Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    1. How do you propose we elect an apolitical president, who does not face the conflict of interests that naturally arise between populism and practicality? What system do you reckon we might use?

    2. Who controls the elected president if his or her powers are as extensive as a monarch, but witht he added authority of popular support? In short, "Who to bell the cat"?

    3.How do you remove a president from whom the armed forces take orders?

    If you do not answer these questions I will assume you have conceded.
    I'll respond to these tomorrow - don't think that I have "conceded".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The monarch is not accountable, and until there is a Head of State who does not have any of the 'unchallengable' control over their position, it is not, in my opinion, a legitimate form of democracy.
    This is just becoming repetitive Thermo. The Monarch is accountable to parliament and the people. I have said this again and again and again. Stop ignoring it, because I see what you are doing now; you are rebuilding the butresses of your argument that have unequivocally been demolished. Please cut it out now because we have been through this, let's move on, please just accept that a monarch is accountable and there are laws passed by parliament that prove it, which i can point out to you on demand if you wish.



    The Lords is equally undemocratic, but that isn't what the debate is about. There should be an elected Upper Chamber, like the US Senate, maybe based on Proportional Representation. We obviously don't vote directly on legislation, but we have some say at least on who is in the House of Commons, and which issues we want the government of the day to promote and legislate for, during the frequent elections. We do not have any of that influence over the monarchy.
    That is a self defaeting argument. The Queen in Parliament is the full name of parliament, therefore we do have that influence on our Queen. She only does what parliament allows her or asks her to do. She IS the people's sovereign, and you do not have to vote for people for them to represent your interests. Our ambassadors abroad show this.


    I have no problem whatsoever with Queen Elizabeth II as regards her individual style of leadership - her detached, apolitical attitude suits me fine. But the method by which she has obtained this power is undemocratic, as you rightfully acknowledge. Even if we were to have 10 year Presidential terms, with a limit of one term 'per person', it means that it is democratic, and avoids the 'pandering' to populism that you have previously expressed concerns about.
    The way the monarch attains power is undemocratic, but the fact that we have just had a democratic election shows that our government is democratic. The monarch is not democratic but represents our interests because that is her job description. All Monarchs of modern Britain are supposed to be apolitical; it isn't just the Queen's personal policy.

    As for your ten year term idea, before he or she gets elected, won't the candidate have to make a whole lot of promises to the people first? How then do we eradicate the problem of populism? During this ten year term do we have the power to remove the president? If so, then the president will have to keep us happy, even if it is by empty gestures and destructive laws. If we cannot remove the president during this ten year term, then this doesn't sound too different from our being unable to remove the Queen. Furthermore, anelected president automatically represents only theose who voted for him whereas a king represents all his people. How do we solve all those problems?


    The people have never, as far as I am aware, had any input into the monarch. If that is true, then surely a mandate of the masses could remove a monarch, thus moving swiftly towards the choice of a Head of State, and therefore Republicanism. The rest of the argument seems to be based on the presumption that such a law exists, and if that is so, could you enlighten me as to its existence and content, thus allowing me to comment more effectively on the rest of the points raised in this extract.
    The people have an input into the monarch through parliament, in the same way that the people have an input into the law through parliament. You see the idea of legal precedent holds true for the monarchy as it does for other areas of this country's constitution and law. The Monarchy was invited by a parliament of 1660, was affirmed by another parliament in 1690 and in 1701, and to my knowledge, every monarch thereafter succeeds automatically but is affirmed by parliament. Hence, the people affirm the monarch through parliament.


    Now, perhaps I could ask you a simple question: why should the Head of State of 60 million people also have to be the leader of the Church of England? Surely the exclusion of other religions, as well as the law that specifically prevents Roman Catholics from becoming the monarch, from the monarchy, is illegal based on international law? I'm specifically talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, which states;
    Article 21.1
    Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
    Article 23.1
    Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

    lYou conveniently ignore that the fault of this law rests with your belloved people's parliament. It was they who drafted the Acts of Settlement. Nothing to do with the monarch once again; it's a straw man. Nonetheless, they are starting to review these laws now. The Monarch is leader of the church. So? Do you believe the monarch does not deserve the right to worship as she chooses.? Why should the prime minister of 60 million people be a catholic?


