Should we/the UK become a republic?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,756]

Thought this might make for a fun little debate, I see it's often been trending across the internet. As for me I have always been rather on the fence but I do and always have felt that once the Queen pops her clogs and Charles takes the throne sentiments towards the royal family will be nowhere near as strong. At the same time however I do feel that the idea of us becoming a republic and thus ending up with a 'President Boris Johnson' should scare the pants off of anyone. Seriously however I would love to hear everyones thoughts on the matter, your own bealived pros and cons etc etc

[horsefly 4,310]

I'm far more concerned about whether Kant's doctrine of the transcendental unity of pure apperception resolves the epistemological and ontological problems raised by Descartes' theory of the cogito. As ever the useless Johnson has said nothing about this.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I have nothing against the individuals and I understand some of the arguments for a Monarchy.

But I do wish we were a Republic.

[Herman 9,798]

8 hours ago, horsefly said:

I'm far more concerned about whether Kant's doctrine of the transcendental unity of pure apperception resolves the epistemological and ontological problems raised by Descartes' theory of the cogito. As ever the useless Johnson has said nothing about this.

I agree.😀

[Herman 9,798]

6 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have nothing against the individuals and I understand some of the arguments for a Monarchy.

But I do wish we were a Republic.

Yeah, I was quite ambivalent about the Royal Family. Neither a Republican nor a Monarchist but the last few years I've become more republican. As a country I feel we need to move on and not be held back by this outdated system.

[FenwayFrank 2,460]

I’m happy to keep the royal family but I don’t think they should be getting the massive amount of financial support they’re getting currently.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

I value the monarchy as a form of living history and a useful diplomatic tool. 

Charles is underrated in my view; he has been banging on about the environment since the 70s and has always performed his duties well. 

On the other hand, Harry's stated desire to get out of the royal family against the fact it's practically impossible for him to be a private citizen as a grandson of the Queen, has got me to thinking whether forcing people into such a high profile public role based on birth amounts to a form of human rights abuse, in which case perhaps we should call time on it. 

[KernowCanary 214]

YES!, YES!, YES!!!. This whole idea of unification states is so old fashioned!!!. After the dissolution of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Netherlands Antilles and Austria-Hungary, yet this puppet-continent still exists for no clear reason, let’s get rid!!!. It’s total baloney the “smaller devolved nations” will struggle without Westmonster to worry about.

Look at San Marino….24 sq miles a 31,000 population and the only European country without a national debt. Yet you get Unionists saying NI for example would struggle!. Not once does San Marino rely on Italy for help.

Don’t even give me that “But they loose all their football matches” cobblers.

”It isn’t even a proper country, it don’t even have a patron saint, it’s just an economic union, that’s past it’s sell by date” - “Take Down the Union Jack” - Billy Bragg.

[KernowCanary 214]

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by KernowCanary

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

long overdue, but don't hold your breath, the masters of divide and conquer will soon be telling our puppets how to avoid it, all they have to do is mention it and make it news a few hundred times and hey presto, the much ignored will believe it.

[KernowCanary 214]

This whole idea of having a day off just because I wasn’t born in a Republic and am her “subject” is nauseating in itself.

I’m my own private citizen, not some kind of Serf. Morrissey may be a ****, but his stance on that I agree with. I won’t be doing anything on Platinum Jubilee week, I’ll get my laptop from work and get much more important things done at home instead.

Thats two Caribbean tours of theirs that fell flat on their face. They just don’t get it that these countries don’t care about Royalty.

[KernowCanary 214]

On 22/04/2022 at 17:59, FenwayFrank said:

I’m happy to keep the royal family but I don’t think they should be getting the massive amount of financial support they’re getting currently.

…. all while we pay for their holidays they pass off as “working”.

You don’t see the Dutch Royal Family all over the world’s media like these N*zi parasites.

Edited April 27, 2022 by KernowCanary

[Herman 9,798]

6 hours ago, KernowCanary said:

This whole idea of having a day off just because I wasn’t born in a Republic and am her “subject” is nauseating in itself.

I’m my own private citizen, not some kind of Serf. Morrissey may be a ****, but his stance on that I agree with. I won’t be doing anything on Platinum Jubilee week, I’ll get my laptop from work and get much more important things done at home instead.

Thats two Caribbean tours of theirs that fell flat on their face. They just don’t get it that these countries don’t care about Royalty.

The Caribbean tours have been an embarrassing exercise in tone-deafness.

[Badger 2,407]

Broadly in favour of a republic, although I have nothing against any of the individuals in the line of succession, however, I would not support it in isolation if that were the only thing on offer. The idea of any elected leader having de jure as well as largely having de facto control of prerogative powers is frightening.

