although i do like it. Its hard to imagine singing that song when facing Israel at a football match.
I vow to thee my country is a very powerful one and thats the sort of song which should be sung at a citizenship ceremony and in school at a certain point but yes its not suitable for a national anthem. People couldnt sing that the way they can sing God save the Queen at a football match for example.
Rule Britannia is great, but not suitable for a national anthem either as far as im concerned.. it leaves us with little other choice, i cant see anything better than god save the Queen, but i accept following the Queens death if the monarchy continues then the anthem will be open for debate.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Simon, yes, it is our right to beg to differ. So why can’t new citizens do the same? Denying them this right renders them second class citizens!
As for loyalty to Britain, for many people that equates to wishing to be rid of the monarchy. Britain and Britishness are not purely synonymous with the royal family, no more than France and Frenchness are with their now defunct monarchy. And this has nothing to do with liberalism – I’m generally very anti-socialist, anti-liberalism in my views (which would largely be what the Americans term “paleoconservative”). I just reject the idea that the monarchy has any imperative role in defining quintessential Britishness.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
‘Henry the 8th who saved us all from the catholics’ – please tell me you are joking? You clearly have a very weak grasp of British history and no sense of the issues at stake here. The video you posted approvingly demonstrates your simplistic, unreasoned stance on all of this. We can’t base our decisions about how we run our country on flag-waving and deference and a fuzzy, rose-tinted view of the past. I’m not going to engage in ‘debate’ with you any longer. It is a waste of time.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Jonathan
Because they are not true British citizens until after they take the oath and pledge. I would presume the signing of documents which makes them legally British citizens takes place after all thats happened. Id love to see children in schools do the same thing, so i can understand your view about possibly being treated differently but they aint citizens at that point. To become a British citizen is a great honour and responsibility. Those unlucky not to have such an honour through birth do have to do more to receive such an award.
I accept you do not have to support the monarchy to be loyal to this country. Its the loyalty to ones country that i think should be a compulsary pledge made by every child in Great Britain, nothern ireland is ofcourse more complicated.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
@Jonathan
Thanks for a really interesting post.
@Simon
We’ve been very tolerant of your contributions thus far – even going as far as to offer you your own post – but you really are sailing close to the wind now.
Our moderation policy clearly states that we will block users who continually disrupt the debate. That’s what you’re doing. It’s called trolling and we won’t tolerate it.
This blog was established to provide a space for Republic supporters to explore the key issues and debate the direction of the campaign. As much as we welcome monarchists’ input, we won’t let them undermine this primary purpose.
You’re continually going off-topic, repeating yourself, posting irrelevant (and sometimes threatening) links and refusing to make any substantive points.
I understand it must be frustrating when you are losing the argument, but that’s not an excuse to ruin it for everyone else. Why not set up your own blog and use that to respond to our campaign? You could call it ‘RepublicWatch’.
We will only block you as a last resort, but we’ll have no choice if you continue to disrupt the debate.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Sophia,
My single sentence obviously can not go into the detail of British history, but the fact does remain it was Henry who broke the links with rome and freed us, i am very greatful for that.. He also laid the foundations for our royal navy, something i care alot about.
I want the British people to celebrate being British as much as possible, i see no crime in that. I want a head of state that we can all be proud of, celebrate, honour and unite behind, we have that in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II something thats just not possible for an elected head of state.
You seem to want an elected head of state to just do the dull constitutional matters, i want much more than that you see. I want celebrations and extensive coverage when the head of state comes to a town or city, we have that now. We would not have that under a Republic, unless perhaps the USA where ofcourse its dangerous as Obama is both head of state and government.
To address republicans concerns about constitutional matters handled by the monarch. Why not just support some form of elected Council. Every 10 years we vote for 7 members of the Council who oversee the prime minister and parliaments actions and make sure everything is in line with the constitution. If its not they send it to the supreme court, if its fine then they pass it to the Queen to give her Royal Assent.
What exactly would be the problem with that? everyone wins.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
James Gray,
Sorry James, most of my posts on this one have been on the topic at hand and related to oaths / pledges to Queen or country. But i accept the bit about Winston Churchill, the national anthem and the Catholic church are slightly off topic. I will try harder not to respond to certain points in such ways. Notice my original two posts were fully on the subject matter, its only when i went on to reply to others that i got kind of side tracked.
November 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“To see new citizens take the oath, and everyone singing God save the Queen makes me very happy and proud.” Simon
Oh good. Well that’s all right then. Here he goes again. NINE posts already on this thread, with illuminating content such as:
“God save Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.”
“Its ashame [sic] that British citizens by birth do not go through something like this, but dont worry, all in good time…”
“If you republicans had your way we wouldnt even have new citizens stand for the national anthem.”
“In some countries… those who disobey their leaders are punished… Because we live in a free democracy and have a very gracious Queen such disloyalty is allowed.”
Note the form of words – the barely-veiled threats involving traitors and punishment, forced participation in ceremony and ‘loyalty’ for immigrants and plans for the future. Dissenters are spared under sufferance due to monarchical benificence. It all outlines a wished-for totalitarian culture in which state interference impacts severly on democracy and restricts negative personal freedoms. I should imagine that Isaiah Berlin is revolving quietly in his grave along with Kant.
This guy is clearly just winding everybody up.
More to the point WHAT a forced involvement in slavishly adhering to the values of these manipulative tyrants this oath is. What an effront to personal dignity, self-awareness and intelligence. Unbelievable. And this takes place in a race-obsessed culture yet, at the outset, instills a sense of inequality between the host population and those seeking to join it. So presumably then new arrivals are banned, for example, from joining Republic and other anti-establishment organisations or they run the risk of being painted as dishonourable. Nobody in their right mind would swear an oath to anybody in 2009.
Swearing an oath to E Windsor and her eager, mumping successors implies tacit agreement with all that she and they stand for; miltarism, social class distinctions, a framework of privilege, conservatism and unearned deference. Ridiculously she is also currently the titular head of the Church of England, so as Johnathan suggests some ‘majesterial’ tension exists for the religious in more ways than one.
If we are comfortable with people from other cultures coming to live here, they should enjoy full rights as citizens. In a liberal ‘democracy’ one is the right to protest against or challenge tradition, where tradition is perceived to be a nonsense. A ‘citizen’ in the spirit of the term and on one level confers freedom, as opposed to being regarded as a vassal, slave or humble dependant. We should urgently campaign to have this nonsensical, disgraceful apparatus removed.
The alternative is to sign up to Simon’s world, renouncing our self-respect and individualism by lining up like automatons to be annointed by these unremarkable but insistent people, with their state-imposed system of Fascist values.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Tim,
To avoid going off topic again as James has told me not to, all ill say is they whole point of the ceremony is to celebrate them becoming British citizens. They take the oath and pledge, become British citizens, then have equal rights under the law. Perhaps Jonathans wife will join Republic the next day taking advantage of the right to oppose the monarchy, and there would be nothing wrong with that at all. Whislt ive always said i support compulary pledges and a compulsary oath for MPs and other positions, ive never said those disobeying the oath to our Queen should be punished in any way.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
James, just to let you know I’ve sent you an important email.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
It’s always awkward for me, being in a job where I have to swear the oath of allegiance to Mrs Windsor. I have to rationalise it as an oath to uphold our system while allowing room to campaign for change in the system. It’s a difficult position to take, but I try to explain my thoughts on it whenever I’ve had to make the oath. It always creates bemused faces from the lawyers. However, many important positions in our society require one to make this oath to take up a job, and I firmly believe that an oath many people do not really care about should stop political radicals from taking up these jobs to change the system from within. After all, we republicans care more about the oath than most people, who simply ignore it as feudal hocus pocus.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
@ Tim: Excellent post! The oath isn’t about Britishness or historical British ideals such as liberty. On the contrary, it’s about supine compliance, something that is at odds with what many people regard as the true essence of being British.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Henry 8th was just plain evil, by any standards. If he was in power today, with all the modern technology at his diabolic disposal, he would have been far worse. He should have been executed for murder !
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I just wonder does the Elite hold the Queen in higher Esteem than any Deity nowadays?
It used to be an inflexible system making this hideous pledge of loyalty.
Nowadays with special permission you can swear the Oath on the Quran like Lord Ahmed or no holy books at all like Chloe Smith MP. As long as it’s to the Queen then no problem exists.
@ Simon
After this post you have my word I’m not going to be feeding anymore trolls.
I do not understand why we have to be greatful that we’re free to lie when making an oath.
It’s not really a great point to make that our Head of state won’t imprison you or torture you if you’re disobidient is it?
Somehow I don’t think they’re likely to show any gratitude of a peaceful and bloodless coup.
“A great battle is lost, Parliament turns out the Government.
A great battle is wun, Crowds cheer the Queen.” Winston Churchill
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
It clearly it not ‘democratic’ to swear allegiance to a monarch and thereby agree one is not a citizen but a subject. It is a (typically British?) fudge but one that we should not lightly collude with. It is admirable that Jonathan’s wife realises it is hypocritical. I think republicans should put ‘democracy’ in inverted commas because this country is not one but people go along with it without thinking how inaccurate a term it is. We should never call ourselves citizens as we are not that either but always subjects.
In the UN list of countries we are down as a monarchy although in fact one with theocratic aspects (compulsory worship in even community Schools). The BBC Democracy Watch (previous subject) has a glossary. There is no republicanism in the Rs (what a surprise) but there are (anglican) Prayers with which all HoC and HoL sessions have to begin. For a multicultural country including millions of non-religious this is hardly inclusive. There is also Bishops – there are 26 English Anglican bishops in the HoL. The UK is the ONLY so-called western democracy in which religious are exofficio there because of their religious position not elected or on merit. No elections for HoL or Head of State of course.
It occurred to me this is part way to seeing what a written constitution would look like – prayers and bishops obviously are achaic and look ridiculous written down in this way. We can’t just talk about electing a head of state, the present one is head of an established church which discriminates against gays and women more than the general population, as I’ve mentioned here before. A modern democracy has to be a secular democracy which treats religious and non-religious equally. A useful website for republicans is that of the National Secular Society http://www.secularism.org.uk (declaration of interest, I have been on its Council for 13 years) as the church will have to be disestablished for us to become a modern state. Charles Bradlaugh who founded the NSS in 1866 was an atheist and a republican, it is thanks to him that we can affirm in oaths instead of swearing by almighty god/allah/jahweh.
Re the earlier points on Hitler and the 2ndWW, it seems to me that an important chance to halt AH in his tracks was missed in 1936. This was when AH remilitarised the Rhineland which was against the Treaty of Versailles. What was England doing in 1936? Ed VIII was on the throne and it was obsessed with his twice divorced mistress. I do think the govt was too busy thinking about this rather than the more important topic of being aware of German mililtarism and anti-semitism.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
@ Jennifer
Thank you for your thought-provoking contribution.
I would regard myself as a Christian however I would not disagree with the overall content of your post.
I have often regarded a disestablished Church of England as desirable and I often dispair that the CoE is one of those planks that keeps the monarchy in place. The CoE should be concentrating more on modernising and addressing the real social and economic issues that always require attention instead of fawning to an unelected Head of State. Clearly, becoming a republic would require the church to be disestablished.
Your final point about King Edward VIII was very poignant. As I have mentioned elsewhere in these blogs, the erstwhile David Windsor was passing military intelligence to Hitler concerning the BEF evacuation of Dunkirk. Shortly afterwards, when Churchill “promoted” him to Governor of the Bahamas, he was working very hard on persuading the Americans not to enter the War.
There is no doubt that he would have been responsible for Allied deaths during the campaign as a result. And yet he got a state funeral complete with Royal Standard draped over the coffin.
