[flugelr]

(Original post by zjs)
The unelected Monarch is the Head of State, rather than someone who's been democratically elected. I'd say that has a lot to do with democracy.

You don't seem to understand the concept of 'democracy'.

Democracy is:

• Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
• A political or social unit that has such a government.
• The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
• Majority rule.

This means that if you, as a citizen of a sovereign nation, have the ability to make laws or elect a representative to make those laws on your behalf, then you live in a Democracy.

As you may be aware, here in the UK we elect representatives to the House of Commons. The leader of the largest group within the Commons forms the government. The government - together with the House of Commons - has supreme legislative authority in the UK.

On the other hand, the Monarch fulfils the role of Head-Of-State. This position does not have any legislative capability.

Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the UK is pretty much as democratic as a nation can get. Having an un-elected Head-of-State has no bearing whatsoever on the democratic nature of the UK. The only thing that could make the UK undemocratic, would be having an un-elected legislative chamber.

[gladders]

(Original post by flugelr)
You don't seem to understand the concept of 'democracy'.

Democracy is:

• Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
• A political or social unit that has such a government.
• The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
• Majority rule.

This means that if you, as a citizen of a sovereign nation, have the ability to make laws or elect a representative to make those laws on your behalf, then you live in a Democracy.

As you may be aware, here in the UK we elect representatives to the House of Commons. The leader of the largest group within the Commons forms the government. The government - together with the House of Commons - has supreme legislative authority in the UK.

On the other hand, the Monarch fulfils the role of Head-Of-State. This position does not have any legislative capability.

Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the UK is pretty much as democratic as a nation can get. Having an un-elected Head-of-State has no bearing whatsoever on the democratic nature of the UK. The only thing that could make the UK undemocratic, would be having an un-elected legislative chamber.

Couldn't agree more, with the proviso than having one unelected chamber which is subordinate to the supreme legislative chamber also makes a country completely democratic.

[zjs]

(Original post by flugelr)
You don't seem to understand the concept of 'democracy'.

Democracy is:
[LIST][*]Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Elected representatives being the key word.

(Original post by flugelr)
This means that if you, as a citizen of a sovereign nation, have the ability to make laws or elect a representative to make those laws on your behalf, then you live in a Democracy.

I don't remember saying we don't live in a Democracy. Just that an elected Head of State, as opposed to a lineage selected Monarch, would be more democratic.

(Original post by flugelr)
As you may be aware, here in the UK we elect representatives to the House of Commons. The leader of the largest group within the Commons forms the government. The government - together with the House of Commons - has supreme legislative authority in the UK.

Excuse me? The House of Commons has supreme legislative authority? Please check your facts. The House of Lords is the has supreme legislative authority within the UK system (if we're not counting the power of the ECJ and its regulations, as you don't seem to be). All bills passed through the House of Commons also have to pass through the House of Lords.

Also, a fun fact for you: every single Bill passed by the Houses are sent to the Sovereign - i.e the Queen (Monarch) - for her Royal Assent. For the most part this is a formality, and the Queen will give her Assent. However, the Queen still has the power to withold her Royal Assent.

(Original post by flugelr)
On the other hand, the Monarch fulfils the role of Head-Of-State. This position does not have any legislative capability.

See above. It does.

(Original post by flugelr)
Therefore, by the very definition of the word, the UK is pretty much as democratic as a nation can get. Having an un-elected Head-of-State has no bearing whatsoever on the democratic nature of the UK. The only thing that could make the UK undemocratic, would be having an un-elected legislative chamber.

I think I've shown why this is not the case.

[Jace Falco]

(Original post by zjs)
Elected representatives being the key word.



I don't remember saying we don't live in a Democracy. Just that an elected Head of State, as opposed to a lineage selected Monarch, would be more democratic.



Excuse me? The House of Commons has supreme legislative authority? Please check your facts. The House of Lords is the has supreme legislative authority within the UK system (if we're not counting the power of the ECJ and its regulations, as you don't seem to be). All bills passed through the House of Commons also have to pass through the House of Lords.

