29 Nov 2009
State secrecy is apparently a key principle of the British constitution – so says our government. Following a review of the 30 year rule by Paul Dacre (yes, he of the Daily Mail), Gordon Brown announced a number of changes to the law. One of them is to introduce an absolute exemption from the Freedom of Information Act for all correspondence between government and the royal household.
At present the monarch, our head of state, is already completely exempt, simply because the institution at the pinnacle of our constitution is not deemed in law to be a public authority. However, wherever the palace has dealings with government departments and other authorities covered by the Act, documents held by those authorities are subject to disclosure requests. But, there is an exemption (section 37) which says these documents are only to be disclosed if there is a public interest in disclosing them.
The government plans to remove that public interest test, so the exemption becomes absolute. In short, they are saying that the interests of the government and the palace outweigh the interests of the public. This is an extraordinary claim for the government of a democracy to make.
Why does this matter, you may ask? Well, it matters for all sorts of pretty vital reasons. The documents being kept under lock and key aren’t private letters between Liz Windsor and ‘her’ ministers, they are formal communications between our head of state and our government. These include attempts by the palace to lobby the government, lobbying from Charles Windsor on any number of his pet projects, correspondence relating to funding and finances, details of the palace’s relationship with the military and decisions concerning the future plans of the head of state. In all these areas there is a clear public interest for disclosure.
At this current time the palace is reportedly busy trying to persuade the government to give them a multi-million pound raise in the Civil List – at a time when all parties are competing over slashing public spending. Try to find out about that lobbying and we’re told it’s none of our business.
Earlier this year Charles Windsor was granted a massive tax-break by the Chancellor, to the tune of around £700,000 year. Try and find out why and how that happened and we’re told that’s none of our business too.
Charles also routinely lobbies ministers on the environment, health, education, planning and all manner of issues. When we protest that he should be keeping out of politics because he is heir to the throne we are told: “as yet he has no constitutional position, so he is free to say what he likes. He’ll be quiet once he’s King”. So we use the Freedom of Information Act to find out the extent of his lobbying and we’re told: “Charles has a constitutional position which requires him to be impartial, so we cannot tell you about his lobbying”. Well both statements can’t be true.
This is potentially very serious. Charles’ views on most of the issues he campaigns on are generally at odds with those who have professional expertise on the matter. Yet he has direct and privileged access to ministers, ministers who, sadly, listen to him. They listen to him because they buy into the absurd notion that what he thinks matters, not because of what he knows or has learnt, but because of who gave birth to him. We therefore need to know: are ministers taking decisions based on the interests of the people, or on the say-so of Charles Windsor?
Where tax and spending are concerned we clearly have a right to know how our money is being spent, and who is lobbying for it to be spent in certain ways. Again, we need to know who is exercising what power and in whose interests. That’s a fundamental principle of democracy. Alas, our government doesn’t agree. For them the key priority is that we protect the pretence of royal impartiality.
Impartiality is an act like any other, and in a democracy it must be seen to be done. It must be proven and it must be accountable. The royals aren’t impartial, they are secretive. There’s a difference.
In statements issued recently the government has said:
“It is a fundamental constitutional principle that communications between the Queen and her Ministers and other public bodies are essentially confidential in nature and there is therefore a fundamental public interest in withholding information relating to such communications. That is so because the Sovereign has the right and the duty to counsel, encourage and warn her government.”
And:
“In relation to […] information relating to the Royal Household, it has become clear that those safeguards are insufficiently robust to protect our current constitutional arrangements, and need changing.”
My answer to that is simple: if our constitution requires state secrecy, that is a stronger case than any for reforming our constitution. It is not a case for amending the FOI Act and removing the right of citizens to know what their head of state is up to and how and why the palace is spending our money.
The amendment is planned to be introduced before the next election. It will be back-dated, so any requests for information still under review, even if they have been sent to the High Court, will immediately be dropped under the new absolute exemption.
Within a week of an Early Day Motion being table by Lynne Jones MP 29 members of parliament have backed her call to stop this change to the law. In truth, we need to go further. The palace should be brought fully under the remit of the Act and we must have much greater transparency. But to ensure we can continue to make that case, we must resist this government amendment.
You can find out more about the EDM and how you can help at http://www.republic.org.uk/blog/?p=832
This article was originally posted on Labour List.
Facebook
Twitter
November 29th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I hope every member of republic has written to their MP and asked them to sign Lynne Jones’ EDM. What’s being planned is a disgrace but only what we should expect and the only way we’re going to change anything is to continue campaigning.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Yes Bob.
I have, I asked my MP to sign the EDM.
His reply:
‘It is obviously a republican swipe at our excellent Monarch which is why I wont have anything to do with it.’
Nice, aye?
November 29th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Bob, Who is your M.P. Bob. ? Name him and Shame him. He seems to have a whiff of the Michael Howard about him. I do hope you replied to the letter with a few succinct,but polite phrases.!
November 29th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Hi Barry, you’re confusing me with David, my MP is a republican (Ken Purchase) and I haven’t had a reply yet but I would be surprised if he refuses to sign the EDM given our previous correspondence.
David – I would be interested to know the identity of your MP.
November 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Dear Bob,
My apologies ! Interesting to learn that your M.P., Ken Purchase is a republican .
November 30th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
What is it with Politicians forgetting to check their emails when most carry a Blackberry?
I have to agree that this is one of the most damaging assaults on the small slice of Democracy we have been granted.
When palace officials publish their spin and the Media are all to willing to propogate this tripe it makes me wonder why they are allowed to get away with it.
The Royals will be able to pick and choose which info is leaked/drip fed into Mainstream society which will only harden the resolve of their followers.
November 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Lmao @
I like that MP’s style. He would have my vote!
November 30th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Simon
I’m sure you’d be very happy together. Personally, I hope the creep who enjoys the trappings of democracy while clearly shoving two fingers in the air at his constituents gets what he deserves next spring.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Some of these knee-crooking, subservient MPs operate a loose version of democracy – and the public buys it because they have been schooled over generations to assume that this a real system and that our institutions are the best in the world.
C. Windsor, his tax breaks and the arcane workings of those who live off him are most certainly the business of those that fork out for them all . That’s us. Any increase in the Civil List should be justified, the workings wholly transparent and subject to an independent critical analysis.
The average ‘non-political’ Joe has no miraculous access to government ministers – and neither should Charles. He cannot be both impartial and also have his obvious partiality protected under a cloak of secrecy. This is not difficult to understand and justifying it IS problematic.
The notion that Windsor is far-sighted, particularly gifted or speaks for anybody other than himself and his coterie is ridiculous. He is just somebody who is academically unremarkable and unelected. If you were creating anew, a system of excellence, since he has nothing but his inherited status and the historic captaincy of a barge to offer, arguably, you would not employ him.
We do not need self-styled luminaries who are so precious, so underhand or so manipulative that legislation, designed to promote freedom and democracy is tailored to fit their needs. Disgraceful.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
It is time for a quantum change in politics.
The technology of the internet allows every citizen the opportunity to vote at local and national level, on any issue.
By using this technology we would be able to do away with corrupt party politics.
The people elected to represent we the people would have but one remit and that would be to carry out the wishes of the electorate.
On a local level those councillors elected would have their power curtailed by the individual citizen.
Although there would remain an authority to carry out day to day tasks, any fundamental changes that affected we the people would be decided by we the people, any elected or unelected official would be removed from office if they did not comply with the majority view.
On a national level, it would be much the same, the elected MP would have to ask for a mandate from we the people before they could act on any policy decision.
Policy could come from anywhere at local and national level, with individuals being able to propose a policy that they feel would enrich the lives of we the people.
No longer would Governments and local authorities dictate arbitrarily to we the people, policy that we the people object to.
No longer would the elite make policy that enriched themselves to the detriment of we the people.
With regards to the monarchy and the royal prerogative, we the people would vote for or against it, and the wishes of the people would be paramount.
For the first time ever the UK would have Democracy. Everyone would have a voice and a vote that counts.
Government for the people by the people.
Everyone would be working together for everyone else, knowing that policy put forward would be for everyone’s benefit, unlike today where the elite initiate policy that works only for themselves.
No idiots in Parliament taking us to war on a lie because it benefits them. We could only go to war on the full mandate of the people.
No idiots in Parliament creating legislation that treats us all as potential criminals or terrorists, because it suits them to oppress we the people and take away our freedoms. While they continue to abuse their position of power.
Obviously something so new and radical would create numerous problems at first, but if we can achieve this form of Governance whilst we are in the midst of a depression, the only way is up and things can only get better for we the people.
Edward and Tony Devoy.
As for those who keep referring to us as having democracy already, this is the biggest ponzi scheme ever. We in the UK have never had democracy but now is our chance by refusing to vote for any party politician or carreer politician who has fallen out with his/her party and is pretending to be independant.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
If only.
He has behaved this way to me a couple of times but, since he ‘represents’ a shire constituency he will likely get back in. (I use the word represent because that’s what Monmouth’s MP writes but, of course, he tells me what I should believe and how I should act.)
He tells me he is not a roundhead; that, since she is
we are bound to support them, whatever.
Voting as we use it (know it) is not democratic. My vote is totally wasted in this constituency; whatever I do David Davies is likely to be returned.
(It’s not the minister one; well, not yet, anyway!)
November 30th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I said earlier when I got to this website, and I still believe it: Britain will have to be liberated from outside; the Parliament is part and parcel of the monarchy. There is absolutely no democracy in Britain. It will take a good campaign and effort to educate the American Public as to what evil lurks in UK, and that it is indeed no different from IRan and the rest of the undemocratic countries. The United States has to be fair, if it is to condemn Iran and North Korea, United Kingdom has got to be included in the list of countries where a Regime Change is demanded. Also, work should begin in United Nations to expose these undemocratic tendencies of Britain. Call a spade a spade. It’s true that the country is developed, and the garbage is picked on time, and the buildings are beautiful, but that is not how we measure democracy. The people do NOT pick their government, or have much say in what is done in their name; there is plenty of secrecy, taxation without representation, minority abuse, unelected head of state, nepotism, and many evils. The United States will appear to be hypocritical if it lets the UK remain the way it is, and points to these eastern countries and talk about democracy and human rights without holding Britain to account. If the United States determines that there should be regime change in Britain, it will democratise or come crashing down. It’s been left to fester for too long.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
It is a mistake (In my humble opinion) to say the UK has absoloutely no democracy. It would be correct to say we have less Democracy than some of our allies. Absoloute arguments enable us to be played straight into the hands of the Monarchists who point at Absoloute Monarch states like Saudi Arabia and say we are wrong. More Democracy is needed to ensure what we are currently granted does not erode any further.
Eclub
“The United States will appear to be hypocritical if it lets the UK remain the way it is, and points to these eastern countries and talk about democracy and human rights without holding Britain to account. If the United States determines that there should be regime change in Britain, it will democratise or come crashing down. It’s been left to fester for too long.”
The US’s oldest ally would be in a better position to bring stability to the world if it had a level of Democracy that the US has got. It is not one of the reasons Why I campaign but it is certainly a nice added benefit that comes with the package.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
And people think monarchists are arrogant. Eclubs arrogance and disturbing point of view that external powers should encourage a revolution in this country is very dangerous and certainly does not help Republics cause.
And if it tries to do something it will be laughed at and simply strenghten monarchists resolve. A foreign power telling us what we should do (even if its the United States) will not play well.
Republicans should be condemning this disgusting assault on Britain by an American. But ofcourse people will agree with him and again show to the world why people question republicans loyalities to their country and lack of patriotism.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
Hi Ash Walsh
You are right that my comment were made in absolute terms, and will play into the hands of monarchist, after all they will look around and see that the society of Britain bears no resemblance to authoritarian states. That credit only goes to the British people, and their creativity, and patience. It is incredible how the state of Britain can be so undemocratic and yet look so benign. The UK always try to claim that the American System is either a product of Britain, or that it is another type of the British System, and nothing can be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, the American System is every bit opposite what the British have. America was founded to do things absolutely in the opposite direction of what the British do as far as democracy. “As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them”. Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No.2, September 28, 1787
America was founded and developed by many Nations, not Britain. Many different countries and continents contribute daily to our progress, including our beginning: France, Irish, Germany, Africans, British. No country should be hiding under our achievements, or believing they do not have to do better in their own country because they think America is one of theirs. That is not so. America stands on its own. Every other country should try to democratise, and stop claiming credit for something that is anathema to their own system.
