Brexit and the Monarchy

Scroll to see replies

Hang him for high treason against the Crown

LOL Charles, you mean? You have a point, all of those organic carrots he produces are clearly a devious and treacherous act. :u:

Reply 21

Legendary Quest

Original post by Josb

The majority party has now an almost absolute power for five years. This is dangerous.

It is, but that's also why I don't think the Commons would change that especially since it is (usually) dominated by the executive. And anyone who says they will reform it will probably be laughed at.

It would be interesting if the monarchy stepped in and forced some sort of change though, especially since so many people voted Leave because they believed in democracy. :colone:

Reply 22

Fenice

Original post by Yellow 03

I know that the monarchy has to maintain neutrality, but the absoluteness of this mandate also makes them kind of redundant. In this particular case of the Brexit for example, it's difficult to see them as anything other than dead wood....

You are only placing value on public figures that contribute a public opinion to political debate. The EU referendum has caused more tension and conflict in our political system than anything has done for a very long time precisely because of these sorts of people. The Tories are split down the middle and their leader's head is on a spike, while the Labour Party is in complete meltdown with a burgeoning civil war between its Parliamentary Party and its grassroots membership.

Throughout all of this, the Queen has remained neutral, because her most important duty is to provide a sense of unity and oneness. Can you possibly imagine the earthquake that would follow an announcement by her that she was supporting one or the other? By remaining free from public stances she provides a sense of stability, calm and unity right at the top of our political system.

The King's Speech was great but I just can't see the queen rallying the nation against a cucumber these days.

That's because a similar conflict taking place is unbelievable today. Look at the Queen speaking after 7/7 and you should see how powerful she is

What do you think are the benefits of having them still?

Some reasons off the top of my head:

The monarch is generally speaking someone for whom their office is guaranteed. This means they have nothing to lose, which means that they can afford to ascend to and maintain it with much more good will and dignity than a party politician for whom the office of President is the top of the greasy pole they have been climbing for thirty years.

Presidents come and go every few years, but a monarch is for life. This provides a sense of continuous national identity and creates a sense of family with the common man which is impossible for those riding the constantly moving political carousel.

Financially there is no evidence that a British republic would be cheaper than the status quo. It may even be more expensive. There is a famous video on YouTube which explains the arguments

The Royal Family spend much of their working lives campaigning for and supporting charitable organisations. They are collectively the patrons of over 3000 of them. Does the French President do this? Does the Italian? Would a British one?

The monarchy stretches back for a thousand years. It is part of our history and our social fabric. That matters. You wouldn't uproot a thousand year old oak tree because it wasn't fulfillung any material purpose in your garden. If you want a more practical reason, think of the expense that re-naming alone would amount to in time and money. The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. The Royal Opera House. There must be tens of thousands of recipients of royal patronage for whom this change would not only be expensive and inconvenient but would also noticeably lower their glow. The Academy of Dramatic Art. The Opera House.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 23

Yellow 03

Original post by Fenice

That's because a similar conflict taking place is unbelievable today. Look at the Queen speaking after 7/7 and you should see how powerful she is

That's my point. If a similar conflict is inconceivable today, what is the purpose of having a monarch?

I did not consider her 7/7 speech powerful. All she did was to tell people to calm down.

Original post by Fenice

Some reasons off the top of my head:
....

The monarchy stretches back for a thousand years. It is part of our history and our social fabric. That matters. You wouldn't uproot a thousand year old oak tree because it wasn't fulfillung any material purpose in your garden. If you want a more practical reason, think of the expense that re-naming alone would amount to in time and money. The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. The Royal Opera House. There must be tens of thousands of recipients of royal patronage for whom this change would not only be expensive and inconvenient but would also noticeably lower their glow. The Academy of Dramatic Art. The Opera House.

The monarchy may well be part of our history, but so is the bubonic plague. This is not an adequate argument. Nor is the fact that it would be inconvenient to rename the "Royal Opera House" to "Opera House".

Reply 24

L i b

Original post by Yellow 03

So in the midst of what has been the worst constitutional crisis in the country since WWII

This isn't a constitutional crisis, nor was anything around the Second World War. This is a peaceful vote, endorsed by parliament with a decisive outcome. The Government is now responsible for implementing it.