If ever the grand old man had been asked to confirm his loyalty to the country in taking part in an oath of allegiance, the alleged “lies” told by MPs on oath would pale into insignificance.
November 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
@ Jennifer
It is a good motivational tool not to refer to ourselves citizens. This is a sobering reminder of why we need change.
As You’re on the NSS council, have you ever considered tapping up its members to join this group as well?
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 pm
There is a group of people in our country who should be made to take an oath. These are the greedy would be tax exiles. Anyone in danger of becoming a tax exile,( that is those with much more of their fair share, often for no good reason ), should have to swear that they would not go abroad to avoid British taxation. If they do, they should lose their British citizenship. These people are often the really traitors to our country .
November 4th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Jonathan,
I hope your wife enjoys the benefits of having nationality in Britian, its appalling that in order for her to be able to gain those benefits and to be happy she has to take an oath to the monarchy.
Sophia,
Your friend is right to stick by her views, it our loss that good people have to make such a choice.
Simon,
Your view regarding the ‘liberal’ (read democratic and equal) agenda is premised upon your view that Britian is the “greatest nation on earth” (your Blair quote). This view of Britian is totally divorced from reality. Britian is not the greatest, nor even one fo the most powerful nations, and our Imperial history (while an acheivement) was not the great and benign thing your seem to think. Your view of Britian does not accord with the reality of our country, only by accepting that we a no longer a world power can we improve our country. It is not republicans who have a national identity problem, but people like you who are dependent upon a distorted view of our nation. We are not the great nation you think and the monarchy is a major reason for that, they stale rule and the stagnantion of society, slowing down change has do far more harm to this country than anything else. You need to get over the fact that your delusional view of the monarchy is not based upon any cogent or rational argument but upon your need to justify and cling onto the past.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:51 am
No, I pledge no allegiance to anything in England or for Britain.
My mindset about Britain is nationalistic. I believe in three countries.
A federal system that is a republic.
How can I be proud when the country I live in Specifically live in the, English politicians don’t seem to want to back down, they aren’t anti war.
I wonder how the Scottish view all this.
How can you be proud of a country or an island that will march around the world with America?
The next time there could be an attack in either three countries, it would be because we invited the attack, our meddling in foreign affairs where we aren’t wanted.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
My god i find some of the disloyalty to this country in the above posts shocking, it certain strenghtens my original fears. To avoid going off topic or repeating myself again. I will not comment further on this thread.
But im shocked at the hate for our country i see here.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Simon, You really are deceiving yourself. The Hate you perceive is not really there at all. We all want to see our country do much better ,and have something to be proud of again. We feel sad about the current state of our country. Street murders are now common, for example. Witness the recent murders over Halloweeen in the London area for example . Such social disease needs drastic action. This means,as you have said in the past, that punishments must be severe . This is only one aspect of our problems.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
No wonder Blair said this was the greatest nation on Earth . The nation has certainly lined his pockets with silver,and has allowed him to get away with being a traitor to Socialism at the same time.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
barry,
This country has a huge number of problems alot of which is down to just how liberal and soft we have become. However there is no reason for disloyalty to ones country because of it. Despite its problems i am still proud of this country and would not want to live in any other nation on this earth. I am sorry it appears other people here are not proud to be British and live int his great country
November 4th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
For the record, my wife went ahead with the ceremony today. All the other new citizens swore the oath of allegiance, so she was the only one opting for the mere affirmation.
To be honest, I am so upset I can’t even talk to her… I had begged her not to do it last night, and had offered her the option of fast-tracked Irish citizenship instead (a little quirky perk of Northern Ireland being my birthplace – it means I’m entitled to Irish citizenship myself as well as my default British citizenship). But she insisted on proceeding anyway and now I’m infused with anger and despair in equal measure.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Jonathan,
You should not be upset or angry with your wife. She wants British citizenship and that is a requirement today so just blame us monarchists and the goverment. What are her actual views on the monarchy, from your previous post it sounded like she disagreed with it but would go along with the affirmation. She opposes the monarchy like yourself? It often gets mentioned here on the blogs about what others must think of our strange ways. As someone that came from another country what does she think about the whole Queen / monarchy issue? And whilst it may be a side issue, where do you and her stand on the Ireland issue?
How was the ceremony overall, (royal issues aside), was it good?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
I refused to attend and I wasn’t interested in how it went, so I didn’t ask.
She, without my prompting, thinks a monarchy is a bizarre and archaic idea that belongs to a bygone age and she resents the people who placed us in this dilemma. I had thought myself that the form of words is such that she could infer in her meaning less than what the framers of it intended. That is, the wording’s end reference to the law could be construed as the basis upon which the whole affirmation is legitimised, and one could take the law of the land to be subservient to (for want of a better term) “moral law”, which in turn renders any pledge of allegiance to the queen as morally, and therefore ultimately, non-binding. In essence: “I am pledging allegiance to the queen insofar as moral law, which takes precedence over state law, permits, which is simply not at all”. In effect, one would be turning the affirmation into the diametric opposite of what the framers meant. But I’m not yet comfortable with this idea.
As for the Ireland issue, I’m not sure what you mean. Are you asking an opinion of joint citizenship, or of the “Irish question”?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Jonathan
“To be honest, I am so upset I can’t even talk to her”
If I were you wife I would be very concerned by your comment.
Paul
November 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
John
Awwww, you should have gone to see her big day even if you disagree with parts of it.
I am sorry she was unhappy about it, but the main thing is ofcourse its not binding in anyway. Although the wording is very clear so it cant be claimed it means something else.
Am i really some form fascist for wanting to see 16 year olds be able to make that affirmation at some point at a big ceremony. If they want to, it should be encouraged although i accept it should not be forced.
The Ireland issue meaning on a United Ireland or remaining part of the United Kingdom.
Did you have a problem with your wife making the pledge to country?
November 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@ Paul: Well, thankfully (for us both) you’re not
But this is a highly emotive issue for me so an emotional reaction is natural.
@ Simon: Wording in such cases is often a whole other can of worms – hence the war between the Union and Confederate states over the intended meaning of key parts of the US Constitution. As I have explained, the wording in this case actually can be construed to mean something else.
As for Ireland, I was born and bred a Unionist being part of the majority population in Northern Ireland that holds that view and cherishes its British identity, so a United Ireland is not something I would be keen to see.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Jonathan,
thanks for that. I suppose looking at the wording the last 3 words do offer a sort of loophole if you look at it a certain way, “accoridng to law” One only has to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen according to the law, and the law as it stands requires no such allegiance except for not falling foul of the treason laws which remain on the books but are not enforced and those apply to anyone in this country anyway, even foreign nationals so she would already have been subject to those laws.
I am glad you oppose the break up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whilst very off topic, what impact do you think this country becoming a republic would have there, for the two communities. I would have thought it would seriously complicate matters if we were all “republicans”.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
The abolition / self-destruction of the monarchy would be met with despair by the highly monarchist majority Unionist population, but I think they’d eventually get over it. Conversely it would most likely be welcomed by the Roman Catholic community as positively progressive, but I doubt it would lessen their aspirations for a United Ireland. It might, over time, serve to draw the two communities closer (being one of many bones of contention between them), but that in turn could bode either way in the matter of a United Ireland.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Simon,
We do not hate our country; you only think that because you see the monarchy and the country as one entity. I do not, I see the country as everything it is, the millions of people who make it up, our conduct in the world, and most importantly, I see what our country could be. Your reliance upon the monarchy to validate your support of this country is up to you, but I do not need the monarchy to exist in order for me to be loyal to our nation.
From my perspective I could argue that you are being disloyal to the country because you seek to hold it back and make it subordinate to the interests of one group, rather than making it the best it can be. However I would not say that because I realise that you see the monarchy as the country. Those of us that do not are not disloyal. We see that oath to the monarch as a negative but when becoming a national it makes sense to state that you will obey the laws of the country and so on. But the monarchy is not in any way necessary for that.
We can separate the nation from the monarchy, and we seek to improve it, that is why we are loyal to the nation. So you can stop worrying about hate for the country or treason.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Her Majesty is an ASSET and boon to these islands. Once we forget our great heritage, then we have nothing. Our soverign, May God Bless Her, standing for all we preserve as our values, after all our nation spent its money defending the liberties of others. To those who would mock or belittle the oath then simply yes, complain but do it from a realm which does not require it!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
@Dareen: “Once we forget our great heritage, then we have nothing.” You mean the way the French lost everything when they lost their monarchy?
The queen as defender of liberty is absurd too. Isn’t the very concept of monarchy antithetical to personal liberty? Whatever we as a nation have done for liberty had its roots in the scruples of those who sought to check or contain royal power / tyranny.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Jonathan,
Thanks for your view on the implications for Northern Ireland. I agree with what you say, i think it would have big implications in the short and long term and to be honest i think it would be far more negative and damaging to the union than the chances of it being a productive move. You would still rather have the monarchy abolished increasing such risks? than live with it?
Sam
I understand those who want to abolish the monarchy do not all hate Britain, but there was pretty negative comments above about our country and its reflected in the fact some do not even take a firm line on if the UK should continue or England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland go their own ways.
I know our country isnt perfect, it has many flaws but all countries have that. You may see removing the monarchy as inspiring some group of people or making more radical reforms possible which would be good for Britain, but i just think it would be very damaging and distract from those important issues. The endless problems we face, the monarchy is the least of peoples concerns.
Darren
Nicely put
Jonathan
They did actually lose alot when they removed the monarchy. To this day France is remembered for Revolution, the Guillotine and Napoleon. What a wonderful legacy for the *counts* Fifth French Republic. A great example of stability!
November 5th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
So the French are not known for their cuisine, fashion, cars (they still have a large scale indiginous motor industry), architecture, aviation and language? Remember, France is the biggest tourist attraction by nation in the world! And all without a monarchy to promote it too! What bollox you spout Simon.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
imatt,
I never said those things were the only thing the French are remembered for, but they are certainly big ones. You are right, ofcourse the french are also known for eating snails and their illegal support of the french car industry.
How many of the things you listed were dependent on France being a Republic? The 3 things i mentioned were linked to the monarchy issue.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Come on, who are you trying to kid??? The tone of your wrriting suggsted that was all the French were known for! And of course, there are no French retaurants in Britain? How many to chefs have been trained in France?
What’s laughable about your ‘argument’ is the fact that yourself and other monarchists have said that the monarchy is vital to British tourism. The French have more tourists and yet are a republic! Not dependent on France being a republic perhaps. However, no more or less dependent than British tourism relying on a clapped out notion of monarchy!
November 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Well im sorry you misunderstood my tone, i never said that was the only things France was known for. I was highlighting the things we always remember about their transition from monarchy to republic.
As for the tourism issue, we do not need to do away with the monarchy to have the royal palaces and castles open for longer. One important thing to remember is the numbers counted for visiting buckingham palace are those paying to go in to tour the rooms. That is not the only part of tourism, 1000s stand outside and watch the changing of the guard every week, they dont all go inside but they pay for their travel to get there. Also ofcourse when there is a royal visit to a town or city by a royal, it attracts tourists, foreign and domestic. If the Queen visits a town center and 1000s line the streets to see her, thats tourism and those people spend money to be there / whilst they are there. But it wont appear in Republics figures.
As for the French, there are a few differences to remember. First of all in 2007 British tourists were the number one vistors to France, with almost 15 million out of frances total 81 million visits, although over 10 million who “visted” france”were just passing through. France is part of the eurozone and schengen zone, that makes visits from other Europeans alot easier and they account for over 50% of Frances vistors.