If Britain were to be a country, say in the former Soviet Bloc, we will not classify it as a democracy. How can a country be a democracy without an elected head of state, with the head of state never standing for election, with only the Csar coming from one family? with all the privileges the Csar enjoys? with the secrecy? with the Csar being above the law? The Parliament is muzzled to discuss the issue of the monarchy? There is no written constitution? What does all these things have in common with the United States or any democracy? Nothing. A monarch is nothing but a fancy name for a Csar, or Ayatollah, or Leader, Pope, or any authoritarian name you can think of. And there’s nothing wrong with those names in a strictly religious setting, but once it governs without consent, it becomes anti-democratic and dictatorial, and condemnable. No need to get patriotic about it, this is just telling the truth.
Saying United States is one of British closests allies does not mitigate, or vitiate the need for change in Britain. We have many allies. We can point to our allies and say, change, be more democratic.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:11 am
Well people do not say the American system of governance is a product of Britain. There can be no doubt the founding of the USA was because of Britain, it was the 13 British colonies that created it. Americas bill of rights has links to the English bill of rights and the magna carter. The United States has English common law, hell on the issue of elections the USA uses first past the post like Britain. First past the post is something some people here hate and think its undemocratic, they are obsessed with wanting “proportional representation” so as America does not have that, im not sure if the USA would qualify as a democracy in their minds.
There are tons of republics that do not allow the people to decide their head of state, they are simply selected by the parliament. Our parliament here decides to accept the continuation of the monarchy.. its the same sort of principle.
and we would point directly back highlighting flaws in your own system. You know theres one thing that i agree with many republicans about on this website? We all share the view that the American system of a single head of state/head of government is an awful system and not the ideal form of republic. May be you should focus on matters closer to home.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:31 am
Simon: I have told you many times that I am not into the America Versus the United Kingdom stuff. I believe in telling the truth, stating the facts, As a Scientist, I’m concerned with what is True or false, but I go further than that, I’m concerned with what is good or bad, and much further, I engage in what is right or wrong; In all all these endeavours, I choose True over false, good over bad, and right over wrong. Therefore, your constant invocation of jingoism in debates is futile. I notice how you try to manipulate folks seeking to do away with a monarchy, to attack me instead based on patriotism, to attack me who wishes to see them succeed. You pathetically summon the same republicans that you come here daily to mock; you constantly laugh at their impotence to meet their goal of being able to choose their own head of state; they have cried out to you that they LOVE their country, that they are proud of their past, that they simply want to advance democracy, and do away with hereditary monarchy; they cried out to you that they even respect the current monarch, that they only oppose the type of institution she represents, BUT you will have none of that, you come here not to debate them, nor to correct them, BUT TO MOCK THEM, and to discriminate on none-English people herein, and yes, you do it with grace and laughter, yes you do it with finese, but nevertheless, you do it with mockery and sophistication; you have demonstrated that you are more cunning, more clever, in other words more polytropic than Athena the greek goddess; however, even with all those attributes, one can see you reaching out to the “republicans” to help you combat me, the American that dared speak truth to Britain; and then, in the next breath, you say America is the closest Ally of the British; your anti-American animus comes out too quickly behind your pride to have been the ‘owners’ of America and her heritage. I will not take too much space to respond to your assertions, but I will refer you to a website dedicated to the Founders of America, in it you will see some quotations about Liberty my friend, that is what it is all about, not where those Founding Fathers came from, but what they believed in, here are some examples:
December 1st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Eclub,
I think i detected one or two compliments in your post so thank you for that. I am not calling on republicans here to combat you, simply stand up for their own country in the face of huge abuse and the insulting idea that the British people and British government can not resolve our own affairs and we need another country to decide things for us. Its not much to ask.
It is true that the overwhelming majority of the British people support the continuation of the monarchy and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is true that all the main political parties support the monarchy, Labour, Lib Dems, Conservative, UKIP, BNP even the separatist SNP is prepared to support it and they get over 90% of the votes at general elections. Only the greens would bring about some green socialist republic. It is true the British people every 5 years vote in members of parliament who govern this country and have the power to make this country a republic if that is their policy and its what the people want.
What is good and bad depends on your own point of view. Some would say America taking military action in Iraq was a good thing because it liberated over 25 million people from a evil dictator. Others would say America invading Iraq was bad as it was an illegal war done only for greed and based on grossly misleading intelligence which has led to the deaths of 100,000s of innocent Iraqi civilians. Its quite amazing how two groups can look on the same war in such different ways isnt it? (just for the record i look at it in the good way, because i am probably the most pro American person here
)
Again this is something that is open to peoples points of view. Surely it is right the British people decide their own system and no foreign power influence or attempt to change our system? Surely its right if the British people want to continue to be subjects and worship our Queen we be allowed to? Surely if the British people do not want to live in a republic, our rights and beliefs must be respected and accepted?
December 1st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Eclub – you summed Simon’s agenda up nicely there. If he were only to bring up some arguments in favour of continuing our current constitutional arrangement, which I believe has played a large part in bringing us to where we are now, then we might be able to debate properly. He’s in favour of state secrecy as far as anything to do with monarchy is concerned and he will not contemplate any change that might threaten his queen. She has been on the throne for 60 years and yet has done absolutely nothing to stop the juggernaut of the state whilst it has steadily eroded our rights and constantly denied the will of the people. He is happy to live in an elective dictatorship as long as it keeps his beloved and her family on their collective pedestals. He does not like Johnny Foreigner sticking his oar in, especially if Johnny Foreigner doesn’t agree with him. Keep him in that headlock Eclub and God bless America, you may have a flawed republic but it’s a more democratic system than ours.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Bob,
I have given many reasons why i support the continuation of the monarchy, i am sorry people just ignore them or disagree with them but i have clearly stated my reasons on many occasions.
There is no evidence that this country being a republic would have led to things being done very differently. As i have mentioned before if we had an elected head of state it would simply be chosen based on the popular party at the time. This has been proven by myself when showing certain election results from Ireland but there are other examples too. So between 1997 and 2001 when Labour was popular, we would have got ourselves a labour President be it chosen by parliament or by the people.
Indeed, she is my Queen and i remain loyal to her.
Republicans want this both ways. They condemn our glorious Queen for not stepping in and doing something about certain matters they may dislike.. Be it Iraq, the Lisbon treaty, Big Brother etc, and yet they would be the first to complain if she did get involved. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II respects democracy and the right of the British people to decide their government. The only people to blame for the state of this country are the British people who have elected these governments. We vote and we must put up with what we get until the next election. So if we hate the big brother state next year we can vote for a party that will try to reduce it, or we can vote to keep the party that is responsible for it.. That is our choice, thats democracy.
Of course there is no evidence such things wouldnt happen in a Republic. I mentioned an example of Ireland the other day. The Irish president was concerned about a certain bill which granted emergency powers to the police in response to IRA terrorism. He passed it to the supreme court they ruled it as within Irelands constitution and he signed it into law. The Irish government was unhappy with the delay which led to another death and launched an attack on the president who went on to resign.. just for doing his job. How many republics signed the lisbon treaty, how many bothered to put it to their courts? The few that did got nowhere and the lisbon treaty is now inforce across the European Union.
I am ecstatic
There is a sort of unspoken rule in the western world that we unite in our condemnation of other countries democracies in the developing world when their system is in need of change but we stay out of each others internal affairs. That i suppose could be seen as a double standard or western arrogance, but it works rather well for all concerned.
lol true on the first point, but on the second point what makes a good democratic system? Surely one important thing must be a free and fair media? I am sorry but the American media is shockingly biased which results in a major drain on their democracy.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:10 pm
eclub
“If the United States determines that there should be regime change in Britain, it will democratise or come crashing down.”
I think that all British contributors to this blog, whether monarchists or republican, will be aghast at this dangerous comment. I am surprised and disappointed that neither of Messrs Smith or Gray have expressed their revulsion at the prospect of the US attempting regime change in this country.
Please educate us all on how the proposed regime change on the evil UK would be enforced by the US.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
@Paul
Not sure why you think we need to comment on everything said on this blog.
Interestingly it’s monarchists who usually tell us foreigners should dictate the nature of our constitution: “We must worry about what the world thinks of us”, “what about our standing in the world?”, “monarchy is good for attracting foreign tourists” are just some of daft comments we here which imply that our constitution should be determined by what holidaying Americans think rather than by what the British think.
I have no idea what eclub was referring to and I think it goes without saying that anyone committed to democracy believes the people have the right to govern themselves.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
@eclub
I for one, would like to commend you for your interesting comments. It is helpful you write from the USA as you can see easier than some of our fellow subjects that the UK is not ‘democratic’ in much of a meaningful sense. That is why I have suggested ‘democracy’ is written in inverted commas here to highlight the point.
Too many Brits (and Simon, though I regret giving him more undeserved publicity, is a prime example) have had what is called ‘Whig history’ inculcated. This is the idea that the UK is a ‘perfect’ system of constitutional monarchy, plus established church,
that gradually evolved through Magna Carta (I don’t know the magna carter to which Simon refers), the ‘glorious’ revolution of 1688, the 1832 Reform Bill and so on. This precludes any critical thinking or real understanding of what democratic values are. They start off with a given that the present system is perfect and then distort any critical objections to arrive at the automatic conclusion, this is the best of all possible worlds – and anyone who deviates from this is a traitor!
December 1st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
@ Paul
You might recall that in 1983, the United States undertook a military invasion of Grenada to effect regime change. This was deplored by both the United Nations, who issued a resolution criticising the American action at the time, and by our then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The head of state in Grenada is the Queen. The Crown is represented by a Governor-General.
Whilst many contributors to this website might be “aghast at this dangerous comment”, there is a precident whereby the United States has intervened unilaterally over the British Constitutional Monarchy in effecting regime change.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:31 pm
My comment needs no clarification, but let me say that I did not mean external intervention such as a military type. Not at all, that is unnecessary and counter-productive. That should not be the only type of action ‘undemocratic people’ should fear; they should worry equally about rebuke, the light, condemnation, the truth, and isolation. Someone once said that the pen is mightier than a sword, or something to that effect.
When I said that Britain should be liberated from outside, I meant outsiders such as the European Union (Human Rights Act is already giving some liberties that had eluded republicans for centuries in Britain), the United Nations (I believe I mentioned that body in my comment), the United States, and others.
This is not a joke. When you see even one person yearning for freedom, and for liberty, we MUST take it seriously. Even if the entire Britain were to believe one thing, and one Briton believes differently, his right as individual is very very important. I don’t think that people such as Simon realises that. The minority may be small in your country, and have sympathisers outside, and those sympathisers may be United Nations, the United States, Human Rights groups and so on. Do NOT always think that Britain had a glorious past, and therefore is invincible and beyond criticism, that will is a big mistake. Allies or not, we must make progress, and let the people determine their destiny.
I am not a member of the Republic so that I may speak my mind, and speak for myself. (I have been tempted to join). I do not advocate any violence whatsoever. I have the greatest respect for the British people, and any people in the world. My comments, when negative are aimed at a system, or type of government, or a process. When it comes to democracy versus monarchy, I do not think we should restrict the debate to artificial human geography, such as country or continent. Power should come from the people everywhere. I will not be the first to comment on another country’s affairs when it comes to tyranny versus democracy.
(I thank Jennifer, and Bob for their kind words).
December 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Graham Smith,
So if the British people decide they want to keep the monarchy and not become a republic why must they be ignored and encouraged to adopt some republic that the people do not want.
Jennifer
Thank you yes i did mean the Magna Carta. As an American living in a republic his insight is useful however the problem is he is suggesting the British people are not capable enough of deciding our system and that American should push for regime change. Its rather offensive.
Also i have not heard anyone here say we have a perfect system, i certainly do not think that. There are many reforms that could be made to improve our democracy, for example i consider the House of Lords a far bigger drain on our democracy than the monarchy. Whilst the Queen may give her royal assent to all laws, its the house of lords that edit our laws and change legislation on a daily basis. I support abolishing the houes of lords and i think ud find far greater support for such a move than an attack on the monarchy. It would certainly be far more productive.
Martin G,
Who is the head of state of Grenada today? Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. So the American invasion helped secure Her Majestys position as Queen of Grenada? I guess it was a rather selective regime change that focused on the problem, which was not the constitutional monarchy.
Sorry but the two situations do not compare. The United States invading an independent country which just happens to have the Queen as their head of state, and they keep her as head of state.. compared to America getting involved in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom itself in an attempt to overthrow the monarchy.
