The republicanism thread.

parmoboy said:
I can see why many regard having a Royal family as archaic, particularly when you consider how we've progressed as a society, but I also see the good in having a head of state, particularly one that is not political.

It's all well and good replacing them, but what with. A president? Someone political, so it becomes another post for politicians to aim for?

One thing the monarchy has is history which no replacement would have. They also have international respect and recognition, that isn't automatically replaceable in an elected or appointed post.

But they need a serious shakeup. Phase out the majority of titles and payouts till we have a small royal family with a more modest estate. Tax them so that gradually over a period of many years the vast wealth is in the hands of the state, not the family. Allow them to keep enough to maintain a royal lifestyle, but their land and money should work for the people they claim to be "proud to serve".

In short, a streamlined royal family for ceremonial duties and international relations is something which I could just about accept.
Click to expand...
This exactly.

We are not going to be a Republic. Not happening. So the bloated, secretive out of touch establishment protected "family" needs modernising and some transparency brought in.

Stop their wealth hoarding, let them pay taxes.....but this also goes for a lot of people in the country.

Remove them completely from anything remotely political - what exactly did the Queen do regarding anything politics related? Serious question.

I'm not bothered about them being there as "figureheads", people like this, each to their own. But almighty rulers of the UK - nah.

The whole royalty thing needs dragging into the 21C.
 
xxlshirts_fit_all said:
In this debate, if you're advocating getting rid of the monarch as head of state what do you propose to replace it with?

a lot of what goes on with the monarchy annoys me, but I’d want to know what I’m voting to replace it with before I do so?

another level of elected political garbage would not work for me..
Click to expand...
Isn't choosing to continue with a royal family on some level simply 'electing' a royal family into a position of power and influence, without the ability to unelect them? And lets not pretend they are not political, everybody is political. Particularly people who claim not to be political
 
BoroMart said:
doesn't that depend on the specifics of how you replace it? I mean to start with it's likely to bring about the downfall of the whole aristocracy including the house of Lords.

There are several reasons I want rid of the royals, one of the keys is that they have over the centuries prevented a proper written constitution, and set of rights for british people. Only ceding some rights to aristocracts, who in turn got bullied by the people to handing a bit out to the general populous such as voting rights.

Those aristocrats, including the royals, still hold the vast majority of power and influence and wealth in this country. They own most of the land, most of the wealth, much of the city property, most of the coastal waters, and of course most of the powers of lawmaking.

The monarch gets to have first dibs at amending any bills, then it goes to the house of commons, but, of course, on the tory side there are many non-commoners, many aristocrats in the government, so some of them get to dabble here, then it goes to the Lords where thanks to hereditary peers, and tory life time peers the aristocrats get a final block on our laws.

Get the aristocrats out of our system, they've proven over the centuries to be self servicing. Let the people rule.
Click to expand...
Ye i suppose it does depend on how you replace it. Conservatives would push for an American system, their rhetoric is already that. I think Labour might go along with that. They’ve always supported FPTP.

I’m not a royalist myself. And I think you are right that get the aristocrats and hereditary titles out of politics, they are not going to serve themselves first

I honestly feel we are long way off getting a desired system even if we get rid of the monarch.
 
h_m_boro said:
We are not going to be a Republic. Not happening. So the bloated, secretive out of touch establishment protected "family" needs modernising and some transparency brought in.
Click to expand...
heard this throughout my life, nothing has changed, in fact their inner workings have become more secretive due to things like giving themselves an exemption from the Freedom of Information act when that right Charley was caught with his black spider letters messing with politics. Nothing says we're not corrupt and self serving like removing the ability to be investigated for being corrupt and self serving. Had that FoI continued, maybe we would have had access to see any lobbying by the queen on behalf of her favourite sons unfortunate seedy delectation for abused teenage sex slaves.
 
Glover_elbow said:
If we could strip then of 95% of the assets they acquired then I would be happy for them to them stay as head of state.
Click to expand...
As long as:
a) they have all laws that give them special status removed, accountability is key.
b) failure to stay politically neutral leads to the family being stripped of the role and given to another family, very strict rules about what they can and cannot do, corruption and political machinations are not tolerated. Just like any civil servant really, I know people who have been sacked for being self serving in contracts with government agencies.
c) they are purely ceremonial, ie no privvy council, no weekly meetings with the prime minister.
d) they are self sufficient financially, e) we pay the reigning monarch a sensible and comparable wage for the role, the kids get out their and do a job so they can understand what the rest of us have to do.

Then maybe, maybe I can tolerate them, as some kind of nationalised reality TV show.
 
parmoboy said:
Because the head of the Monarchy had just passed away and it should have been about showing her respect, even if you are a Republican. Certain posters did appear to be purposely trying to antagonise others.