Britain does not have open borders with europe, European Citizens must have passports, you can not just hop across a border like between France and Germany. Also we do not have the euro, which makes currency an issue and the big point is our currency. The British pound has been high until the recent economic crisis, that means our money goes far further when we travel abroad in Europe, but europeans coming here got less for their money. It will be interesting to see the tourism numbers following the crisis.
A quick google search found this result from Feb 2009,
Anyway we are going very off topic, but i do intend to be doing some more research into the tourism matter in the coming weeks.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Simon, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was trying to say that the monarchy is a divisive factor in NI politics, and that its abolition would perhaps draw the two communities a little closer. How that would impact on longstanding aspirations (a UI for one side, or staying in the UK for the other) is impossible to guess. For example, the Roman Catholic community might feel more comfortable in a British Republic than they do in a British Kingdom, and therefore feel less inclined to wish for a UI.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Jonathan,
I understand thats a possibility you mentioned yes, although you also highlighted the risks. It would be true living in a republic would make some less hostile but the dream of a united Ireland would still continue in that community, and to do away with our monarchy would be considered a victory for them. You said yourself it would seriously hurt the loyalist community for some time and even if it led to the communities being closer you said it was unclear which direction that would impact on the United Ireland issue.
It seems to me alot of risk with only a small chance of benefit on those grounds. Also like with the separatists in the rest of the UK, if we are to have a massive constitutional vote on the future of the monarchy and what sort of Republic we want to live in, then the demands for a referendum on the union itself will radically increase and there will be very little excuse to hold back on that sort of debate and referendum.
November 5th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
If the Protestant community in NI were to be persuaded of the argument for the abolition of the monarchy, there would be no compelling reason to see said abolition as potentially injurious to the union.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I accept if the Protestant community was persuaded to support the abolishion of the monarchy it would be less problematic but that would be a very very hard task to undertake, and its a question of priorities.
In Northern Ireland, there is a demographics issue. The Catholic community is growing faster than the protestant community, whilst a united Ireland is certainly not on the cards in the next couple of decades we have to do something otherwise the long term trends will have huge implications. Dealing with this trend along with dissident Republicans who are starting to increase the use of violence again is much more important.
In Scotland the matters are even more urgent. With the Separatists running a minority government and still doing well in the polls, all efforts there must be on securing the union.
Whilst ofcouse its possible to deal with more than one issue at once, these huge and serious issues along with all the other problems facing the country. I just do not understand how people think action on the monarchy is an important matter, even if they dislike it. We all know the people of this country will never remove Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from the throne, so why all the bother? When the Queen dies there will be a natural national debate.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
On the subject of the oath of alleigance, would now be a good time for a test case to see if it is a breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
With Britain being percieved as eurosceptic right now, would now be the time to strike whilst the iron is hot?
November 5th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Ash, you would be wasting your time. Every European country has an oath or pledge of some form or another, many European countries happen to be monarchies as well.
Its this sort of nonsense that drives people mad. This has nothing to do with human rights. Hopefully in 10 months time we will have a government that scraps the disgusting Human Rights Act to ensure no left wing nutty judge here agrees with you.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:51 am
@Simon
Please explain why Human Rights Act is disgusting.
(If you don’t explain it, this time for sure I’m going to be persistent that you no longer post here; please give it a serious argument, make the case why; we can’t be debating someone who does not believe in any freedom at all). I’m waiting.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:09 am
@ E Club
Don’t bother feeding the troll. He’s wasted enough time trying to divert the subject on many ocassions. If you ignore him, hopefully He’ll just go away.
I think you’re from the US so You’ll know exactly what I meant. Your pledge is to the Flag & land of your great country, whereas ours is to the Queen and her heirs.
Instead of pledging loyalty to the land, we are obliged to pledge loyalty to a rotten institution. That’s why I think their may be a case to answer for.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Hi Ash,
Yes, I’m from the US.
But I consider myself a Brit today!
What burns me up is that Simon is allowed to debate with our best! He (and I suspect a she) should me admonished to acquire basic democratic education before he steps in here to debate. Like in mathematics, one should take pre-calculus as a requirement before the main course. So, we are like in a different plain with this character. He is half witted, which makes him dangerous.
Why should our Campaign Manager be accessible to him daily, on a toe-to-toe debate? It’s analogous to a half-witted republican (if such a person exists) walking up to Buckingham palcae every minute and having access to the queen and her privy council, and engaging them with rubbish annoying argument!
The other day, Graham posted a debate he had in some sort of forum, and made quite a remarkable, impressionable speech; we were not able to discuss it because of Simon.
Other time, a post was made to solicit ideas for a “Republic of Trafalgar Square”, it went under the radar because of Simon.
There have been several important posts that needed thorough harshing out, but we constantly go to why Human Rights Act is bad, why Republic is bad, not even reasons why, but just saying so. Tiring!
November 6th, 2009 at 1:43 am
SIMON – “Hopefully in 10 months time we will have a government that scraps the disgusting Human Rights Act to ensure no left wing nutty judge here agrees with you.”
This is the sort of claptrap that makes my blood boil. Simon, why is the Human Rights Act a disgusting act? Please explain. I’ve taken the liberty of copying some of the rights covered under the act below, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951 what is disgusting about them or the act under which they are protected? ;
“Most rights have limits to ensure that they do not unfairly damage other people’s rights. However, certain rights – such as the right not to be tortured – can never be limited by a court or anybody else.
You have the responsibility to respect other people’s rights, and they must respect yours.
Your human rights are:
* the right to life
* freedom from torture and degrading treatment
* freedom from slavery and forced labour
* the right to liberty
* the right to a fair trial
* the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
* the right to respect for private and family life
* freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
* freedom of expression
* freedom of assembly and association
* the right to marry and to start a family
* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
* the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
* the right to an education
* the right to participate in free elections
* the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
If any of these rights and freedoms are breached, you have a right to an effective solution in law, even if the breach was by someone in authority, such as, for example, a police officer.”
Come on Simon. What is disgusting about this act?
November 6th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Bob Wiggin,
I do not want to go any more off topic, Eclub is trying to get be banned for some reason. I have not stopped others from contributing, i have made some contributions which i think will help make some of the information used by republic more accurate in the blog on finances. Although i notice Eclub said who cares, and that republic should just say its even higher to mislead people. Surely encouraging Republic to be honest and accurate is a more helpful contribution than to encourage them to lie that its so high it would be so obvious the figures are false? The only problem is going off topic, but most of the time its when i respond to someone elses posts, i cant help it.
Anyway briefly on the Human rights act as it was raised in connection with the oath issue. The rights you list are good ones and ofcourse if the Human rights act is scrapped it must be replaced by something that ensures such rights continue. However there have been problems with it. For a start its wrong that British judges are considering european law over British law. That is not acceptable. Whilst we must remain part of the European Convention on Human rights, British judges must follow BRITISH law and if British law is in violation of European Laws, they must take us to the European court. Our left wing judges in this country can not be allowed to decide for themselves something may violate European law. Its made deporting foreign criminals very difficult, and there are many examples of where the Human rights act has helped normal criminals too or applied in sillly cases,
It needs attention, the labour government who introduced the Act have even said theres problems with it. This is not me being against human rights, im in the mainstream on this with both labour / tories saying theres problems.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/08/human-rights-act-straw
November 6th, 2009 at 3:21 am
@Simon
THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION! You said that the Human Rights Act is ‘disgusting’, not it’s enforcement by British Judges. You demand correction from Republic, as if you are a meticulous intellectual that has zero tolerance for mistakes and mistatements; I’m now holding you up to be responsible, explain why the act itself is disgusting. If what you meant was that the act is sound, but that you’d wished the laws were enacted locally by British law makers, then here’s your chance to correct it. You have to state clearly that you accept, endorse, and applaud each of the HRA clauses, but that you wished it was enacted by British Parliament. Waiting….
November 6th, 2009 at 3:28 am
**The HRA is what made campaign for a republic kind of legal.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Eclub, i clearly said why. Its disgusting because it allows left wing judges to decide that something is in violation of European laws which has major implication on policies and leads to awful rulings. British judges should be following English common law or Scots law, not European Laws.
Here an example from this september which highlights the problem perfectly.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/sep/04/transexual-prisoner-moved-womens-prison
The British Government and Her Majesty’s Prison Service said the prisoner should remain in a male prison. Some unelected (id like elected judges rather than an elected head of state) over ruled Her Majesty’s Government.
This is EXACTLY the sort of thing im talking about, (although im not concerned about the case itself, ive no problem with “her” going to a female prison) its the principle. A British judge, looking to a European convention and saying that the British government is breaking European laws. This has led to many crazy and crackpot verdicts. Whilst i support our compliance with the convention on European rights, we do not have to have this process.
A British judge should follow the British law. The “victim” then has the right to take something to the European Court, if he / she feels their human rights have been violated. A British Judge, should not be able to randomly claim something violates one of the many vague human rights listed. Surely even supporters of even more human rights can see the basic issue at stake here?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Am I to understand that the ‘disgusting’ aspect is based on the fact the British Judges cite the Human Rights Act as stare decisis or jurisprudence, and not that the rights the act itself confers is flawed? If it’s the later, explain fully. I’m not clear on that. Are you saying that the sovereignty of Britain is encroached, therefore you find that encroachment disgusting? You are not against the rights derived from the HRA? You do understand that the HRA is not a redundant law in Britain? Without it, this campaign would have been hassled to death. I have been trying to get you banned because, this forum should be for open minded republicans and monarchist; if you are adamantly a monarchist, you should open your own forum.
Secondly, when one mentions that Britain has no Constitution, you are the first or second, ok amongst the first dozen or so to say “hey we have laws, traditions, and conventions as our constitution”, if that is the case, why is EU, or UN’s acts not part of the British constitution if Britain are members?
Finally, I noticed how quietly you let the Turkish endorsement of the Lisbon Treaty pass by, you had speculated that Turkey was waiting for the next Torey government; will you admit you were very wrong there?… But deal with HRA concern fully, thanks.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Simon: (id like elected judges rather than an elected head of state)
No comment.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:26 am
eclub,
I agree with some of the things done because of the human rights act, but there are many examples where it has been used to make really bad rulings and as i pointed out the government that introduced it, 10 years on now accept it needs some alterations. (see the link in my first post about it)
We had rights in this country before the Human Rights Act, so i dont see what major impact it would have had on this campaign.
Its disgusting for a couple of reasons. Some of the rulings which favour criminals are disgusting. But the principle that a left wing unelected judge can dictate to the British government, by citing something from the European Convention on Human rights is unacceptable and yes disgusting to me. That is not the way things have to work. We will be perfectly in line with the convention if we do not allow British judges to make such rulings.
The HRA allows British judges to look at European conventions and decide if something is in violation of them or not. Take the example i mentioned “Article 8 (right to private and family life)” I fail to see where in that artice it states that Male prisoners claiming to be female must be sent to female prisons. So some random British judge makes that ruling over the heads of Her Majesty’s Government? unacceptable. If the British Judge couldnt make that ruling, then the prisoner could take it all the way to the European court, which may make the same ruling which the British government would have to act on. But European Court rulings are far more indepth than a single left wing British judge making it up as he goes along.
The HRA incorporated European human rights legislation into British law, that is the problem. British judges should follow British laws and if British laws violate European laws then thats for the European Court to decide. British judges should not interpret European laws.