Eclub,
LMAO i can think of nothing that would secure this country as a constitutional monarchy for centuries than the European Union telling us we must become a republic and address our democracy. Such a demand would be a smoking gun for immiedate withdrawl from the European Union and all European human rights legislation and courts.
I am a big supporter of the European Union, unlike many people of Britain. I would support withdrawl if they pushed for us to remove the monarchy, but it would not happen. Many EU countries are monarchies and we will have the votes to block such a move if it happened.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
One other thing, this idea Republicans had no rights until the human rights act is a gross misunderstanding of our system. People have had the right to oppose the monarchy long before the human rights act passed and it was a British government act.
An awful one though which in about a years time will hopefully be repealed fully or atleast partly
December 1st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“An awful one though which in about a years time will hopefully be repealed fully or atleast partly” – Simon
I take that to mean you want it repealed to quash the republican movement, and perhaps other movements as well, right? Why else do you want the HRA repealed?
December 1st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
I SAID ABOUT SIMON – “He will not contemplate any change that might threaten his queen”
SIMON SAID IN RESPONSE – “Indeed, she is my Queen and i remain loyal to her. ”
Well there you go. I was right.
SIMON SAID – “I have given many reasons why i support the continuation of the monarchy, i am sorry people just ignore them or disagree with them but i have clearly stated my reasons on many occasions.”
You have given no reasons other than those covered in my summary of them. You love the queen, she can do no wrong in your eyes, there is no need for change, it’s cheap at the price, everything must revolve around maintaining the feudal system of monarchy and if that excludes any meaningful democratic reform then that’s OK with you. You’re in favour of tinkering around the edges which would be an absolute disaster for this country in my opinion, for instance, you said the recall of MPs was one of the measures we could take to reform parliament. That would be a surrender to populism in my view. You’ve also said you would like to see the HOL abolished or reformed. Whilst I agree there must be reform of the HOL I find it amazing that on the one hand you can see that there is a problem having an unelected legislature, but on the other hand you see no problem with us having no constitution to speak of and an unelected, ineffectual and hereditary Head of State who has no democratic mandate and is therefore unable to safeguard the constitution that isn’t a constitution.
SIMON ALSO SAID – “There is a sort of unspoken rule in the western world that we unite in our condemnation of other countries democracies in the developing world when their system is in need of change but we stay out of each others internal affairs. That i suppose could be seen as a double standard or western arrogance, but it works rather well for all concerned.”
Arrogant, smug, complacent. You may live in a 19thcentury time warp Simon, but I do not.
I SAID ABOUT SIMON – “He is happy to live in an elective dictatorship as long as it keeps his beloved and her family on their collective pedestals.
SIMON SAID IN RESPONSE – “I am ecstatic”
Arrogant, smug, complacent.
My first impression of you was correct. You are a troll and I’m not wasting any more time communicating with a troll. Best of luck though with your Scottish independence issue. There will surely be an independent Scotland in record time should you annoy the Scots as you annoy everyone else with your smug and crass comments.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Eclub, i dont want to go seriously off topic i have mentioned my opposition to the HRA before and it is in no way related to the republican issue. The trouble with the HRA is it allows British judges to decide if they think something may not comply with the European Conventions on Human rights. This is very open to someones own point of view and sadly we have a lot of left wing judges in this country. They make a ruling and it has radical instant implications for this country. I showed one example the other week, not a very serious one and something i do not actually have feelings against but the British government being undermined in such a way by the courts does concern me and the human rights act gives these judges a blank cheque.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8237886.stm
Her Majesty’s Prison Service and Her Majesty’s Government wanted a transexual prisoner to remain in a male prison. The case went to court, the judge ruled..
That judges ruling results in a change in policy, i thought we were all supporters of democracy here.. such change in policy should be decided by the government of the day not a judge. Its that sort of thing that really bothers me about the HRA although this is just one recent example there are annoying rulings which are a joke and have bigger implications. Republicans in the USA have a huge problem with this sort of thing, they call it “legislating from the bench” and it drives them nuts.
Repealing the human rights act would not stop us being subject to European convention rules. The difference would be such people would have to take their case to the European courts and when the court rules there is no instant change either way. Our government lost a case many months ago about holding DNA of innocent people. The government took months to decide what action it was going to take, it didnt have to go and delete all the files right away because of that European court ruling.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I believe Simon has heard, as have I, that David Cameron has said when (if) he gains power next year, one of his first acts will be to repeal the HRA. This is a horrifying prospect. (Partly I don’t think DC understands the implications). I think the C19 Treason Act is still in force but judges here have ruled that it is inoperative while we are granted freedom of speech by the HRA. Otherwise all republicans would be subject to the penalties for Treason; that used to be the only offence for which hanging was still invoked I think. eclub is quite right to think the HRA gives us rights which we haven’t had before, but most people just parrot the thought of course we have rights such as freedom of speech without realising that we haven’t.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:11 pm
@ Simon
“So the American invasion helped secure Her Majestys position as Queen of Grenada?”
Yes, despite the fact that a United Nations Security Council vote to codemn the invasion was vetoed only by the United States (presumably the United Kingdom voted against our American allies and voted in favour of the resolution), the UN General Assembly also voted against the invasion by a huge majority (122 to 9 with 27 abstentions) and the quality of life deterioriated for most Grenadans after the invasion.
Even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher wrote a strong letter to President Ronald Regan condemning the attack and insisting that the US cancel landings on Grenada.
In other words, by invading Grenada, the Americans restored the Queen as head of state despite overwhelming outrage and deep concern expressed by most of the rest of the World.
See:-
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25966.html
and others
December 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Bob,
I have always said i am a huge supporter of the Queen and i have no problem being a loyal subject of Her Majesty. I do not want to see anything done that would undermine her or her position. There is a case that full freedom of information access to private papers between the Queen and her Prime Minister would undermine our constitutional setup. The EDM we are talking about is not only seeking to block the blanket ban proposed by the government but also to remove the royal household exemption which currently applies that could be dangerous.
Lmao, no i have given some very serious and clear reasons why i support the continuation of the monarchy and oppose becoming a republic. I will relist some of them some time if you want, but not on this thread to avoid going way off topic.
Lmao ohhh so reforms id like to see is just a surrender to populism not an attempt to improve democracy by giving the people more power over their MPs who can do what they like after being elected until the next election.
Sorry but i view the house of lords which alters our legislation in the open on a daily basis far more of a drain on democracy than the possibility certain members of the royal family are seeking to influence change in legislation by putting pressure on government ministers. We have one unelected head of state and her family compared to a house of lords full of political appointed cronies. The Queen stays out of politics, the lords does not.
On a written constitution, i have concerns that the creation of one would have radical implications on the future of this nation, the US constitution holds america back today in certain area despite it being written 100s of years ago. I want to avoid such dangers and i would not trust the current bunch to make a constitution, i imagine all sorts of crap on climate change. they will boast its the first “green constitution”, the thought makes me sick. On the fact the Queen is unelected we have elected MPs who can remove the monarchy if its what the people want. Many republics have Presidents the people do not directly elect and the divisions are far more clear, theres no consensus like there is here (with the exception of the greens who have no MPs). Ive also said i would not be against the idea that following the death of each monarch we hold a referendum to support the continuation of the monarchy, that would in effect be the British people electing their head of state for life but the monarchy has such huge support its not really needed at this point and the Queen will live a couple more decades anyway.
I am describing western policy, i said some would see it as western arrogance but its an important rule which is not often broken.
Your comments were taken as a joke so i simply replied with my own sense of humour.
I am not a troll, whilst i do respond with my own sense of humour i do address seriously comments and points put to me and state my opinion.
I know how to handle our separatist friends, they are easily weakened in debate. Such conversations are far more serious and they do not take place in a friendly environment like we see here. I do not hate republicans despite strongly disagreeing with their views. I cant honestly say i do not hate those who would destroy this country and taking them on is more like work than a hobby to me.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Jennifer,
The Human rights Act may have given a solid base for such human rights, but we all know republicans had rights before that came into force, when was the last time treason laws were used against republicans using non violence? Cameron has said that the HRA would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights so im sure it would cement rights to openly oppose the monarchy and you have nothing to worry about. As i said before my opposition to the HRA has nothing at all to do with my views on monarchy or republicans.
Martin G,
Isnt that wonderful? If thats the sort of regime change the Americans are going to start carrying out again you will hear no complaints from me. But it highlights the point i was making that the Grenada case is nothing like the sort of regime change Eclub was suggesting that the Americans should encourage regime change here to remove the monarchy, their track record appears to be the opposite
God bless America.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
@Simon
” 14. Simon Says:
December 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
And people think monarchists are arrogant. Eclubs arrogance and disturbing point of view that external powers should encourage a revolution in this country is very dangerous and certainly does not help Republics cause”.
One can not be a monarchist without a big pinch of arrogance. How does one declare oneself King without arrogance? How did the first person ever to become King get away without a bloody nose? I often wonder. In other to be a genuine King, it means you were not elected King. Which means you woke up one day and said to your fellow man, “Hey, I’m now your King!” Just how does one do that without arrogance? I wonder. I can only guess the declarers approach is either by the Sword, or a claim of deity. Both require unimaginable chutzpah, or balls larger that that of the size of the donkey. No, assume the world started today, how do you get the tamarity, the unmitigated gall, to declare yourself King over others without arrogance? So, Simon, yes, those who say monarchists are arrogant are correct in my view; I’ve never said, but I do subscribe to it. Try it this afternoon, walk up to anyone, your neighbour, your friend, your parents, your kids, your girlfriend or even your spouse, not to talk of a stranger, (although in my case, my spouse would be much more dangerous), and tell them you declare yourself their King, but say it in a meek or modest way. No, there’s no humble way to be a monarchist towards a republican.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Eclub, the people and state declare her Queen. She does not come along and say i am your Queen obey me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZkDulaNnT4
I have linked this video before but i dont know if you saw it. This is a video showing the moment the Kings death was announced and Elizabeth was declared Queen. Its a great moment in history to watch along with the coronation which was very grand.
This one shows more of the proclomation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2NEFkIrnmU
December 1st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Apologies for going slightly off-topic.
My understanding of populism – (I will stand corrected if anyone, [other than Simon], would enlighten me).
POPULISM – The reaction of the people against established power structure, and so therefore an appeal to that established power structure for some sort of justice.
The people should not have to appeal for justice, (their rights). Justice for the people should be enshrined in a written constitution and not be subject to the whim of politicians.
I recognize that perhaps populism could be a useful tool in drawing people into a debate, but surely, it could be dangerous if used as an accepted tool of government in preference to other measures like a written constitution. Wouldn’t populism used on its own as a tool of government end up ignoring the rights of minorities?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Bob,
Majority rules. Why should the majority suffer for the sake of a minority?
Whilst people may propose recalling MPs because of the expenses scandal it would be a good reform to allow such a thing to take place.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
@Bob Wiggin
You are not off-topic at all. You nailed it. To tie it in to the discussion above, the idea that David Cameron can come in to give or take power or rights to/from the people is putting democracy on its head. In a democracy, the people tell the politicians what their powers are. Not the other way around. A written constitution will solve that problem.
Experts on the British constitution often cite “conventions” and such as part and parcel of it, so why should opponents of the HRA try to separate it from the British constitution?
December 1st, 2009 at 9:58 pm
“Majority rules. Why should the majority suffer for the sake of a minority?”
If this is true (and using the US as an example, sorry Eclub), should the US have let coloured people drink from the same drinking fountains and ride on the same buses?
after all that was the majority opinion then decades ago
December 1st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
At the same time as creating other problems. The US has problems today because of its constitution which we can get into a debate on some other time if you want. Guns and money are two that come to mind. In many cases ofcourse it just depends on ones point of view of the constitution. In one year the court can rule something then 20 years later change its mind and think its unacceptable.
The HRA was badly introduced and has flaws, this has been highlighted by the fact the government and minister that introduced it 10 years ago have accepted there are problems and that it needs reforming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/08/human-rights-act-straw
Ohh whilst i was looking at that article i clicked a link and came across something i do feel very strongly about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/30/jack-straw-prisoners-vote
Sorry but there is no way prisoners in this country should have the right to vote. This is the sort of issue that “gets my blood boiling” as they say.
It is true that the European Court of Human Rights have made some good rulings which the government have followed, for example in 1999 it ruled that banning gays in the military was a violation of European conventions, the government accepted it and chaged the policy so now gays can openly serve in our armed forces and rightly so, whilst Obama still faces a huge battle to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell over in the USA.
