Is it time for British to become Republicans?

[MrJonno]

Republics are limited by constitutions or charters

Except thats not the meaning that anyone outside the the US (and many in the US) would use to describe the world republic.

A republic is country that does not have a monarchy (ie an inherited head of state). Thats it you can be the worlds worst dictatorship and if you don't have a king or queen you are still a republic. China, Syria, France, Germany and the US are all republics, some however are democratic some are not. Technically North Korea and Cuba are both republics are they have no monarch but as their leaderships seem to be pass from father to son I wouldnt push that

[Coito ergo sum]

Republics are limited by constitutions or charters

Except thats not the meaning that anyone outside the the US (and many in the US) would use to describe the world republic.

As I mentioned, it has many varied meanings. The definitions have evolved over time, and today they mean basically the same thing.

A republic is country that does not have a monarchy (ie an inherited head of state). Thats it you can be the worlds worst dictatorship and if you don't have a king or queen you are still a republic. China, Syria, France, Germany and the US are all republics, some however are democratic some are not. Technically North Korea and Cuba are both republics are they have no monarch but as their leaderships seem to be pass from father to son I wouldnt push that

The primary definition of "republic" in current English usage is something to the effect of this: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them." Secondarily, it can mean as you say, "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state."

The primary definition of "democracy," is "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

They mean roughly the same thing. And, your suggestion that we have some peculiar definition of those words in the US is ridiculous. Stop it.

When someone says that the US is a republic, not a democracy, it's because they are going back in time etymologically when those words had more dramatic differences. We have a guarantee in our constitution of a "republican" form of government, but there is no guarantee in our Constitution that anyone would get to vote for the President of the US. It would be perfectly constitutional under the text of the constitution that a State's electors be chosen by some other means besides popular vote. That is what they're getting at. Incidentally, the whole "we're a republic, not a democracy" distinction is a concern to maybe 1% of the population. We generally use republic and democracy essentially interchangeably, as is the modern English usage.

Despite the fact that the DPRK calls itself a Republic, it isn't generally considered one. It's a dictatorship. Just "not having a monarch" is not normally enough to be considered a Republic in modern English usage. (although, as I noted, that is a secondary or tertiary usage, less common than the primary one that I quoted above)

If Massachusetts, for example, decided that its electors would be appointed by the general assembly of Massachusetts, then that's how they would be appointed.

The word democracy, historically, etymologically, means that the electorate has a right to vote for the elected officials. That is the case in the US now, but it doesn't have to be.

[MrJonno]

The primary definition of "republic" in current English usage is something to the effect of this: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them." Secondarily, it can mean as you say, "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state."

I would swap those definitions around in priority depending on where you live, and constantly the word 'Republic' when used by right wing Americans and can basically translated that millions of peasants can't tell what the rich can do via the ballot box

There are republican movements all over the English speaking world basically on whether to keep the London based Queen, but none of these movements are anything to do with where power lies. I doubt your average Australian or Canadian thinks power isnt with their people whether they like the Queen or not

[Coito ergo sum]

The primary definition of "republic" in current English usage is something to the effect of this: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them." Secondarily, it can mean as you say, "a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state."

I would swap those definitions around in priority depending on where you live, and constantly the word 'Republic' when used by right wing Americans and can basically translated that millions of peasants can't tell what the rich can do via the ballot box

See, it's this insulting and demeaning nonsense that I'm on about. Total bollocks, more of your false attribution of scurrilousness upon the US.

Where are you referring to? Let's take a look at what definition applies in the dictionaries used in these places -- which according to you is everywhere except in the US. The modern British English definition is in accord with the definition I quoted.

The first definition is not some "right wing American" definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Moreover, the US has nothing to do with "millions of peasants can't tell what the rich can do via the ballot box" -- That isn't what goes on here, at least anymore than goes on in whatever country you come from.

There are republican movements all over the English speaking world basically on whether to keep the London based Queen, but none of these movements are anything to do with where power lies. I doubt your average Australian or Canadian thinks power isnt with their people whether they like the Queen or not

Whatever the "average" Australian or Canadian thinks, with all due respect, is of no greater value than whatever the average American or Norwegian thinks. The modern English usage is what it is. You have another dictionary?

[MrJonno]

Moreover, the US has nothing to do with "millions of peasants can't tell what the rich can do via the ballot box" -- That isn't what goes on here, at least anymore than goes on in whatever country you come from.

No more than any other country but thats because you are a democracy which happens to be a republic as well but its absolutely what some extremists on that forum has said. They openly despise democracy and boast that they don't live in country that is one

[Coito ergo sum]

Moreover, the US has nothing to do with "millions of peasants can't tell what the rich can do via the ballot box" -- That isn't what goes on here, at least anymore than goes on in whatever country you come from.