The legislature is little enough control on the govt as it is, the idea that that the PM would be able to operate the Sovereign's powers by right would make us even less "democratic" than we are already.

[Yellow Fever 3,810]

Yes to a Republic.

The only way to look sensibly at this is if you were starting out anew  - would you choose a monarchy as head of state?

Obviously not.

Nice for tourists and the tabloids but we need an effective empowered head of state to defend the constitution else what are they for  apart from tittle tattle?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes to a Republic.

The only way to look sensibly at this is if you were starting out anew  - would you choose a monarchy as head of state?

Obviously not.

Nice for tourists and the tabloids but we need an effective empowered head of state to defend the constitution else what are they for  apart from tittle tattle?

A constitution is a must even wit ha Monarchy but we still do not have a proper one.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

No. The only people who would be candidates for a Head of State in a Republic are those most unsuited to be HoS. While we might complain at the cost of a monarchy, a republic would cost much more as each new HoS would have a short time in the job to get his/her nose in the trough for themselves and their mates. It would be one long narrative of corruption and nepotism. 

I suspect us plebs would not be part of the process to choose a HoS, those in power would surely keep that power for themselves and we would find a HoS foisted upon us whether we liked it or not.

[BigFish 1,988]

13 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

No. The only people who would be candidates for a Head of State in a Republic are those most unsuited to be HoS. While we might complain at the cost of a monarchy, a republic would cost much more as each new HoS would have a short time in the job to get his/her nose in the trough for themselves and their mates. It would be one long narrative of corruption and nepotism. 

I suspect us plebs would not be part of the process to choose a HoS, those in power would surely keep that power for themselves and we would find a HoS foisted upon us whether we liked it or not.

Nothing to prevent the UK (or would it be UR) having direct elections for HoS and nothing to indicate that the elected HoS would have their nose in the trough anymore than the Royal Family has over the centuries either. This could go much further with a Senate replacing the House of Lords, greater devolution and the abolition of titles. Why not throw in a wealth tax as well.

[horsefly 4,310]

A much greater priority for me would be reform of the House of Lords. The unelected second chamber represents a far greater threat to our democracy than an unelected monarchy which as a result of various quirks of our history represents a relatively a disinterested and benign figurehead as head of state.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

No. The only people who would be candidates for a Head of State in a Republic are those most unsuited to be HoS. While we might complain at the cost of a monarchy, a republic would cost much more as each new HoS would have a short time in the job to get his/her nose in the trough for themselves and their mates. It would be one long narrative of corruption and nepotism. 

I suspect us plebs would not be part of the process to choose a HoS, those in power would surely keep that power for themselves and we would find a HoS foisted upon us whether we liked it or not.

HoS in many Republics are not politicians. We are not a Banana Republic although there were many who made fortunes during the pandemic.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,756]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

A much greater priority for me would be reform of the House of Lords. The unelected second chamber represents a far greater threat to our democracy than an unelected monarchy which as a result of various quirks of our history represents a relatively a disinterested and benign figurehead as head of state.

Fully agree, house of lords has no place in any modern country. Surprsing how it's even allowed but given it's pretty much an upper class elitist lads club it's being allowed to exist while the Tories are in charge sadly

Edited April 29, 2022 by cambridgeshire canary

[littleyellowbirdie 2,564]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

A much greater priority for me would be reform of the House of Lords. The unelected second chamber represents a far greater threat to our democracy than an unelected monarchy which as a result of various quirks of our history represents a relatively a disinterested and benign figurehead as head of state.

Not against Lords reform, but I'm cautious of it and I'd personally like to see the Commons reformed to a proportional system before the House of Lords is, for the following reasons: 

-the unelected nature of members of the Lords means they don't have to pander to party politics so much and can afford to vote with their own consciences more than elected politicans. This is quite desirable in some instances and I'd like some thought to go into how reform could keep some of this present in the system. 
-the Lords' power is mostly in amending rather than initiating legislation, at least for the important stuff, so isn't as important as the Commons. 
-I worry that two elected houses running out of sync, but with the same main parties on anachronistic electoral systems would result in a similar sort of paralysis that you see as bills go between senate and congress in the States. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

8 hours ago, BigFish said:

Nothing to prevent the UK (or would it be UR) having direct elections for HoS and nothing to indicate that the elected HoS would have their nose in the trough anymore than the Royal Family has over the centuries either. This could go much further with a Senate replacing the House of Lords, greater devolution and the abolition of titles. Why not throw in a wealth tax as well.

They would never allow us to vote for an elected HoS as they know, given the chance, the Great British Public would vote for Mr. Blobby if he stood.

[Herman 9,798]

35 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

They would never allow us to vote for an elected HoS as they know, given the chance, the Great British Public would vote for Mr. Blobby if he stood.

And we have the proof that this is true.👍