    You specifically mention that the Head of State is a job, so why should anybody's "free choice of employment" be restricted by their religion?
    Ask your elected representatives, they are the ones who decided that law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The simple problem Thermo is that if monarchs are not elected, they have a longer term view than a four or five years cycle before the next election. They don't work for it, well unfortunately not. But they sure as hell make up for it once they become King or Queen, because the Queen does work hard. Unfortunately many people who inherit wealth will not have worked for it. It's a fact of life. Remember, the reason a monarch is ideal is specifically beause they don;t have to work for it. In the end what is it that we want, somebody who can look out for us - even if they "did not work for it" - or somebody who holds absolute power and did "work for it", and who could potentially oppress us. Let's get our priorities right.

    The other thing you took strong exception to was why it should be hereditary. The Hereditary system has the advantages of stability, continuity and predictability. Furthermore an elected monarch canbe bullied and cajoled and threateened by those who can take his or her power, immediately introducing a conflict of interests.

    A monarch, not dependent on being elected and reelected, embodies continuity, as does the dynasty and the biological process. “Constitutional monarchy offers us ... that neutral power so indispensable for all regular liberty. In a free country the king is a being apart, superior to differences of opinion, having no other interest than the maintenance of order and liberty. He can never return to the common condition, and is consequently inaccessible to all the passions that such a condition generates, and to all those that the perspective of finding oneself once again within it, necessarily creates in those agents who are invested with temporary power.” It is a master stroke to create a neutral power that can terminate some political danger by constitutional means (Constant, pp. 186-187). In a settled monarchy–but no regime whatever can be guaranteed perpetual existence–the king need not worry about clinging to power. In a republic, “The very head of the state, having no title to his office save that which lies in the popular will, is forced to haggle and bargain like the lowliest office-seeker” (Mencken 1926, p. 181).

    Dynastic continuity parallels the rule of law. The king symbolizes a state of affairs in which profound political change, though eventually possible, cannot occur without ample time for considering it. The king stands in contrast with legislators and bureaucrats, who are inclined to think, by the very nature of their jobs, that diligent performance means multiplying laws and regulations. Continuity in the constitutional and legal regime provides a stable framework favorable to personal and business planning and investment and to innovation in science, technology, enterprise, and culture. Continuity is neither rigidity nor conservatism.

    The heir to the throne typically has many years of preparation and is not dazzled by personal advancement when he finally inherits the office. Before and while holding office he accumulates a fund of experience both different from and greater than what politicians, who come and go, can ordinarily acquire. Even when the king comes to the throne as a youth or, at the other extreme, as an old man with only a few active years remaining, he has the counsel of experienced family members and advisors. If the king is very young (Louis XV, Alfonso XIII) or insane (the elderly George III, Otto of Bavaria), a close relative serves as regent.6 The regent will have had some of the opportunities to perform ceremonial functions and to accumulate experience that an heir or reigning monarch has.




    Lord Bernard Weatherill, former speaker of the House of Commons, said that "the British monarchy exists not to exercise power but to keep other people from having the power"; it is a great protection for our democracy. Even a republican such as yourself can acknowledge there is truth in these points. Let's please be mature about this now; it isn't about "proving your point" whilst ignoring a cogent argument. I acknowledge some of your arguments as being valid and many more as not being valid. You however refuse to acknowledging that some monarchist arguments are valid however much you may hate the idea. Smell the coffee and wake from your liberal illusion Thermo, democracy, however beautiful an ideal, has flaws.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Just because there has always been one, we should have one? What kind of "wisdom" is that? Surely you can come up with something slightly more coherent.
    OK, a head of state provides a representation of the state to external bodies. When the aliens land and say 'take me to your leader,' do we want to be introducing them to a group of 600-odd MPs? While it may seem like a daft example, the same applies to foreign countries.

    We need a head of state to dissolve Parliament and be able to limit its powers. For example, Labour now has a majority in both the Lords and the Commons - without a head of state, Labour could simply abolish elections or extend their term of office.

    The head of state provides an image of the nation and a rallying point for loyalty thereto. It also provides a clear commander-in-chief of the armed forces: one that is neither a government politician or a soldier outwith the sphere of government.

    The head of state appoints the Prime Minister and other officials. This happened, and was more than a formality, in 1963 when the Queen appointed Alec Douglas-Home

    Again, what is your alternative? The Prime Minister receiving absolute executive powers? Since he already has virtually absolute legislative powers in practice the separation of powers would be long gone.


