British Republicanism

[Lozzer]

This thread is not to argue the merits or troubles with republicanism, but its existence in British form today.

I support Republicanism, but the very definition of it seems to have dissented from its original meaning: political ideology of a nation as a republic, with an emphasis on liberty, rule by the people, and the civic virtue practised by citizens. Modern British Republicanism has been smeared not by its adversaries and not by legitimate argument, but by republicans themselves. It no longer seems to be considered a political ideology, but a sectarian one.

From American fundamentalist Christians, to Irish Nationalists, they have completely dismissed the original propositions of Republicanism. They do not support the liberty of the people, but their own latency and liberty to subdue their respectful nations into theocracy. This is not republicanism, but subordination to a government outside of the real world. That is to say, they're contented to not be a republic at all but a segment of an imaginary empire. Kind of defeats the point of independence does it not? It lacks the advocacy of rule by the people, and instead wish to impose rule by governance--a government who's actions are dictated by an divine absolute I.e God.

I may have erected a complete No True Scotsman here and I've probably generalised allot, but the latter is irrelevant. If it is indeed only individuals who are responsible or support the above, then it is in fact them who have smeared Republicanism. The British now seem to have the very narrow and ignorant opinion that monarchy is good and divine, while republican a Catholic force which wants to destroy all things Royal. Loyalists still erect the same old fallacious arguments in support of Monarchism, but it really doesn't matter because the majority have a mislead view formed by 'republicans' and 'republican movements' in other countries.

So far as my family is concerned, we already have a constitution and the 1688 revolution was enough to put us on the right path--the opinions of Burke seem to be timeless.

[Rum]

I think you are wrong in your conclusion Loz. Possibly this is because of your close proximity (from what I have read) to the Irish 'issue'. The reason 'republicanism' in the context you are referring to is tainted in any way at all in this regard is that the IRA (Irish Republican Army) have that label stuck in the middle of their name. Certainly a less democratic organisation would be hard to find!

However the real and true definition of republicanism is as you suggest at the beginning of your post. There are many republicans in this country, though not as many as there should be. Our ''let's let democracy evolve over the centuries' approach may to many people feel as if it wasn't broken - so why fix it - until recently. The recent loss of pretty well any faith in the current political system here may give rise to a little more discussion about it.

There is no justification other than history, momentum and lack of political will for the present Monarchist system to continue. I suspect a poll taken now compared to even five years ago would show a falling off of support for it.

[Lozzer]

I think you are wrong in your conclusion Loz. Possibly this is because of your close proximity (from what I have read) to the Irish 'issue'. The reason 'republicanism' in the context you are referring to is tainted in any way at all in this regard is that the IRA (Irish Republican Army) have that label stuck in the middle of their name. Certainly a less democratic organisation would be hard to find!

Ah yes, probably so.

However the real and true definition of republicanism is as you suggest at the beginning of your post. There are many republicans in this country, though not as many as there should be. Our ''let's let democracy evolve over the centuries' approach may to many people feel as if it wasn't broken - so why fix it - until recently. The recent loss of pretty well any faith in the current political system here may give rise to a little more discussion about it.

Indeed, I don't believe there's need for drastic change as of now, but in terms of principles--change is necessary. The modern British monarchy is nothing but an ornament of British imperialism and a reminder of our less than benevolent past. Its a plinth of indignity and shrouds the nation in 18th century stationariness. We can't seriously depose the despots of other nations and advocate democracy to poorer countries while ignoring the necessity for revision of our own tyrannies and backwardness.

There is no justification other than history, momentum and lack of political will for the present Monarchist system to continue. I suspect a poll taken now compared to even five years ago would show a falling off of support for it.

Paine understood this and Paine deplored it. The want to persevere with tradition isn't a legitimate argument, it isn't an argument at all. Its an avoidance to accept one has issues, and maybe with continuation of the tradition, good things may stem from it. Its only an admittance of how inconsistent Monarchist rule really is. I don't think you disagree with me, but please don't encourage people to believe 'history' is justification. It much better to phase it differently, and correctly as the ossification of indolence. That isn't justification. To digress from semantics now, I do fully agree with the rest of your sentence.

[The Red Fox]

There is no justification other than history, momentum and lack of political will for the present Monarchist system to continue. I suspect a poll taken now compared to even five years ago would show a falling off of support for it.

The most recent poll (taken this year IIRC) suggests around 70% support for the monarchy. I wish it were falling, I really do, but I doubt we'll see any significant drops until Charlie takes the throne. Lizzy is just too popular with both monarchists and the indifferent. I also feel that in times like this when the government of the day has run out of steam and the country is going through hard times, people tend to turn to the monarchy as it is a constant, something unchanging. To them it is something to cling onto which they see as uniquely German British.

Indeed, I don't believe there's need for drastic change as of now, but in terms of principles--change is necessary. The modern British monarchy is nothing but an ornament of British imperialism and a reminder of our less than benevolent past. Its a plinth of indignity and shrouds the nation in 18th century stationariness. We can't seriously depose the despots of other nations and advocate democracy to poorer countries while ignoring the necessity for revision of our own tyrannies and backwardness.

Unfortunately there is still a large segment of society which clings to what the monarchy stands for, and would gladly have Britain return to those days. As much as we love to deny it, there is a massive imperial hangover in this country. I think your second point on our interventionist foreign policy is spot on. We can't spread democracy when we ourselves have so little say in this country that our opinions as an electorate are routinely ignored and dismissed as not only irrelevant but stupid by politicians. They treat us with near contempt. Even though it's off topic, I would like to point out I am against our current foreign policy.

We desperately need modernity in this country, and installing a republic would be the first steps to becoming a much more representative country where we have far more control and hopefully political and social liberalisation would follow.

On a somewhat related note, I reckon that until FPTP is replaced with a decent PR system we'll be stuck in the Lab-Con stagnation and nothing will change. Republicans not only need to grow in number, but need a decent system before we're represented and get what we want. Until then we'll be stuck in the same corporate-capitalist, to and fro nightmare where nothing changes for decades. 30 years of Thatcherism is enough.

...Unless of course you're a revolutionary and you're constructing a guillotine in your shed.

[Lozzer]

The most recent poll (taken this year IIRC) suggests around 70% support for the monarchy. I wish it were falling, I really do, but I doubt we'll see any significant drops until Charlie takes the throne. Lizzy is just too popular with both monarchists and the indifferent. I also feel that in times like this when the government of the day has run out of steam and the country is going through hard times, people tend to turn to the monarchy as it is a constant, something unchanging. To them it is something to cling onto which they see as uniquely German British.

Yes, it seems they to enjoy the security. These people chant 'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves' as if it was some kind of mantra. Had these people studied Paine during 'adolescence', maybe it would have actually helped them to grow up.

Unfortunately there is still a large segment of society which clings to what the monarchy stands for, and would gladly have Britain return to those days. As much as we love to deny it, there is a massive imperial hangover in this country.

I agree, this is observable in everything from British football culture, to our residential care homes. I don't think I even need to mention the BNP--which seems to have the hooligan antics of football fans and the senility of the overly-aged.

We desperately need modernity in this country, and installing a republic would be the first steps to becoming a much more representative country where we have far more control and hopefully political and social liberalisation would follow.

Agreed.

[The Red Fox]

Yes, it seems they to enjoy the security. These people chant 'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves' as if it was some kind of mantra. Had these people studied Paine during 'adolescence', maybe it would have actually helped them to grow up.

It's typical denial. They know full well the words ring hollow today, and it's only through their rather scant reading of history that they're even aware we had control of the seas. "It's a link to our past" is just an ugly euphemism for colonialism and oppression, the British values we can be proud of. I agree with you on Paine. One of the most important political thinkers of the enlightenment and sadly overlooked here. I had only heard of him when I took an interest in North American history and I doubt many outside of Thetford have even heard his name. It saddens me that three centuries on his ideas are still considered revolutionary in "modern" Britain. It wouldn't surprise me if the political class were happy to keep his work effectively censored, they do have a vested interest in keeping such "seditious ideas" out of the public conscience.

I agree, this is observable in everything from British football culture, to our residential care homes. I don't think I even need to mention the BNP--which seems to have the hooligan antics of football fans and the senility of the overly-aged.

Possibly because the BNP contains both the football hooligans and the racist old farts who remember the good old days before political correctness went mad.

I think if we want to get anywhere as republicans, we not only need our point put across more on political discussions when relevant. I hardly ever hear the republican side of a debate, even when discussing the monarchy it's always about "modernising" and rarely is the option of abolition considered or if it is, it's usually presented as the token insanity portion of the debate. Similar to the discussion of illegal drugs, legalisation is rarely presented as an option in "debates", it's always the status quo vs. the slightly different status quo.

Another problem we face is political representation. Republicanism as a single issue is not an option as there are many issues surrounding the operation of a country. Therefore it needs to be part of a wider manifesto, and there we run into problems. While someone like myself would like to see a socialist republic, others might prefer a capitalist system and it goes on from there. This divides votes.

I'll have to look into this further, but I'm not sure there have been many democratically established republics. If this is the case that is even more worrying for the future of British republicanism, as we're some of the least revolutionary people on Earth.

You know, I see this as somewhat similar to implementing the metric system. Had we converted everything 40 years ago when we were supposed to instead of putting it off there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much fuss. Yet the constant delays have meant the opposition has had time to entrench and spread myths and effectively stop the conversion process. All sorts of rubbish about "The EU Dictatorship" and being "patriotic" by using antiquated measures (if our education system was up to par, they would know that Imperial measures are European in origin). Ties in nicely to the first paragraph. They do love Imperialism in all its forms, don't they?

Infantile bloody morons.

