Is it time for British to become Republicans?

[Pappa]

the Prime Minister is the de facto head of state. ... The de jure head of state has no legal power in practice

Well put. With the strikeout I added, it's a succinct summary of what I tried to say.

But now that Warren Dew alerted us to the probable meaning of "Republican" Coito ergo sum actually had in mind with his parody thread, it might be a good idea to address that issue. It could well turn into an interesting discussion.

I meant to say that the monarch can't exercise their legal powers in practice. I think John mentioned earlier in the thread... they may retain those powers in a strictly legal sense, but if they ever attempted to use them they'd likely quickly find that the population suddenly wanted rid of them.

[Hermit]

Well, yes, we basically agree. From a post I did yesterday: "Since Bad King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta the claims and abilities to absolute rulership by divine right of English monarchs have shrunk over the centuries to the extent that they are now not a lot more than ceremonial/titular heads of the nations. The role of the British monarch is pretty much confined to attend the opening of every envelope, bridge, charitable institution, public park and in Australia, brick dunny, and rubberstamp parliamentary documents that are placed under her pen. Some legislative vestiges of their potential powers persist, but those are neutralised by precedent and tradition. Should prince Charles become king and attempt to reinvoke them in practice, he'll soon be out on his ear."

Now, what about the elephant in the room?

[Coito ergo sum]

So, the United Kingdom has a monarchy and People's Republic of China does not. Which of the two nations do you regard as more democratic than the other? And how would abolishing the monarchy enhance democracy in the UK on its own?

The UK, of course, is more democratic than China. It's also more republican.

Coito ergo sum, I do realise that you claim to have started this thread as a parody, but your persistent and insistent inferiority complex as a denizen of the USA comes through loud and clear once again.

I don't just claim it. I did start the thread as a parody and that much should be obvious from the other threads with similar titles and also the images in the OP and a couple posts after it, alluding the GOP elephant.

I have no inferiority complex -- what I'm on about is the persistent, arrogant, self-righteous superiority complex of many Yerpeens, etc., who must frame virtually every issue in terms of how much better Yerup is. It becomes irritating after a while, especially when a good deal of the time it is unmerited, unjustified and born of an immense and unapologetic ignorance.

Since Bad King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta the claims and abilities to absolute rulership by divine right of English monarchs have shrunk over the centuries to the extent that they are now not a lot more than ceremonial/titular heads of the nations. The role of the British monarch is pretty much confined to attend the opening of every envelope, bridge, charitable institution, public park and in Australia, brick dunny, and rubberstamp parliamentary documents that are placed under her pen. Some legislative vestiges of their potential powers persist, but those are neutralised by precedent and tradition. Should prince Charles become king and attempt to reinvoke them in practice, he'll soon be out on his ear.

I am opposed to monarchies of any form in principle, but in light of the one the House of Windsor represents, I cannot get exited over the issue in so far as their head is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms, head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations, monarch of the United Kingdom and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In some ways it can be argued that in the past few decades US presidents have governed more in a monarchial manner than Queen Elizabeth II.

Were I a Brit, I suspect I would be against funding a monarchy - especially an irrelevant, mostly symbolic one.

However, the OP actually refers to the British becoming Republicans, capital R, meaning members of the Republican party. That's the parody.

[MrJonno]

Not sure why you think the topic is a parody, its a serious political question that has been around for a while the UK, Aus/NZ and Canada?

There are good arguments on both sides on whether to get rid of the monarchy or not through the reality is I suspect most people couldnt really care (it makes no difference in day to day life)

[Coito ergo sum]

The use of the world republic outside the US purely refers to the head of state. Older latin/greek meaning have long been superceeded, you might as well go around saying liberal means right wing which possibly it did originally but is generally something on the left these days

It means that inside the US, too. A Republic certainly has no king/monarch, and is characterized by election of representatives.

I already explained that the words democracy and republic in the present day mean approximately the same thing --- whether inside the US or outside the US. There are only SOME people who make the hair splitting distinction based on etymology and older usages.

Again -- I am not disputing your usage of the word republic. I'm taking issue with your constant harping about the US, and constant either explicit or explicit bashing of the US and Americans.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm refering to what Republican movements in the UK, Australia and Canada consider themselves to be. If you start saying people who call themselves republicans arent really republicans (or they are already in a republic) that whats the point of the topic

Actually, the point of the OP topic was to joke that it was time for the Brits to become Republicans, as in the Republican Party. Not "republicans" as in a republic.

Under modern English usage, the UK, Australia and Canada are definitely democracies and arguably they are republics too since the monarch is basically a figurehead, which means that other than nominally a monarch it's not really a monarch.

[Coito ergo sum]

As with so many of these discussions, it is now semantics.

And you made it so in this one.

Would you agree with MrJonno's opinion that "being a republic or a democracy are completely unrelated. You can be one without the other , both or neither"? If so, what would you make of this thread's title?

One, regarding the thread's title - IT"S REFERRING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY -- it's a joke. Look at the picture of the elephant (symbol of the Republican party) in the OP.

Two, if there is a distinction properly to be made between republic and democracy, as you have noted, under some definitions, then making that distinction is not some "extremist American" position, is it? It's just a different usage?

[Coito ergo sum]

Would you agree with MrJonno's opinion that "being a republic or a democracy are completely unrelated. You can be one without the other , both or neither"? If so, what would you make of this thread's title?

I note that the thread title says "Republican", not "republican".

Not sure that is relevant, in the context of the topic a republican or a Republican means should the British be getting rid of the Queen? ( which is what the topic title should be) , its obviously nothing to do with the US Republican party

Pssst.... look at the picture of the elephant.

