The republicanism thread.

The text of the Danish constitution dates back to 1849. Therefore, it has been interpreted by jurists to suit modern conditions. In a formal sense, the monarch retains the ability to deny giving a bill royal assent. In order for a bill to become law, a royal signature and a countersignature by a government minister are required.[6] The monarch also chooses and dismisses the Prime Minister, although in modern times a dismissal would cause a constitutional crisis.


So as I say a constitutional monarchy same as ours.
 
It isn't "an" article, there are many articles on it, it happened, now lets discuss the rights and wrongs of it.


We can’t debate it as we don’t know that happened and we never will do it’s a moot point. All prime minister have said meeting the queen is there best meeting as they know anything they say will never be leaked and it never was. So as I say no one knows whst happened.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Charles is all for modernising and slimming down the monarchy. Maybe we let him crack on with that and see where we are in a few years.

Ultimately we aren't going to be a republic anytime soon. I think it would be a shame if we did become on. It would be like getting rid of our history. What would you turn Buck Palace into? Flats?
Click to expand...
I understand that argument, I really do. I like the constancy a monarchy brings and how they are interwoven within our history. But, France is the most visited country on earth and Versailles is still one of their main tourist attractions. Getting rid of the royal family won't stop their palaces and parks from being attractions.
 
Last edited:
Jedi boro said:
We can’t debate it as we don’t know that happened and we never will do it’s a moot point. All prime minister have said meeting the queen is there best meeting as they know anything they say will never be leaked and it never was. So as I say no one knows whst happened.
Click to expand...
some prime ministers have said that in the last week, of course it won't be leaked, but it will be utilised for personal benefit.
 
I’m all for reform but we need to know what we are reforming to. Surely trump showed the dangers of what can happen.
 
SmallTown said:
I understand that argument, I really do. I like the constancy a monarchy brings and how they are interwoven within our history. Bit, France is the most visited country on earth and Versailles is still one of their main tourist attractions. Getting rid of the royal family won't stop their palaces and parks from being attractions.
Click to expand...
Yet France was so corrupt their sitting president didn’t even stand for re election neither did his party.

It’s not all sweetness and light at the Elysee either.
 
Jedi boro said:
No an article cited this figure snd now it’s gospel no one has a clue what the monarch did or didn’t do.

The fact is she was pro European and never commented on brexit

We have seen her love of Scotland and again nothing said either pro or anti on this.

Charles is different btw. My post is about the previous queen who was apolitical.

No one can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Jedi boro said:
No I’m talking about the model not the machinations I get that the whole political voting structure is different but this is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, in that case you’re missing the whole point of the structure of our unencoded constitution.
Seeing that it leaves a gaping hole in the ability to hold the government in power to account.
The last 6-7 years have shown it open to massive abuse by those who don’t adhere to the.
Ludicrous “Good chaps” formula.
 
If you were going to design a constitution for a democracy you certainly wouldn't have an unelected head of state, that passed that privilege down to their eldest heir. Having said that the current system works in so far as both the monarchy and the govt keep their respective sides of the bargain - chiefly that the monarchy doesnt get involved in politics and isnt seen to be taking advantage of their position (this last point we can argue about another time)

What would abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic achieve? No extra jobs, no better working conditions, no changes in our daily life. It wouldnt make us richer or give us any more say on what happens than we have now. Pretty much all of the problems we have in this country come down to politics and decisions made by the governing party. So if you want to change the country for the good then elect a better government!

And I'll go further - how can you argue to become a republic when we dont even have a democratic voting system that properly represents the majority of the people? Lets start with voting reform and I can pretty much guarantee the country would improve dramatically in a short space of time
 
Jedi boro said:
I’m all for reform but we need to know what we are reforming to. Surely trump showed the dangers of what can happen.
Click to expand...
and Jacinda Adern shows the other side of that coin. Devil is in the detail. I haven't exclusively used the Saudi royals as the reason why royalty is bad, because ours haven't (recently) been that murderous. Lets be more honest with our examples.
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
some prime ministers have said that in the last week, of course it won't be leaked, but it will be utilised for personal benefit.
Click to expand...
Thatcher was the real example it is widely believed that the queen disliked thatcher as they saw each other as rivals and she she was dismayed at the way the country was torn as under but nothing was said.

We still don’t know.
 