Also, a fun fact for you: every single Bill passed by the Houses are sent to the Sovereign - i.e the Queen (Monarch) - for her Royal Assent. For the most part this is a formality, and the Queen will give her Assent. However, the Queen still has the power to withold her Royal Assent.



See above. It does.



I think I've shown why this is not the case.

The Lords is no longer the highest court in the land. That power was transferred over to the Supreme Court, although until they change the justices it's still sort of run by the Lords.

[flugelr]

(Original post by zjs)
Elected representatives being the key word.

Yes. Elected, like the House of Commons.

(Original post by zjs)
I don't remember saying we don't live in a Democracy. Just that an elected Head of State, as opposed to a lineage selected Monarch, would be more democratic.

It would be neither more, nor less democratic.

(Original post by zjs)
Excuse me? The House of Commons has supreme legislative authority? Please check your facts. The House of Lords is the has supreme legislative authority within the UK system (if we're not counting the power of the ECJ and its regulations, as you don't seem to be). All bills passed through the House of Commons also have to pass through the House of Lords.

Since the 1911 Parliament Act, The Commons can force through legislation even if the Lords refuse. By limiting the blocking powers of the House of Lords, and extending the powers of the House of Commons the 1911 Parliament Act (and the 1949 Act) asserted the supremacy of the House of Commons.

(Original post by zjs)
Also, a fun fact for you: every single Bill passed by the Houses are sent to the Sovereign - i.e the Queen (Monarch) - for her Royal Assent. For the most part this is a formality, and the Queen will give her Assent. However, the Queen still has the power to withold her Royal Assent.

The Queen--in-Parliament can only give Royal Assent with the advise and consent of the House of Commons. She has no ability to write legislation on her own.

Although the Queen still has the power to withold Royal Assent, I can't see this happening except in some dire situation where I could actually be advantageous.


Furthermore, I'd ask what the advantages of having a President over a Monarchy are? It doesn't really add anything and takes a lot away.

[gladders]

Elections are one element of democracy. They are not democracy itself. A state can be completely democratic without having every public office elected.

[HarveyCanis]

(Original post by xEndeavors)
Hi guys!

Am I the only Conservative here?

Bloody hell. A republican Conservative. I bet you're popular at Conference.

That's part of the reason I'm not a Conservative, their vomit inducing love for the royal family.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by insepi)
How is the British Monarchy "racist", according to your group description? There is nothing to stop a Prince of Wales from marrying an ethnic minority, producing a mixed race heir, the mixed race heir marrying an ethnic minority, and so on. There is no rule stating that a British Monarch can only be white, or that the Royal Family can only marry white people.

I think using the term "racist" weakens your agenda, because it's simply attempting to provoke an emotional reaction.

Yeah, in exactly the same way that there's nothing to stop the queen withholding Royal Assent. It ain't going to happen; particularly as their position means that they would almost exclusively socialise with the white aristocracy (don't use Middleton to disprove that - her parents are millionaires).

(Original post by Addzter)
I sort of agree with Republicanism really, but just to play devil's advocate: what's the massive difference in telling your kids they could one day be the head of state, to telling your kids they could one day be Prime Minister?

The HoS would be a more 'liked' institution, essentially. PMs get a lot of (often unfair) flack from people - how many PMs are still popular today?! Only a minority want power, but the vast majority want respect. Even though Americans mightn't like Obama's politics, the majority respect him for having become President.

(Original post by xEndeavors)
Hi guys!

Am I the only Conservative here?

You might be in the society, but you are certainly not alone within the wider Republican movement! I think that there will tend to be more Lefties than Righties who are Republicans, but the contribution of the Righties is just as important!!