I created the topic. It's referring to the Republican Party in the OP.

See - it's British GOP symbol -- an elephant with a top hat and monacle....

If you want to start another thread about getting rid of the queen, fine.

[Pappa]

Now, what about the elephant in the room?

The Lords?

I used to oppose them on principle, but partly due to the parliamentary reforms and partly due to getting a better understanding of their function in relation to the Commons I actually support the status quo to a degree.

Their main useful purpose is to stop the Commons doing stupid things... and it's something they do quite well. I like the idea of a second house that isn't filled with self-serving career politicians. Which is something I'm sure we'd have if the second house was directly elected. The concept of a "Peer of the Realm" is basically good IMO, if the meaning is that of a person who is regarded as meritorious and worthy of the position. In an idealised form, the Lords consist of a bunch of intelligent, upstanding, responsible, thoughtful people. The kind you'd like to be around to keep the Commons in check.

Getting rid of hereditary peers was an excellent first step, but we have peers there for no other reason that they were huge donors to the party in government. We also have many peers simply chosen by the Queen, albeit from a list of suggestions. It means that some ideal potential peers are ignored due to their opinions on various topics. And of course we have the fucking CofE bishops getting automatic seats in the Lords.

I certainly think there's a lot of room for improvement in the selection process, and I'm not entirely discounting the idea of directly elected peers, but in general I think it works quite well, and better than how it would be if Lords were directly elected in a similar way to MPs.

[MrJonno]

Sorry honestly thought it was refering to the monarchy, no chance of us every become republican party members when no one goes to church and most people vote in their own economic interest. The poor vote for left wing parties , the right for more conservative and those in the middle can't decide if they are rich /poor. People just don't vote on 'moral' issues like they do in the US. So few of us are in the military or even know anyone who is I don't even think people vote on who we invade/blow up

[Horwood Beer-Master]

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry honestly thought it was refering to the monarchy, no chance of us every become republican party members when no one goes to church and most people vote in their own economic interest. The poor vote for left wing parties , the right for more conservative and those in the middle can't decide if they are rich /poor. People just don't vote on 'moral' issues like they do in the US. So few of us are in the military or even know anyone who is I don't even think people vote on who we invade/blow up

Another jab at the US, of course, and wildly ignorant and uniformed one.

People don't just vote on "moral" issues here in the US, and, of course, people are no strangers to "moral" issues in the UK. Don't take your own political view and those like you as necessarily dominant in the UK. You do have a Tory party, which does pretty well from time to time. They aren't strangers to "moral" issues. And, in the US, people are generally more interested in a combination of economic, social and moral issues, which is not much different than people anywhere. Please don't mistake your painfully thin understanding of American politics for insight.

[MrJonno]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?
Or the fact that all surveys showed any overwhelming majority of people against the Iraq war but when it came to elections the one party that was against it got slaughtered in the UK

People voting for Christian right parties while being poor is by far more common in the US than anywhere else

[Coito ergo sum]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?

I'll leave you to your proofs as to whichever allegation you're making.

You referred to Americans voting on "moral" issues, which is what I specifically addressed.

As far as this new allegation of the "equivalent of people at the bottom" thinking that one day they will be at the top. I don't know. I don't know what you mean by "at the bottom." Most people in the US who are below the poverty level don't seem to me to have illusions of grandeur, and they primarily vote for Democrats. But, you can illuminate the issue, maybe, with your greater insight. You think that more people "at the bottom" in the US think that one day they will be at the top and therefore vote for conservatives, as opposed to outside the US? Well, let's see what you base that view on. Anything other than your own gut feeling?

Or the fact that all surveys showed any overwhelming majority of people against the Iraq war but when it came to elections the one party that was against it got slaughtered in the UK

I can't speak to what the votes were in the UK. In the US, it was not the case in 2003 than an overwhelming majority of people were against the Iraq War. In 2004, we were coming off having captured Saddam, and having routed Saddam's army quite recently, and things were going pretty well. So, in our elections over here, there was not much that could be said against Bush relative to Iraq. Most of his problems came later, when the insurgency continued. You can let me know the dynamics of the British elections.

My recollection, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that Labour was in favor of the Iraq war, and so were the Tories. That would seem to account for most of your MPs.

But, your specific allegations was that you have so few folks in the armed forces that nobody even votes on who you invade. Well, point of fact, based on the UK pouplation of about 62 million and your 227,160 active duty armed forces, you have .3% of your population in the armed forces at any one time. In the US, we have 1.4 million in the armed forces, which based on a population of over 330,000,000 means we have .4% of the population in the armed forces at any one time. As a percentage of population, the UK and the US have about the same percentage of the population serving. Nothing seems particular relevant about that in terms of how many people in the UK would know somebody or have family members in the armed forces.

People voting for Christian right parties while being poor is by far more common in the US than anywhere else

Your failure to understand that in the US the Republican party is a very large party, which is not exclusively Christian, is where you miss the mark here. There is a battle raging in the Republican party, and has been for years, between the traditional Republicans who were not overtly religious, and the religious right Republicans.

But, again, I would love to see your data for this notion that it is "far more common" in the US than anywhere else. My suspicion is that you just feel it.

[Hermit]

Really so there is an equivalent of people in the bottom of society thinking that one day they will be at the top voting for conservatives outside the US?

Indeed. Off the top of my head, look at the following Prime Ministers: Thatcher (England), Howard (Australia), Merkel (Germany), Belusconi (Italy). The majority of voters of France, Canada and many other nations have also brought in governments that promised to support and improve opportunities for the common folks to make it to the top one day. In Australia the poor and deluded suckers who keep falling for this trick are known as "the aspirational classes".