That sort of thing is fair and reasonable, giving votes to criminals? That is taking human rights WAY too far and is not a policy i will ever be prepared to support or accept. But it highlights the problem with the HRA. The European court can make a ruling, it can do bugger all to enforce that ruling on this country so the government can simply choose to ignore it depending on the issue and public opinion. So in the case of the gays in the military, there was public support for such a change, huge opposition from within the military but the court ruling gave the government a reason to implement change. The HRA gives power to British judges who DO have authority within this country and can cause all sorts of chaos with their rulings. I hope a conservative government if it wins next year lives by its promise to scrap the HRA and introduce a Bill of Rights which ofcourse should grant full freedom to oppose the monarchy and other true human rights but draws a line and prevents stupid policy, it also should include some things about responsibility and could highlight when one violates a certain responsibility they lose certain rights (the right to vote) being one of them)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Ash
Well thats a clear issue of human rights where discrimination is unacceptable. The majority does not have a right to oppress a minority or treat them badly.
When i said majority rules i was talking about in elections. Of course it depends on where you draw the line though. Yesterday (or the day before) Switzerland voted to ban the building of a certain type of muslim structure, cant remember what it was called and dont have the time to look it up. Now some will view that as the oppression of a minority by the majority. I think such a vote is fine against religions which are a matter of choice. There is a huge difference between skin colour and religion when it comes to human rights, sadly some like to forget that.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
“Well thats a clear issue of human rights where discrimination is unacceptable. The majority does not have a right to oppress a minority or treat them badly.”
Well said, and I hope your sentiments extend to the opressive nature of trapping the Windsors and the lifes blighted by corrupt Crown immunity.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
There is nothing oppressive about the monarchy. Of course someone mentioned that the oath to the Queen may be a violation of peoples human rights, but again that sort of thing is not a human rights issue.
There are certain human rights which must always be protected. Theres other human rights that are thought up by liberals and imposed against the wish of the majority. That is why i hope a conservative government if it comes to power will be introducing a bill of rights to clearly define these rights and not leave it to the mercy of a British judge or the European Court. Id certainly rather the conservatives be creating one than labour or the liberal democrats! lol
December 1st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“There is nothing oppressive about the monarchy”
There’s nothing oppresive about Monarchy if you conviniently overlook the Compulsory nature of the Windsors having to serve as Heads of state and the complusory ideology of not being allowed to aspire to have a better Head.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@ Simon
“Majority rules. Why should the majority suffer for the sake of a minority?”
The words “mouth” and “foot” immediately spring to mind…..
Re Grenada invasion, of which you wholeheartedly approve – the UN General Assembly voted against the American invasion by a huge majority (122 to 9 with 27 abstentions)
You have more faces than the Westminster clock tower.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Martin:
You (Simon) have more faces than the Westminster clock tower.
What a wonderful day it will be when St Stephen’s Tower – containing Big Ben – truly does stand guard over the temple of democracy (as Churchill described Parliament), the seat of the people’s sovereignty.
For some reason I haven’t been able to post anything in the ‘Virtues of Monarchy’ thread, but I acknowledge your comments, and Liam’s, in re the “Windsors are immigrants” jokes. You’re absolutely right about Jack Ja being an excellent advertisement for republicanism.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Thanks for the note, Matt.
Couldn’t agree more!
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:16 am
Ash,
There is no compulsion on either side. The British people can decide they want to abolish the monarchy and have an elected head of state. Nobody is punished for being a republican. There is a case that the Royal Family are actually victims of the system of monarchy and they do take alot of strain always being in the media spot light, a slightest error being splashed across the front pages and condemned by Republic as another reason to scrap the monarchy. Im sure its hard for the Queens family when their actions are used to attack her or undermine her and her position. But ofcourse members of the royal family can walk away. They can withdraw from public life and never be seen or heard from again. Our Queen would never walk away though, many years ago she declared to the world she would serve her people her whole life and that is what she intends to do. I take pride in her strength and will to serve the people, i am sorry if others do not.
As for the bit about being able to aspire to be head of state like i say we can vote for that system if we want, although i do not think many if any do aspire to that position. Sure people will use not being able to obtain that position as an argument to attack the monarchy, but do people honestly want the job? I am not much of a betting man but i would bet every single person on this blog would rather be Prime Minister and run the country to bring about changes to the country and world wed love to see than to become a ceremonial president who takes a salute by the armed forces from time to time, issues awards to people, signs bills into law and cuts ribbons to open hospitals and schools. Maybe i am wrong.
Martin G,
No sorry, majority rules is one of the principles of democracy. Like with Switzerlands vote which is seen as an attack on islam by some.. thats the price you pay for direct democracy and if we had it in this country a ban on building muslim minarets is the last thing the left wingers in this country would have to worry about.
Direct democracy may sound like a wonderful thing, when you actually give the power to the people it can be rather dangerous.
I have little interest in the United Nations General Assembly. I care about the United Nations Security Council which actually has power
Matt,
Whilst at the moment you feel only a full scale revolution or “awakening” in this country can result in the change you want to see, do you really think thats the only way and that parliament cant clean up its act or improve?
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 am
“The British people can decide they want to abolish the monarchy and have an elected head of state.”
We have never been given a say on this.
“There is a case that the Royal Family are actually victims of the system of monarchy and they do take alot of strain always being in the media spot light, a slightest error being splashed across the front pages and condemned by Republic as another reason to scrap the monarchy.”
Who is to say that Republicians wouldn’t be just as critical of their President when they get Him or Her?
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 am
Ash,
Have we ever asked for a say? We have never voted for a party to give us a say on this. Sorry but when we vote for parties like Labour and the Conservatives who both support the monarchy are we shocked there has been no need for a referendum on the monarchy? Its exactly the same as the situation with Scotland and the separatists. They want a vote on independence, there is no reason for that referendum until the separatist MPs or MSPs are a majority then the people must have that referendum to give their view.
whilst in power they critical of a president and to a much lesser degree the presidents family who if they act out may cause problems for the president. But the royal family is watched for life, young and old their actions are monitored closely and when ever they act out or get into trouble it is splashed across the papers. It goes to show we do have a free press in this country when you see how many negative reports the media are prepared to run on the royal family.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 am
Simon:
Whilst at the moment you feel only a full-scale revolution or “awakening” in this country can result in the change you want to see, do you really think that’s the only way and that parliament can’t clean up its act or improve?
As long as our constitution remains uncodified, any reforms can be repealed by a sufficiently strong-willed PM at the click of a finger. Most people across the political spectrum would instantly dismiss the idea of giving their democratic consent to a constitution enshrining the Queen and her heirs and successors as head(s) of state, and I do believe that the corruption and degradation plaguing the country have grown so foul that a completely fresh start is required, which has to mean a break in continuity at the top of government and power being redistributed starting with the people. But let me reiterate that this would NOT mean having to repeal all or even most of our laws and reshape our whole system from scratch.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 am
You are absolutely spot-on Matt. Instead of shying away from the problem at the heart of our system we should be able to face it instead of tinkering around the edges. This is not about personalities and how wonderful, gracious, or otherwise the royal family are, it is about our system of government which, in my humble opinion, has been failing the people and will continue to do so unless we address ‘the elephant’ that is cavorting around the room.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
But Britain is on of the few countries in the world to not have a written constitution, most monarchies do have a constitutions and ofcourse a new constitution created in this country could have safeguards fit in on how the process of becoming a republic would be started and play out if needed. The problems with writting into the constitution now that about the monarchy is the line of succession. It would be hard to imagine today wed write into a constitution that we should discriminate against catholics and women to keep the current rules in place. We would have to get agreement from the other realms to end the discrimination or wait for the Queens death when most will become republics.
I happen to like the fact that one parliament can not bind another parlimanet allowing for anything to be undone. When we have a written constitution set in stone which is very difficult to change, we have big problems unless you start off with a perfect constitution. i Do not think we would have that our leaders are obsessed with things like climate change and may try to write something like that into it. I do not trust them i do not trust david cameron who i want to see become prime minister next year to be incharge of implementing a constitution for this country which will bind us for ever. I think there are more dangers in setting things in stone than proceeding with our current path, although there does need to be a clean up but id be worried about this country adopting a written constitution that has the sort of status as the American constitution does. I see why people want them, but there are risks especially with the current mob. How would we the people ensure it only includes what we want, government consultations are a joke. It all seems like a huge distraction from the big issues which are cleaning up parliament and the country which do not need radical changes to our constitution setup.
I would rather Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg tinker around the edges than write into law our constitutional setup for generations to come. We are not at the right stage yet to get a constitution this country would need for the future. tinkering is safer than radical reforms that have unforeseen consequences and people may live to regret.
When the first amendment was signed in the United States did they know that over 200 years later that amendment would be used to defend the huge amount of corruption that happens in the United States because they have a constitutional right to flood the radio and tv with political adverts paid for by corporations which results in political leaders begging to get money and when in power can lead to “rewards”. Here in the UK we do not have that sort of problem, financing of political parties is a pretty strick regime and advertising on television is very strickly regulated to ensure fairness.
Of course we already have such problems here because of the human rights act and European conventions on Human rights which act in the same sort of way.
December 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Simon, I believe the answer to your central question – how would we get a good constitution reflecting the will of the people – is obvious. The public could nominate candidates, through their MPs and local councils, to be part of the panel responsible for drawing up the constitution.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
And we can be sure that sort of method would be used? If a constitution was to be proposed it would more likely be drawn up behind closed doors, published and then a period of consultation which usually produces very little. If the conservatives win the next election (although judging by the pathetic performance of cameron today at question time im starting to have doubts) then im sure his planned “bill of rights” will have very little input from the people.
In Australia the government and some nominated by the people came together to try and decide on the sort of republic to introduce. And yet the outcome of that was a republic which many were unhappy with and divided republicans which resulted in a victory for the monarchy in the referendum.
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
But the proposed British Bill of Rights is just another piece of legislation. So with no constitution for it to be repugnant to, and the head of state having no mandate to veto or delay it if it is likely to be unpopular, of course it’ll have no input from the people. A written constitution would 100% have to be ratified in a referendum before it could be entrenched, but that needn’t be the limit of the people’s participation.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Hopefully there will be something of a “hung” parliament at the next election,which should give the Liberals a bit more say in things. Hopefully they will hold their nerve and stick to their guns about putting things right re taxation etc, ( making the greedy pay more ),and exposing royalty more. Nick Clegg is going in the right direction ,apparently.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 am
Simon
“Have we ever asked for a say? We have never voted for a party to give us a say on this. Sorry but when we vote for parties like Labour and the Conservatives who both support the monarchy are we shocked there has been no need for a referendum on the monarchy? Its exactly the same as the situation with Scotland and the separatists.”
I think it has been explained to you about a gazillion times why the Politicians are generally Pro Monarchy.
December 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Matt,
Scrapping the human rights act and introducing a bill of rights will be an important point and define rights and responsibilities in this country for some time. It would be a big deal i think and yet its probably already written and tucked in a draw somewhere in CCHQ or being written as they prepare for government and there will be little chance for the people to consult on it.
I agree a constitution would certainly need ratification by referendum, i just cant see the people having as much say over its contents as people here would like. The same is the general problem of becoming a republic, people here may think of a wonderful system of a republic that keeps the exective in line but such a thing would have to be introduced by the executive so i do not get why theyd want to impose the sort of open republic that limits their power. If they support the monarchy today because it enables the to have total power as some suggest then in a republic theyd want the same system. It seems in recent referendums in australia and the one the other day in St Vincents, they always go for unelected heads of state chosen by parliament.
I really do like the principle that no parliament can bind another parliament. I think that offers far more protection in the long term than a single written constitution which has unforseen implications.
barry,
Oh god no!, I would rather a strong labour victory than a weak conservative government being dictated to by the Lib Dems and the Scottish separatists. A hung parliament would be a huge disaster. Whats even more dangerous is the situation with the union. If it was a hung parliament, its very likely that a majority of Englands seats go to the conservatives and if its just Scottish seats that prevent a conservative government from forming it is going to put huge drain and pressure on the union. A hung parliament must be avoided at all costs.
Ash,
Their reasons for supporting the monarchy are debatable. In the case of the conservatives and labour it may be the case they support the monarchy because it allows government to have huge power. But if that is the only reason they support it i dont know why you have faith these people would create a good republic that holds them to account, theyd want a system that continues the deal just with a weak selected president by parliament as we see in some republics.