TOURISM:

As I've said before, it's a rubbish argument for either side to use - changing to a truly Democratic system (or keeping a good one, if you're a monarchist) should be worth more than a few postcards. Furthermore, we could easily maintain the actual family via a charitable system - supporters give money each month which goes to the Windsor family. I'd clear them out of Buck House and make it a full time museum, but there's no reason that they can't live in one of their privately owned castles, and carry on with the soap opera (which is what the Americans actually care about) whilst having no political links with the state.

[PendulumBoB]

(Original post by insepi)
How is the British Monarchy "racist", according to your group description? There is nothing to stop a Prince of Wales from marrying an ethnic minority, producing a mixed race heir, the mixed race heir marrying an ethnic minority, and so on. There is no rule stating that a British Monarch can only be white, or that the Royal Family can only marry white people.

I think using the term "racist" weakens your agenda, because it's simply attempting to provoke an emotional reaction.

Well, have you ever heard some of the things papa Philip says, besides, we can't have a Catholic head of state ergo, it is discriminatory.

[PendulumBoB]

Sign me up el Presidente

PS. If the tourism argument was so logically sound why don't we actually bother to measure (As opposed to speculating) how much of a factor it is when it comes to tourism, as well as being more honest about their cost to the country when taking into accound how much it costs to protect them.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Yeah, in exactly the same way that there's nothing to stop the queen withholding Royal Assent. It ain't going to happen; particularly as their position means that they would almost exclusively socialise with the white aristocracy (don't use Middleton to disprove that - her parents are millionaires).

So...you base the monarchy's perceived racism on your perceived prejudice about the social circle they keep. This is indeed a meta-moment.

Notwithstanding the fact that the royal family serves another 15 countries, many of which are black majority states, and the Queen is Head of a multi-racial Commonwealth, you decide to presume ridiculous slander about a job which according to many Commonwealthers is carried out very well.

I see the calibre of this republican.

The HoS would be a more 'liked' institution, essentially.

You say this, and then you say:

PMs get a lot of (often unfair) flack from people - how many PMs are still popular today?! Only a minority want power, but the vast majority want respect.

So the Queen is 'unpopular' because she's unelected, but PMs are unpopular for being elected. Please reconcile.

Even though Americans mightn't like Obama's politics, the majority respect him for having become President.

And according to a Guardian poll out today, the majority of Brits respect the Queen and the royals despite being unelected.

TOURISM:

As I've said before, it's a rubbish argument for either side to use - changing to a truly Democratic system (or keeping a good one, if you're a monarchist) should be worth more than a few postcards.

I don't use the tourism argument either, but I notice you have avoided the refutations of your claim that electing the Head of State won't make Britain more democratic - because it won't.

Furthermore, we could easily maintain the actual family via a charitable system - supporters give money each month which goes to the Windsor family.

I doubt the Windsors would need charitable donations - they're personally wealthy.

I'd clear them out of Buck House and make it a full time museum, but there's no reason that they can't live in one of their privately owned castles, and carry on with the soap opera (which is what the Americans actually care about) whilst having no political links with the state.[/SIZE][/B]

And where would the President of the United Republic go, then?

[gladders]

(Original post by PendulumBoB)
Well, have you ever heard some of the things papa Philip says, besides, we can't have a Catholic head of state ergo, it is discriminatory.

Firstly, Catholic is not a race; it's a belief.

Secondly, you may have seen in the news lately that the Government is seeking to rectify the Succession laws to allow Catholics and women to inherit the Crown.

Ironically, it appears the least enthusiastic Commonwealth monarchy - Australia - is digging its heels in.

Therefore the contemporary discrimination against women and Catholics is something for the governments to deal with - and then your criticism will be null and void.

Thirdly, the Duke of Edinburgh is no more offensive than the next old man, and considering the number of years he's been in the public eye, his average number of 'gaffes' is not particularly high. In any case, when he dies, your argument will again be null and void.

[Relaxicat]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
*Ahem*

Welcome to the TSR Republican Society.

We believe in a true, fair, and equal democratic system in Britain.