Ironops said:
If you were going to design a constitution for a democracy you certainly wouldn't have an unelected head of state, that passed that privilege down to their eldest heir. Having said that the current system works in so far as both the monarchy and the govt keep their respective sides of the bargain - chiefly that the monarchy doesnt get involved in politics and isnt seen to be taking advantage of their position (this last point we can argue about another time)

What would abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic achieve? No extra jobs, no better working conditions, no changes in our daily life. It wouldnt make us richer or give us any more say on what happens than we have now. Pretty much all of the problems we have in this country come down to politics and decisions made by the governing party. So if you want to change the country for the good then elect a better government!

And I'll go further - how can you argue to become a republic when we dont even have a democratic voting system that properly represents the majority of the people? Lets start with voting reform and I can pretty much guarantee the country would improve dramatically in a short space of time
Click to expand...
Exactly this the current system works it’s not perfect but politically it does work.

Or it did now if there was a bill that went against Charles core beliefs that we ALL know say hunting ban or environmental issues.

Then what happens.
 
Ironops said:
If you were going to design a constitution for a democracy you certainly wouldn't have an unelected head of state, that passed that privilege down to their eldest heir. Having said that the current system works in so far as both the monarchy and the govt keep their respective sides of the bargain - chiefly that the monarchy doesnt get involved in politics and isnt seen to be taking advantage of their position (this last point we can argue about another time)

What would abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic achieve? No extra jobs, no better working conditions, no changes in our daily life. It wouldnt make us richer or give us any more say on what happens than we have now. Pretty much all of the problems we have in this country come down to politics and decisions made by the governing party. So if you want to change the country for the good then elect a better government!

And I'll go further - how can you argue to become a republic when we dont even have a democratic voting system that properly represents the majority of the people? Lets start with voting reform and I can pretty much guarantee the country would improve dramatically in a short space of time
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your reform suggestions, however it's incorrect to say that that both side currently keep to their side of the bargain, 1,036 laws at least have been modified by the last monarch, they aren't apolitical, they've also become massively wealthier in recent years through influence, avoidance of taxes and other laws etc. that is taking advantage of their position.

Extra jobs is only part of it, distribution of wealth is important, you can't distribute wealth in a system where one family gets to horde it. The fact that charles and cohorts didnt pay a penny of inheritance tax is disgraceful, and that it happened during a cost of living crisis shows the unfairness of hereditary power in all it's greed and ugliness.

I agree that politics have to change, but the representation of aristocracy in our system of government is ludicrously over represented. The royals, about half the tories and much of the house of lords are aristocrats, making and breaking the laws in our country for their personal benefit.....and we only get to influence one of those three legs of law making.
 
BoroMart said:
we don't know the extent, but we do know at least 1,036 laws were changed at their behest. If that is absolutely known, then you start to worry whatelse we don't know.
Click to expand...
You mention these 1036 laws they changed. Devil is in the detail but if I read into this it all depends on your definition of change as opposed to “vetted”.

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
BoroMart said:
and Lucinda Acern shows the other side of that coin. Devil is in the detail. I haven't exclusively used the Saudi royals as the reason why royalty is bad, because ours haven't (recently) been that murderous. Lets be more honest with our examples.
Click to expand...
Very true but we are not New Zealand though ( I’m assuming Jacinda Ardern is who you meant) Britain is not a minor nation like Denmark New Zealand etc so our type of politician are different.

Btw interesting you use her as an example

www.theguardian.com

‘You just get on with it’: Jacinda Ardern says Queen gave her ‘best advice’ on being a new mum and leader

New Zealand PM said she sought the Queen’s advice as one of the few women to have combined leadership with motherhood
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
You mention these 1036 laws they changed. Devil is in the detail but if I read into this it all depends on your definition of change as opposed to “vetted”.

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
Exactly that’s why I take the no with a pinch of salt, the reality is she was neutral.

History shows that.
 
I’m all for reform but sadly all it will be is turn this country into the X factor.

President boris ???
 
BoroMart said:
I agree that politics have to change, but the representation of aristocracy in our system of government is ludicrously over represented. The royals, about half the tories and much of the house of lords are aristocrats, making and breaking the laws in our country for their personal benefit.....and we only get to influence one of those three legs of law making.
Click to expand...
And lets face it, the last 12 years have shown we are rubbish at that.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
You mention these 1036 laws they changed. Devil is in the detail but if I read into this it all depends on your definition of change as opposed to “vetted”.

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
you can apply whatever definition of vetted you see fit, it's still being apolitical and self serving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top