[Politics] Is it time for the UK to become a republic?

[Grizz]

I've changed my view on this over time and am becoming more sympathetic to the republican cause, especially in the last decade where we have seen Brexit and a Tory Government living by a separate set of rules to the rest of us.

I think a sense of superiority and entitlement runs through England, the feeling that we are better people than the rest of the world. It is ultimately what led to Brexit, what enables voters to put up with Tory excess. The 'Little Englander' mentality is alive and well.

For me I hate all the royal titles, the Meghan / Harry / Andrew bullshit, the tax havens, the loopholes, the Old School tie network, hereditary peerages, the privilege, the toadying and the sycophancy, the deference, the inequity and the rights bestowed on so many simply by birthright.

I think the Queen is an amazing person but we've seen with other members of the Royal Family there are plenty of duds there, and sooner or later we'll get landed with one as King or Queen. It's no way to source a Head of State.

On balance I am therefore in favour of a republic although it would have to be done properly and not some half-arsed affair where nothing changes.

That pretty much sums up where I am at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Marcelo Bielsa is available

Can you imagine him squatting over the throne.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

What a strange reply.


Why is it you feel you are superior to the British public?

Perhaps you should be looking to stand at your next local election and do some thing about it?

What would you do? Cull a few that don't meet your standards?

It not a strange post, really. Its based on recent real life examples - The public if given license, without the experience or facts to make proper informed choices, will make populist decisions, that amount to national self-harm. I don't think it is a good idea to let them choose the head of state, because they'll make another bad choice - or rather will lap up the propaganda force-fed them by the papers, and wave in whoever best suits the vested interests of the non-dom tax-exiles who own them.

I don't think ALL those who make bad decisions are stupid though. Only the ones who refuse to admit they've got it wrong, and continue to back those terrible calls, because its less embarrassing than admitting they got duped.

And lastly no - I wouldn't advocate 'culling' sections of the population. I'll leave that kind of thing to the murderous cabal in charge at the moment.

 

[Hamilton]

I've changed my view on this over time and am becoming more sympathetic to the republican cause, especially in the last decade where we have seen Brexit and a Tory Government living by a separate set of rules to the rest of us.

I think a sense of superiority and entitlement runs through England, the feeling that we are better people than the rest of the world. It is ultimately what led to Brexit, what enables voters to put up with Tory excess. The 'Little Englander' mentality is alive and well.

For me I hate all the royal titles, the Meghan / Harry / Andrew bullshit, the tax havens, the loopholes, the Old School tie network, hereditary peerages, the privilege, the toadying and the sycophancy, the deference, the inequity and the rights bestowed on so many simply by birthright.

I think the Queen is an amazing person but we've seen with other members of the Royal Family there are plenty of duds there, and sooner or later we'll get landed with one as King or Queen. It's no way to source a Head of State.

On balance I am therefore in favour of a republic although it would have to be done properly and not some half-arsed affair where nothing changes.

I think you have summarised where I am at too. Like Hans Kraay, I've been ambivalent about this for a long time, largely because I have watched us make a pigs ear out of elections with our first past the post system and I'm worried about politicising the role of the head of state (which can be avoided).

But increasingly, I worry that the head of state under a hereditary process simply can't represent the public as they have been through no due process. How can one family represent the diversity that exists in the UK today?

I'm not bothered about the economic arguments because as others have pointed out, the castles, history, palaces and tourism will still be here in a republic, and under the Civil List we wouldn't gain or lose out economically (more likely, the latter.)

I'm not questioning how well The Queen has performed. She's done a brilliant job. Nor am I suggesting that William wouldn't be a good head of state, but why put the pressure on one family?

It's taken me time, but I'm in the republican firm now. You could say it's part of taking back control.

 

[shingle]

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

and ..... would still do. What does that tell you about the opposition.

 

[Baldseagull]

The £85M comes from the income from the Crown Estates which was £350M which went to the Treasury.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which until 31 March 2012 was called the Civil List.
About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure went on staff salaries (430 people) Only the Queen (and previously the Duke of Edinburgh) gets payment from the Sovereign Grant (previously called the Civil List)

Tax payers pay for the security ie police etc which would also apply if we had a President.

Thats one way of looking at it, another way of looking at it is that all the Crown Estate and more besides was taken by William the Conqueror and his mates, doesn't seem right that the Duke of Westminster should own most of Mayfair and Belgravia, just because he had an ancestor willing to slaughter Saxons and take it. These descendants of thieves own masses of land passed down through generations, sometimes due to a relative murdering another one, or fitting them up for treason, to gain the land and title. This hereditary privilege is an affront, keep the Monarchy, and all the titles of Duke and Earl, but strip them of any land they hold, and ensure all of it is managed and pays it's profits into the treasury, not the pockets of the lucky few that had a Norman thief for an ancestor.

Aside from the Royal Family, there are the descendants of William the Conquerors mates that also enjoy massive privilege, by dint of having an ancestor pally with the ******* and an army.
Duke of Westminster owns

 

[JetsetJimbo]

I have some theoretical sympathy with the "we'd vote for a terrible head of state" view. But this supposes that we get better heads of state from the Windsor family.

And to answer that, I feel like I need to point to the existence of Prince Charles. Our next head of state is guaranteed to be a massive downgrade and there's nothing we can do about it.

 

[Seagull27]

It not a strange post, really. Its based on recent real life examples - The public if given license, without the experience or facts to make proper informed choices, will make populist decisions, that amount to national self-harm. I don't think it is a good idea to let them choose the head of state, because they'll make another bad choice - or rather will lap up the propaganda force-fed them by the papers, and wave in whoever best suits the vested interests of the non-dom tax-exiles who own them.