But i dont accept this is the reason for supporting the monarchy, because how do we explain the lib dems? They are never going to govern this country, so they have an interest in limiting power of the government not keeping the current setup. If 25% of the population are republicans and the lib dems got 22% of the vote in 2005 (some of that thanks to Iraq) surely it would be in their interests to oppose the monarchy? If they did oppose the monarchy every single person here would be voting lib dems and infact i think republic would break its current position of being apolitical and back the lib dems asking all their supporters to vote lib dem at the next election because the 3rd party in this country going rogue would put the monarchy at risk.
But they do not do that because it would create huge disputes within the party and some would switch sides the other way. Most people probably do not even know the Greens are republicans. If the Lib dems said they want to abolish the monarchy it would dominate the news cycle for days, reminds me of the big deal made when nick clegg going on tv saying the Queens speech should be scrapped.
But anyway the reasons they support the monarchy are not what i was talking about. The fact of the matter is we have never asked for a say on the monarchy so why should we be shocked we have not had one? The people are happy with the monarchy, there is certainly NO chance this country will become a republic whilst the Queen is alive. Following her death there may be more of a debate in this country about it, but that is a matter for then. At the moment people are happy. Polls show this to be the case, peoples voting intentions show this to be the case, lack of parliamentary support for a republic shows this to be the case. So why is there a need for a say? its exactly the same as the separatist issue in Scotland
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Simon:
Scrapping the human rights act and introducing a bill of rights will be an important point and define rights and responsibilities in this country for some time. It would be a big deal i think and yet its probably already written and tucked in a draw somewhere in CCHQ or being written as they prepare for government and there will be little chance for the people to consult on it.
Listen, I’m really sorry, I’m trying to stay calm and not have a go at you, but you’re still not getting the point. I’ll try and explain it another way.
Many people with a certain amount of constitutional and historical knowledge may argue that the drawing-up and ratification of a constitution for entrenchment would be a foolish waste of government time, money and energy, because Britain already has several constitutional documents which, between them, cover everything that a single written constitution would contain:
* Magna Carta
* The Act of Supremacy
* The Bill of Rights and Claim of Right (Scotland)
* The Act of Settlement
* The Act of Union
* The Great Reform Act
* The Parliament Acts
* The Representation of the Peoples Acts
* The Human Rights Act (possibly to be replaced by new BBR)
Do you not see the problem though, Simon? Magna Carta may be a bit of a grey area (as previous debates on here have shown), but every single one of those other documents is just an ordinary piece of legislation which could be repealed within a matter of weeks if Gordon Brown so wished. But what I’m getting at here is not the issue of (semi-)elective dictatorship by the PM, nor that of the Diceyian doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty within the life of any given parliament: the point is that in the type of republic I want to see, and in the sort which I believe Republic officially advocates, ordinary legislation would not be put to referendum like it often is in Switzerland (though I certainly believe the president should be able to put a bill to referendum if widely petitioned to do so); but the fundamental constitutional framework of the nation and rights of the people must ultimately be decided by the people, and are far too important to be subject to amendment on the whim of the government or even by a free parliamentary vote, which is why they cannot be limited to ordinary entries in the statute book and must therefore be entrenched.
If they [the Lib Dems] did oppose the monarchy every single person here would be voting lib dems and infact i think republic would break its current position of being apolitical and back the lib dems asking all their supporters to vote lib dem at the next election because the 3rd party in this country going rogue would put the monarchy at risk.
You’re definitely wrong about everyone on here voting Lib Dem in that event – I’m a Conservative till I die. I’m sure you’re also wrong about Republic going political.
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Matt,
I understand the point and i can see the reasons why a written constitution which government cant change on a whim would be very important and would be a big safeguard for our freedoms.
My concern is should the current bunch or potential future bunch be trusted to set in stone our constitution which will have radical implications for the future and is very difficult to change. Sure there is a risk that without a written constitution future government may undo vital bits of our constitutional setup which grants us freedoms but i think theres far bigger risks to creating potential problems which are hard to undo because we make mistakes in the constitution.
As i mentioned before, in the USA because of the first amendment political parties spend 10s of millions on advertising in a year including some very disturbing and misleading attack ads. They are allowed to make such attack ads because there is no serious regulation because that would be a violation of their first amendment rights and all of this means parties and candidates beg for tons of money from corporations, most of which gets spent on the media.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/10/us-election-will-cost-53-billi.html This site recons in total over $5 billion was spent in all the federal and presidential elections in 2008.
Just recently the mayor of New York spent 100 million in total on trying to win reelection. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/nyregion/28spending.html
The fact such money is spent on TV advertising is a direct result of the United States First Amendment, which ensures free speech. Is this really what Americas founding fathers had in mind 200+ years ago?
Same goes for the second amendment which ensures peoples right to firearms. Because of this text..
written over 200 years ago it is almost impossible for America to introduce gun control. Back then its clear there was a need for guns, they wanted to ensure state rights from an overpowering federal government but also foreign invaders like the nasty British. Today these two things are no justification for the same rules, a redneck with a shotgun cant take on the US military controlled by the President and whos going to try and invade the USA? So now its used just to defend peoples homes and from criminals. The fact guns are so easily available in the USA is clearly connected to the number of shooting incidents.
When a school shooting takes place in the USA which happens quite often one sides argues for better gun control, the other side says thats against our constitutional rights and think the only way forward is arming teachers. Its scary and instead of accepting change when change is needed, people are dictated to by a 200 year old constitution. The US right to bear arms was based on the part in the English bill of rights which granted English protestants to bear arms. Should we be unhappy that British governments are able to ignore that right when imposing tough gun controls throughout the UK? Law and order in this country is out of control, but when it comes to guns labour have not done such a bad job. There were just over 8100 firearm incidents in the year 2008/09, only 38 homocides with firearms in England and Wales. That is a pretty good record and imagine if many people had guns that would increase, in the USA theres around 10,000 firearm homocides. Even taking into acount population difference we have a damn good record.
And that record is become our parliamant clamps down on guns following shootings where as the USA cant because of its written constitution.
Ofcourse constitutions can be changed but the trouble is its very hard to change (Which is the whole point to prevent government meddling). Take australias republican referendum. Even if 60% of the people voted to become a republic because of the rules which require atleast 4 Australian states to agree to such a change it could still have resulted in no change.
I do not think we are at the stage where we can entrust such huge power to our government to make a written constitution. Better to improve democracy before we go down that path so we can be sure of a bigger voice in such a change and we get it right.
So like in the Human rights Act which has had radical implications in this country. If mistakes are made its easily changed or scrapped. The principle that no parliament can bind another i think is a good safeguard.
On the vote, it is a case of priorities. There is much that needs doing urgently, far more urgently than constitution change. But if you vote conservative you must know that the sort of change you seek is not going to come about in their period of government.
December 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Simon:
With regards to amending an entrenched constitution, I believe the simplest and fairest solution is for any proposed amendment to be put to binding referendum (which needn’t be such an uphill struggle if the republic isn’t federal), and for a system of independent panels and public nomination committees to be established to propose amendments. But I certainly wouldn’t trust the current government to oversee such a project, and that brings me neatly on to your point about voting in elections. Yes it is true that the Conservatives have no plans to launch any moves towards a republic (albeit also true that they are the party most likely to secure the future of the union, which to me is more important than a republic); but out of all the major parties they are the one most committed to decentralising power, reinvigorating grass-roots democracy and creating a culture of responsibility, and to doing everything possible to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, all of which can only be of benefit to awakening the masses from their slumber and helping to lay the groundwork for a republic. Even if that’s not their ultimate intention, creating such conditions will be the best thing they can possibly do for the long-term cause of cleaning up the mess created by years of liberal authoritarianism – because ultimately only the will of the British people united with one voice can accomplish that goal.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Dear Simon, Thank you. My reasons for wanting more Liberal Democratic inflence, ( not dictatorship ), is that they seem to be developing some more socialist policies , which I am in favour of. Clegg seems to be bringing out more socialist ideas than a lot of the Labour politicians. I even believe that Cameron has some “socialist” type policies around somewhere .I would like to see more socialist input in our society. I do not mean communism,or extremist views. I believe that some areas of our society,( such as the railways), should be nationalized, for example. I believe that in many ways our society can be a fairer society, such as vis-a- vis Taxation, ( not necessarily a soft or too liberal a society——–I believe in compulsory national service and work “camps” for unemployed people, draconian educational changes and more discipline with Punishment, for example). Our society is truly diseased and decadent, there is no doubt about that. We are rather like Ancient Rome, but with more technology !.I think we can even take a good leaf or two out of the basic Muslim philosophy with regard to this. Obviously I do not like any type of Muslim fanaticism. We have a new internal “Battle of Britain”, and perhaps we need a coalition to deal with the “Mess” we are in ,as a national emergency. In many ways my views are eclectic, as a socialist. I do not believe that socialism is out of date or unworkable. My view is that socialist feelings and beliefs are actually instinctive as a form of basic morality inside us, and if it is not apparent, then it can be “brought out ” by education. This instinct is present irrespective of religious beliefs, although Christianity ,for example ,does have” socialism “as its major tenet.
December 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Evening Barry
I’m more than a tad intrigued: which of David Cameron’s policies would you describe as socialist?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
@ Simon
I’m sorry that I dip in and out and don’t often have the time to argue point by point. US politics and US media have always worked in the way that you describe and americans are very used to issues being presented in very extreme ways. Equally US stations will carry pseudoscientific documentaries paid for by christian organizations making the most outlandish claims (ie; to have found Noah’s ark etc etc). The main national print media generally work to a much higher standard than our own (more like the level of the economist) and the real debate starts to get intelligent when you turn off the telly. Also americans expect a much higher degree of democracy than we do (although I think commercial lobbying is probably more of a problem). To be honest I have found the average american to be much more publically engaged and interested than the average brit (who wonders what the point of doing something positive is cos it will never change)
@ Matt
Nice summary of the conservative manifesto there – but hang on didn’t labour say all of this in 1997 ?
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
@ Matt and Simon
Republic members are pro improving democracy not pro any particular party. I used to vote Lib Dem for local reasons (they are big on the isle of wight – yep I see the irony). Then I voted Labour now Green although I am not a green activist. My grandfather was a conservative county councillor, my mum voted Conservative my dad would have voted for a camel with a moustache if it was the Labour candidate.
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Tim:
Nice summary of the Conservative manifesto there – but hang on didn’t Labour say all of this in 1997?
Yes they did, but they never meant any of it, what they’ve done is the exact opposite in every respect. They wanted people to think that they were a credible party of the centre, but in terms of state interference in the private lives of individuals they are the most socialist government we’ve ever had. I am a Conservative because I do believe in the power of the individual over that of the state, and I believe that social responsibility begins with individual responsibility. So although I have stated repeatedly that Cameron & co will not be able to undo the damage that Labour have done without the active participation of an awakened people, which is one of the reasons I’m now a republican, you can rest assured that when a Conservative government says they want to do all those things, they do genuinely want to, because that manifesto is simply a 21st Century take on what conservatism’s always been about.
Republic members are pro improving democracy not pro any particular party.
Well obviously I as an individual am staunchly pro-Conservative, while some other people on here have stated which party they support. But if I thought that Republic itself was officially in favour of the Lib Dems or any Left-wing party, I wouldn’t have joined! I hope I haven’t said anything since my conversion which may be seen to suggest that I am not all for improving democracy.
My Republic membership card now sits proudly in my wallet alongside my Tory and Toon ones. What a combination!
December 3rd, 2009 at 8:45 pm
@Matt Showering
“My Republic membership card now sits proudly in my wallet alongside my Tory and Toon ones. What a combination!”
Republic couldn’t have landed a better catch! You are a plus to this campaign. Your thoughtfulness, eloquence, patriotism, and dedication will soon manifest the republican spirit amongst men/women of good will. I applaud you.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Thank you very much, eclub. Your kind words are appreciated tremendously.
While on the subject of party loyalties, would you mind if I asked whether you tend to lean towards the Republicans or the Democrats?