We are against inherited position and privilege, and believe that the monarchy should be put where it belongs - into the history books.

We believe that there are millions of British people good enough to become the Head of State, and that the British people as a whole are good enough to find those people.

We believe that we should be able to tell our kids that maybe, if they are good enough, and if they work hard enough, just maybe one day they could become our Head of State.

Please use the 'Ask A Republican' thread for questions!!
Republicans - show your support at The Republic Campaign website!

The monarchy does not do much any more, it has a ceremonial role.

Our royal family brings in millions of pounds in tourist revenue every year (just look at the Royal Wedding) and gives us a strong sense of identity.

You keep saying Head of State, but to honest the Queen has quite a limited role, and can more or less be superseded by parliament anyway.


So stop your whingeing

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
Firstly, Catholic is not a race; it's a belief.

Ah, well that makes it OK then.

(Original post by gladders)
Secondly, you may have seen in the news lately that the Government is seeking to rectify the Succession laws to allow Catholics and women to inherit the Crown.

Unfortunately, it's still only Catholics and women who've fallen out of the previous HoS's womb!

(Original post by gladders)
Ironically, it appears the least enthusiastic Commonwealth monarchy - Australia - is digging its heels in.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The PM said recently that she wants a Referendum as soon as the Queen dies.

(Original post by gladders)
Therefore the contemporary discrimination against women and Catholics is something for the governments to deal with - and then your criticism will be null and void.

Discrimination against blacks and gays?

(Original post by gladders)
Thirdly, the Duke of Edinburgh is no more offensive than the next old man, and considering the number of years he's been in the public eye, his average number of 'gaffes' is not particularly high. In any case, when he dies, your argument will again be null and void.

Yeah, and we'll have Charles, known worldwide as a rational man, never to make a gaffe........

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by gladders)
So...you base the monarchy's perceived racism on your perceived prejudice about the social circle they keep. This is indeed a meta-moment.

Phil, son of a prince?
Camilla, ex-wife of Andrew Parker Bowles (widely taken as the queen mother's God son!)
Chelsy Davy, Kate Middleton, daughters of millionaires?

Coincidence?

[QUOTE=gladders;31103742]Notwithstanding the fact that the royal family serves another 15 countries, many of which are black majority states, and the Queen is Head of a multi-racial Commonwealth, you decide to presume ridiculous slander about a job which according to many Commonwealthers is carried out very well.

(Original post by gladders)
I see the calibre of this republican.So the Queen is 'unpopular' because she's unelected, but PMs are unpopular for being elected. Please reconcile.

When have I ever said that the queen is unpopular?

I think you'll find I used the word 'respect' when describing the role of HoS.

(Original post by gladders)
And according to a Guardian poll out today, the majority of Brits respect the Queen and the royals despite being unelected.

(Original post by gladders)
I don't use the tourism argument either, but I notice you have avoided the refutations of your claim that electing the Head of State won't make Britain more democratic - because it won't.

If I've missed any points, it's because there are 3 pages of them.

Democracy - From the Greek root 'demos kratos' - people power. How on earth giving the people the right to choose their own HoS isn't giving them more power, I'll never know.

(Original post by gladders)
I doubt the Windsors would need charitable donations - they're personally wealthy.

They have about 2 privately owned castles, that's it.

(Original post by gladders)
And where would the President of the United Republic go, then?

Not being an expert in contemporary big buildings, I couldn't tell you. If you honestly think there's nowhere in the country for them to go, you're deluded.

[JoeLatics]

(Original post by Relaxicat)
The monarchy does not do much any more, it has a ceremonial role.

Our royal family brings in millions of pounds in tourist revenue every year (just look at the Royal Wedding) and gives us a strong sense of identity.

You keep saying Head of State, but to honest the Queen has quite a limited role, and can more or less be superseded by parliament anyway.


So stop your whingeing

Presumably you'd have told the suffragettes to STFU as well?

Look about 5 posts up, I've covered tourism.