I don't think ALL those who make bad decisions are stupid though. Only the ones who refuse to admit they've got it wrong, and continue to back those terrible calls, because its less embarrassing than admitting they got duped.

And lastly no - I wouldn't advocate 'culling' sections of the population. I'll leave that kind of thing to the murderous cabal in charge at the moment.

While I sympathise with your concerns, you are basically making an argument against democracy. As pointed out above, at least if we vote someone in as president who is an absolute arse, we can vote them out again. Whereas if we inherit an arse through the monarchy, we might be stuck with them for 70 years.

I suspect the results of this poll would be very different if we had, for example, Andrew as our Monarch instead of Liz

 

[Bakero]

Off with their heads.

 

[shingle]

While I sympathise with your concerns, you are basically making an argument against democracy. As pointed out above, at least if we vote someone in as president who is an absolute arse, we can vote them out again. Whereas if we inherit an arse through the monarchy, we might be stuck with them for 70 years.

I suspect the results of this poll would be very different if we had, for example, Andrew as our Monarch instead of Liz

Poll did say after her majesty dies

 

[Super Steve Earle]

It not a strange post, really. Its based on recent real life examples - The public if given license, without the experience or facts to make proper informed choices, will make populist decisions, that amount to national self-harm. I don't think it is a good idea to let them choose the head of state, because they'll make another bad choice - or rather will lap up the propaganda force-fed them by the papers, and wave in whoever best suits the vested interests of the non-dom tax-exiles who own them.

I don't think ALL those who make bad decisions are stupid though. Only the ones who refuse to admit they've got it wrong, and continue to back those terrible calls, because its less embarrassing than admitting they got duped.

And lastly no - I wouldn't advocate 'culling' sections of the population. I'll leave that kind of thing to the murderous cabal in charge at the moment.

Look. Joe Swash won Dancing on Ice when Perri from Diversity was a gazillion times better ice dancer. If the British public couldn't even get that right, how the hell could they be relied upon to vote for a President. It would be down to who and their friends and family were best on the the 'socials'. Closer to home, Albion had about 5 candidates at least for goal of the season, but no, not in the running. I vote for Queen/King and Country.

 

[vegster]

Not sure about a Republic but we are getting closer to a Dictatorship.... Johnson now rewriting the Ministerial Code to fit his previous actions.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

President Farage is waiting in the wings

 

[jakarta]

She seems a completely useless and weak leader-figurehead to me, so exactly what is the point of her?

She’s sat on her throne and watched the Tories risk breaking up the UK with a Scottish referendum, leave the EU, put a border down the country, completely trash the economy, provide fuel to Scottish and Irish independence and had the PM lie to her and party until 4am the day before her husband’s funeral. Some leader.

Get rid.

She is not our Leader though is She?

She has a purely advisory role and may well have opinions on all the above which she has shared but Constitutionally she CANNOT do anything against the Government of the Day (which as She hasn't been elected I'm sure Herr T would agree with).

Not looking forward to Charles III it has to be said...

 

[Fungus]

I vote NO. Not because I give a toss about the Windsors, but because the British public are ****ing idiots, and would vote an absolute **** like Johnson in as head of state.

Sh1t, can I change my vote?

 

[Insel affe]

She is not our Leader though is She?

She has a purely advisory role and may well have opinions on all the above which she has shared but Constitutionally she CANNOT do anything against the Government of the Day (which as She hasn't been elected I'm sure Herr T would agree with).

Not looking forward to Charles III it has to be said...

I am looking forward to King Billy V

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Thats one way of looking at it, another way of looking at it is that all the Crown Estate and more besides was taken by William the Conqueror and his mates, doesn't seem right that the Duke of Westminster should own most of Mayfair and Belgravia, just because he had an ancestor willing to slaughter Saxons and take it. These descendants of thieves own masses of land passed down through generations, sometimes due to a relative murdering another one, or fitting them up for treason, to gain the land and title. This hereditary privilege is an affront, keep the Monarchy, and all the titles of Duke and Earl, but strip them of any land they hold, and ensure all of it is managed and pays it's profits into the treasury, not the pockets of the lucky few that had a Norman thief for an ancestor.

Aside from the Royal Family, there are the descendants of William the Conquerors mates that also enjoy massive privilege, by dint of having an ancestor pally with the ******* and an army.
Duke of Westminster owns

The Duke of Westminster is not royalty.

 

[StonehamPark]

A couple of centuries ago and 40% of you could be hanged for your views.

Loyalist. Keep the Royal Family as is.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Not sure about a Republic but we are getting closer to a Dictatorship.... Johnson now rewriting the Ministerial Code to fit his previous actions.

He's already changed the Electoral Commission to be answerable to the Prime Minister instead of Parliament, and now he's changed the Ministerial Code. England is sleepwalking and looking in the wrong direction.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

She is not our Leader though is She?

She has a purely advisory role and may well have opinions on all the above which she has shared but Constitutionally she CANNOT do anything against the Government of the Day (which as She hasn't been elected I'm sure Herr T would agree with).

Not looking forward to Charles III it has to be said...

It’s not “purely advisory” though. For example each law the country wants to pass has ultimately to be approved by the monarch. And, for example, each potential government has to first ask her permission to form a government. There’s plenty of opportunity for her to pull rank. If I am wrong, and she does absolutely **** all, then there’s even more reason to get shot of her.