I think you mean Czech endoresment. The eurosceptic President was holding off for as long as he could but the Czech Constitutional court ruled that the lisbon treaty did not violate the country’s constitution so the president had no excuse not to sign. He was under huge pressure, as all those who have stood in the way of the Lisbon treaty have been. I never said he would manage to hold out until the next election, considering its over 6 months away it was unlikely. but his aim was to hold on for aslong as possible.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6869578.ece
November 6th, 2009 at 4:46 am
@Simon
I see, so your problem with the HRA is not the act itself, but the Judges interpreting and using it locally. Then you should say so. Once you put in neon sign that the HRA is disgusting, it makes you a caveman, of which you don’t want to be looked at that way. Hardly any human being that doesn’t want the rights confered by the HRA, except those with ulterior (hidden, covert, undisclosed, undivulged) motives.
Simon, you have this habit of denying suspects some basic rights; you must remember, a suspect is not convicted yet, a suspect may be innocent. First, a state must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt against a suspect, not merely by prepronderance of the evidence; you frequently mention criminals with contempt, you must let go of the 1940’s and 1950’s. The world has changed. There’s nothing you can do about that. In the past, a country is measured by how big the monarch’s castle was etc, those days are gone. You will do well by studying what monarchs did in the past. They were brutal evil rulers. All freedom gained from them, were achieved against their will. They were dragged kicking and screaming to let their ’subjects’ become free Citizens with rights. You risk sounding like a lunatic when worshipping your fellow human being for no reason, other than, they were born to rule. This has nothing to do with patriotism. Patriotism is a good thing; but some people like to commandeer and make themselves the source of patriotism, and this day and age, that is mostly stupidity. People do that here in USA too, except in most cases, it’s usually people who served in the military that make it as if people who didn’t serve are not as patriotic. In both the way you use it and the way it is used here, they’re wrong. A dove can be more patriotic than a hawk sometimes. Lastly, you must be tolerant of people with a different lifestyle, or idealogy, or more progressive than yourself, because, the joke is actually on you. You must always find out, in any debate, who is the man, and who is the beast.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:57 am
@Simon,
Finally, you may wish to go back into your mama’s warm womb, too bad, that’s not what everyone desires. Get with the program! Grow up! The nolstalgic past wasn’t as pretty as you think for most people who lived it. Waving a flag at a Queen used to be en vogue, even when the monarch travelled to third world countries, the kids skipped school to sing and wave, that should not impede government being of the people, by the people, for the people. To show you that a monarchy has nothing to do with patriotism, the queen of England is the queen of Canada, Australia, Jamaica and so many other states, so where’s the unque patriotism? You can not maximise utility being monarch of more than one country. I’m sure you are smarter than this.
There shouldn’t even be a debate about it.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Simon,
You really are digging your own grave (metaphorically speaking). Not only are you making stupid arguments that judges are ‘randomly’ selected but also that they are all left wing, and therefore crazy. I have mentioned before that you equate the left with crazy which is wholly inaccurate, especially as many left wing theorems have a great deal of internal logic. Not only this but judges are traditionally conservative, however they still do not impose their personal views upon the law. That would be a serious breach of the role of a judiciary. Article 8 contains the right to privacy and by being keep in a male prison after becoming female would violate her right as a private individual to be a woman.
Not only are you ignorant of the judiciary but you are also ignorant about the European Convention. Britain signed up to the convention separately from the EU. The Convention is an international treaty amongst many European countries, and it was the EU that incorporated the convention, which was done after we had signed and ratified it. Prior to the HRA we had no law that we could use to enforce our rights against the government. Even with the HRA the judiciary cannot overturn a law passed by Parliament. In your example it was a Ministerial decision that was overturned, which would not have gone through Parliament.
This is also why arguments about replacing the HRA with something British is so incredibly stupid, the HRA is British, Britain had signed up to the conventions a while ago, the HRA simply makes it part of British law.
If you accept that Human Rights are a good thing then why do call them vague or suggest that judges are making it up as they go along. The rights are general and case law determines the enforcement of them. The judges work on whether a particular situation falls within an Article.
Simon, you only prove that you are making paranoid, irrational arguments based upon some perceived control by the left. Your arguments are an example of the ignorance gripping this country.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:47 am
@Sam Walker :
Well said; I wish I had articulated those points myself, thank you.
Simon will be the first to cite the ‘leftist, socialist’ countries of Europe as examples of great places to live, and attribute their successes to their monarchy, without proof to identify if the progressive nature of their governments is to account for their progress. Sure, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are doing well, but they are mostly ‘left’ of center as well, and not as aggressive as Britain in the international arena. The Monarchs may not be as omnipresent/omnipotent/omniwealthy as in Britain either.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:07 am
eclub,
Thanks for pointing out yet another of Simon’s contradictory views. I do not know why he blames anything remotely like progress on ‘crazy leftists’. The mess we are in has occured during the operation of an inherently right aligned system. (I do not consider Labour to be truly left anymore, not since Balir became leader).
November 6th, 2009 at 11:17 am
eclub
It would appear most of the people here have formed their opinion of me anyway, i am not concerned if i come across as a caveman. I have stated a position that the Human Rights Act is a problem. This position is held by Her Majesty’s Government who introduced the legislation, and Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition who in less than 10 months time if the opinion polls remain the same are on their way to power. Im a supporter of the European Union, many here in the UK are not, but i do have a big problem with European Conventions being taken advantage of in such ways.
The whole problem is the Human Rights Act which gives that power to the judges in the first place, before 1998 that is not how things were done. I also would not mind so much if all of our European friends had the same rules, but theres something rather annoying when the UK is the most anti european country yet we follow conventions and EU rules / laws to a huge degree, its not just a coincidence.
You mention patriotism, i have never said to be patriotic one must love the monarchy or support it. What i have said is through the monarchy i see a chance for the British people to celebrate our identity and unity. Its not the fact they are waving our flag, whilst i care about the union flag as a symbol of our nation it is just a flag, its just a chance for unity.
You know yesterday i was watching Fox News channel, it was showing the Republican rally on healthcare. They all did the pledge of allegiance and the anthem at that event. We just do not have that sort of thing done here, even if we had just a pledge to the country rather than an oath it wouldnt be done in such a way. This government and previous governments, have grossly failed in their duty to promote and defend British identity, culture, unity and patriotism. There are very few occasions whe everyone comes together and the monarchy helps create more chances. I dont know if you saw the video. Over 1 million in The Mall celebrating the Queens Golden Jubilee. Thats not just honouring the Queen, its celebrating our nation and when you compare that to the pathetic celebrations of the 300 year of union between England and Scotland which is basically when this country was founded as far as im concerned i see a huge difference. Monarchy is one thing mainstream parties are still prepared to celebrate and treasure, although i do have some concerns about labour and the lib dems are even worse.
Sam,
Im sorry but we have some very liberal judges who are endlessly giving people light sentences, or protecting the criminals instead of the general population. The trouble is that is your interpretation of article 8, it doesnt clearly define that. I do not want an unelected judge here deciding that himself impacting only this country. If something is taken to the European courts and clearly for all to follow then fine, but this current system is not good.
I know we signed up separately to the European Convention on human rights, but the fact remains we did not have to have a system where British judges look at these European conventions. I call them vague because that is exactly what they are. Ash asked if it was possible to get the oath banned because its a violation of a human rights, some may agree with that, well i dont. The British Parliament and government must make these policy changes. Then if our policies are viewed as a violation of European conventions we can be taken to the European court. A British judge should not say, oh i think this violates this article. Anyway this is a pointless debate, the conservatives and labour accept there are problems with the legislation.
Eclub
The countries you list are more liberal in many ways yes. There are some things they do well, political parties in this country often look at some of their policies and try to bring it here, like education policy. However we can not just import their social structure and change our culture. The problem is here liberal policy after liberal policy has left a void that helps create chaos. Now i am not against reforms but we have to ensure there is something to replace it with.
In the past 25 years we have taken exensive powers away from parents, schools, police, and the criminal justice system. One thing ive talked about before is the fact many of those listed also have some form of national service or until recently anyway where as Britain gave it up 40 years ago. Now ofcourse thats not the cause or a way of solving all our problems, but it is one of those things that people often say should be restored to deal with the lack of respect and discipline problems. One of the biggest problems in this country is drink, this country has always had a drink problem but its only in recent decades where because of our success the people have had lots of money to waste on drinks that they then go nuts. Our government tried to import continental drinking culture a few years back, it made matters…
November 6th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Simon,
I’m not sure what you problem with unelected judges is, or with the current system. Firstly judges have always been unelected and our judicial system has worked. Electing judges is dangerous because it brings politics into the application of the law. Beside your only problem with unelected judges is that you perceive them as ‘liberal’, if they were hardcore conservatives you wouldn’t have a problem with them. That has been made clear by your repeated reference to liberal. Your position is therefore not an ethical one but rather a tantrum that judges are not doing what you think is right.
Furthermore cases can be taken to the European court, but if our judges pass judgement on a situation already covered by the European courts there is no point in referring it to them, our judges can act to enforce the European ruling. This operates in exactly the same way as our common law system so there is no basis for challenging that process unless you oppose the common law system itself.
I am not sure why you seen the separation of British law from European law is desirable when the UK enforces both. It would be rather cumbersome to try and keep them as separate systems.
Labour and the conservative accepting that there are problems does not negate the importance of Human Rights, and in fact neither party could remove human rights laws from our country without a great deal of difficulty. Perhaps you have been readying to many tabloids, and believe the human rights law is non-British and against our interests. I assure you this is not at all.
November 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Now on the fact she is Queen of many other commonwealth realms, this is indeed true. Infact today is the 10th anniversary of the Australian people voting to keep the monarchy. Whilst i strongly support the monarchy continuing here at home, removing the monarchy in the other commonwealth realms will simply be the final step for those countries from Empire to total independence with their own elected heads of state. This is the natural path, whilst there are many loyal to their Queen in Her Majesty’s other realms and she has huge popularity most of us know she will be the last monarch of Australia, Canada and the other realms.
This is the British monarchy, they are British. The fact she is Queen in other realms simply remind us all of how much the world has changed in the past 60 years. Whilst Australia and Canada enjoyed what amounted to independence from 1931, the final act breaking all links to the UK parliament was only signed in the 1980s. People in Australia and Canada and every part of the British Empire were British Subjects 60+ years ago, so the truth is the monarchy does unite people, the Empire is gone but the people have chosen to keep the monarchy.
Whilst this is just my opinion ofcourse, there was never really a formal end to Empire, it just faded from the world stage. The closest thing to the formal end is seen by some as the hand over of Hong Kong to China. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os4p8MfAqQY something i find very moving. However i think the Queens death will be the true end. A single ceremony in a small territory the other side of the planet is not a big enough event to mark the end of Empire.
But the Queens death and funeral? That is going to be huge, far far bigger than anything we saw for Princess Diana. Queen Elizabeth II is the one that gave royal assent to all these countries independence, under her reign so many countries have been born. Troops from the commonwealth realms will take part in her funeral procession through London. Flags around the world, not just in commonwealth countries will be lowered as a mark of respect. It will be one of “those moments” to remember.
I do in part see the argument that it would be best for the monarchy to bow out completly including in this country following her death. That is indeed possible if that is the wish of Her Majesty or her Heir and i would respect it, but i cant see the British people saying weve had enough and want it to end. When the Queen nears death preparations for the other realms to become Republics will be made. Following her death Britain will enter a new era, more reflective of todays realities but there is no real reason why we must do away with the monarchy here completly. It will be a new era with a new British Monarch, the first post imperial monarch and its likely to be King William V.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Sam,
I have said im not against human rights, if the Human Rights Act is removed then it will be replaced by something that clearly defines our human rights. I am fine with unelected judges aslong as they are not deciding policy but that is exactly what happens when one suddenly decides something is against a European convention on Human rights.