If Jeremy Corbyn passed away and there was a thread about him in which a poster commented, "I wonder did he admit to supporting the IRA before he died?" I'd find it equally shameful.
Click to expand...
I'd suspect some of those monarchists complaining about respect would be the very sort of people who would post that kind of trash though.
 
h_m_boro said:
Remove them completely from anything remotely political - what exactly did the Queen do regarding anything politics related? Serious question.
Click to expand...
Well she changed 1,036 laws for starters

She had access to a whole wealth of political information and of course influence through the privvy council, weekly meetings with the Prime Minister, previews of any bills to be put before the Commons, and unprecedented access to all aspects of govenrment.

She also made subtle political statements such as wearing a brooch presented by the Obamas when she met Trump and wearing a blue and yellow outfit in support of the EU....and I say that as someone who was against brexit and hates Trump.

She likely did a lot more, however there are many laws protecting her from scrutiny that you and I are not protected from.
 
BoroMart said:
I'd suspect some of those monarchists complaining about respect would be the very sort of people who would post that kind of trash though.
Click to expand...
And it makes them hypocrites, of course. I'd like to think that the majority of posters on this board do understand the importance of us showing one another respect, regardless of our political views.

I do remember you were one of those who chose not to comment at all in the days following the Queen's death, which is how it should have been.

We can debate Monarchy vs Republic now all day of the week for me.
 
parmoboy said:
And it makes them hypocrites, of course. I'd like to think that the majority of posters on this board do understand the importance of us showing one another respect, regardless of our political views.

I do remember you were one of those who chose not to comment at all in the days following the Queen's death, which is how it should have been.

We can debate Monarchy vs Republic now all day of the week for me.
Click to expand...
Boromart has the clout about him to best help his argument, a lot of others didn’t
 
Jedi boro said:
You do realise what you just typed is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Yeah ....didn't put it across very well 👍

Okay. Remember Bozo proroguing parliament having to get the Queen's permission......and she just said "aye, go on then". Does this context make sense?

They need to be removed from all areas of British politics (Tories while we are at it. 😉) including all the secretive sh*t they quietly slip through.
 
h_m_boro said:
Yeah ....didn't put it across very well 👍

Okay. Remember Bozo proroguing parliament having to get the Queen's permission......and she just said "aye, go on then". Does this context make sense?

They need to be removed from all areas of British politics (Tories while we are at it. 😉) including all the secretive sh*t they quietly slip through.
Click to expand...
There’s is no British politics without the monarchy is my point the entire “Westminster model” is underpinned by the crown.

To remove the crown we’d have to create a new system or adopt one like the French have with a prime minister and a president.

( btw Russia is also based on the French system).
 
Scrug said:
Apparently you’re banished from speaking about it elsewhere, so do it here.

I think it’s time we got rid of this archaic monarchy.
Click to expand...
Pathetic time to start the debate. Would the same lack of respect be shown on the morning of anyone else's funeral?
As someone who is pretty much ambivalent about the rest of the Royals still kicking about you do you argument no good by raising it then.
Probably just trolling anyway, again.
 
Soutra said:
We do live in a democracy. The problem is that a lot of people don't get the government and governance they want, expect, and vote for, so they think they don't live in a democracy. It's like blaming the ref and the rules when your team loses.

As a republican I am not sure what the real role of the monarchy is but we'll have a monarchy for a long time yet so not much point in hoping for something else.

But if you don't like the government vote for another party but don't blame the electorate and call them stupid if they vote for someone else. They might have different priorities.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe I attached any blame to the electorate.
Go back and read what the post says…not what you want it to say
 
parmoboy said:
I can see why many regard having a Royal family as archaic, particularly when you consider how we've progressed as a society, but I also see the good in having a head of state, particularly one that is not political.
Click to expand...
but everyone is political, and many monarchs have been openly political, charles has been openly political

parmoboy said:
It's all well and good replacing them, but what with. A president? Someone political, so it becomes another post for politicians to aim for?
Click to expand...
So instead we gift the job to someone that a) might not want it, and b) might be utterly unsuitable intellectually and socially for the job. Again, royalty in history have caused problems for society and wars with their words and behaviour.

parmoboy said:
One thing the monarchy has is history which no replacement would have.
Click to expand...
Historical precedent is no way to decide on a system of governance. I mean historically the general populous didn't get to select the MPs, that's a recent thing, would you advocate that?

parmoboy said:
Phase out the majority of titles and payouts till we have a small royal family with a more modest estate. Tax them so that gradually over a period of many years the vast wealth is in the hands of the state, not the family. Allow them to keep enough to maintain a royal lifestyle, but their land and money should work for the people they claim to be "proud to serve".
Click to expand...
agree with this though. They have far too much wealth and privilege, regardless of anything else. They've been on the gravy train for 1,000 years, time for that to end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top