🇬🇧 Should the UK abolish monarchy now? 🚫👑
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:44:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  🇬🇧 Should the UK abolish monarchy now? 🚫👑
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Would you support the transition? (Are you from the UK?)
#1
Yes. (yes)
#2
Yes. (no)
#3
No. (yes)
#4
No. (no)
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: 🇬🇧 Should the UK abolish monarchy now? 🚫👑  (Read 2542 times)
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 08, 2022, 02:31:04 PM »

Should the Untied Kingdom seize the golden opportunity to initiate the transition from a monarchy into a republic?

If so, how would that ambitious endeavor be realized according to the non-existing UK constitution, and how long would it take?
How would the debuting president be elected, and who might become the first politician to occupy that newly-created office?
Logged
LBJer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,607
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2022, 06:47:05 PM »

I voted no (I'm an American).  Doing that now would be basically like spitting in the Queen's face. 
Logged
Mexican Wolf
Timberwolf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,298


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2022, 08:08:11 PM »

As much as I would want the UK (and the rest of the Commonwealth) to abolish the monarchy, I think abolishing so soon after the Queen's death would spark a ton of backlash and bad optics, and possibly become as much as a divisive mess as Brexit was for years after the referendum took place.

I think if the government and republican citizens want to end the monarchy, it's probably better to wait until the whole country's had time to grieve, the queen's funeral has taken place, and Charles has been on the throne for a little while. That way, it doesn't look like they were just waiting on the Queen to go before getting rid of the institution (even though the republican cause has been around for far longer than Elizabeth was Queen). Just my two cents, though.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2022, 08:29:12 PM »

Monarchies shouldn't exist.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2022, 09:14:05 PM »

As much as I would want the UK (and the rest of the Commonwealth) to abolish the monarchy, I think abolishing so soon after the Queen's death would spark a ton of backlash and bad optics, and possibly become as much as a divisive mess as Brexit was for years after the referendum took place.

I think if the government and republican citizens want to end the monarchy, it's probably better to wait until the whole country's had time to grieve, the queen's funeral has taken place, and Charles has been on the throne for a little while. That way, it doesn't look like they were just waiting on the Queen to go before getting rid of the institution (even though the republican cause has been around for far longer than Elizabeth was Queen). Just my two cents, though.

This.  Though what I see more likely to happen is the continual diminishment of the Commonwealth as more and more former colonies follow Barbados' lead by cutting their last remaining ties to the monarchy and assume full, formal independence.  I also can see the former settler colonies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand becoming republics.  
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,809
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2022, 02:09:25 AM »

Lol the Queen died Charles is in charge he will be King until 2040 20 yrs we barely know what Charles will do and then William or his son will be King thereafter
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,809
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2022, 02:10:21 AM »

..
They only serve as figure heads now not Prime Minister
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2022, 05:09:30 AM »

..
They only serve as figure heads now not Prime Minister

Not in Vatican City or Saudi Arabia.

Lol the Queen died Charles is in charge he will be King until 2040 20 yrs we barely know what Charles will do and then William or his son will be King thereafter

That was not my question.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,067


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2022, 05:13:51 AM »

Britain is nowhere near ready to have that discussion, Australia in a few years I think could and then NZ a few years after, but Britain has a very strong attachment to the monarchy. So far there isn't an obvious need for change and with all the political instability it is easy for people to be attached to the current neutral head of state and fear change. Hopefully Charles does not fail as King, but if people really want a republic they should hope for that.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2022, 06:18:03 AM »

Britain is nowhere near ready to have that discussion, Australia in a few years I think could and then NZ a few years after, but Britain has a very strong attachment to the monarchy. So far there isn't an obvious need for change and with all the political instability it is easy for people to be attached to the current neutral head of state and fear change. Hopefully Charles does not fail as King, but if people really want a republic they should hope for that.