In America they have a constitution which must be upheld. The supreme court simply interprets what they think applies. So for example it was not until 2003 that the supreme court decided its a violation of the constitution for a state to arrest someone for engaging in homosexual acts in their own home. Now thats many years late but it was the highest court in the land, deciding policy, rightly in that case.
I would have less of a problem if it was only the UK Supreme court deciding if certain things may be a violaton of European conventions, but a single judge should not have such power. In America they call it “legislating from the bench”
The point is we must remain signed up to the European Conventions on Human rights but the current system is not required and its not working well in some ways, both parties accept this.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
God Bless Queen Elizabeth II and may she reign for a long time. I think that swearing the oath to the monarch should be upheld as it makes one feel proud to be part of the country that you are living in. Nowadays everyone lies even the new citizens here in Canada. It is a crying shame that it has come down to this as it is now creating discord among the people and hatred. To my way of thinking if you swear an oath to the country that you live in under false pretense, back you go to the country from where you came from and no second chance and not be allowed back in. You swear to uphold the laws of the country but everyday I see them being broken by foreigners and nothing is being done about it something should be done. At least there is something about swearing an oath then if there isn’t one, it will leave open to anyone to come in and decide what they want or not want and make the government pay for it. They do that now but with some restrictions. More has to be done about immigration to another country. Everyone has their rights and beliefs and under the oath that is the freedom you get.
November 6th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
@Simon
You said:
“You know yesterday i was watching Fox News channel, it was showing the Republican rally on healthcare. They all did the pledge of allegiance and the anthem at that event. We just do not have that sort of thing done here, even if we had just a pledge to the country rather than an oath it wouldnt be done in such a way. This government and previous governments, have grossly failed in their duty to promote and defend British identity, culture, unity and patriotism. There are very few occasions whe everyone comes together and the monarchy helps create more chances. I dont know if you saw the video. Over 1 million in The Mall celebrating the Queens Golden Jubilee.”
On the one hand, you say the monarchy breeds unity, and therefore patriotism, on the same hand you decry lack of oneness, and lack of patriotism in the country, Britain is still a monarchy the last I checked. Your theory is in the present participle, if the country is not as patriotic or as one, why do you not blame the monarchy?
You keep comparing allegiance to the monarch, and the American pledge to the people, symbolised by the flag, it’s folly. Do you honestly not see the difference? The flag of America is something everyone can identify with; it represents the entire country; it represents the people; the constitution; freedom; heroes, the poor, the rich, everyone; when soldiers are killed in battle, they are buried with draped flag, their loved ones given the flag; it flies proudly atop capitols, congress, whitehouse, it’s a true symbol of the American people!
On the other hand, if you make a monarch a symbol of your country, now that represents wealth and opulence, and powerful, the connected, and comes along with the baggage of human frailty; it’s not the same thing. I often see you comparing American presidency, or constitution, or congress, or judiciary, or elections, and etc etc, and I ignore you because, you don’t get it. Britain must first attain democracy before you compare Britain to the United States, sorry. I avoid engaging you on this issue, so it doesn’t come across as if I’m being a proud American knocking the Brits. I consider myself a Brit and I also consider myself an American, but above all, I’m a human being in support of justice. Stop watching foxnews, it is simply a propaganda channel for the republican party.
Simon, you must be courageous, if the monarchy no longer works, say so. You never blame the monarchy for anything. You talk like a brainwashed twat. If you have determined that the pledge you witnessed on Foxnews was very cool, and yours in Britain is declining, blame the monarchy not the labour government. Thanks
November 6th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
@ Lady C: Just for clarity, my wife didn’t swear any oath; she made an affirmation only which I didn’t approve of.
November 7th, 2009 at 2:03 am
@Lady C
“To my way of thinking if you swear an oath to the country that you live in under false pretense, back you go to the country from where you came from and no second chance and not be allowed back in.”
If your born British or Canadian, then what?
“You swear to uphold the laws of the country but everyday I see them being broken by foreigners and nothing is being done about it something should be done.”
Just foreigners?
“At least there is something about swearing an oath”
Couldn’t agree more. Let’s just hope One day , we can make it to the land and flag rather than a corrupt institution.
“Everyone has their rights and beliefs and under the oath that is the freeom you get.”
Really? freedom includes individuals or institutions abstaining from interference from the sovereignty of their people for their own gain by the use of political constraint. This is hardly the privilege that We’ve been spared.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:08 am
The level of footlicking sychopancy displayed by Simon, Neil and others is frighteningly sickening. I’d go as far as to call it a mental illness! A mental illness that makes them always accept second best for this country and feel constantly inferior to their ‘betters’. They are beyond reason, pity and indeed help!
November 7th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
The trouble is that there are so many sycophantic people. Our country needs a political awakening. Apathy and propaganda have played their part in the past. We seem to be more concerned with Halloween, fireworks, celebrities ,media propaganda, Strictly come Dancing, Britain’s got Talent etc etc etc, than really important isues.We need the emergence of leadership and people power. There are so many faults in our society now,which need solutions. How will the Ball start Rolling ? Who or What can awaken our people ?
November 7th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I came across this poem today (below) which I copy here as a bit of light relief, – maybe the expenses scandal will rumble on after the news that Kelly’s expenses proposals may be overuled. Perhaps if Sir Ian Kennedy, appointed this week as chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority starts watering down Kelly’s proposals and MPs get back on the gravy train in some way, the country will start waking up to the fact that our system of government nurtures corruption at its core and begin to ask why – http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/07/kelly-expenses-proposals-overruled
I want a floating duck house
I want to clear my moat
I need to mend my tennis court
That’s why I need your vote.
I have to build a portico
My swimming pool needs mending
My lovely plants need horse manure
And the Aga needs much tending
A chandelier is vital
Mock Tudor boards are great
My hanging baskets won awards
And I’ve earned a tax rebate.
I need a glitter toilet seat.
My piano so needs tuning
Maltesers help me stay awake
And my orchard must need pruning
I could have said the rules were wrong
And often thought I should,
But somehow it was easier
To profit all I could
The public really have to see
That the rules are there to test
And by defrauding taxpayers
We were just doing our best
The Speaker of the House has gone,
Our sacrificial beast,
But the public are still braying
For our corpses at the feast
What do the public want from us,
Those vote-wielding ingrates?
They really should be grateful
To be financing our estates.
The message is so very clear,
(we’re merely learning late)
That the British way of living well
Is to screw the bloody state.
By
Janice Chiara and Jack
November 7th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“The level of footlicking sychopancy displayed by Simon, Neil and others is frighteningly sickening. I’d go as far as to call it a mental illness!” – imatt
I’d call it trolling.
You Don’t think the likes of you know who are genuine do you? He’s obviously pro monarch but the collectivistic, state worshipping, xenophobic, small minded bigotry is a blatant attempt by a charlatan to get the real discussion off course!
It might be a good idea not to pay too much attention as He doesn’t really deserve this much attention!
November 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Bib Wiggin,
Great poem. Sums things up nicely.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
It was trolling. I say “was” because somebody might have gotten the message. It’s quieter around here.
Hopefully, we start next week and next blog with genuine discussions, plans, strategy, hopes and dreams for a republic, and less yearning for a past glory.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Bob,
Sorry for the typo in your name.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
@Barry Kingsley
“There are so many faults in our society now,which need solutions. How will the Ball start Rolling ? Who or What can awaken our people ?”
The ball starts rolling when the campaign moves to the streets. There are so many things that needs protesting on the streets. So much unfairness. The internet campaign is good, but street campaign, putting signs on buses, on television, getting real folk, students, workers, Citizens involved in real life will get the ball rolling. The campaign starts the day street action begins.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Eclub. I blame the British government for failing to celebrate, honour and defend British identity. The point is the monarchy is one of the few occasions where large numbers can come to gether and celebrate not just the monarchy but the country. I thought i highlighed that, but the refusual to celebrate the 300th year of union between England and Scotland but a few years before over 1 million took took to the streets of London celebrating the Queens Golden Jubilee, many waving the union flag.
The Queen and monarchy represents our nation the way your flag does, its ashame theres a few republicans who disagree but ofcourse some hate our flag as a symbol too, there are 100,000s of separatists in Scotland, they are not happy with the union. So nothing is perfect as a symbol, small numbers will always disagree but the fact remains the Queen and monarchy is something that people from all political sides support. From the far right British National Party to the leadership of the separatist Scottish National Party. From some of lib dems and most of labour, to the Conservatives and the United Kingdom Independence Party. The only well known party that supports abolishing the monarchy is the Greens. The monarchy is something that most are comfortable with.
The monarchy works, it could do with some reforms in time and that will happen, but the state of the country is the govenments fault and in less than 10 months time, because this is a democracy that government will likely be removed from power by the British people.
As for this “street campaign” you are talking about, this is not France! We do not take to the streets in such ways. We are having problems at the moment with groups taking to the streets, its leading to violence against the police and civil disorder. Over 1 million took to the streets against the Iraq war, it changed nothing.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Simon, just what is British identity? I often hear many such as yourself spoting British identity this and British identity that without pinpointing what it is. So what is British identity? Is it something we can all share in or will it be seen as per usual through your sickeningly sychophntic, lickspittle like, toadying eyes!
November 8th, 2009 at 12:52 am
Oh noooooooooooo Simon, I thought you got mad and left!
“I blame the British government for failing to celebrate, honour and defend British identity. The point is the monarchy is one of the few occasions where large numbers can come to gether and celebrate not just the monarchy but the country”
You hold the government accountable because it is elected. You do NOT hold the monarchy accountable on anything because it is an unelected head of state. Trust me, if it were to be an elective post, you WILL also hold it accountable. Why do you want to celebrate monarchy or the country? There’s nothing unique about monarchy; Saudi Arabia has one, and so does Botswana, and the Zulus. And every Country is a Country. Why should Britain celebrate monarchy and country?
The Queen and monarchy represents our nation the way your flag does, its ashame theres a few republicans who disagree but ofcourse some hate our flag as a symbol too, there are 100,000s of separatists in Scotland, they are not happy with the union. So nothing is perfect as a symbol, small numbers will always disagree but the fact remains the Queen and monarchy is something that people from all political sides support.
Here in USA, some people also hate the flag, and burn it on occassion to protest the government; and that is their right to do so. It’s called freedom of speech. You must learn how to respect such rights. People died to secure such rights. If we worship monarchs and governments, we lose our humanity. You enjoy many freedoms today, Simon, because people challenged past monarchs and Kings, and Presidents, and Dictators to secure some of the freedoms we enjoy both here in USA and there in UK.
There are no perfect symbols, you are right, but some symbols are more perfect than others. How can you have a living breathing human being as a symbol; our flag does not take billions of our tax dollars and live in castles as your symbol does. You always try to do cost analyses of the monarchy and such. Here’s one where our symbol costs far less to us. Please acknowledge and agree to this fact.
“The only well known party that supports abolishing the monarchy is the Greens. The monarchy is something that most are comfortable with.
You keep requesting for republicans to close down and vote with the green party if they want a republic. You have it wrong, you should tell the green party to fold and join the Republic organization. The green party may be against the monarchy as they should, but what are their other agenda? How do you know REPUBLIC and republicans support those agenda? You fail to see the fallacy in your argument. It’s like this: if one tells you that 7 is less than 10, you will be wrong to say therefore 8 equals to 10. Seven is less than ten, but so is eight. The green party is still not up to par. So, both the monarchy and the green party are not what we are looking for. We want a written constitution, with an elected head of state, and above all, the abolition of the monarchy.
The monarchy works, it could do with some reforms in time and that will happen, but the state of the country is the govenments fault and in less than 10 months time, because this is a democracy that government will likely be removed from power by the British people.