    When was the last time that happened? Not in the last hundred years as far as I recall. In case you hadn't realised, we are no longer in the 16th century. It is 2005 - wake up.
    Well I have already referenced the Australian Constitutional Crisis and the 1963 UK appointment - both demonstate the Queen's power over her Prime Minister. As for other matters, if you read the memoirs of any prime minister you will see that the weekly meetings are certainly not a formality and while the Queen would never outright say it, her disapproval on certain issues is made apparent in private. Very few Prime Ministers are willing to stand up to the Queen.

    ------
    (Original post by MMA)
    I have already provided justification for the removal.
    1. It is unjust that a family should be viewed as superior without earning that position. It is not a fair system and a democratically elected leader would be much more just.
    2. They steal millions of pound from the taxpayer every year.
    3. Their behaviour is disgraceful. Nazi costumes should not be worn by the the family of the head of state.
    4. It is incorrect for the head of state to be the head of the Church.
    5. A democratically elected leader would do a better job having a better knowledge of international affairs and politics than these 'Royal' idiots. It is also wrong that an unelected person has powers over us.
    1. No system works perfectly. The Crown is, in the end, subject to the will of Parliament. Does it matter to you that the majority of people in the UK are monarchists?
    2. As has been shown earlier, 'they' are providing a profit of AT LEAST £90 million per year.
    3. ... and a republic will change that? Remember George W. Bush's daughters getting arrested for underage drinking? It's not just monarchies that happens in.
    4. I can agree with you to some extent on this point. I wouldn't be against the dissestablishment of the Churches of England and Scotland.
    5. You really couldn't think of a better way to end your points? Firstly the Queen has probably got the greatest knowledge of the constitution of anyone in this country. She spent years training to be head of state and has been for over fifty years. Often she knows a lot more than her ministers and there are many notable occasions of her bringing to their attention important documents that they didn't bother to read. The Royals certainly are not idiots and by using that sort of language, it is obvious that it is you that is closer to being one.

    Why is it wrong that an unelected person has power over us? I didn't elect Tony Blair - the British public did. I can't change the government myself, yet it still has power over me. There are even occasions where the British public would not vote for an issue (say, to licence the use of airguns) - and yet this happens because the 'Scottish Parliament' likes it.

    You're always going to have someone wielding power over you. Be it monarch or majority. And to be honest, I trust the Queen far more than I trust most of my fellow countrymen.

    There will always be limits on democracy. The monarchy is merely one of them in one of the most democratic countries on earth.

    --------------
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    This is a circular argument. If they have no power, why have them? Save me from the tourism mantra - the rest of Europe gets just as mant tourists if not more without a monarchy.
    What nonsense. The rest of Europe cannot be compared to Britain. They have bloody sunshine, for example. There would be a decrease in tourism due to the end of Royal events such as the Queen's birthday and the Jubilee.

    ---------
    The monarch in the United Kingdom has been unelected every since the creation of England, and your post implies that you think it should stay that way. We are no longer in a country with an indigenous, ruling white population, but a diverse, multicultural modern society that can survive without this Head of State. She may 'happen' to be unelected at the minute, but that doesn't mean that it's right for her to be unelected

    There were monarchs in Great Britain long before the creation of England.

    And there was an elected monarch - 1689, King William and Queen Mary were selected by Parliament. It is their successors that rule to this day.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chiron
    Actually technically that isn't true. Many people assume the monarchy is hereditary by law when in fact every new monarch is acclaimed by parliament.

    I don't think that that statement is actually true. From wikipedia
    "Upon the death of a Sovereign, his or her heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony."
    Only because of the Act of Settlement which gives the power to the decendents of Sophia of Hanover.

    That's an insufficient reason to keep her - Robert Mugabe takes his job seriously, and so did Saddam Hussein. Hmm...
    No they don't. Their jobs, as with any government, was to protect and serve the public. They didn't.

    There is no method of preventing the Queen from taking unwise or unfair decisions, but at least with an elected Head of State, we could remove somebody who was failing to achieve, thus strongly establishing a fair meritocracy.
    Didn't we do that in the Civil War or the Glorious Revolution?

    In comparison, look at France - the Prime Minister fails to win a referendum, and he is replaced. The Queen would have no support to do that here, because we have not put her into her position of power, and thus the role of Head of State is weakened by the Monarchy in Great Britain.
    The president of France cannot remove the Prime Minister from office. The French PM resigned. More importantly, it is established in the British constitution that if a Prime Minister cannot fulfil important manifesto pledges, they just resign. Tony Blair has considered resigning on a number of occasions if Parliament did not support his views. The same goes for referendums.

