Is it time for British to become Republicans?

[MrJonno]

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

[Blind groper]

As with so many of these discussions, it is now semantics. Is my definition or your definition to be accepted?

The fact that there are many definitions published indicates how fuzzy this all is. Choose your definitions, ladies and gentlemen.

[MrJonno]

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

[Hermit]

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?

[colubridae]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithh ... e-british/

[Warren Dew]

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".

[MrJonno]

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

[Blind groper]

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?

Not sure that I can answer that one. There is definitely a relationship. However, it is true that a government can be democratic without being a republic.

I may have turned this into semantics. But it came from the simple act of looking up a definition for clarification and finding, to my surprise, that by that definition, a lot of commonwealth countries are, in fact, republics.

[Warren Dew]

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

Given the elephant is the symbol of the U.S. Republican party, I'm pretty sure that's the meaning Coito had in mind when starting the thread - nothing to do with the monarchy.

[Hermit]

Given the elephant is the symbol of the U.S. Republican party, I'm pretty sure that's the meaning Coito had in mind when starting the thread - nothing to do with the monarchy.

Oh, I see. In that case I don't know if it's time for that. Are the Tories actually worse than the Republicans?

[JimC]

As Seraph has already noted, the republican movement in Australia is all about removing the Queen as the titular head of state, and replacing her with some other arrangement. Personally, I see very little real benefit in any such change, and a real chance that a new arrangement could make the political process here confused. I'm perfectly happy to stick with our present system, because the head of state has no direct effect on the way the government operates.

[MrJonno]

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

Given the elephant is the symbol of the U.S. Republican party, I'm pretty sure that's the meaning Coito had in mind when starting the thread - nothing to do with the monarchy.

Given the only meaning of the word republican is in reference to the monarchy in a British (or Australian/Canadian/NZ) context I doubt if US political parties have a lot to do with it

[Svartalf]

Well, the Spanish king hates Republicans... and apparently, that does him no good.

[Pappa]

As Seraph has already noted, the republican movement in Australia is all about removing the Queen as the titular head of state, and replacing her with some other arrangement. Personally, I see very little real benefit in any such change, and a real chance that a new arrangement could make the political process here confused. I'm perfectly happy to stick with our present system, because the head of state has no direct effect on the way the government operates.

It's basically the same situation here, the Prime Minister is the de facto head of state. They're not directly elected like a president, but they are indirectly elected by the electorate via their party. The rare circumstances in which a PM is appointed subsequent to an election rarely cause issue. A PM in that situation is often popularly regarded as having no electoral mandate, but that changes as soon as another general election takes place. Sometimes they intentionally bring this date forward in order to get their electoral mandate (and the credibility that goes with it). The system works well (IMO). The de jure head of state has no legal power in practice even if they do still hold certain powers constitutionally. I don't think replacing a monarch with an elected president would be any better in all practical ways, and in some aspects I think it's a less appealing method of government. I would however like to see the monarch removed as I think it's a stupid anachronism and pretty embarrassing really.

[Hermit]

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.