You are right, the monarchy needs reform, an extreme reform: Abolition. A republic will take its place with an elected head of state, chosen by the people every so often. This is the campaign to bring it about in a civil and non violent way.
You will be disappointed by the torey government because they are all the same thing; the labour and the torey are the same. They are just gaming block heads who give their loyalty without question. Remember Tony Blair? He is the worst weasel in the world. He tricked everybody, but he didn’t fool everybody. Now, can he do that again? I doubt it. He is a monarchist and a conservative, and a liar, and actually worse than George Bush his partner.
As for this “street campaign” you are talking about, this is not France! We do not take to the streets in such ways. We are having problems at the moment with groups taking to the streets, its leading to violence against the police and civil disorder. Over 1 million took to the streets against the Iraq war, it changed nothing.
I don’t care about what you do not do. Street campaign and protest is the answer. You can evoke patriotism by knocking France all you want. Those days are gone, ptiing one country against the other. You must learn how to respect France my friend; they are not as stupid as you think.
Many millions took to the streets here too in the USA protesting the Iraq war and it did not help, but that doesn’t mean we give up street protest; if anything, it makes us do it better next time. Thank you.
November 8th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Simon,
We could learn some lessons from the French, after all they have a republic in which the people are entitled to challenge the government at any time it acts out of line rather than just once every 4 years.
Also I do not think the problem is violence against the police, after all it was the police who murdered the protestor Ian Wilkinson not the other way round.
Also how can you think that our system only needs reform when the government ignored a million people (which is enough to call a referendum in some countries). We need to change the fundamental basis of how our nation operates, and the removal of the monarchy is key to that.
November 8th, 2009 at 1:37 am
To: Simon
Just in case I didn’t make something clear up there for you:
You often have a habit of equating this campaign with the labour party, or liberals, left-wing, or separatist, you are wrong on all counts. I am not a member of the Republic, but just by perusing the website cursorily, I can tell you the campaign’s quest is simply to bring about the end of the monarchy, to have an elected head of state, and to attain a written constitution, period. It is not a political party, and therefore do NOT have an ideology. All are welcome to the campaign as far as they check their ideology at the door and work hard to realise the aforementioned goals.
You also try to hand Tony Blair to the campaign. Tony Blair is more aligned with you than this campaign. Tony Blair is anathema in the fact that he is a monarchist. I use the word anathema, not in its nefarious sense, and not even in the sense of one that is greatly reviled, loathed, or shunned. As far as this campaign is concerned, as I see it, there are two classes of people: monarchist (Simon, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair, and others..) and republicans (this campaign, me and others). So, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as much as you loathe them, came to power under the monarchist system, and are your creatures. We are forever precluded from knowing if they could have made it this far in a true democracy, in a republic, where information is made available to the people honestly.
Your role on this website has been one of interdiction: steady bombardment of positive blogs/comments and strategic planning for the purpose of delaying and disorganizing our progress.
November 8th, 2009 at 3:00 am
e-club. Well said .
November 8th, 2009 at 3:12 am
Bob. The poem was brilliant !
November 8th, 2009 at 3:24 am
@B. Kingsley
Thanks.
@Simon:
Here’s an example of street action today in US, even though I’m against their stance on this one, but they have the right to do this. If Republic organises this type of action, it will change things:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/07/health.care.rally/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
November 8th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“It might be a good idea not to pay too much attention as He doesn’t really deserve this much attention!” Ash
Praise the lord! Wind-up merchants with personal agendas and masquerading as serious debaters only serve to derail our forum, along with the stagnant “God bless Queen Elizabeth II” mob.
Eclub is right. Talking to ourselves via the Internet is a fairly benign preliminary to wider advertising and more public manouvres surely. Whilst committing itself to political, peaceful campaigning, in any extension of its activities, Republic would be mad to advertise fully any proposed strategies on a forum such as this.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
The idea of new citizens swearing an oath to the queen makes me sick to my stomach.
As a citizen of any country on this earth, your loyalty is always to your fellow countrymen and women.
I will always discourage my children from swearing such an alligence and will remind them of where there true loyalties lie.
To their country, its directly elected officals and most of all to their fellow citizens, regardless of birth, religion, race, sexual orientation.
We dont need an outdated institution with backward ideas on society to hold us together, we are so much better than this.
November 8th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Jaque Chirac had to step down on charges of corruption as He was declined immunity from prosecution. This relates to a time when He was Mayor of Paris. He used Taxpayers Money to create Phantom jobs and used this Money as bribes to help him cheat to get to the top. If found guilty, He could face up to 10 Years in prison.
My question is, How does the UK compare to France?
The comparison is embarassing.
As things stand, We’ll never know if our Head of State is going against the rules. They certainly Wouldn’t need to cheat to get to the top of their game, they were “born ready”.
What’s bad enough is what the rules allow them to get away with. They Don’t need to bribe Politicians & Mayors for favours and frankly why would they when there are House Maids and Servants, Gardeners, Kennel Staff, Kitchen Staff, Stable Staff, Private Secretaries, Game Keepers, Chauffeurs and Butlers that need paying?
We’re not like France. Nothing like them yet!
November 10th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
imatt
Well being British means different things to different people ofcourse. I have never said that being against the monarchy stops someone from being British or proud to be British, although sadly there is growing evidence that many of those with republican thoughts are also separatists. Defining what it means to be British is exactly the same as defining American or any other nationality. Not everyone will hold the same views and sterotypes are often formed which are some times inaccurate.
There are certain things that should be promoted and defended. Support of the British monarchy, loyalty to Queen, country and union are important. People have a right to disagree, although they should not have the right to stop us from encouraging our young people to take pride and be loayl to such things. Unity is vital, for too long we have been so politically correct about these matters.
Eclub,
I hold Her Majesty’s government accountable because it is their policies doing damage to the United Kingdom. If i lived in a republic with a ceremonial head of state, would i really be blaming the Irish or German presidents for the policies of the elected government of the day? I think not.
What a pathetic question, of course we in this country should celebrate our nation and monarchy. The French and Americans celebrate their Republic, theres tons of them too. Why are we not allowed to celebrate?
Good so we are agreed there are no perfect symbiols that everyone supports. Its open to ones own opinion what is the better symbol. I think that honouring a living person who represents our country and the history of the monarchy which has played a huge role in this country is more understandable than obsessing over a flag. I do not know the full cost of the monarchy, alot of the figures are debatable and it does not take into account revenue. We also do not know the costs celebrating your flag, (which ofcourse does not act as a head of state or have costs of maintaining buildings included). For example do we know exactly how much is spent every year in the United States to honour Flag Day? Do we know the cost of almost every single American school having a flag? Most schools here do not have the union flag flying, only a few government buildings and that was restricted to just a few days until a year or two ago.
What the Green party does is their choice, however i think in this country you will find more people care about silly environmental matters than abolishing the monarchy.
I have said that i think Republic should become a political party, that way we will be able to see the true political support out there for becoming a republic.
The Conservative party and the Labour party are not the same. One party has far more honour for our country, its traditions and yes its monarchy. I am sure the conservatives wont go as far as id like but its better than labour.
Yes i remember tony blair, between 1997 and 2003 this country loved the guy to our shame and people gave him a huge majority in the British parliament to do major damage. Had we been a republic between 1997 and 2003 we would have had to vote on a president. Im sure Tony Blair would have helped chosen that president we all elected.
I respect France, although i disagree with their system and certainly their methods of adopting that system. I see no reason why i would want the French system here in this country thankyou
The trouble is this organisation is tiny. It could not amass the numbers needed to hold any serious protest marches and ofcourse if it could then the security forces would just have to refuse the right to hold such a demonstration for security reasons.
Sorry for the late reply by the way i have been busy the last couple of days.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Sam,
Could you explain how the French can challenge their government at any time it acts out please? Do you mean protests? if so then we have that right, we just prefer a more respectable and dignified change in government rather than violent protests.
A man died during a police operation because a policeman over reacted at the time. Overall the day was a great success and the police deserved a lot of respect. We had the world leaders in our city, we allowed 10,000s of protestors including anarachists and environmental extremists into the city of London, one of the largest financial centers in the world. It could have got completly out of control if it wasnt for the good policing to keep them in line. I remember watching the protestors attacking the lightly protected police early on that day. It was only following that violence towards unarmed police that the heavy riot police had to be moved into secure the area. I remember shouting at my tv screen as the police took such abuse on our streets, i cheered when the riot police moved into to crush them. It was not ideal there though because it was in a built up area.
the 2005 G8 summit in Scotland was much better because it was in an open area. I remember watching as the violent protestors started to charge police ranks, in came the police cavalry and more riot police were airlifted in by chinook helicopter as reinforcments were needed. Was great to watch. Sadly ofcourse all the fun came to an end when the terrorist scum blew up parts of the London transport network on 7/7.
Anyway the bottom line is when the police give someone an order it must be followed. We have great police in this country who only use force when needed. Other countries like the USA would have police bring out their guns to stop a shoplifted, let alone a violent protestor. Many countries use watercannon, something we avoid in Great Britain. Those who wanted to cause violence on that day and dirupted the police in their duties must take part of the blame in the death of Ian. Has it been just a peaceful protest march that would not have happened, but when anarchists flood the city.. the police must take action.
I would have no problem if a million people saying something sparked a referendum, although that should not apply to military action. We do not have time to hold a 2 month campaign to decide if we must go to war or not sheesh. However by seeking the abolishion of the monarchy you are simply putting off many people from ur campaign. Id like to see reforms, id support abolishing the house of lords so would many in this country, but if you link it to getting rid of the Queen then you will be strongly opposed by many British people.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
eclub,
You do not live in the United Kingdom. You live in a republic i am still struggling to understand why you are attempting to change our system of government here. This will be handled by the British people and citizens of the United Kingdom. At the moment the overwhleming majority of us support the continuation of the monarchy. I fail to see why being a republic would have stopped blair from coming to power. Far from it, considering his talents he would have been the ideal person that would have won votes for President. he would not today because we all hate his guts, but sadly thats what would have happened back then.
All i am doing is responding to peoples points. if i stopped respondng you would think i have given up or been proven wrong and beaten.
I saw the health care valley agree such action is a good way of highlighting a cause, but there are far more important things for people to campaign on here than the idea we will remove the Queen from power, it just will not happen. Only small numbers would attend such an event anyway and it would be costly.
Tim Cooper,
My only agenda is one that people have known from the moment i posted here.. I support the monarchy and disagree with peoples views here. I thought disagreement was allowed and debate was allowed.
Matthew,
some people object to people being forced to pledge loyalty to the country aswell. its a case of where do we draw the line? Im sure the separatists in Scotland are not too pleased about those becoming British citizens in Scotland having to pledge to be loyal to the United Kingdom. 100,000s of people have voted for the separatists, so do they have a legit case?
Ash
That is very nice of you to say. France is happy with their system of being a republic, we are happy with our system of being a constitutional monarchy. Despite the differences, our countries get along rather well.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
@flabbergastSimon
You broke your silence with:
“I fail to see why being a republic would have stopped blair from coming to power. Far from it, considering his talents he would have been the ideal person that would have won votes for President. he would not today because we all hate his guts, but sadly thats what would have happened back then”.
Let me remove your shock, and enlighten you on why it’s an unknowable if Blair, or Brown for that matter, would have made it to the helm of power in a Republic.