No more than any other country but thats because you are a democracy which happens to be a republic as well but its absolutely what some extremists on that forum has said. They openly despise democracy and boast that they don't live in country that is one

Of course. The US is a democracy under modern English usage. I already explained to you what the "we're a republic, not a democracy" crowd are referring to when they say that.

Ugh.

Again - democracy is a word that has a number of different means, and meanings that have evolved in many ways. We are a democracy in the sense of a government in which leaders are elected via popular vote, and the basic principle that the power comes from the people and majority rules, and we don't have a king, and all that sort of thing. But, we AREN'T a democracy in the classical sense of a pure majority rule. FFS, it's not that complicated, nor is it "extremist."

The reference to "extremists" is particularly misplaced. While some extremists may well say that we aren't a democracy, we're a republic, and argue a distinction, that doesn't make the statement something that is hateful or extreme. Look - being against "pure" democracy is not a bad thing. There is a place in the world for the individual to be immune from majority rule, like if the majority would vote to make a woman a sex slave or vote that all communists are prohibited from publishing their views. It's good that we have protections carved a little firmer than "the majority would never vote for those sorts of things."

That's generally what people mean when they make the democracy/republic distinction. They aren't worshiping on the altar of democracy, because they support the notion that the vote of the majority isn't able to do anything and everything.

[MrJonno]

When in history has a democracy ever meant a direct vote on every issues by the people?

With the internet it may happen one day (I hope not)

[Coito ergo sum]

When in history has a democracy ever meant a direct vote on every issues by the people?

When the word originated in ancient Greece.

But that has been my point all along. The words Republic and Democracy in modern English mean approximately the same thing. But, there is a long evolution of what these words meant over the years, and not all Democracies were Republics and not all Republics were Democracies.

I'm not disagreeing with you over definitions, because there are several accepted definitions, and the definitions have evolved over time.

What I'm disagreeing with is your insistence on claiming that this has some sort of scurrilous connection with the US, and that "extreme" Americans mean something nefarious by making the distinction -- and that "only" Americans even understand the distinction. That shit is just more lambasting of the US -- and I'm trying to get across that there may be ways to discuss an issue without folding in your true agenda, which is to slur the US as some sort of extremist place that basically sucks in every way.

With the internet it may happen one day (I hope not)

Gasp! You mean you oppose that kind of democracy? How dare you be so extreme as to suggest there could be something negative about democracy! How "extremist" of you! Paranoid...gun toting....that's what you must be...

[Warren Dew]

Technically North Korea and Cuba are both republics are they have no monarch but as their leaderships seem to be pass from father to son I wouldnt push that

Technically North Korea is democratic as well, since they vote for their hereditary non-monarchical government.

[Hermit]

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?

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.

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.

[Blind groper]

The Queen is not a national leader, as Seraph points out. She is a figurehead only. So her role is not in any way a detriment to a full democracy. By the definition of republic I used, Britain is a republic. All its real leaders are voted in by the people.

Ditto the commonwealth nations for which the queen is only a distant symbol. We are full democracies and can be described as republics for the same reason.

[Hermit]

The Queen is not a national leader, as Seraph points out. She is a figurehead only. So her role is not in any way a detriment to a full democracy. By the definition of republic I used, Britain is a republic. All its real leaders are voted in by the people.

That's not exactly what I said. The monarch's role is more circumscribed by convention than legislation. Definitely room for improvement there. As for all its leaders being voted in by the people, that is factually simply untrue. Just look at the membership the The House of Lords. It constitutes the upper half of the UK's bicameral parliamentary system.

My reply was motivated by wanting to highlight some somewhat hysterical aspects of Coito's opening and subsequent posts.

[Blind groper]

OK
Then let me exclude Britain.
Australia, NZ, and other democratic commonwealth nations fit the definition of republics.

[MrJonno]

OK
Then let me exclude Britain.
Australia, NZ, and other democratic commonwealth nations fit the definition of republics.

If Australia and NZ are republics then the word republic has no meaning.

Basically being a republic or a democracy are completely unrelated. You can be one without the other , both or neither

A democracy is about power vaguely residing with the people (anything from a one party dictatorship to a elected representatives) and a republic is not having a monarch

[Blind groper]

There are many different definitions of republic. Here is one from Wiki.

"A republic is a form of government in which the government is officially apportioned to the control of the people and thus a "public matter" (Latin: res publica) and where offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed.[1][2] In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch.[3][4] The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government."

This definition would make Australia and NZ into republics. Bearing in mind that the Queen of England is a titular monarch only, and has no power to rule, meaning she is not a monarch of those countries in terms of political power.