Poll: Britain as a Republic?

[WolfThomas]

It's like when Australia voted to become independant, it failed.

It not just as simple as it failed, when you consider it was 45-54%, it meant a considerable proportion of the Australian population wanted a republic and when you consider how many people (because voting is compulsory) voted against it out of apathy, laziness or a simple "maintaining the status quo".

I honestly think it would have been majority yes, if voting wasn't compulsory and is perhaps an indication that in the not so distant future we may implement a republic.

The big question is whether a republic should be minimalist or populist. Minimalist the head of state is elected by the party with the majority, where as populist the head of state is a separate election (like the USA).

 

[LockHeart]

The only ?veto? the queen has is in regard to the swearing in of a new Prime Minister.
It is nothing more than an accepted formality and a throw back to British monarchic heritage.
But you have a point the queen could refuse to accept a new Prime Minister and therefore, technically, Britain would be without a leader.

This could possible be regarded as treason.

The idea I mentioned was covered by a BBC drama a few years ago.

Actually, she can actively dismiss the government (seeing as they are her ministers) and can dissolve Parliament, calling an early election. Britain would not be left without a leader, and even if it was, I couldn't care less - the government doesn't need to be constantly active for a country to function. In most cases it'll run itself. Pretty powerful way of vetoing something...

If she did refuse to select a Prime Minister, there would be another General Election, it would not constitute treason, seeing as that is a crime against the sovereign. Treason is defined in the Treason Act 1351 as either: "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir"; "if a man do violate the King?s companion, or the King?s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King?s eldest son and heir"; "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King?s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and "if a man slay the chancellor, treasurer, or the King?s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

So, the monarch would either have to plot their own death or that of their family, have an affair with their own partner (again, paradoxical) or sleep with their eldest daughter (granted, disgusting but possible) or their eldest son's wife, aid the enemies of the crown or enter the service of the enemy (again, paradoxical) or kill their own ministers and judges (whereas they'd be tried for murder).

 

[Marcus Dubious]

The only ?veto? the queen has is in regard to the swearing in of a new Prime Minister.
It is nothing more than an accepted formality and a throw back to British monarchic heritage.
But you have a point the queen could refuse to accept a new Prime Minister and therefore, technically, Britain would be without a leader.

This could possible be regarded as treason.

The idea I mentioned was covered by a BBC drama a few years ago.

Actually, she can actively dismiss the government (seeing as they are her ministers) and can dissolve Parliament, calling an early election. Britain would not be left without a leader, and even if it was, I couldn't care less - the government doesn't need to be constantly active for a country to function. In most cases it'll run itself. Pretty powerful way of vetoing something...

If she did refuse to select a Prime Minister, there would be another General Election, it would not constitute treason, seeing as that is a crime against the sovereign. Treason is defined in the Treason Act 1351 as either: "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir"; "if a man do violate the King?s companion, or the King?s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King?s eldest son and heir"; "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King?s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and "if a man slay the chancellor, treasurer, or the King?s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

So, the monarch would either have to plot their own death or that of their family, have an affair with their own partner (again, paradoxical) or sleep with their eldest daughter (granted, disgusting but possible) or their eldest son's wife, aid the enemies of the crown or enter the service of the enemy (again, paradoxical) or kill their own ministers and judges (whereas they'd be tried for murder).

After reading your post I twisted the laws you mention and came up with some ideas.

Could it be argued that if the queen consistently refused the governance of the country by dismissing successive PM?s that she plotted against the monarchy by insisting with malice that Britain and therefore her own sovereignty were impugned and deliberately weakened? The only motive for this could be to serve an enemy, even if that enemy were herself.

Could It therefore also be argued that this would be an act of treason by Elizabeth II against her own sovereignty and therefore the British Crown?

This all depends where sovereignty lays, does it lay in the person or in the crown?


To my knowledge it has always been a fact of history that sovereignty is in the crown not the person,
Whoever takes the crown has been accepted as the sovereign.

Chess is based on this idea, you never kill the king you just take his crown.

 

[LockHeart]

After reading your post I twisted the laws you mention and came up with some ideas.

Could it be argued that if the queen consistently refused the governance of the country by dismissing successive PM?s that she plotted against the monarchy by insisting with malice that Britain and therefore her own sovereignty were impugned and deliberately weakened? The only motive for this could be to serve an enemy, even if that enemy were herself.

Could It therefore also be argued that this would be an act of treason by Elizabeth II against her own sovereignty and therefore the British Crown?

This all depends where sovereignty lays, does it lay in the person or in the crown?

To my knowledge it has always been a fact of history that sovereignty is in the crown not the person,
Whoever takes the crown has been accepted as the sovereign.

Chess is based on this idea, you never kill the king you just take his crown.

Well I'm having a hard time interpreting your reasoning in the first part, but I'll try my best. It simply makes no sense, just refusing to appoint Prime Ministers does not necessarily weaken the country or the sovereign. In fact, the lack of ministers would strengthen the powers of the sovereign as there would be no internal checks by the executive as to how executive power was used. Should previous monarchs have been tried for treason because they surrendered many of their powers to Parliament, thus weaking the monarchy? I doubt that constitutes serving an enemy.

Of course sovereignty lies with the crown, but that authority is invested in the monarch for life, or until abdication, upon their coronation - for all intents and purposes, they are the crown once they have been coronated.

I'm not arguing that the monarch cannot be tried for treason, they can, and have been in Britain's history, but not in the scenario that you are describing.

 

[Overlord_Dave]

There's no problem with the monarchy in the UK cos they have essentially no power - and if it wasn't for Gordon Brown we would have an elected leader, just like a republic. Just because he/she wouldn't have the title 'head of state' doesn't mean they won't be just as powerful.

Plus the monarchy is a friggin' HUGE source of tourism revenue. So I'm not convinced that getting rid of it would actually save money.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

But who would we put on our money?

Dave the Chameleon? O_O

 

[annoyinglizardvoice]

Some of the royals piss me off a bit, but the cash they bring in through tourism is more than enough to justify keeping them around. The queen makes a much better figurehead for the nation than Brown. The problem with a republic is that it puts the nation's image in the hands of the morons that make up the general public as well as it's politics.

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

only if its protected by jedi

 

[ZombieGenesis]

Britain as a nation has always held a pride in its monarch and its history, as black and white as it may be. People are willing to accept the downsides of a monarchy for the same reasons that Britain still uses the pound and not the Euro- they want to keep their identity, and the characteristics of their country that makes them Britain.
We have an elected official, it's called a Prime Minister, and he holds MORE power than the President of the United States does (since he can personally position and command nuclear subs without any need for confirmation from a senate or congress) and he fills the position just fine. Judiciary by the courts, executive by the PM, and the Queen because we love the old cow.

 

[Horizontalvertigo]

The Monarchy's all well and good from Australia, they're just a bunch of poms with a birthright to a pointless throne, they have no real power. However a British republic would be a very interesting place when it comes to the greater "empire" A.K.A Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland. What would happen to them? Will they just be part of the republic, even though they're only part of the United Kingdom because they were united by a King? How could the English have any authority over the governments of the other countries?

Most ironic would be that N.Ireland would be a republic inside the republic of Ireland XD(Eire go Bragh )

 

[TheRealCJ]

It's like when Australia voted to become independant, it failed.

It not just as simple as it failed, when you consider it was 45-54%, it meant a considerable proportion of the Australian population wanted a republic and when you consider how many people (because voting is compulsory) voted against it out of apathy, laziness or a simple "maintaining the status quo".

I honestly think it would have been majority yes, if voting wasn't compulsory and is perhaps an indication that in the not so distant future we may implement a republic.

The big question is whether a republic should be minimalist or populist. Minimalist the head of state is elected by the party with the majority, where as populist the head of state is a separate election (like the USA).

I WAS mostly making a joke, but I see your point.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Well, if your tax money doesn't go to the monarchy, it'll just go to some other undeserving bunch of sods.

Like badly injured people needing urgent treatment from the NHS?