Under the Monarchy, the chronic inveterate system in UK, the Prime Minister is indirectly elected. The party with most members of Parliament chooses amongst its peers, and comes up with the Prime Minister. Therefore, only a small percentage of the British electorate, perhaps a few precincts actually knew the name of who would become Prime Minister prior to the election, and no one knew who the Prime Minister will be before the election, no one! How much less having a choice in the vote for the Prime Minister. Consequently, most often, the Prime Minister comes to power by horse trading amongst a cabal of party bosses. Therefore, the more cunning an individual is such setting, the more likely they will emerge as Prime Minister. Then once in power, they become more revealing, more pertinacious, more pigheaded, more unconcerned, more self-willed, oblivious, mulish to the will of the people; because the Prime Minister did not come to power with a mandate from the people. His power comes from the establishment, from the party, from the crown, from the underground world, he only plays lip service to the will of the people. He only pretends to tell them what they want to hear. In such circumstances, people like Blair and Brown are in their elements, and therefore, thrive.
But in a republic, the people are usually able to check out the candidates and figure out who is the phoney in the bunch. During the general campaign to select a candidate, one can not fool all the people all the time; some how, the weasel is detected by someone; unlike a small precinct that selected Blair or Brown, the entire country will get to choose the one head of state at the same time, with more scrutiny, with more sophistication, and fore knowledge that they are in the process of choosing a head of state; and usually quash or annihilate the weasel’s dream of being head of state. So, that is how I declared that Prime Ministers Blair and Brown belong to monarchs and not to republicans.
It seems like a small point, but it’s huge. Think about it.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
@reaching-for-the-strawSimon
You cried:
“I do not know the full cost of the monarchy, alot of the figures are debatable and it does not take into account revenue. We also do not know the costs celebrating your flag, (which ofcourse does not act as a head of state or have costs of maintaining buildings included). For example do we know exactly how much is spent every year in the United States to honour Flag Day? Do we know the cost of almost every single American school having a flag?
It’s a shame that you do NOT know the cost of the monarchy. An institution that is funded with tax payer money, and is unaccountable, secretive, taciturn, and turgid. That is pathetic.
You find it hard to acknowledge that having a flag as a symbol is cheaper than having the entire Monarch’s operation? Then, there’s no need debating with you. And worse, you were trying to count the cost of flag days. I almost chuckled at that one; then I realised, the flag will still be a bargain even if all those are counted. The cost of flag days is zero. We do NOT have flag days here in the US. Everyday is flag day.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
eclub
Sorry but that is how our parliamentary democracy works. We would not have to do away to the monarchy in order to change the system so we elect a head of government. There are benefits to the current system we have, people are loyal to parties not people. Money goes to parties not people. When you have a system where companies and people are spending lots of money backing candidates it becomes more complicated and more open abuse than donations just to parties.
The whole point of my comment on this issue was under a presidential system someone like tony blair is MORE likely to become leader not less because people like the guy, even if they hate the party he is standing for and the policies of that party. But again changing our parliamentary system does not require abolishion of the monarchy.
I never said it was more expensive to worship a flag than have a monarchy, i clearly made the point that the monarchy acts as head of state and included in the costs are maintaining buildings.
How much does the President of the United States of America cost? Total cost of maintaining the white house every year? Total cost of security for the President, including costs to policing when he attends local events? How much does the presidential election cost every 4 years? How much does protection of former Presidents cost?
Oh and the 14th of June is flag day in the United States, although i agree every day there the flag is taken very seriously not just by the military but many citizens. That is just not something we see here. Support for a living person compared to a bit of cloth, seems sensible to me. Although id love us to take the flag more seriously here as well.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
@Simon
The debate here is not USA vs UK, nor UK vs France; it is not Flag Vs Living Being; rather, it is Monarchy Vs Republic.
You have failed to give cogent reason why UK should retain an out dated institution, you have refused or unable to give well-grounded reasons why the Monarchy should be secretive, you are unwilling or unable to give sound reasons why the monarchy should be exempt from FOI act, or why the monarch should be above the law passed by Parliament, you have been unable to give a satisfactory response to why one family should be the sole producer of the head of state of UK, you have been unable to articulate a just reason why the monarch is endowed with so much wealth and still insist on raises when the country is cutting back on vital public programs, you have no weighty reasons why the British people can not elect their own leaders from the best in the country and not based on genetic predispositions; none of your arguments for retention of the monarchy is appealing to the intellect or powers of reasoning; nor convincing.
The cost of republic of the US is priceless. It’s not measured in dollars. It’s measured in votes. The people choosing their own President. The process takes almost 2 years to complete; fom the primaries to the general election. Everything is not measured in money.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
eclub,
I have on many occasions stated specific reasons why i support the continuation of the monarchy in this country. it ofcourse has been ignored or dismissed but i have certainly given reasons why i support the monarchy.
I agree, there for even if the monarchy cost this country 100s of millions every year which is does not, it would still be worth it because the overwhelming majority of the British people support the monarchy and support their Queen.
Again i really do not see the obsession with having an elected head of state, why is it so wonderful? we have an elected government of the day that runs the country, not the monarchy. I mentioned once before, we have unelected judges here whos rulings actually have huge implications on government policy and the people, causing bigger problems than monarchy.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Dear Simon, Again, if the Republic organisation is so tiny,why do you bother with it? Have you nothing better to do with your time than persistently try to persuade people to become monarchists who are never going to agree with you ? A few other points noted from your recent diatribes. Firstly, why are environmental issues silly ?, (ref the Green Party). Secondly ,the death of Ian was caused by police,not demonstrators. It had nothing to do with demonstrators in any sense . Quite clearly a number of police were standing around when Ian had collapsed and they did nothing to tend to him . They were not under attack themselves. I was a policeman once myself, so I do support our force ,which is generally excellent. However there is no getting away from the fact that police action led to the death of Ian. Also, Kettling is a potentially very dangerous technique, not only for demonstrators ,but also for police. It is possible for other groups of demonstrators to come up behind existing police ranks and sandwich them as well ,in a small space. No one seems to have thought of that. Violence breeds violence, unfortunately,and some people like to stir things up. There are obviously good and bad demonstrators. The villains just love violence of course ,and should be stopped. Innocent demonstrators have rights in our country ,however,whether you like it or not, and should be protected from the few rogue police who ,unfortunately exist. Your obvious enjoyment of the demonstrations on the telly have led me to believe that you are rather an “Armchair Fascist”.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
barry,
I have other things that need my attention from time to time, that is why i have been away for a couple of days. There are more pressing matters, like the union however i have enough time to post here to reply to peoples comments and do other things as well. One could say there are greater causes than the republican movement which would be worthy of funding, but it does not stop people giving donations to help this organisation.
Whilst i support renewable energy, saving rainforests and agree with concerns about nuclear power, i do not accept the “man made climate change” myth. I am strongly opposed to this country wasting billions of pounds and putting at risk 100,000s of jobs because someone has decided we must try to save the planet when in reality even if the UK went back to the stone age tomorrow it would have no impact at all on global temps. Of course my position on green issues does put me at odds with our future King but he means well.
The police were only having to use such policing methods because of the protestors. Let me give you a simple example. If a police car is chasing a criminal and that police car crashes into a civilian and kills them, does the criminal not take part of the blame? Had there been no violent protests then the police would not have been on the streets in riot gear. There is a pattern here, it was not just a simple protest.. the G8/G7 and G20 meetings always are a magnet for violent protestors. Its why in any country at such events there are tons of arrests and clashes.
i accept that the policeman was response and should be prosecuted but the point i was making was that police man was only in the situation because the protestors. In normal circumstances, British police would not be policing in that way.
I thought the kettling was very good although it should have some more safeguards to ensure people have access to water and individuals who are not a risk should be allowed out. With the exception of the death which happened in the evening, most of the day went very well. The protestors were kept in their place although they managed to do damage to one bank i seem to recall.. it could have been worse.
If most of the protestors are held inside the kettle then they cant get out to come up from behind. In some cases ofcourse behind the police lines were tons of police vans and reinforcements.
Violence breeds violence, unfortunately,and some people like to stir things up indeed it does and there can be no doubt that it was the violent protestors who stired things up which led to tougher police response. In the morning most of the police were in normal uniforms, it was only after the protestors started pushing police lines and being violent the police in riot gear clearly had to go in.
I agree, and it was just one or two policeman that acted outside of the rules where as the 1000s of police involved throughout the day did a very good job. Claims that the police “Murdered” someone is not helpful. Whilst peaceful protests are allowed, it must be done within the law. That means cooperating with the police and following police orders. The Queen’s peace must be maintained.
I do not like it when people disrupt the peace or are violent towards the police in democratic countries there for when the police take action to restore order it does have a slight satisfaction. Obviously things like Iran where people were protesting because of the rigged elections its a very different matter.
Enviornmental protestors and the anti capitalist thugs have a long track record of causing trouble, as i mentioned before it is why theres always heavy clashes when theres a G8 / G7 / G20 / IMF / World Bank summit. people in the United Kingdom should obey the law and follow police instructions when told to move during such protests.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Simon,
I can’t help but notice that you completely ignored the difference between our current electoral system and the proposed system of the head of state. Eclub was quite right when he said that our current system indirectly elects the head of the government. Electing the head of state though could be direct. You therefore have absolutely not basis for your statement that a republic is would have been more likely to elect Blair as president by virtue of the system itself.
“I see no reason why i would want the French system here in this country thank you”
Yet another example that you are only defending the monarchy because of your personal sychophantic worship of the monarchy, and the delusional belief that everyone should be subserviant to all forms of authority, simply because it is authority.
Your basis for supporting the monarchy is loyalty, but loyalty is not a reason for anything, it is an expression of a reason. In this case, why do the monarchy deserve loaylty, what is the basis for them having unconditional loyalty, and the power to act against the interests of this country (for example the civil list increase)?
Also it’s not the Queen’s peace, it’s ours. You servile worship of authority only shows that you have abdicated from being a free thinking individual, failing to use rational and reason to justify your support for the monarchy. You expect everyone to worship the monarchy simply because it gives you feel that we should. That’s not a reason for anything, and that is why people say you haven’t provided an argument, because you present the conclusion of loyalty without saying why Mrs Windsor has earned it.
Your argument that the monarchy represents the nation has also been refuted, and proven incorrect by the very institution you support. The inherent class system if the monarchy means that it can only ever represent the rich hereditary elite.