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Hello Matt,
I have had the general feeling that David Cameron has been more sympathetic to “Socialist type policies” than for example “Maggie”, and others, although he rightly condemns a lot of New Labour policies. For example,in some of his speeches he has mentioned the value of the Minimum Wage ,raising the value of the state pension,Taxation matters which would help the less well off and perhaps tax the very wealthy more, tolerance over gay rights, and generally improve on equality. Also ,Letwin,on behalf of the party, has apparently augmented this by stating that the restribution of assets,( money), is in order. Some think that this will mean higher taxation of the very wealthy. I get the feeling that Cameron is socially “aware” of problems. He certainly has a sympathetic approach. Of course,promulgation of all this, and actually delivering the goods are two different things !
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Hi Matt,
eclub is not an individual, it’s made up of different writers for the advancement of liberty & democracy. So far, four people have contributed as eclub at the Republic. Myself in particular, I am a Libertarian, and supported a little known candidate (relatively speaking)
called Dr. Ron Paul, who is a Republican, and ran in the Republican Primaries. He is more a Libertarian than a Republican. I supported him in 1988 as a Presidential Candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmsu8MoBi_c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Sorry Matt, I forgot to mention that Cameron states that he is very pro the NHS !
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Thanks Barry.
Re Cameron’s support for the minimum wage, I think this is because he recognises the importance of a level playing field in a free market. I find it rather annoying when old-fashioned Tories who are religious Thatcherites (like Simon Heffer) say that the moment a Conservative government starts meddling in the market it ceases to be truly Conservative: for although in this instance we are talking about a reform which was introduced by Labour and will be maintained by the Tories, the Heffer crowd are fooling nobody but themselves if they believe that the economy can recover from the damage done by Labour without any governmental input. What Cameron needs to do is essentially what Thatcher had to do 30 years ago: create favourable conditions for a free market to flourish, and once those conditions are in place, then the government can sit back and let the market forces run their course, albeit now with tighter regulation to try & prevent a repeat of the global economic meltdown, and with more emphasis on the level playing field. [I should also clarify that I do have tremendous respect for Thatcher.]
Re increased taxes for the super-rich, I’m convinced that the continuation of the 50p band is only a short-term measure to ease the fiscal deficit – and that once conditions improve it will return to 45p. You may disagree with me on this, Barry, but I do believe that the 50p band will be a tax on wealth creation and thus a drain on the economy if it continues long-term. I think Cameron’s got that one spot-on.
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Holy c**p – have I been living in a cave for the past x number of months, or did everyone else bar Graham & James also think eclub was one individual person?! This is sensational!
December 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
It is indeed an interesting development.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
@ matt eeeek-clubs etc
yes this development is more interesting than a bag full of puppies – will you all continue to contribute – perhaps with an individual designation – eclub 1 … 2 etc ?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
@Tim Sharp
Very neat idea, Tim, yes. I’ve contributed more than most. I will suggest to my colleagues to register with numeric designations, 1, 2….and I’ll remain eclub.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:17 pm
So, original eclub, are you the one who devoted many hours to trying to convert me to republicanism back around May/June, and then almost fell off your chair when you saw that I had converted about a month ago?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Eclub
Are all of your “colleagues” also Americans? Considering some of the past comments made by Eclub users it is becoming even more alarming.
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
It just crossed my mind today why you were called “eclub”. (Why is it though)?!
Do you reckon “Jack Ja” is a collection of Windsor Palace staff all trying to infiltrate us?!
God knows who Simon is…
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Damn, this is crazy sh*t!
Liam, I was in hysterics when I read your remark about Simon. In all honesty, though, I’m sure he’s just one person – all the posts made under his name are quite consistent, unlike eclub, some of whose members believe that we’ll all get blasted away by tanks in Trafalgar Square, others don’t. As for Jack Ja, I wouldn’t completely rule it out…
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
So what exactly is this little group then eclub and why do you all post on here (not that I’m necessarily complaining, mind I do think you can be a tad paranoid at times – no offence intended).
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
@Matt Showering:
“So, original eclub, are you the one who devoted many hours to trying to convert me to republicanism back around May/June, and then almost fell off your chair when you saw that I had converted about a month ago?”
I know for sure that I’m one of those that almost fell off the chair when you converted, Matt!
@Simon:
‘Are all of your “colleagues” also Americans? Considering some of the past comments made by Eclub users it is becoming even more alarming’.
Alarming? How so? Are there things Americans are supposed to have freedom to say, and non-Americans are not at liberty to fathom?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:57 pm
@Liam,
I’ve read most posts on this website for a few months now, and can say that the arguments thus far have been centered on republic versus monarchy.
Paranoid? explain…
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
@ Matt etc
Simon I think is Simon. Jack Ja etc is unlikely to work at the palace as I am sure that would be excellent recruitment territory (those who are not infiltrated journalists, comedians, tupperware salesman or people who wanna rap with lizbet etc). I have evidence that you are Matt and Liam is Liam and everyone else is who they should be. Personally I like the presence of USA folk on the blog – they say sensible things like ‘Americans wouldn’t tolerate a monarchy’ – I find the third party point of view very helpful – eclub(s) have always been very open about their americanity whereas a couple of anglophiles (I use the term in the bad way) have wilfully hidden the fact in order to appear as domestic monarchists which is very naughty indeed. Glad to hear we are all practising what we are preaching with respect to FOI
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
I was concerned in the first place about an American attempting to influence the constitutional setup of the United Kingdom and encourage some form of revolution, even if it was a non violent one. Then the suggestions that foreign countries would be needed to bring about regime change in this country.
Now it turns out you are a group of 4 people, you use the term “colleagues” which was rather troubling. It comes across as some form of plot. Whilst the people of this country have the right to oppose the monarchy and seek change, i can not understate just how important it is that this matter is decided by the British people alone with out any foreign intervention. I already have concerns about some of the donations this organisation is getting from overseas, i guess thats one reason why it may not want to become a political party which have stricter rules and regulations on such things.
I am sorry but i do have a big problem with non British citizens who have no loaylty to this country seeking to undermine our constitutional setup by attempting to convert British citizens into supporting a republic. Republicanism is seen by some as rather foreign, the fact foreigners are assisting the campaign will not reduce that potential concern.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
“I am sorry but i do have a big problem with non British citizens who have no loaylty to this country seeking to undermine our constitutional setup by attempting to convert British citizens into supporting a republic. Republicanism is seen by some as rather foreign, the fact foreigners are assisting the campaign will not reduce that potential concern.”
On the contrary, being represented by unelected people is predominantly a foreign concept. The principle itself is Unbritish which is why most Brits do want a say in how we are governed. The principles of Equality, Democracy and Freedom are the principles of Britishness that I and most seek, which is why we must lose as a nation our weird fetish of Monarchism and gain the courage to build a better Democracy for a brighter future.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
@Simon
“I am sorry but i do have a big problem with non British citizens who have no loaylty to this country seeking to undermine our constitutional setup by attempting to convert British citizens into supporting a republic. Republicanism is seen by some as rather foreign, the fact foreigners are assisting the campaign will not reduce that potential concern.”
You are not making any sense Simon. Non British Citizens can not oppose a monarchy? Says who? First of all, the British monarch is head of state to over 15 countries. That alone destroys your argument. A Canadian, Australian, A new Zealander, a Jamaican, and indeed citizens from the commonwealth can challenge the legitimacy of the British monarch. I am arguing that any freedom loving person can contribute to a debate that involves monarchy vs. republic.
The only reason the word “republic” appears foreign to you is because you are corelating it to the Northern Ireland issue, and that is rather shallow of you. I don’t associate the word ‘republic’ with that issue. Republic has been around before the dispute in N.Ireland; you buy into propanganda and you dispense propaganda. The internet is a place for sharing areas, similar to a University, it’s not a place for you to claim how Americans should talk, and how British should talk. This is the internet, if you want to be insular, then you open an intranet. The internet is not for one country or the other to mind their own business. That is too shallow, Simon.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Come on Simon, your remark about Republic’s donations, overseas interests and not becoming a political party etc. is paranoid nonsense. However, I do believe we all deserve an explanation as to what one eclub member meant when he/she said a few days ago “I’m British as well.” Did they mean they’re half-British, or indeed a British expat in America?
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
The eclubs in their various versions have always been pro-democracy. I totally agree with Ash the weird doublethink of politicians on one hand trumpeting democractic ideals whilst hiding away the monarchy (which we pay for) and redacting expenses is the sinister bit of the story. Oh and using anti terrorism laws to restrict the freedom of the people to express themselves – that is the shocking and dangerous side of our current situation.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@Simon,
Before you continue with your amateur propaganda, remember I have made more disclosure of myself than you. I am better known than you. Do we know who or what Simon stands for? Who are you?? Tell us more about yourself.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Ash,
Well we all have our definition of Britishness i guess but the monarchy has been a central part of our constitution setup since the founding of the United Kingdom and for centuries before in England and Scotland.
Of course Brits want a say in how we are governed, we have a parliament for that, what some describe as the mother of all parliaments although i accept it fails to live up to such a name these days.
Eclub,
I never said you cant oppose the monarchy, i said i do not like the idea of foreign citizens taking an active role in seeking to alter our constitutional setup and that this matter should be for the British people. In a way yes there is a shared interest within the commonwealth realms, and involvement from citizens of those countries is less of a concern than someone already from a republic but even in those cases their own countries system is for them to decide. Ive said i have no problem and actually expect Australia, Canada and many of the other realms to become republics following the Queen’s death.. but that will be their choice.
As i said before anyone can debate these matters, as an American living in a republic such insights is useful but i still see that as rather different to actively seeking to convert British citizens and turn them against their Queen.
Matt,
Yes i am rather paranoid on these matters and the bit about overseas donations was only because i saw a comment on the list by someone from the Republic of Iceland lol. But i do think the basic principle that only British citizens should be the ones to determine our constitutional settlement, Eclub in the past has talked of actual foreign involvement and pressure such as the USA to seek bringing about regime change here.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Eclub,
You have just after how many months of posting on this site declared yourself as 4 people. I do not know how long you had been posting here before you declared your self as an American.
If people have only just found out you are 4 people that is rather questionable.
Simon is my name and i am one person. I am a British citizen that supports the monarchy but in no way works for any government or the monarchy itself. I am rather conservative and very opinionated. There, you now know more about me than we know about you
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
@Simon
“I never said you cant oppose the monarchy, i said i do not like the idea of foreign citizens taking an active role in seeking to alter our constitutional setup and that this matter should be for the British people. In a way yes there is a shared interest within the commonwealth realms, and involvement from citizens of those countries is less of a concern than someone already from a republic but even in those cases their own countries system is for them to decide.”
If you never said I can’t oppose the monarchy, then, we are back to square one, because, that is all I’ve been doing. I have even debated Graham on the issue of the constitutional set-up, where I took the position that any constitution that is not written, is not worth the paper it’s written on, and he took the opposite position. That’s what debates are for. You can’t grant me freedom to oppose the monarchy, and turn around and limit my arguments, sir.
I know the line not to cross. That is why, I never comment on internal affairs such as the Parliament Scandal of last summer/fall. I never discuss matters outside the main debate of republic versus monarchy; I never get involved in personalities, such as the royal family per se, just the offices and the institutions involved. I challenge you to check all the responses made by eclub. They have been intellectual discourses on republic versus monarchy, and occassional chastisement of moderation policy-violating monarchists.
” If people have only just found out you are 4 people that is rather questionable.”
There are way more than 4, I said only four have have posted here; we number in the thousands, thousands of freedom loving columnists, and writers. Accredited.
I also disclosed that I live in Beverly Hills, California. I believe Graham has ability to trace my IP, and I give him permission to do so and confirm here in public. There, I’ve disclosed more than you. Match mine, and I’ll do more disclosure.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
I personally would welcome any help we can get from our oldest allies.
They do in a way have a vested interest in how the UK shapes up as most on both sides of the pond share the same goals and ideals in how we together try to encourage other nations to adopt our values.
It is in the US’s best interests that the UK has the best Democracy.
Tim,
I’ll return the compliment by stating I completly agree with your sentiments that our Freedoms have been reduced with Anti-terror legislation.
This wouldn’t (obviously) happen if the people were the soveriegnty.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
@Simon
“You have just after how many months of posting on this site declared yourself as 4 people. I do not know how long you had been posting here before you declared your self as an American”.
I did not disclose myself as four people; we get emails sent by Republic as a response to a post, someone in the office responds to comments made of blogs.
The first time someone asked where i was from, I answered correctly, giving my City and State, and Country, gratuitously!
We are about 9 hours apart, so most posts in the day time, I handle personally. Some night time responses come from others interested in the debate, and they use the eclub name to respond. Someone suggested we should make it eclub1, eclubd2, eclub3 and so forth, and I agree that is a great idea.
