The Queen is dead.

[SqueakyVoice]

Security will be a nightmare on Monday, I should think: every terrorist knobjob in the world will be heading for London!

Don't worry, the bins are going to be knob proof.

https://inews.co.uk/news/preparations-queens-funeral-police-expansion-bomb-proof-1854325

...or bomb proof.
... or, maybe both?

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[ProfessorDavey]

.

Beyond parody - so small children aren't allowed to enjoy a ride because it is disrespectful. Really, the country needs to get a grip.

[Gordon]

The BBC are especially bad - but it is all virtue-signalling on the basis that the received wisdom is that we are all grieving: we aren't, but some of us are pissed off at the constant sychophantic bollocks that current infests much of the media.

The media seems immune to a bit of instrospection about their coverage: and where is the 'balance' that allows anti-monarchy views to be expressed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Currently the argument against the monarchy is being drowned out by the wall-to-wall pro-monarchy coverage, with dissenting voices barely allowed to be seen, let alone heard.

and yet we barely heard a republican peep when the queen was in rude health. That makes republicanism in the UK an opportunistic thing.

But that will change - I'd be pretty confident that over the next few months and years there will be a much greater focus on the arguments for and against the monarchy.

Not if the past is anything to go by

This was pretty difficult to do while the Queen was alive as it was difficult to unpick arguments for/against the monarchy, with those for/against the monarch. That has changed and once the immediate royal-fest is over there will be space and time for a broader debate.

If a republic gets across the line I should imagine many of the tactics would probably have to be taken from the brexiteers playbook.

[Nearly Sane]

and yet we barely heard a republican peep when the queen was in rude health. That makes republicanism in the UK an opportunistic thing.Not if the past is anything to go by If a republic gets across the line I should imagine many of the tactics would probably have to be taken from the brexiteers playbook.

And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number. So your logic is flawed.

[Gordon]

and yet we barely heard a republican peep when the queen was in rude health. That makes republicanism in the UK an opportunistic thing.

Don't be silly: some of us have been looking to dispose of the monarchy for quite some time.

Not if the past is anything to go by

Here in Scotland stated support for the monarchy is at 45%

https://whatscotlandthinks.org/2022/09/the-monarchy-and-the-union-a-symbiotic-relationship/

If a republic gets across the line I should imagine many of the tactics would probably have to be taken from the brexiteers playbook.

Even dafter - brexit supporters tend to be pro-monarchy (and pro-tory).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. Accountability - an elected head of state is accountable to the people, a monarch isn't

Has anyone told King Charles the first? You say this Davey but then we find this from our own Gordon

A fundamental reason for the UK, and hopefully Scotland in due course, electing to become a republic would be to remove the situation of having a hereditary head of state

So there is apparent accountability.
I was selected for many of the offices I have held because of my training I had great accountability, even to the point of being subject to criminal prosecution if I was found to have failed in my duties yet in no way could I have been said to be elected to that role and in the end that didn't matter. A king can be as accountable as that.

2. Equality - no-one should be fundamentally barred from aspiring to be head of state - determining head of state by accident of birth is a million miles from equality

And yet apparently there can be no President Schwartzeneger because he, by accident of birth, was not born in the USA. Are people fundementally born equal?, In what fundamental way are they equal? Of course there are prescriptions for this. The US constitution states that all are equal under God. Does your belief in the equality of man operate on the basis of things that are superior to humanity or what. Until you answer this you have no fundamental answer as to why a president is superior to a constitutional monarch. You have no warrant to say you have a case based on equality. There can also only be one head of state whose passage in republics has often been eased by wealth and connection.
 Secondly is it logical for Democracy to be ubiquitous? I'm sure we can all think of situations where democracy isn't relevant or appropriate. And here we should not conflate absolute and constitutional monarchs.

3. Risk - you can get rid of a rubbish elected head of state, even if you have to wait a few years

Not guaranteed e.g presidents emeritus in China I believe

  - you cannot get rid of a rubbish monarch without a constitutional crisis.

And of course that would be an issue in an absolute monarchy of course a constitutional monarch can be limited in what areas they can be rubbish in. Of course this is where the ''President Boris Johnson argument comes in''

4. Reputation - it is very hard for a monarch to dissociate themselves from past imperialism due to monarchical continuity and that the monarchy massively benefitted personally from aspects of our history that we feel aren't filled with glory. An elected head of state likely has no such baggage, and if they do you can vote against them.

Again Russia abolished it's monarchy and now has both a monarchical and republican past to live down, and as far as the latter is concerned, the Russian republic is having another go!. I can't see becoming a republic wiping the slate and if commonwealth countries become republics what constitutional leverage do they then have on our state?

5. Values and influence - to have influence you need to live your values - hard to argue for democracy in the face of dynastic leaders if our head of state is themselves dynastic.

Conflation of democracy, absolute monarchy, dynasty and deliberate confusion of absolute and constitutional monarchy. Might have had some traction but your resort to dodginess and sleight of hand weakens this argument. Britain is a well known example of parliamentary democracy globally respected until Brexit and the Tories. That is why the president Boris Johnson argument against a republic is so persuasive.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Gordon]

Woildn't disagree.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/15/dissenting-voices-royal-mourning-queen-silenced-cancel-culture

[ProfessorDavey]

Has anyone told King Charles the first?