The Royals had no role to play, no vision, no words to say

Actually the Queen certainly did refer indirectly to Brexit and the associated political upheaval in her speech opening the Scottish Parliament earlier today.

apparently for the sake of democracy (the fact that we have a wholly undemocratic House of Lords does not seem to bother anyone)

A House of Lords that can be entirely overruled by the elected House of Commons and which acts on essentially a consultative basis. Really, to argue we're undemocratic because we have a mainly appointed revising chamber is piffle.

Reply 25

Icepot

Original post by Yellow 03

The monarchy may well be part of our history, but so is the bubonic plague.

Reply 26

1420787

Original post by L i b

This isn't a constitutional crisis, nor was anything around the Second World War. This is a peaceful vote, endorsed by parliament with a decisive outcome. The Government is now responsible for implementing it.

Aye, right :rolleyes:

Article 50 can only be enacted by parliament, and a majority of MPs would most likely rather rather just ignore the referendum outcome if they could, especially as it is non-binding and the outcome was narrow. They have been elected by their constituents on the basis of them being trusted to make the appropriate decisions. The main figure responsible for campaigning for the Leave vote has announced he is out and the PM essentially elected (in reality) has quit.

This is not business as usual.

Reply 27

Rorschach II

Original post by Yellow 03

She did not just remain neutral. She was completely absent while the country was about to get immersed (and did get immersed) into its worst constitutional crisis since WWII. One can have a constructive presence without supporting the one or the other camp.

I don't see in what way she has provided a sense of unity and oneness. She has done nothing and said nothing. Only today (!) after months of embroilment and more than a week after the results of the referendum she addressed Scottish MPs to generically and irrelevantly ask them to allow for contemplation in a fast-changing world. She could have said the same things to the staff of Vodafone during their last restructure. They would have about the same relevance .

That's my point. If a similar conflict is inconceivable today, what is the purpose of having a monarch?

I did not consider her 7/7 speech powerful. All she did was to tell people to calm down.

The monarchy may well be part of our history, but so is the bubonic plague. This is not an adequate argument. Nor is the fact that it would be inconvenient to rename the "Royal Opera House" to "Opera House".

The person is making the point that renaming the Royal Opera House would make it lose materialistic value.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 28

L i b

Original post by offhegoes

Aye, right :rolleyes:

Article 50 can only be enacted by parliament

That's not generally held to be true. There is an argument that because it leads to an inevitable legislative conclusion that there might be a case for this - but ultimately powers like this are part of the Royal Prerogative and do not require the consent of parliament.

and a majority of MPs would most likely rather rather just ignore the referendum outcome if they could, especially as it is non-binding and the outcome was narrow. They have been elected by their constituents on the basis of them being trusted to make the appropriate decisions. The main figure responsible for campaigning for the Leave vote has announced he is out and the PM essentially elected (in reality) has quit.

I think the case that we can just ignore the referendum because it came back with a result we didn't like is really not worth discussing. We're leaving the EU, that much will happen, on the basis of a referendum that was - in the end - voted for by the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians, including those in opposition parties.

This is not business as usual.

Nope, but it's still no "constitutional crisis", it's just political change and adaptation. If you want to see constitutional crises in Westminster system democracies, look to the King-Byng affair in Canada or the Australian crisis of 1975.

Reply 29

leinad2012

I dislike how the media act as though they are some devine gods, it's actually quite tragic how much some people worship them. They aren't special, they are normal people who were fortunate in terms of the vagina they came out of.

That being said then are a huge net gain financially, so I don't see why we would ever want to get rid of them

Reply 30

ddrrzzeerr

We have had one of the most successful and stable constitutional systems in the world for hundreds of years. If you want to replace that, you need to suggest an alternative. What are you going to replace it with?

I have no emotional attachment to the monarchy but i fail to see how their removal is in the nations self interest, it would be a needless change and that is something i detest.

Reply 33

PilgrimOfTruth

Original post by Yellow 03

The Royals had no role to play, no vision, no words to say - they are preserving and have to preserve a position of political neutrality in line with constitutional requirement.

Wow, you could not be further from the truth!

You are absolutely correct about the neutral position the Queen is supposed to take but the fact is that she has ratified the various EU treaties that have brought us to this nightmare position of being trapped in an EU that is heading to be a superstate.

Please Google "Coronation Oath" and EU Treaties for more info.

Start here:

http://www.eutruth.org.uk/#Queen