People can be proud of this country without the monarchy. The monarchy is a source of shame, shame because people like you still need to cling to the coat tails of an old outdate system to justify your own personal worldview and impose it upon the rest of us. Be rational and don’t distort things with your romanticised delusional view of the system.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Dear Simon,
Thankyou. You have still not explained why you bother with an organisation like Republic, if it is so small and insignificant. You constantly state that the organisation is of no consequence,in one way or another.Surely ,you would not want to be interested in such a”piffling” organisation if you are so busy elsewhere? It doesn’t seem logical. Thank you for your remarks about environmental issues. I think Charles does mean well,actually,but he has to justify his position/existence with something,doesn’t he ? I too like Law and Order. I do not believe in Anarchy. It is frightening,and no substitute for a peaceful society at all. Therefore I believe that the “Peace of the People “has to be kept for us all. It is not the queen’s peace. Kettling is a potentially dangerous technique,and is discredited. You have misunderstood one of my points. If there were “tons” of police vans and re-inforcements behind the “kettlers”, this would not stop further groups of organised demonstrators attacking from the rear. it only needs more concerted organisation to do this. I do not think your “tons” amount to that much anyway. The police do not have unlimited resources,and cannot be devolved from other important areas. It is bad enough today that local “nicks” have been closed,and that there is shortage of real police anyway. Therefore I am all for Law and Order,but there are times when the Law is wrong,probably through human failings. Your remarks about demonstrators and criminals being partly responsible for deaths is “begging the question” . In a perfect society,which we do not have,( partly because we have a monarchy), there would be no need for police to chase stolen cars or deal with demonstrators. In the case of car chasing,and other police vehicular call outs which have resulted in injury and death, there has been concern raised about the desirability of police travelling at speed in built up areas. Philosophically, we could apply any “Cause and Effect ” doctrine to anything that happens in our lives. “Fate” , as some would call it, causes all sorts of good and bad things. We can be in the right or wrong place at the right or wrong time, literally. Recently, I was passing a lady on some stairs and she started to fall. Luckily, I was able to catch her ,and prevent her from falling and being injured. There was no on else to break her fall. This was an example of lucky co-incidence. We could be forever asking” Why” about such incidents. Finally, you seem to be wrapped up in Law and order to avery fine degree. I wonder if your Life has been so smooth running that you have never felt the need or necessity to break the “Law”. Are you empathetic ?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Sam,
We could elect our head of government if we want without abolishing the monarchy, however i see benefits to our system where its far more about the party than the person (although i do think that a change of Prime Minister should result in an election). Gordon Brown would be totally screwed and stand no chance of winning a presidential election today because we all hate his guts, but because he is simply the leader of a party and people support that party his defeat is far from certain. The point is in a simple vote where we elect a leader, someone with blairs talents is MORE likely to be elected than Gordon Brown. Id rather have the deeper thinker like Brown (whos only real problem if we are honest is hes come in at the end and has had to deal with all the mess caused by bliar). I except in recent times we have had more of a presidential like system because of bliar, but the core principles of the party over personality is still there.
Yes i am loyal to our Queen. I have no problem being loyal to the Queen of my country. It is not unconditional loyalty, if she started shooting people in the street then even i would rethink my support for the monarchy. I think the monarchy acts in the interests of this country, the increase in the civil list is just accepting the reality that there are rising costs and considering the last time it was increased its hardly unreasonable. As i highlighted in my post the other day, even republics have had their presidential costs rise. Are those presidents no longer acting in the interests of their people and must be removed?
I have never said the monarchy is the only thing to be proud of or that people must take pride in it. I think the monarchy is a good symbol of our nation and as i pointed out with the union flag and eclub mentioned about the American flag, not everyone is happy with that as a symbol. It can never be perfect.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Barry,
I have pletny of spare time and i quite enjoy the conversation here so i dedicate a little time each day or as often as possible to try and respond to posts or make a comment if i disagree with something being said. Whilst republic may be a small organisation and we all know it will never result in the Queen being removed from her throne, considering the media attention this organisation does get which is rather alarming in some respects, i do see a need to take an interest, especially if for example i dispute certain facts. Like seeing someone say the monarchy costs…. on the BBC or say Ireland costs….. when it is not completly accurate.
On Prince Charles, yes indeed he does have to do something, as do all the royals. The Royal family and monarchy for it to remain must be productive, ofcourse we can dispute if it is or isnt productive, but it needs to be. Although in the case of Prince Charles i think he does have a genuine interest in enviornmental matters, its not like hes randomly picked it as a hobby.
I am no police expert, i dont know the inner details of the method of kettling, all i do know is that there were 10,000s of protestors, quite a few of them potentially violent ones who were in the center of this capital city, the heart of our financial center and indeed one of the worlds leading financial centers. Things could of got far more out of control than they did. The policing methods worked overall, its just a few bad officers stepped over the line in the action they took. That could be blamed on training or just on the men themselves, but those incidents were not directly caused by Kettling.
The point about the protestors must take some of the blame is because they used violence and caused trouble. Sadly as is often the case a minority act out and the majority are impacted. If it was a peaceful protest like we saw with the anti Iraq war march then there would not have been a need for the sort of policing seen. But there were anarachists involved in the g20 protests, there always are and in every single country such summits are held in the police must take a firm line. There was one recently in the USA, theres tons of videos on youtube about students moaning about their human rights being violated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSMyY3_dmrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-cxHC_JU8o
The Americans used some new sonic device, rubber bullets, tear gas and more. I am deeply sorry for the death of Ian during the protests here, the policeman responsible should be punished because the video clearly showed there was no need to use force to bring him to the ground. But our police tactics are so restrained and reasonable compared to other “civilized” countries. Basically, people should avoid the summit protests because they always turn violent
No one is perfect, i am sure everyone has broken one law or two at some point in their life, but in the case of serious protests on our streets, there is a need to maintain order and sometimes that requires force.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Simon,
If you base your loyalty to the monarchy on their conduct then why do you oppose a better system that would ensure that the head of state acted in the best interests of the country, rather than hoping they do, as in our current system.
Also you seem to think that a president would have all the powers of the prime minister, which is not the case. They would have reserve powers but would be limited by the constitution. Plus a 50% run-off system would ensure that any successful candidate was thoroughly challenged. You seem to be under the impression that the system would be as unregulated and uncontrolled as the current one.
Regarding the presidents who are increasing expenses, the same applies to them as to the monarch. You highlighting where presidents have done some the same as the increase of the civil list doesn’t help your arguments. A president may have far more checks upon their financial increase, and can always be removed by election or impeachment. None this applies to the monarch, only showing that the Windsor’s are above the system and must be removed and replaced by a democratic state structure.
November 12th, 2009 at 6:43 am
I am a U.S. citizen. Yours is a fascinating organization (and informative website). By way of comparison, people who become naturalized U.S. citizens make this (lengthy) oath (or they can “solemnly affirm” instead of “swear”):
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
The only oath I’ve taken similar to this was when I volunteered for military service. It was odd for me because I came to believe that George W. Bush and his administration were “domestic enemies” of the U.S. Constitution.
I chose to go into the U.S. military, but I don’t like new U.S. citizens being compelled to agree to “bear arms, perform noncombatant service,” or do “work of national importance” — the involuntary aspect of those things (being forced into the military or forced to do vaguely define “work of national importance”) isn’t very democratic or free.
If the UK becomes a republic, I imagine you would have a citizenship oath (and a new oath for your military personnel) affirming fidelity to your nation’s new constitution and your laws (instead of to a monarch). I hope you don’t compel new citizens to agree to involuntary military service or “work of national importance.”
I don’t believe the UK monarchy will survive very long after the demise of the current monarch. She seems to have been mostly careful to remain aloof from partisan politics and her personal life hasn’t been as publicly messy as her oldest son’s. I think several factors will contribute to the UK becoming a republic: Charles becoming king (I don’t think he will be popular), the gradual dying off of the WWII generation (who may tend to have more traditional views of the crown), reform of the House of Lords (maybe into an elected senate like Canada – seems like this could facilitate other major and radical changes), increasing economic pressures from globalization, a non-Christian or openly atheist UK prime minister, and perhaps a strong executive in the European Union. Could a reformed House of Lords have elected members from non-geographic constituencies (e.g., seats for universities, charities, spiritual/ethical leaders, industry, arts, etc.)?
Although I am itrigued about your ideas for reform and I wish you well, you don’t need the interference of people outside of the UK. I do think it is commendable that you are exchanging ideas and are interested in democratic reform for your nation. So many people are too apathetic and I think your engagement and initiative is great.
Just curious, can you visualize (and name) anyone as a potential UK president or head of state? Could it be a person who was previously active in partisan politics? Could it be someone who had a career as an artist, writer, or academic? Would your president have veto power over legislation (something like a monarch withholding Royal Assent). Would your president have pardon power (you don’t have the death penalty, but pardons or commutations of prison sentences, or pardons restoring certain civil rights lost by serious crimes).
November 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Sam,
I do not oppose reforms to the monarchy and entire system of government in this country, i have suggested many things that could be done to address many of Republics concerns. However now is not the time. British troops are involved in a war our government does not take seriously, the government should not be distracted even more. We have an endless amount of urgent problems that need to be addressed at home for the survival of the very country, not least crushing separatism and radical islamist extremism. Reforms will take place following the Queen’s death, its not a priority right now.
All i am saying is, when you vote for a person as President someone like Tony bliar because of his talents is more likely to win. The different set ups and distribution of power is another matter. Ofcourse it does create a complication when you must elect two people to be leaders of a country. This is a bit like the problem if England got its own parliament and first minister. Would i want david Cameron to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom? or First Minister of England? One things for sure i would not want him to be my president and head of state, despite wanting him to win the next election. I do not view Cameron, Brown, or any of the others as a unifying force the way Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is who has support from people of every political POV including it appears some separatists.
The point about other countries costs rising was to highlight its not just the Queen and monarchy that has to increase its spending sometimes. I think considering the level of support for monarchy the fact it hasnt been increased for so long is rather shocking. When every other budget in the past 10 years has seen huge increases, with the exception of defence sadly.
I think you will find the British people can remove the monarchy if we want, we just do not want to. Following the Queens death that may change, but that is a matter for then. Right now, without doubt the British people will never want nor seek to remove Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II from her rightful throne.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Mapko,
In principle i have nothing against the oath / affirmation you mentioned new Americans must take although its a bit of a mouthful and should be alot shorter. I think its important that new citizens declare they give up their loyalty to previous states and leaders on becoming Americans, sadly here in this country we have grossly failed in an attempt to create some form of State multicultural utopia which even Her Majesty’s Government has started to realise has flaws, thankfully Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition who should win the next election in less than 10 months have declared it a disaster or Britain and will take action on putting it to an end.
American patriotism and identity is a very interesting thing to me, it is great how everyone feels American at the same time as still remembering and respecting their ancestors homelands, especially in the case of Irish Americans. Here sadly in too many cases some people only feel attachment to their parents/ grandparents homelands instead of to this country aswell. It is much harder here as its not a nation of immigrants like America, but we could still learn alot on these matters from you guys.
Its also important for people to be loyal the country and serve it if required int he armed forces, but to have to say the entire thing you quoted is overkill.
I think our pledge that new citizens must also take,
Covers everything, as national service is a duty and obligation for British citizens if there was a need for conscription. Sadly here though only new citizens must take the oath and pledge. We do not encourage young people in schools to make any form of pledge to country or oath to Queen where as so many schools in the USA have the pledge of allegiance.
I agree with you that following the Queen’s death the monarchy will be seriously weakened. Once she passes away, Australia and Canada along with many if not all of the other commonwealth realms will become republics. However whilst it will be weakened here in the UK its far from clear if it will come to an end, a recent poll showed 76% in favour of the monarchy continuing after the Queen’s death, so theres very little support for full change yet. If Prince Charles is an awful king then the monarchy will fall, but its quite possible that Prince William becomes king if the Queen does live a few more decades which she hopefully will do.
Agreed on the loss of the ww2 generation will mean theres less loyal supporters of the monarchy, although this is partly down to a failure in our education system. many young people here are not just disloyal to their Queen but disloyal to our country because we have become so liberal. Plenty of young people do still support the monarchy and especially the Queen but time will tell.
Interesting question on who would we have as president. This is one of my concerns, i can not think of anyone id rather have as my head of state than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. We would end up with a political head of state and im sorry but there is just no one from politics that i would want as my president. it just doesnt feel right. It makes me cringe the way Republicans cringe about the monarchy.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Dear Simon,
Sorry, I just cannot agree with you about some of the points you have made. I think you are right about some things,of course. I am not going to argue the toss about them,however, as we will only go round in circles.It would be a waste of time,as I have mentioned earlier,because you are not going to change your views and republicans are not going to change their views. At the present time monarchy exists and has the upper hand,but it is possible that things could change in the future. This is why Republic will continue with its campaign.I am not so sure that you have all the facts and statistics about certain things correct,but then again,who has ? Perhaps it is actually a waste of time trying to “prove ” one way or the other which is right,monarchy or republicanism, in a scientific sense.