    -------------
    (Original post by zaf1986)

    Thank you for your lesson on the constitution. I know perfectly well how the constitution works thank you very much. The House of Lords is there to prevent such a scenerio happening as you have suggested, we do not need a monarch for it. And in any case, the point is that if the constitution is flawed, which it clearly is, if it vests the head of the government with so much power, it should be amended, rather than having an unelected head of state to curb the power of the executive. A very strange argument indeed.
    Um... the House of Lords can easily be overruled by the Parliament Acts. More importantly, these days Lords are selected by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. In your little republican wonderland, the PM would be doing this - thus, a government majority, which has just happened actually.

    -----------------
    (Original post by )
    Head of State has power / influence.
    Head of State is not elected.
    therefore
    Some aspects of power are not exercised by people.
    therefore
    Undemocratic.
    Democracy is not absolute, nor is it in itself an undebatable good.

    There will always be limits to democracy. That will not change.

    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    The mournful response from the world was largely because of Princess Diana's renowned character as a philanthropist and high-profile charity worker, not her role as a *former* member of the Royal Family. She did lose the title 'Princess' when she divorced Prince Charles, didn't she?
    No, she didn't actually.

    The people have never, as far as I am aware, had any input into the monarch. If that is true, then surely a mandate of the masses could remove a monarch, thus moving swiftly towards the choice of a Head of State, and therefore Republicanism. The rest of the argument seems to be based on the presumption that such a law exists, and if that is so, could you enlighten me as to its existence and content, thus allowing me to comment more effectively on the rest of the points raised in this extract.
    The Claim of Right 1689. The people, or their elected representatives in Parliament, can select the monarch. You can look this particular law (or its English equivilent, the Bill of Rights 1689 up on the 'net or in any law library on earth)

    You specifically mention that the Head of State is a job, so why should anybody's "free choice of employment" be restricted by their religion?
    Because the Roman Catholic church teaches that their leader is superior to all Kings and Queens on Earth. Thus a Roman Catholic would be influenced by a foreign power.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    The Monarch is accountable to parliament and the people.
    From www.m-w.com
    ac·count·able; adjective; subject to giving an account : ANSWERABLE
    From www.dictionary.com
    ac·count·able; adj; liable to account for one's actions
    The monarch of the United Kingdom is not liable to account for her actions, and does not have to justify them; she cannot be replaced or removed if the public or parliament, our elected representatives, deem that she acted unfairly or, as a result of her actions, society has suffered. Every other member of the ruling hierarchy in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the House of Lords, is accountable, and without accountability, democracy is futile.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    I have said this again and again and again. Stop ignoring it, because I see what you are doing now; you are rebuilding the butresses of your argument that have unequivocally been demolished.
    "unequivocally been demolished" - I certainly don't hope that you think you have been able to "demolish" these arguments? Vague and ambiguous responses hardly succeed to convince me of any superior argument.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    Please cut it out now because we have been through this, let's move on, please just accept that a monarch is accountable and there are laws passed by parliament that prove it, which i can point out to you on demand if you wish.
    No, thanks - I won't "just accept" that a monarch is accountable because, as above, she is not liable to punishment or replacement should he actions develop negative consequences. She cannot be told what to do, and neither can she be controlled. She is a symbol of the dying imperialist Britain that monarchists want to desperately cling to, and until she is deposed and her office destroyed, Britain will not be democratic.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The way the monarch attains power is undemocratic, but the fact that we have just had a democratic election shows that our government is democratic. The monarch is not democratic but represents our interests because that is her job description. All Monarchs of modern Britain are supposed to be apolitical; it isn't just the Queen's personal policy.
    Again, I refer you to my syllogism earlier;

    Head of State has power / influence.
    Head of State is not elected.
    therefore
    Some aspects of power are not exercised by people.
    therefore
    Undemocratic.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    As for your ten year term idea, before he or she gets elected, won't the candidate have to make a whole lot of promises to the people first? How then do we eradicate the problem of populism? During this ten year term do we have the power to remove the president? If so, then the president will have to keep us happy, even if it is by empty gestures and destructive laws. If we cannot remove the president during this ten year term, then this doesn't sound too different from our being unable to remove the Queen. Furthermore, anelected president automatically represents only theose who voted for him whereas a king represents all his people. How do we solve all those problems?
    It is better to have populist, democratic leaders, than undemocratic, hereditary monarchs.
    The power to depose the President would be introduced by an Act of Parliament, which would require elections to occur immediately. The deposed President may stand for a second term if he has not completed half of his original term.
    A monarch does not fairly represent anybody - nobody in this country chose her to be our representative, and therefore she does not "represent all the people". What she does, however, is represent a dated imperialist style of government that, in our modern democratic society, it is foolish to cling onto.