Today, Matt asked me about my political leaning in the US, and I answered in a way to address the issue, because other posters may not be Libertarians. You did not know much about me for one reason, I have been too focused on the issue of the threads, obeying the moderation policies, not an act of deception. I hope that is clear. Eclub is not an organisation, just writers giving opinions on democratic choices. It’s not a campaign, or political activism.
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“There are way more than 4, I said only four have have posted here; we number in the thousands, thousands of freedom loving columnists, and writers. Accredited.”
OMG it gets BETTER everytime you read it!!!!
Can i join the Eclub?
December 4th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@Ash Walsh
Thanks Ash! We’d luv to have you. I guess we should get clearance first from Simon, I don’t know if he’d permit a Brit outside his country.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Alright then eclub.
Now I’ve recovered from the shock of learning that more than one person has posted under that name, I must say it comes as no surprise that you’re all journalists, because the quality of writing from eclub bloggers here has been consistently superb. I myself have had some limited success as a freelance writer, though sadly my latest published article is a piece on constitutional reform written before I saw the light and converted to republicanism. Well well, maybe Graham and James will let me write a piece on conservative republicanism for ‘Imagine’ at some point down the line.
It is purely out of curiosity that I ask if you or one of your three friends is half British or a British expat, owing to that comment along the lines of “I’m British as well.”
Cheers,
Matt
December 4th, 2009 at 12:22 am
@ Matt Showering
“It is purely out of curiosity that I ask if you or one of your three friends is half British or a British expat, owing to that comment along the lines of “I’m British as well.”
I’m sorry Matt, I did mean to answer that earlier, YES, two of the bloggers are English.
I want to read your piece on the constitutional reform. I saw some of your suggestions earlier on the peerage etc. Interesting stuff. I stay away from actual drafting or suggestions on the constitution itself.
[Henceforth, the bloggers will use separate handles, a deviation from eclub].
December 4th, 2009 at 12:27 am
“Thanks Ash! We’d luv to have you. I guess we should get clearance first from Simon, I don’t know if he’d permit a Brit outside his country.”
Nice one. Just out of curiousity, does the E in Eclub stand for Electronic (as in Electronic mail) or something else?
Is this link creditied to you guys?
http://campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/240804/eclubdigest240804.htm
December 4th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Hi again Ash,
It’s impossible to determine blogs written by eclub, unless I know for a fact, so I couldn’t answer definitely on that one, but it doesn’t appear to be so.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:59 am
The ideas I mentioned earlier concerning the peerage are quite different to those I proposed in my article. Still, it’s quite a good journal to have on my CV, published by a prestigious Conservative think-tank founded in the 50s by Geoffrey (now Lord) Howe. But I’m still waiting for my copy and the PDF isn’t yet available on the website, so watch this space.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:09 am
“The ideas I mentioned earlier concerning the peerage are quite different to those I proposed in my article. Still, it’s quite a good journal to have on my CV, published by a prestigious Conservative think-tank founded in the 50s by Geoffrey (now Lord) Howe. But I’m still waiting for my copy and the PDF isn’t yet available on the website, so watch this space.”
Good luck Matt.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Thanks Ash. In hindsight, means to an end.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I’ve just read the news, and what news, Elcub represents possibly thousands of Americans, absolutely bl**dy fantastic. It gives new meaning to that phrase ‘we are not alone’.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I can go to work this afternoon happy. Thank you from the bottom of my heart Eclub1,2,3,4,5,6……….etc.
December 4th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I am glad everyone seems to think its wonderful that “thousands of Americans,” are attempting to overthrow the British monarchy and encourage a change in our constitution.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Simon
“I am glad everyone seems to think its wonderful that “thousands of Americans,” are attempting to overthrow the British monarchy and encourage a change in our constitution.”
You could always try to encourage the US to convert to Feudalism.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Concerning the identity of subscribers to this blog ,but I say this with ,hopefully, a “dash ” of humour, : Do not be unaware of the fact that sometimes a rare psychological condition exists called “Multiple Personality “, whereby the sufferer, for various developmental reasons, exhibits the behaviour and attitudes of distinctly different personalities. Perhaps this has happened to a few of our blogsters !
Dear Matt, Good Evening, ( sounds a bit like Alfred Hitchcock ! ),
Thank you for your thoughts about one of my above posts, re the policies of David Cameron. I thought these were interesting remarks. Concerning the issue of taxation of the wealthy/super rich etc, I cannot see why any kind of higher tax band could be a tax on wealth creation ,and bad for our economy. I believe that wealth creation is a many headed animal, and that a very large number of our citizens are involved in it in one way or another, not the just the few who benefit most from, it. Also a lot of people are employed in various services which allow the wealth creators to create wealth smoothly. Therefore we all have value, and no citizen should profit excessively. To my mind, the current overpayment of various “City” people/bankers etc is wrong. I have, I believe a strong sense of social justice, and my type of socialism is one that believes that no body needs “millions” or “billions”. Fair taxation of this excess would be a valuable contribution to a number of aspects of our society, for example the establishment of work rehabilitation centres. To my mind this excessive wealth is un-acceptable extremism, and just as damaging to society as the presence of a divisive and excessively wealthy monarchy. As Dennis Skinner, ( The Beast of Bolsover ), once said in the House, during the recession of the 80s,—-” Some people are living off the Fat of the Land “. I see such extremes as being a negative social factor, which is partly responsible for example, for a lot of Crime , Social Breakdown and Illness, to mention a few things. Money is not everything, but everyone needs some of it. There are ,of course ,more extremes of poverty and wealth , or just poverty,in some other countries. However ,concerning our own country, I welcome any sincere policy which aims to redistribute assets and wealth, to any degree. I know this can be seen as a form of Idealism, but I would ask ” Why not ?”. I believe that people with an excess of wealth would/should be able to accept the fact that their situation is not fair ,and that their higher taxation is better for us all ,especially in times of Recession. No one needs an excess of lifestyle. We are all potentially able to suffer from selfishness and greed,( it is basically a part of our human condition),and I have felt it myself in the past, especially when younger . A lot of this is a matter of political philosophy, and I think that attitudes to selfishness, materialism and greed can change. Why should the “Wealth Motive ” be the driving force in a society ? What about the values of Vocation and Altruism? Therefore, I welcome any taxation suggestion/policy which would establish a fairer balance of our society, whoever it comes from.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Evening Barry
Don’t get me wrong re bankers: they have been bailed out by the taxpayer and therefore their bonuses most certainly should be curbed by the government. There is nothing socialist about that, and there’s nothing conservative about nationalising losses but privatising profits!
But I do fear that higher taxes for the wealthy in the longer term will just drive more and more wealth creators offshore. I’m not an economic expert, but everyone knows that an entrepreneur with an eye for the big buck will not blink at taking his interests abroad if he objects to the tax regime in his beloved homeland. That may be a greedy attitude, but we can’t start restricting freedom of movement in the economy! I believe that social liberalism is much more to blame for the ills of our society than economic liberalism, though the latter obviously shouldn’t have been allowed to get out of control to the point where the national and global economy was on the verge of all-out collapse.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Dear Matt, Thanks. That was a quick reply.! For some reason I am “blog addicted ” tonight. I seem to have more time for evening blogs at present. Yes, OK ,I understand what you mean. However,I think that ideally we must not be too happy about allowing greed to run rampant. You see, I feel that unrestricted movement in the economy could mean allowing anything to develop ,as long as it is profitable. If greed ,i.e. the making of a quick buck ,is paramount ,then it should be properly taxed. Otherwise it is not fair to our citizens. If the spoils of Capitalism were shared we would be a happier and fairer society. If the profiteers don’t like it, then they can try elsewhere. A lot of our home grown wealthy have been avoiding fair taxes for ages, by having things kept in tax havens. At the same time, some of them wanted to be kept as British citizens and have honours bestowed upon them, such as Sir this or Lady/Dame that. Completetly wrong in my book. There must be other ways we can make a dollar or two. I do not think our country should be a repository for greedy entrepreneurism. This is an interesting discussion,and has many ramifications. It would be valuable, I think ,to analyse exactly who are the wealth producers, what they do etc. Basically, however , I am all for taxing properly the excessively wealthy, for the good of us all.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Barry, I think we’re probably going a little off-topic here! But let me clarify that I partially agree there are dangers involved in completely unrestricted movement, and I certainly agree that the tax system should always operate with the utmost fairness & transparency in a general sense, regardless of what specific rates are. But driving business offshore and making the country unattractive to foreign investors can’t be good for the economy. Anyway, I’d better shut up now, otherwise some monarchist will probably butt in with some crazy diatribe like “Looks like you’re all hell-bent on driving us to economic ruin, so it’s a good thing we have Prince Andrew to keep business booming!” Whoops!
December 5th, 2009 at 11:22 am
SIMON SAID – ““I am glad everyone seems to think its wonderful that “thousands of Americans,” are attempting to overthrow the British monarchy and encourage a change in our constitution.”
I’m glad that your glad, and I’m ecstatic.
December 5th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Hello Matt,
Back again ! Yes, thanks . I think you are right, of course, that we could go very off topic into general politics / moral philosophy with this thread. I think it would be a very interesting subject , but it would need a lot of unpacking and analysis ,because I think there is a lot more in the issue than some people realize. It is not “black and white “. Personally I view my republican ideas as part of my general political views, ( which I hope are not actually totally inflexible) but I can see that some republicans might well have quite different political views to my own, yet be committed republicans themselves.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I’m potentially ill qualified to contribute to discussions, because I’m currently living
and working in the Republic of Ireland… which may (some might feel) invalidate
my right to contribute.
On the other hand, living abroad gives me some insight into how Britain is perceived
from the outside – and the damage that its reputation receives from its ongoing association
with the hereditary principle. Traveling across North America, I’m struck by how
Britain’s archaic class ridden status is reinforced by the monarchy. Even the people (for
example in the States) who claim to LIKE Britain do so, too often, for reasons I find
horrible. Brits who assume that their country is a liberal meritocracy fail to recognise that
their nation is perceived from without as completely hierarchical and deferential.
There is something else to be learned from the Irish perspective. Ireland did not become an
independent republic either by parliamentary agitation nor (solely) by force of arms. Irish leaders from 1918 onwards refused to acknowledge the sovereignty of Britain and instead established their own courts and met as their own cabinet.
The point is… can we not simply elect a Head of State without waiting for
parliament. Although there are plenty of MPs who are republicans, most are too timid to prioritise the
issue. If, instead of merely waiting for parliamentary pressure to slowly build up, Republic were to
organise a real election, nominate candidate, proclaim a winner… then an unofficial (extra-legal) and
popular Head of State could be announced. Instead of arguing about a hypothetical Head of State in
the distant future, people would be invited to see what an elected Head of State would look like in a
kind of alternative present… an alternative Head of State who’d be available for speaker engagements, who would engage in debates and who would (of course) relinquish this unofficial title with 5-10 years.
But, as I say, I don’t know if I’m an appropriate person to contribute to debates of this kind.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Dear Conrad, Thank you for your input. I cannot see why you should not contribute your views because you live in the Irish Republic. As I have said before here, I believe that our society is much too class orientated and defined. There is too much class division and inequality . The monarchy is the repository and embodiment of this class distinction. I know that “class” can be present in republics, but it is a matter of degree . We have a high degree of “classiness “, and it is excessive. It is too negative and fatalist to state that as class exists in any society that our country should not develop a less class ridden and divisive society. Perhaps such changes can be brought about gradually by various ways. Mansion tax is a good start . I believe in a general levelling of our society in order to produce a fairer society. This could happen before we become a republic as far as I am concerned.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Thanks Barry,
Agree with you (I suspect) about just about everything. The tactical issue is concerning me re. republicanism. Lobbying parliamentarians, though necessary, seems a very slow and frustrating mechanism. Too many republican MP are far too careerist to risk sticking their heads above the parapet.
A popular movement to simply go ahead and elect someone \head of state\ would be far more creative. If 1,000 000 people voted for someone – it would be 1,000 000 more votes than the Windsors (actually Hanoverians) got. That person could then take part in debates, give speeches, tour the country – offer alternative Christmas broadcasts – and of course have their own website. If people actually saw what an elected head of state looked like in practice – saw her or him ACTING as head of state – then the political climate would be transformed and parliament would be forced to discuss the issue.
I’ll always regret not having done more to bring down the royals while I lived in Britain, and now I get to see what Britain looks like from abroad: a pitifully amusing reactionary theme park.