My identity isn't in any way related to a little old lady in a big chair.

I must've told you several times already, the problem is that we have no separation of powers between the HoG and HoS, ergo making the PM far too powerful.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
The HoS would be a more 'liked' institution, essentially. PMs get a lot of (often unfair) flack from people - how many PMs are still popular today?! Only a minority want power, but the vast majority want respect. Even though Americans mightn't like Obama's politics, the majority respect him for having become President.

No, sorry, I don't buy that. Where is your evidence that a head of state would be more 'liked' than a PM. If anything, Obama is an example of the opposite.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
Phil, son of a prince?
Camilla, ex-wife of Andrew Parker Bowles (widely taken as the queen mother's God son!)
Chelsy Davy, Kate Middleton, daughters of millionaires?

Coincidence?

So their extensive charity work is irrelevant?

Name me a black person that Miliband or Cameron or Clegg hang around with on a regular basis.

Is it because British high society is heavily made up of rich white people, rather than the Queen only wishing to see white people?

When have I ever said that the queen is unpopular?

I think you'll find I used the word 'respect' when describing the role of HoS.

Okay, but nonetheless my point still stands.

Democracy - From the Greek root 'demos kratos' - people power. How on earth giving the people the right to choose their own HoS isn't giving them more power, I'll never know.

We already have people power. The House of Commons, the elected half of Parliament, controls the purse strings, has the final say on law, and can pull down and support a government. What else the public would need - to elect a position that many republicans decry as 'pointless' quite often, and is only a ceremonial position anyway - is beyond me.

Which is why - as I keep telling you - elected the Head of State will not change the extent or quality of our democracy.

They have about 2 privately owned castles, that's it.

And the Duchies, and the Queen's personal investment portfolio which is highly lucrative.

Not being an expert in contemporary big buildings, I couldn't tell you. If you honestly think there's nowhere in the country for them to go, you're deluded.

So why bother making Buck House a museum? Why go through the additional expense of finding a new residence, then modifying it massively to not only accommodate a presidential staff, but also ensure it's as anti-terrorist hardened as Buck House?

In short, what would be the point?

[Fusilero]

(Original post by Addzter)
No, sorry, I don't buy that. Where is your evidence that a head of state would be more 'liked' than a PM. If anything, Obama is an example of the opposite.

I don't agree with JoeLatics assessment that a Republican Head of State should remain in a neutral, ceremonial role myself. But I'll defend his argument or to be more precise I'll be attacking the example you've used in your counter-argument. First thing: The President of the United States, a position held by President Barack Obama, is a partisan, executive, powerful and elected figure. The United States of America has a constitutional republican system of government with clear separation of powers. His office is not neutral or impartial as JoeLatics' President would be. JoeLatics thereotical Head of State can be better compared to President Christian Wulff of Germany. He is a ceremonial figurehead rather than an actively partisan executive politician, alongside many other Presidents in Parliamentary Republics. He serves many of the roles the Queen does, dissolving the Bundestag, grant honours and pardons, appoints the chancellor, promulgate laws, host state visits and has emergency reserve powers.

As I've said before, there is not one singular Republican system in the world. A theoretical United Republic would find one that works for her, not simply copy completely another nation's example.

[gladders]

(Original post by JoeLatics)
I have no idea what you're talking about. The PM said recently that she wants a Referendum as soon as the Queen dies.

There was a recent BBC article which indicated Canada and Australia were dragging their feet on Succession reform - Canada because Harper being a bit of a dick, and Australia because the republicans didn't want to reform the Succession for fear doing so would further legitimise the monarchy and hamper their intentions to do away with it entirely.

Discrimination against blacks and gays?

Please supply evidence.

Yeah, and we'll have Charles, known worldwide as a rational man, never to make a gaffe........

And yet is still a very hard working man is has an excellent track record in being concerned with such issues as the environment, urban renewal and multiculturalism long before they became popular. He's not a perfect man, but compared to many politicians he's positively benign.