    The people have an input into the monarch through parliament, in the same way that the people have an input into the law through parliament. You see the idea of legal precedent holds true for the monarchy as it does for other areas of this country's constitution and law. The Monarchy was invited by a parliament of 1660, was affirmed by another parliament in 1690 and in 1701, and to my knowledge, every monarch thereafter succeeds automatically but is affirmed by parliament. Hence, the people affirm the monarch through parliament.
    From wikipedia;
    "Upon a "demise in the Crown" (the death of a Sovereign) his or her heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony. (Hence arises the phrase "The King is dead. Long live the King!")... After an individual ascends the Throne, he or she continues to reign until death."
    The original monarchy, if I have understood your use of 'invited', was introduced 300 years ago - surely we can no longer attempt to justify such an antiquated system which is causing increasing resentment?

    (Original post by Chiron)
    The Monarch is leader of the church. So? Do you believe the monarch does not deserve the right to worship as she chooses.? Why should the prime minister of 60 million people be a catholic?
    My argument needs to be understood here, before such a vehement rebuttal. The Queen does not have "the right to worship as she chooses". She must be an Anglican Christian. This violates every principle of religious equality and freedom from discriminations that religious groups experience.

    (Original post by Chiron)
    You specifically mention that the Head of State is a job, so why should anybody's "free choice of employment" be restricted by their religion?
    Ask your elected representatives, they are the ones who decided that law.
    Which do you think is more relevant -
    + a 300 year old law, which enshrines an undemocratic, antiquated Head of State
    or
    + a 50 year old United Nations law, which gives all people equality and freedom from discrimination, based on their "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
    ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    And there was an elected monarch - 1689, King William and Queen Mary were selected by Parliament. It is their successors that rule to this day.
    Explain to me why the Head of State in a democratic country should descend from one family that was appointed the Royal Family over 300 years ago.

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    No they don't. Their jobs, as with any government, was to protect and serve the public. They didn't.
    Surely you are not suggesting that Robert Mugabe or Saddam Hussein perform(ed) their jobs on a whim? We cannot argue about the extent to which Head of States take their jobs 'seriously', can we?

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    The president of France cannot remove the Prime Minister from office. The French PM resigned.
    I said that the Prime Minister was "replaced" - the President of France currently has the backing of a large majority of the people there (82% - 2002 Presidential Election) and can therefore act with authority and the support of the people to replace the Prime Minister. If the Queen was to replace the Prime Minister, for example, if Blair was to resign, with an unexpected Labour MP rather than the popular Gordon Brown, she would not have the support of the public. Because the French President has achieved his position via a mandate from the masses, he could act in the interests of the nation and with their support.

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    More importantly, it is established in the British constitution that if a Prime Minister cannot fulfil important manifesto pledges, they just resign. Tony Blair has considered resigning on a number of occasions if Parliament did not support his views. The same goes for referendums.
    But that is not solving the fact that his successor is chosen by an unelected official. I agree that if the Prime Minister suffers a referendum loss on a key issue, or receives a vote of no-confidence, he should resign. But his successor should be chosen by the people, or an elected representative thereof, rather than the monarch.

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    Democracy is not absolute, nor is it in itself an undebatable good.

    There will always be limits to democracy. That will not change.
    But it must be the intentions of our society to improve our own democracy, and this can be done by electing a democratic, accountable President.

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    She did lose the title 'Princess' when she divorced Prince Charles, didn't she?
    No, she didn't actually.
    That was just a gap of knowledge that I hoped somebody could fill. It must be admitted, however, that her philanthropic work was more important to the mourning of her death and her lasting legacy than her role as Princess.

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    The Claim of Right 1689. The people, or their elected representatives in Parliament, can select the monarch. You can look this particular law (or its English equivilent, the Bill of Rights 1689 up on the 'net or in any law library on earth)
    Bill of Rights 1689
    There's no mention that the people can choose their current monarch, but that
    "William and Mary were the successors of James."