December 7th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Whilst i always like hearing input from people living in other countries there does seem to be a slight radicalism in their views. One of the Eclubs suggested the American government or European union should attempt to bring about regime change in Britain now Conrad is suggesting people here select a fake president and bypass Westminster which has supreme sovereignty over the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Whilst you make a good point about the development of Ireland, this situation here is very different. If Republic went down the path you are suggesting it would seriously damage this organisation and destroy its very privileged position it somehow has gained in the media. First of all it would be seen as unacceptable and laughable someone pretending to be head of state of this country. Second ofcourse i am very confident that any selected president would not be able to match our gracious Queen Elizabeth II.
Whilst what you are suggesting would be ignored by many especially our left wing government, i am sorry but it sounds an awful lot like treason to me. If this country is to become a republic, the only way that is going to happen is through Parliament. The overwhelming majority of MPs and almost all political parties support the monarchy so do not get your hopes up about seeing change.
How charming. Ireland because of its history with Britain is clearly going to have strong views on these matters but why should we be ashamed to celebrate our own culture and tradition? It may not be to everyones tastes but that is the case everywhere. Would you describe Africa as some big theme part because of African culture? No that might be too offensive to some and be considered racist, but its fine to attack British culture and tradition that doest hurt anyway isnt it.
I have been looking up about the Republic of Ireland system it does not impress me. Why is the President of the Republic of Ireland paid more than the President of the United States? The USA has 50 times the Irish republics economy, and is over 100 times its size and with 300 million people instead of Irelands 4.5 million people. The president is head of government and head of state and still despite all that, the President of the Republic of Ireland gets paid more. Is she worth it? Do you think people in America or France have any clue about the name of the Irish president?, people in Britain dont. I am sure that more people will know who Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is in those countries. If the people are happy with their monarchy why should we change our ways simply to make some people who dont even live here happy.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
A few points of confusion here… It was the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) who WAS paid more than Barack Obama – not the president (Mary McAleese – who lives in moderate splendour and is very widely regarded. The Taoiseach mind you does not get his own house – and he’s just taken a pay cut… he’s still at a low ebb politically mind.
I don’t think there’s anything treasonable about making alternative’s concrete rather than abstract. Of course – a popular election without the mandate of parliament would have no legal force – and we could say so quite clearly – someone could however be elected as a way of advertising the possibilities on offer – as a way of generating excitement about a head of state who isn’t there just because their ancestors were.
As far as the view from abroad is concerned… I just find it depressing that Britain is such an unpopular country – and that Brits are regarded as archaic creatures incapable of change. Britain needs to engage with the world and so perceptions of Britain internationally matter.
Finally to say that I shouldn’t get my hopes up about consitutional change seems rather counter productive in the context of a forum of this kind – which is predicated on precisely these hopes. A life without hope is a fearful bore.
,
December 7th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
” If the people are happy with their monarchy why should we change our ways simply to make some people who dont even live here happy.”
Tell that to Monarchists who argue that we should stick with it for the tourism myth.
The debate should not necessarily be about the pursuit of Happiness. I’m sure some people are made happy by chasing dragons despite its bleak consequences.
December 7th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Conrad
Well the Prime minister of Ireland does get paid a lot yes although it may be slightly less than the US president now. It is the president of Ireland who gets more than the President of the USA, even after her pay cut.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1016/1224108277037.html
After taking into account the 10% pay cut it works out at about 290,000 euros that adds up to over 400,000 dollars the annual salary of the US president.
Well it depends on the point of view and circumstances, obviously today despite treason laws remaining on the books, republicans would not face any legal problems. Trying to set up an alternative system of government throughout the UK if it was some sort of national “election” would trouble the security services and Her Majesty’s Government even if it has no legal status.
It would get media attention but the wrong sort id think. The trouble is ud end up with people being divided about who should be the fake president, such divisions would highlight a flaw in the republican model and if someone like Tony Benn was selected then it would put off one group of people.
lmao considering British policy today and our actions in the past its hard to think loads of people hate us for our system. Infact the president of the greatest republican nation on the planet the USA came to Britain and said one of the things he loves about this country is our Queen and all she stands for. Nelson mandela the hero of Africa has also praised our gracious Queen.
Should we destroy tradition to stop a few people hating us or laughing at us? When the US president pardons a turkey it will make some people think pathetic, but its done for tradition. Sadly all too often change is introduced which does away with traditions and our culture when there is no harm to it.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a member of the UN security council, engaging with the world on a daily basis. A leading member of NATO, one of the main EU powers. The policy we have at home with regards our constitutional monarchy is not an issue of concern, its our actions on the world stage that impact us (iraq war for example). Norway and Sweden usually do very well on international listings for democracy and human development, and yet they are constitutional monarchies.
The higher the hopes the harder the fall.
This is demonstrated in Scotland with the separatists right now. When they won power in 2007 (thanks to just 48 votes and 1 seat) the separatists got themeslves all excited thinking the union is finished for sure. Yet what has happened since then, their case for independence has been weakened, support for independence has fallen. They won 1 Scottish by election with about 360 votes, in two other by elections they thought they could win but ended up losing by over 6000 votes in each. The separatist leader once boasted that Scotland could be part of the arc of prosperity. Then comes along the economic crisis, Iceland goes completly bust, Irealnd is hit hard which just leaves Norway who only stay afloat because they have state owned energy companies and are not a member of the EU. Salmond once praised the Scottish banking sector which now lies in ashes after having to be bailed out by the British tax payer. Scotland alone could not have afforded to prop up those banks. So there was such high hopes for the separatists and ofcourse they are still a big threat who need to be crushed, but they have lost their spark. Their dream is over.
Ash,
I am not convinced they are mistaken. Republic do not take into account all factors.
It should be about what the British people want, we want our monarchy so it remains. If we change our minds we…
December 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
If we want to change our minds we can and will become a republic. But there is no demand or need for that
December 7th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
“I am not convinced” is not a sound basis for any point made.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Simon, for God’s sake choose your words more carefully. If you think separatism must be crushed – which I agree with insofar as we must do everything within legal & democratic means to prevent the separatists from splitting the union – then don’t let anyone get the impression you want the separatists themselves to be!
December 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Ash,
Well for a start the “tourist element” republic considers only takes into account the numbers who pay to go on tours inside Buckingham Palace. It does not take into account the 1000s who go to see Buckingham Palace but do not pay to go inside and take the tour. Those people to get there must use some form of transport, either paying the London congestion charge or using public transport.
Republic says we could keep things like changing of the guard and trooping the colour. I honestly cant see such traditions continuing if this country became a republic, certainly not trooping the colour. In France the French president gets paraded around like hes Emperor napoleon, it wouldnt seem right.
Also ofcourse the royal family draw a crowd when they carry out their royal duties. The reason why companies or councils want them to come along and open something or take part in a special event is because it brings in people and its a big event that gets celebrated and remembered. So when 100s of people flock to a town or city center because the Queen is coming again they spend money on transport, if they are in an area with shops maybe they will buy something, they need to eat atleast. I honstly cant see a president drawing in the crowds the Queen and senior members of the Royal family do.
Also ofcourse republic wants it both ways. When it comes to cost they include cost of maintaining the palaces (which the monarchy do too sadly) and cost to local councils and very dubious security costs. Yet they refuse to take into account revenue for those local areas which do get boosted.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“The higher the hopes the harder the fall”
So there we have it….Simon is without hope! Or at least any hopes higher than those involved in kissing the feet and backside of his ‘glorious queen’.
A good job slavery abolishionists, suffergettes, those wanting better conditions for workers, entreprenuers, inventors and various political activists never shared this pathetically low view, devoid of any hope and aspiration.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
“I honestly cant see such traditions continuing if this country became a republic, certainly not trooping the colour.”
“I honestly can’t see” isn’t a sound basis for any point either.
“republic wants it both ways. When it comes to cost they include cost of maintaining the palaces (which the monarchy do too sadly) and cost to local councils and very dubious security costs. Yet they refuse to take into account revenue for those local areas which do get boosted.”
Stats?
December 7th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Matt Showering,
I do not think any violence should be used, however political correctness has led to this disturbing outbreak of separatism, sadly there is even a rise of English nationalism which is very dangerous.
Separatists are traitors to this country and for too long they have been able to peddle their misleading propaganda without adequate challenge. Even today their lies are seen as truths by some and it spreads like a plague.
I guess it depends on how someone views the word crushed, i want labour to be crushed at the next election, theres nothing evil or nasty about that.
But whilst on the Scottish independence issue, we need to ask ourselves if this republican debate would help or hurt the union. As ive mentioned before if we were to have a referendum on becoming a republic then its hard to see how we could continue to put off a referendum on Scottish independence. If we got into a huge debate about our constitutional set up and government systems it would distract from the real issues of securing the union.
And the biggest problem with Britain being a republic is who becomes president. What happens if its someone like Boris Johnson (I think hes great) but hes seen more as English than British. He moans about Scotlands funding and is even wrong on that so would offend plenty of people, but England loves him and i could see him winning a vote. Whilst its true that republicanism is stronger in Scotland than England, its not a deal breaker. Alex Salmonds position that he would be fine with Scotland keeping the Queen and doesnt even see the need for a referendum on the monarchy gives clear cover for this matter. I cant see him being happy with a President Johnson and it would simply be another area where because of Englands huge population compared to Scotland it would be seen as “England deciding Scotlands head of state”
Ofcourse this issue also applies to the EU. Over 70% of people in Scotland voted for pro EU political parties at the european elections (SNP, Labour, Lib dems, Green), over 50% in England voted for eurosceptic parties (conservative, BNP and UKIP) So if there was a single referendum on in / out of the EU, England would decide that vote and if we voted to leave it would impact on the whole UK but those in Scotland would blame England. support for independence would increase.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Imatt.
Sorry abolishing slavery is slightly different to wanting a republic.
Ash,
Well we are trying to look into the future here, republic guesses about how wonderful things would be in a republic but because we know the people do not share that view its hard to find out. There are no detailed plans of what shape our republic would take, infact in the recent case of the st vincents referendum saying no to becoming a republic somebody on here said we shouldnt go into detail and just push for a vote on the principle of becoming a republic. People need to know what they are getting.
Trooping the colour and changing of the guard are traditions associated with the monarchy, if we get rid of the monarchy its likely such traditions will go too. Trooping the colour is to celebrate the Queens birthday. Wed have a republic day i guess instead of that?
Republic publishes estimates on this site it does not state clearly how it comes up with these figures and we can not be sure if they are accurate. Sorry but the fact people attending events brings in money for the local economy applies to non royal matters as well. Its common sense otherwise why would any event be held?
December 7th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
The thing about choosing an elected Head of State – is every so often a dud will emerge – electorates make mistakes too. But that mistake will last five or ten years. Pick a dynasty – and you’re stuck with that mistake for centuries.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“Sorry abolishing slavery is slightly different to wanting a republic”
Did I or anyone else say they were the same? Simon is always seeking to shift, distort and twist the debate to fit in with his narrow sychophantic view of the world! YOU’RE the one who say’s the greater the hope, the greater the fall. Hope comes in many shapes and sizes and can be for all manor of reasons, subjects and ideas. And you’re the one who is completely devoid of all hope and indeed reason.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
But that is not the case. If we have a sovereign that the people are unhappy with the monarchy will fall and this country will become a republic. At the moment we have a great Queen who the people respect and support. Why change something good now when the focus is on what may happen if we get a dud sometime in the future
December 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Imatt
You mentioned them. Hope and aspiration to bring about those kind of changes are very different to the hope this country may be a republic. This claim that monarchy holds people back from reaching their full potential is rubbish. If people want to change the world they aspire to become Prime Minister and run the country, not become a ceremonial head of state that opens schools and hospitals and signs some bills into law.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Simon
“There are no detailed plans of what shape our republic would take”
That’s because deciding what Republic will take shape is not the campaign.
Helping others decide debate is needed is THE campaign that unfolds.
“Republic publishes estimates on this site it does not state clearly how it comes up with these figures and we can not be sure if they are accurate.”
It was you yourself that helped keep the figures up to date.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Just a test post here as for some reason I can’t post anything in the most recent thread.
Seems to have worked, but still can’t post in the other thread! What’s going on?
December 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I mentioned them. I did not say they were all the same! All involve an element of hope or there would be no point in trying anything. Please stop distorting what people say on this blog. This is a common tactic of yours.