Speaking of New Zealand, and speaking to a New Zealander, how did the Maori react to Elizabeth's passing? I heard she wasn't that popular among them...
Logged
TPIG
ThatConservativeGuy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,997
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2022, 03:21:05 PM »

No, there is great value in having a separation of head of government and head of state. Additionally, given the monarchy's limited power these days, what good does abolishing it do other than to eliminate an institution fundamental to the history and identity of Britain?
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2022, 09:29:35 AM »

Unpopular opinion: figurehead monarchies are more offensive as a concept than rulers who, you know, actually do things.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2022, 11:10:20 AM »


Not anymore. They're archaic, expensive, and ineffective.
Logged
FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦
AverageFoodEnthusiast
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
Virgin Islands, U.S.


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2022, 08:13:32 AM »

No (not British). I've always found the "argument" that the institution of monarchy is "outdated" as a pathetic reason on why it should be abolished.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2022, 04:17:13 PM »

The monarchy has no real power, so at this point it's just a money sink for one family. I don't think that putting an end to all the gesturing while preserving the remnants of the monarchy would harm Britain culturally, but that money could be spent on more worthwhile things also.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2022, 05:44:42 PM »

Should have done it centuries ago, but better now than never.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2022, 06:04:23 PM »

I'm not in favour of the hereditary principle in principle, but neither am I in favour of having a political Head of State: Parliament is sovereign and a Head of State with a political profile (or, worse, some kind of independent mandate) violates this. A mild constitutional monarchy is an acceptable compromise and preferable to most Republican systems, even if it isn't my preference. Besides, there are more pressing matters.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2022, 12:23:43 PM »

No (not British). I've always found the "argument" that the institution of monarchy is "outdated" as a pathetic reason on why it should be abolished.

This
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2022, 08:18:05 PM »

I do think it should be abolished, but as a Yank I am not going to behave as if I have any power to make it happen.
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 19, 2022, 09:33:36 AM »

No, there is great value in having a separation of head of government and head of state. Additionally, given the monarchy's limited power these days, what good does abolishing it do other than to eliminate an institution fundamental to the history and identity of Britain?

Exactly

I totally agree with this
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 19, 2022, 12:17:39 PM »

For me it depends what the proposed replacement is.  For some time I've thought that my preference would be something close to the Irish system: an elected but essentially ceremonial President with just about enough executive power to obstruct a rogue PM (I wonder who I might have in mind?) making dodgy use of their executive powers.

I'm definitely opposed to simply removing the monarchy and making the PM head of state: I think there needs to be some sort of mechanism to control the PM in some circumstances.  I'm also not keen on moving to an executive Presidency: I'm suspicious of putting too much power in one person's hands, think it can lead to excessively personality based politics (see the current state of the French Fifth Republic), and don't like the way it can reduce legislative elections to a secondary event.
Logged
Lord Halifax
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,304
Papua New Guinea


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 19, 2022, 02:24:09 PM »

I'm not in favour of the hereditary principle in principle, but neither am I in favour of having a political Head of State: Parliament is sovereign and a Head of State with a political profile (or, worse, some kind of independent mandate) violates this. A mild constitutional monarchy is an acceptable compromise and preferable to most Republican systems, even if it isn't my preference. Besides, there are more pressing matters.

So what is your preference? A non-political HoS or abolishing the office of HoS?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2022, 03:05:28 AM »

The United States having a Monarchy would be unthinkable, but in Europe, a system like the British is probably the best system at least as it pertains to having a non-political head of state. If one is worried about the expense, then trim some of the fat (which Charles wants to do anyway IIRC).

There have been times recently, where I wished we had a non-political head of state.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2022, 03:31:27 AM »

So what is your preference? A non-political HoS or abolishing the office of HoS?

The former: the latter would be an extremely bad idea. It is very important that the symbolic aspects of the State are not in the care of the government of the day.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2022, 12:35:17 AM »

So what is your preference? A non-political HoS or abolishing the office of HoS?

The former: the latter would be an extremely bad idea. It is very important that the symbolic aspects of the State are not in the care of the government of the day.

Can confirm, don’t do otherwise! Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.