Is it time for British to become Republicans?
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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.
The fact that there are many definitions published indicates how fuzzy this all is. Choose your definitions, ladies and gentlemen.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
And you made it so in this one.Blind groper wrote:As with so many of these discussions, it is now semantics.
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 am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- colubridae
- Custom Rank: Rank
- Posts: 2771
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
- About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
- Location: Birmingham art gallery
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
I note that the thread title says "Republican", not "republican".Seraph wrote: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?
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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 partyWarren Dew wrote:I note that the thread title says "Republican", not "republican".Seraph wrote: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?
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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.Seraph wrote:
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 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.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
- Warren Dew
- Posts: 3781
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
- Location: Somerville, MA, USA
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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.MrJonno wrote: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
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
Oh, I see. In that case I don't know if it's time for that. Are the Tories actually worse than the Republicans?Warren Dew wrote: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.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 74295
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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 itWarren Dew wrote: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.MrJonno wrote: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
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41178
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
Well, the Spanish king hates Republicans... and apparently, that does him no good.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Pappa
- Non-Practicing Anarchist
- Posts: 56488
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
- About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
- Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
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.JimC wrote: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.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Is it time for British to become Republicans?
Well put. With the strikeout I added, it's a succinct summary of what I tried to say.Pappa wrote:the Prime Minister is the de facto head of state. ... The de jure head of state has no legal power in practice
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 am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests