It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the UK become a republican state?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
one third of the UK are repubilcans and feel we need a change when it comes to who is the head of state. Some say the monarchy should be given less power, but i strongly feel it is time to remove them as head of state and make this country more modern. How can we be a democracy when our head of state is unelected??

Now, think how much money will be saved when the monarchy is removed. None of our taxes will be going to them for land, etc and think how much we could invest into education, public safety, transport, health, etc. A president would prove better then a king or queen. Also the house of lords is unelected aswell, i feel that to should be replaced (i dont know what with though).

But the main which should be done after turning into a republican state is a new UK constitution and bill of rights. Think how better our country can become


(Yes, i am a republican)




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I must admit I favour a British republic myself.

The 'hereditary principle' as a means of running the country (even if it is only a rarely used part) seems to me as ridiculous as the notion of hereditary qualifications for pilots, dentists or mathematicians.

.....and then there is the whole issue of how it underpins the UK's appallingly stiffling class system.

I don't buy the tourism arguement either.
No-one comes to the UK to actually expect to see the Queen, they go to look at the historic sites which would still be there.

When Elizabeth 2 goes I expect the whole issue to come to prominence and I would not be surprised if Charles is never anything but the most ceremonial King, if at all.

Even though we have been barred from properly debating the issue in our politics (MP's are legally restrained from debating the matter) it is reckoned at least one third of the British public favour a republic.
It would be interesting to see what difference a proper public debate had on the matter.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I must confess that I really love the UK the way it is, warts and all.

Perhaps this is just the silly, emotional affection of a long lost native son (about 16 generations back), but I really like the UK the way it is.

Is the UK really so broken that it needs still more reform?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
one of Britains fundamental political problems problems seems to be the system's inability to reform itself, even when there is a strong consensus in favour.

while i agree the monarchy may be unpopular sometimes, i don't see why it needs changing. i believe the Queens role as a permanent non-partisan unifying influence above party which enables her to perfrom hundreds of engagements and overseas visits each year offers a symbol of national unity. at this, she is obviously very experienced and skilled at.
as a ceremonial head of the Commonwealth, the Queen acts as a focus and a binding influence for this loose association of states, and surely these contacts with other head of states, during this time of erratic political stability must be of some value to the government?

and for some statistics, in 1997 (no recent ones sorry) only 5% of the public thought the monarchy should be replaced with a republic when the Queen dies. Whereas 74% of the public believed the monarchy should continue.

and sminkeypinkey, whilst tourists may not come here to specifically see the Queen, but still many thousands are attracted to London by the pageantry and glitter of the monarchy, which earns valuable foreign currency.

EDIT: spelling / spelling again!


[edit on 2/12/04 by BLUELol]

[edit on 2/12/04 by BLUELol]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
When our Gracious Queen Elizabeth II passes away, God bless her, I cannot see how the Royal Family can survive for long. The simple fact is that Prince Charles is quite obviously an arrogant, pompous prat. And William and Harry will not exactly fit the Royal "model". It will be difficult for any of the current crop of successors to justify why they merit head of state status, when they can hardly hope to appeal to fervent Monarchists.

In regards to the 1/3 support for British Republic.... i think you will find that there was similar support, or even greater, for an Australian Republic before the last referendum on the issue, but in the end the misinformation campaign by Monarchists, and the general indifference to the system preposed to replace it, meant that very few people were won over. But the youth of today, my generation, are almost unanimous in our support for an Australian Republic. Perhaps this is the case in Great Britain


[edit on 3-12-2004 by Volksgeist]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Check out this quick quiz and see how how you know about the cost of the monarchy.

I would like to know more about how much the monarchy costs the UK. They are very useful because that is how some people recognise the UK.

Some tourists visit and wonder why we all don't speak like the queen!

I know the royals are also a very valuable PR tool. They can go and visit countries representing the UK when MPs haven't got the time or for whatever reason.

I'd like to know how much the monarchy costs to see whether is it 'good value for money.' I can't exactly see why some people can get palaces to live in funded by the UK taxpayer just for being part of a family.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   
The monarchy has lost much of that air of elite mystery over the past twenty years, the majority of UK citizens see them now as mere people and very flawed ones at that. I think there's a certain respect for the Queen who does what she does very well, but the freeloading, overpriveliged extended family are a financial drain on our society. I agree once she's gone I think it's only a matter of time before the countdown to a republic. Then again all these arguments were being used in Victoria's reign so perhaps they'll prevail a little more yet.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I'm a bit split on this subject.

On one hand, Im no Monarchist and could quite happily see the royal family done away with. But...the Queen is only head of state in name; she has no actual "say" in the running of the country. In fact, there are laws and guidelines which prohibit the RF from speaking out on political matters (something which Charles rarely heeds).

On the other hand, the Queen is a fantastic PR tool, creates links with foreign heads of state, is a massive tourism pull and provides the British media with c.40% (just plucking figures out of thin air, there!) of its material.

I am fairly sure that Bliar (sic) would simply LOVE to be the first British President and, for that reason alone, I would like to keep our monarchy.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I'm abit of a fence sitter on this subject,

i think the way to deal with the problem would be to have a national referendum on the issue

(first Politics @ ATS post...yah)



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I remember in sociology we had a discussion on this and well, we couldnt really see anything wrong with turning this country into a republic state. The Queen is only a tourist attraction though and i can really see this being brought up after the Queen goes. Apparently, there is plans in whitehall about what should happen after the death of the Queen.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Here is an interesting site


www.republic.org.uk...



The office of President will be open to any British citizen. Anyone who is an elector could stand for office and candidates could be drawn from the world of arts, science, commerce or any other field of endeavour.

# The President will be directly elected. The precise powers of the elected Head of State will be decided by the Constitutional Convention. Republic recommends that, besides a ceremonial role, these be limited to reserve constitutional powers. There will be provision for an impeachment procedure. The position of Prime Minister, as Head of Government, will remain.

# The President will be equal before the law (as any other citizen), and will take an oath at the inauguration ceremony to serve the people, uphold the law and protect the constitution.

# The term of office will be fixed, at five years, with a maximum of two terms to be served by an individual. Presidential elections will be held at a separate time from General Elections.

# The President will be the nominal commander-in-chief of the armed forces, although, as now, they will remain under the control of the government.

# The President will become Head of the Commonwealth only if elected to that post.

# The President will be required not to involve their extended family in the performance of their duties, and will operate from an appropriate, but not lavish, residence with a modest staff.

# The President will not be a member of the legislature, and will have no constitutional link with any religious faith.

# Officials or persons who are at present required to take oaths of allegiance to the Crown, will publicly swear an oath or make an affirmation to uphold the law.

In making these proposals, Republic recognises the fundamental changes to the British Constitution which they entail, and recommends that these be dealt with by the Constitutional Convention.


A brief look how a UK President would work
i like the idea of a maxium term of two



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
So, two thirds (67%) of the people want to keep the monarchy?

Keep em, they bring in more than we spend on em so what's the point.

All together now,

God save our gracious Queen......

edit: nowt

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Chris McGee]



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Well, most of the country doesnt have a problem with the monarchy, but i strongly feel that if the option was given to something much better, we would take it.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I believe many of the negative effects of monarchy are subtle. The most damaging of which is the stiffling of potential caused by the UK's arbitary class system.

The damage the British class system does is immeasurable and it is long since time it was done away with.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Didnt really want to come in and parrot what others have said but the royals are worth their weight in gold when it comes to world affairs. There are still places around the world that recognize royalty more than they do politicians. I would RATHER keep the royals, i mean come on the papers would be boring without them, and who would hold up the traffic in London with their motor cades?

No i couldnt imagine a England without its monarchy its an integral part of the make up of the country. Without it we would demise into something like... err... America?



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I'm not a fan of the monarchy, the idea of having a monarchy goes against my ideology. The royals are a buch of unelected spongers in my opinion.



posted on Dec, 6 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie999
I'm not a fan of the monarchy, the idea of having a monarchy goes against my ideology. The royals are a buch of unelected spongers in my opinion.


Marxism right? (i think)

My sociology lessons first showed me on how the monarchy is not right for a modern country.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join