[Rum]

It has just occurred to me that there is very little passion in British politics these days - passion, or for that matter enthusiasm or commitment. Maybe that is actually quite a good thing. Despite all the moaning and negativity around at the moment (if we ever deserved the label 'whinging Poms' it is surely these days!) things rub along far better than in much of the world.

That may not be saying much I know, but we should be careful what we wish for. If we become a republic we could all turn French! Eek!

[Lozzer]

Fox, again I have to agree completely.

On another note regarding monarchy; if their power is hereditary, then why isn't their guilt and crimes purported too? After all, if they have such inherit authority why aren't the crimes perpetrated by that authority also inherit?

[The Red Fox]

It has just occurred to me that there is very little passion in British politics these days - passion, or for that matter enthusiasm or commitment. Maybe that is actually quite a good thing. Despite all the moaning and negativity around at the moment (if we ever deserved the label 'whinging Poms' it is surely these days!) things rub along far better than in much of the world.

That may not be saying much I know, but we should be careful what we wish for. If we become a republic we could all turn French! Eek!

I must say I've always quite admired the French. They knew what to do with priests and 'royalty'. I do think you have a point on cohesion, our lack of passion in just about anything means we won't rip each other apart over disagreements (unless we're tanked-up of course). It also means, for better or worse, that little gets done. Politics here is often one step forward and two steps back. Though when I look at the Daily Mail fuelled Right-wing lunatics I let off a sigh of relief knowing they're not politically organised.

Fox, again I have to agree completely.

On another note regarding monarchy; if their power is hereditary, then why isn't their guilt and crimes purported too? After all, if they have such inherit authority why aren't the crimes perpetrated by that authority also inherit?

"The monarch is also immune from prosecution in the courts, though the scope of the immunity that once attached to the Crown has reduced. (The ostensible logic for this is that the Queen is present in all courts and acts as the prosecuting authority in most criminal cases, either directly or indirectly: she cannot therefore sue or prosecute herself or judge her own case. However, this logic can be said to be flawed because there appears no problem in judging her own cases as prosecutor, or as claimant in civil litigation. The explanation most commonly offered in texts on Crown immunity is that "the Queen can do no wrong", and therefore cannot be held liable for breaches of contract or in tort)"(source)

Essentially the monarch is the centre of our constitution which, conveniently, is made up of our laws. Look into our legal system and constitution for more. It's all well structured to give the impression of a monarch with no power but in reality makes him/her untouchable without serious reorganisation. It would probably take a complete rebuilding of the judiciary to remove the monarchy. They've got it sewn up nice and tight.

[Chinaski]

I'll just post this here because it's funny as fuck, somewhat relevant, and I don't want to start a new thread.

[Lozzer]

I'll just post this here because it's funny as fuck, somewhat relevant, and I don't want to start a new thread.

Lol my towns on there. The top one in England



Its a fucking shithole.

[Lozzer]

To let off more steam, this bitch's home is opposite the ASDA I have to pass by every time I go into town.
She would lean out the window and gob at people apparently.

The whole place belongs to the Torys now because my fellow towns people are fucking idiots.

[Trolldor]

It's the war of alternatives.
The populous is a rabble that strives to be led, inspite of its incessant rantings and ramblings. Labor is becoming unpopular, and the Torys are the only group speaking wit an authority to match their volume.

...and that's the extent of my understanding of British politics, goodbye.

[Pappa]

It's the war of alternatives.
The populous is a rabble that strives to be led, inspite of its incessant rantings and ramblings. Labor is becoming unpopular, and the Torys are the only group speaking wit an authority to match their volume.

...and that's the extent of my understanding of British politics, goodbye.

It's OK. You summed it up.

They're both the same anyway (except Labour have introduced more authoritarian laws than Maggie could every have dreamed of).

[AshtonBlack]

It's the war of alternatives.
The populous is a rabble that strives to be led, inspite of its incessant rantings and ramblings. Labor is becoming unpopular, and the Torys are the only group speaking wit an authority to match their volume.

...and that's the extent of my understanding of British politics, goodbye.

It's OK. You summed it up.

They're both the same anyway (except Labour have introduced more authoritarian laws than Maggie could every have dreamed of).

Oh, I've no doubt she dreamed of it, but thought it was too draconian. Labour have just performed a greatest scam on the populace of Britain. I mean, wasn't the whole point of "Labour" to look after our national monopolies? Instead of reversing them, they sold out to "Big Business" and not only didn't reverse them, but continued to sell out OUR legacy to the highest bidders. (If you want an example, count how many Public/Private partnerships actually saved the government money, after 20 years.)


To get back on topic: I am a republican, in the "old" sense of the word.
I would (if I had the mandate) do the following:

1. Scrap the civil list.
2. Prepare the HoP, HoL and government for changes to the "traditions."
3. Elect a President as head of state. (I would suggest a 10 year term, so it's longer than the sitting government.)
4. Reclaim all property and chattels owned by "us". (About £1.3 billion, this leaves the Windsor family with a poultry £600million of "personal" wealth.)

That's it.....
Seems more "modern" somehow.