The republicanism thread.

[MolteniArcore]

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?

 

[Jedi boro]

Denmark. They have a monarchy, but grown up politics.

The rules of the game; understanding the Danish political system

Are you new to Denmark? Or just still puzzled about how everything works? Find out how the Danish political system works here. The article continues ...

www.yourdanishlife.dk

This my point yes for all it’s progression it still has that royal prerogative at its core that is being derided on here.

On 26 June 2019, Denmark’s new Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, was appointed by Queen Margrethe at the head of a minority government supported by there “red parties”; Socialistisk Folkeparti, Enhedslisten and Radikale Venstre.

It’s the same as ours - monarch appoints political ruler.

Btw I’ve been to Denmark and wandered into the palace grounds almost without knowing it.

 

[BoroMart]

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.

and I stuck to not saying anything directly against the queen for 3 days, I did comment on some of the misinformation put out about the monarchy though, but didn't directly accuse her. It's open season now though, time for proper debates on the subject and honesty about her role

 

[Zoophonic]

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?

This Government would only would sell it off to the Candy Brothers who would convert it into outrageously expensive apartments to be then bought by Chinese, Russian or Saudi oil magnets who would live in them less than the present incumbents.

 

[BoroMart]

Pathetic time to start the debate. Would the same lack of respect be shown on the morning of anyone else's funeral?

to be fair I've seen jokes about people who died the same day on here, and the internet in general, usually followed by "too soon?". I didn't see any jokes about the queen for at least 3 or 4 days. She was treated in death preferential to others, as she was in life.

 

[h_m_boro]

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).

And that's my point exactly.......but another thread on its own, not this one.

The King or Queen is a ceremonial figurehead with no say on politics.

 

[Jedi boro]

The King or Queen is a ceremonial figurehead with no say on politics.

But this is impossible as you’d need a new structure if they had no political importance or maybe I should say significance then they cease relevance.

So you have two viable options

Us style one primary elected total ruler (with caveats) underpinned by a non flexible constitution.

Two stream French/Russia system that has been riddled with corruption.

So each option has pros and cons.

 

[BoroMart]

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.

heard it before, surely if it should be modernised, it's the peoples choice on how it is modernised not his. Self determination is enshrined in the United Nations, and the people here should have a say on how that modernisation should look. Many people believe the royal family to be apolitical, so modernise along those lines to start with...but I bet that isn't aligned to charles thoughts.

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

You can't get rid of history, history is eternal, that's why it's history and not forgotten tales

What would you turn Buck Palace into? Flats?

Museum and hotel for rich foreign businessmen at 10k a night for an average room. It'd be a cash cow

 

[festa5]

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?

Yeah flats. Or possibly an IKEA. Certainly can't think of any other uses.

Think that's what they did with the Palace of Versailles. Or did they turn it into a McDonalds? Can't remember now.

 

[jam69]

Strange that those brexiters who cited the lack of democracy regarding the EU seem fully supportive of the undemocratic royal family.
If we have to have one why not 10 year stints , a family voted by the public get to experience being king or queen.
Why give that privilege to the same family regardless of how dysfunctional or seedy they are ?

 

[Jedi boro]

The queen was apolitical though she never voiced an opinion ever in 70 years a remarkable feat.

If you want to know how apolitical she was look at the Scotland referendum.

 

[h_m_boro]

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.

Appreciate the secrecy aspect, that's common sense.

If she was left out of weekly PM meetings, how would that affect the political landscape - it wouldn't. But what if she stepped in and and said "whoooooahhh this BrEXit bollox isn't happening on my watch"

But changing laws that affected the British people how? All the big stuff, the stuff that f*cks over the poor and needy have all gone through. Laws that continue to grow and protect the establishment, no problems.

Mentioned on another post, the move to reforming the establishment (never going to happen without a revolution) is a separate post entirely.

 

[BoroMart]

The queen was apolitical though she never voiced an opinion ever in 70 years a remarkable feat.

If you want to know how apolitical she was look at the Scotland referendum.

she was free from Freedom of Information, she may have been massively apolitical publicly, but we have very little idea what she was like behind the scenes.

What we do know was that she met the PM for a chat every week and changed 1,036 laws, and sat on the privvy council and had many other meetings with politicians and government civil servants either directly or through an envoy but we don't know how many or what the discussion involved.

 

[Ziggy]

Btw I’ve been to Denmark and wandered into the palace grounds almost without knowing it.

BTW I lived there for 6 years..and used to cycle through a bit of the Palace grounds on my way to work.
The Queen used to cycle to work as well. That’s probably changed now….Did see her out shopping once though.
You missed out the PR voting system. You know, the important bit.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

This Government would only would sell it off to the Candy Brothers who would convert it into outrageously expensive apartments to be then bought by Chinese, Russian or Saudi oil magnets who would live in them less than the present incumbents.

I passed by the Candy’s One Hyde Park the other night. Supposedly the most expensive real estate development in Europe. There were no lights on because nobody was living there. They are all owned by overseas investors / money launderers. Depressing.

 

[festa5]

Think the solution is clearly to replace the monarchy with an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

We could take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week but all the decisions of that officer would have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting requiring a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major decisions.

 

[Jedi boro]

she was free from Freedom of Information, she may have been massively apolitical publicly, but we have very little idea what she was like behind the scenes.

What we do know was that she met the PM for a chat every week and changed 1,036 laws, and sat on the privvy council and had many other meetings with politicians and government civil servants either directly or through an envoy but we don't know how many or what the discussion involved.

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.

 

[BoroMart]

Appreciate the secrecy aspect, that's common sense.

If she was left out of weekly PM meetings, how would that affect the political landscape - it wouldn't. But what if she stepped in and and said "whoooooahhh this BrEXit bollox isn't happening on my watch"

But changing laws that affected the British people how? All the big stuff, the stuff that f*cks over the poor and needy have all gone through. Laws that continue to grow and protect the establishment, no problems.

Mentioned on another post, the move to reforming the establishment (never going to happen without a revolution) is a separate post entirely.

I guess my point was that you can't have accountability with secrecy. And lack of accountability is an invitation to corruption. If she wasn't corrupt, and she may have been, then one of her heirs eventually will be.

PM meetings allowed her to know what to lobby in the background, allowed her to move investments around etc. It is an unnecessary benefit of being monarch, unless you are political or corrupt.

All laws affect the british people, why should someone be able to directly block and change new laws without being voted by the people to do so? That isn't democracy and their is no altruistic or democratic reason for a monarch to do so.

Yes, the fact that she allowed those laws through, shows that she didn't enact those changes to help or protect the people, but only her families wealth and power.

 

[Jedi boro]

BTW I lived there for 6 years..and used to cycle through a bit of the Palace grounds on my way to work.
The Queen used to cycle to work as well. That’s probably changed now….Did see her out shopping once though.
You missed out the PR voting system. You know, the important bit.

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.

We are talking about models and Denmark is based on ours.

 

[BoroMart]

No an article cited this figure snd now it’s gospel no one has a clue what the monarch did or didn’t do.

It isn't "an" article, there are many articles on it, it happened, now lets discuss the rights and wrongs of it.