Are you really claiming that because you can murder someone then accountability exists

As far as I am aware there are no lawful mechanisms by which a monarch can be removed against their will. Sure you could argue you could change the law, but that would also be impossible without the consent of the monarch as they have to give royal assent to any new law. Now you might argue that the monarch will never refuse and certainly if they did their would be a constitutional crisis. But that doesn't alter the fact that the monarch is not accountable constitutionally to the people in any way - if a monarch refused to go and refused to give royal assent there is nothing lawfully under our constitution that could be done.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet apparently there can be no President Schwartzeneger because he, by accident of birth, was not born in the USA. Are people fundementally born equal?, In what fundamental way are they equal? Of course there are prescriptions for this. The US constitution states that all are equal under God. Does your belief in the equality of man operate on the basis of things that are superior to humanity or what.

Why are you focussing on the USA - I've already said that it is unlikely that UK republicanism would support and exec president, more likely a non-exec one with the PM retaining executive functions.

And you are quibbling over details of eligibility (personally I don't agree with the US, born in the USA criterion) - I'm talking about principle. Currently no-one can aspire to be head of state unless they are born to it (and that isn't really aspiration is it). I think that is wrong - on the principle of equality I do not think that we should say to people that you are not allowed to aspire to be a teacher, or aspire to be astronaut, to aspire to be PM, to aspire to be head of state. Now of course many people won't have the attributes ultimately to achieve their aspirations, and in some cases where there is a single job they may be unsuccessful, but that is a world away from saying that you cannot, because you weren't born to a particular person who happens to be in an elite establishment position.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not guaranteed e.g presidents emeritus in China I believe

Err - I think you missed the word 'elected' - and hardly an inspiring argument if your only way t defend the position of the monarchy in terms of ability to get rid of them is to nod to authoritarian effective dictatorships.

Bottom line - we cannot constitutionally get rid of a rubbish monarch - if we had an elected president, we would be able to get rid of them as their term would be time limited and if they rubbish we can choose not to re-elect them.

[jeremyp]

Beyond parody - so small children aren't allowed to enjoy a ride because it is disrespectful. Really, the country needs to get a grip.

Yes, because that's definitely a genuine thing and not the work of the picture taker.

[jeremyp]

And yet Brexiteers are more monarchist than republican by a huge number. So your logic is flawed.

Citation needed.

[jeremyp]

Err - I think you missed the word 'elected' - and hardly an inspiring argument if your only way t defend the position of the monarchy in terms of ability to get rid of them is to nod to authoritarian effective dictatorships.

Bottom line - we cannot constitutionally get rid of a rubbish monarch - if we had an elected president, we would be able to get rid of them as their term would be time limited and if they rubbish we can choose not to re-elect them.

But since the job of a constitutional head of state is ceremonial, what does it matter? If all you do is open and close parliament and sign bills into law, it's difficult to see how you could be rubbish at it.

And if we cannot constitutionally get rid of the monarch, how are you proposing we get rid of the monarch? You want to do something that you claim is impossible.

[ProfessorDavey]

But since the job of a constitutional head of state is ceremonial, what does it matter? If all you do is open and close parliament and sign bills into law, it's difficult to see how you could be rubbish at it.

Actually constitutionally the powers of the monarch are far greater than that, we simply work on trust (rather than constitution) that the monarch will not exercise those powers.

So for example constitutionally a monarch could refuse to sign a bill into law. Constitutionally a monarch could have refused to accept Johnson's resignation, or have refused to appoint Truss as PM.

So the powers of the monarch go well beyond the merely ceremonial and while we operate simply on trust that the monarch won't exercise those powers we cannot guarantee that a future (bad) monarch might do so, in which case we'd be in constitutional crisis.

And constitutionally, we cannot get rid of a monarch that has gone rogue - we can try to change the law via parliament, but that would ... err ... require royal assent that a monarch constitutionally, can refuse to give.

If we had an elected head of state with similar powers, then at worst, we'd simply need to wait until their elected term ended (rather than until they died). Better still we can put in place checks and balances within the constitution that allow us to get rid of a poor head of state prior to the end of their elected period, in the manner that we have for the PM - vote of no confidence, and MPs - recall petitions.

[ProfessorDavey]

And if we cannot constitutionally get rid of the monarch, how are you proposing we get rid of the monarch? You want to do something that you claim is impossible.

Good question.

The reality is that we can only get rid of the monarchy by consent of the monarch or via revolution.

Under our constitution and laws a government could propose to get rid of the monarchy and bring forward legislation to change the constitution (likely requiring direct democratic consent via a referendum). However if the monarch refuses to allow themselves to be abolished by refusing to sign the royal assent then there is nothing within our lawful process that could be done. So the only option would be revolution.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: some of us have been looking to dispose of the monarchy for quite some time.

I can't recall you saying anything on this forum about disposing of the monarchy prior to Her Majesty's passing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the only option would be revolution.

We're in the middle of a right wing revolution already

[Nearly Sane]

I can't recall you saying anything on this forum about disposing of the monarchy prior to Her Majesty's passing.

I can.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can.

Citation please.

[ProfessorDavey]

But since the job of a constitutional head of state is ceremonial, what does it matter?

We actually have very little transparency on the influence that the monarch has on the PM and government. We know that the monarch has weekly meetings with a PM - we also know that our new King is famous for routinely writing to PMs, ministers etc expressing his views on what he thinks should and should not happen.

Can we really be confident that, let's say, a perfectly reasonable proposal to fully tax members of the royal family isn't quietly opposed by the monarch during the privileged meetings with the PM and a 'compromise' developed whereby some income is taxed but other income retains a special privilege. The point is that under these circumstance the monarch (under the expected standard for public life) should declare an interest and absolve his or herself from any form of privileged conversation with those making the decisions.

So I'd suspect (and this cannot really be denied) that a level of gentle persuasion is regularly exercised in privileged audiences sufficient to influence the government of the day. I think this is likely to be greater with Charles, as although he may be a little more careful now he is King, he has spent years using his privileged position and special access to those in power to promulgate his own personal views and agenda.