No. What we have now has worked for hundreds of years, why change?

Disregarding the civil war or the constant crossing over of Christian beliefs that costed thousands of people their lives?

Today we pay hundreds of thousands of pounds a year just so this family can take special class tickets around the world just to have a sodding dinner party with other toffs.

I don't mind the Royal family existing. I do mind that my taxes pays for them though. Let the Christians pay for their own monarchy. Why should hard-working atheists pay for these scumbags?

Out of curiosity does anyone know the figures the Queen generates through tourism compared to say our historical landmarks or even football fans coming over.

That I know of, no. Why not ask these forums if anyone here has had a holiday JUST to see the royal family and their palaces? Or if they chose a trip to England over France because seeing the Queen's royal guards seemed more entertaining than the Eiffel Tower.

Do you honestly think that more deserving parties are going to get more money if the Royal Family didn't exist?

All that taxpayer money would either be diverted to whoever is at the head of state, or into a Preservation of History fund.

The point is, there's always going to be some tit at the top taking the lion's share of everything, be it a royal family or some elected official.

 

[Zorg Machine]

having a monarch puts a country into an entirely new level of prestige and adds a lot of tourism.
and also the cultural value is gargantuous.

 

[Zyxzy]

God save the queen and the tourist dollars!

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Be careful what you wish for...

Down here in Australia there was a move by Howard to push for the dissolving of our constitutional monarchy, the British queen rules here too, and replace it with a republic system set up to mirror what we already have. The problem you might wonder? The powers residing in the queen, powers that she holds great power but never wields them, would reside now in the hands of a president who would be... guess...

Yes the PM!

Nothing more then a clear power grab by Howard to try and make himself 'king of Australia,' at least for a little while. I don't have a doubt what he would of used these powers for, seeing one of the largest was being able to dissolve the other two branches of government if it doesn't agree with him! That is nothing of being able to alter or out right veto bills and laws at a whim and many other powers that the monarchy still, technically, possess.

Luckily, it was voted down. I for one would rather have a all powerful queen who does nothing more then wave her hand at public events then a president not afraid to use that power. Maybe if the royal family starts throwing it's weight around that might change, but for now I think we dodged a bullet.

 

[Vault Citizen]

Well, if your tax money doesn't go to the monarchy, it'll just go to some other undeserving bunch of sods. And hey, they keep the tabloids out of the real news areas, so why not.

It's like when Australia voted to become independant, it failed. Popular consensus on the decision was because it's easier to make gloat when we beat you at evereything always when you're still technically our lords and masters.

Remind me, who won the ashes this year?

 

[Agema]

The British have no jurisdiction over Australia.

The Queen of the UK and Queen of Australia are parallel, independent positions that do not have power over each other - although they do happen to be held by the same person.

In the same way, someone might own a factory and also be a school governor. That doesn't mean the school has any power over the factory or vice versa.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Well, if your tax money doesn't go to the monarchy, it'll just go to some other undeserving bunch of sods. And hey, they keep the tabloids out of the real news areas, so why not.

It's like when Australia voted to become independant, it failed. Popular consensus on the decision was because it's easier to make gloat when we beat you at evereything always when you're still technically our lords and masters.

Remind me, who won the ashes this year?

Dunno yet, I'm too busy watching sports that don't bore the shit out of me.

God help me, I tried, but I fell asleep just before they broke for lunch.

Also, we have beaches and bikini babes, you have cornwall and north londonersincreasinglypettyargument

 

[Baradiel]

I prefer to think of the Royal Family as if they're the nation's pets. We pay for their food, toys, worming etc., and they in turn provide entertainment and look nice to visitors, so long as they don't get on the metaphorical sofa of actually trying to rule.

I'm quite proud of my little metaphor. I don't THINK I've stolen it from anywhere.

Anyway, I think they should stay. So what if the old Great Dane pisses on diplomats shoes, we'll just send him outside into the garden where he will be told what went wrong by a very well paid and highly stressed PR expert.

EDIT: If I have stolen this from somewhere, DON'T TELL ME. Don't crush my pride!