    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    Because the Roman Catholic church teaches that their leader is superior to all Kings and Queens on Earth.
    But why should that prohibit Roman Catholics, or people of any other religion, from becoming King or Queen?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Explain to me why the Head of State in a democratic country should descend from one family that was appointed the Royal Family over 300 years ago.
    This was a democratic decision. Have you read the act of settlement, an elected parliament made that decision thermo. And I have submitted post after post about why a monarchyis hereditary. Please read my above one with the italicised extract. In summary it is stability, continuity, and to avoid the conflict of interests that naturally arise when an official is elected.



    But why should that prohibit Roman Catholics, or people of any other religion, from becoming King or Queen?
    Thermo, this was a decision by parliament, stop pretending it wasn't. This is parliaments fault not the monarch's. This only something wrong with that particular condition; this particular aspect doesn't exactly make the entire system wrong. The reason they did it was because at that time, from experience, Catholic Kings had split allegiances. This isn;t sucha problem today but at the time it was.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    From www.m-w.com
    ac·count·able; adjective; subject to giving an account : ANSWERABLE
    From www.dictionary.com
    ac·count·able; adj; liable to account for one's actions
    The monarch of the United Kingdom is not liable to account for her actions, and does not have to justify them; she cannot be replaced or removed if the public or parliament, our elected representatives, deem that she acted unfairly or, as a result of her actions, society has suffered. Every other member of the ruling hierarchy in the United Kingdom, with the exception of the House of Lords, is accountable, and without accountability, democracy is futile.

    The Monarch cannot be removed if they have acted unfairly? Well, King John was, Richard III was, Charles I was, James II was...see a trend here? Furthermore, in her coronation Oath the Queen is required to admit that ultimately she is bound by the laws of the land, and to act in accordance with the wishes of the people. In addition, because the Queen only acts on the advice of the prime minister - whose actions are accountable, the Queen is ultimately accountable. As I said before in any case, our Queen does not rule directly, therefore accountability is not even a thing we should be discussing. This is what the Bill of rights says:


    - Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain civil and political rights that could not be taken away. These included:

    -freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)

    - freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament (why, did I just read the words "without agreement by parliament"?)

    -freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament

    -the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege).

    - In addition, the Sovereign was required to summon Parliament frequently (reinforced by the Triennial Act 1694 which requiring the regular summoning of Parliaments).

    Now if the Queen cannot act without parliament, she is ultimately bound by the will of the people.



    No, thanks - I won't "just accept" that a monarch is accountable because, as above, she is not liable to punishment or replacement should he actions develop negative consequences. She cannot be told what to do, and neither can she be controlled. She is a symbol of the dying imperialist Britain that monarchists want to desperately cling to, and until she is deposed and her office destroyed, Britain will not be democratic.
    This is a question I want you to answer, it is not a rhetorical question: How did we elect 650 odd members of parliament, and a prime minister in an undemocratic country? And I would appreciate a direct answer to this.


    Again, I refer you to my syllogism earlier;
    Head of State has power / influence.
    Influence is not power in this case. Nonetheless. The Queen does not influence the PM. She is apolitical remember?

    [b]Head of State is not elected.
    This is correct

    Some aspects of power are not exercised by people.
    therefore
    Undemocratic.

    There is an error of reasoning here. You are implying that "some aspects of power are not exercised by the people, therefore we are undemocratic". The problem here is if the definition of democracy was "all aspects of power are exercised by the people", we would clearly be undemocratic because we do not elect the Lords, we do not vote directly on legislation, we do not appoint ambassadors, we do not appoint judges, we do not appoint civil sernamts. Those are aspects of power that the public does not exercise, even in a republic, therefore are republics with elected heads of state undemocratic? Your argument would suggest they are


    It is better to have populist, democratic leaders, than undemocratic, hereditary monarchs.
    Yup, Hitler was just one excellent example of the excesses of populism as an influence over the government. Thermo, as an aside from this argument, off the record, I think you can agree that populism amounts to Oclocracy, and most political philosophers -republican, authoritarian and monarchist - will agree that ultimately this is a very dangerous situation.


    The power to depose the President would be introduced by an Act of Parliament, which would require elections to occur immediately. The deposed President may stand for a second term if he has not completed half of his original term.
    What happens if the president refuses to sign this into law? What happens if the president has a large enough majority to refuse to even introduce this legislation? Again, not a rhetorical question but a qeustion for which I would appreciate a direct response.


    A monarch does not fairly represent anybody - nobody in this country chose her to be our representative, and therefore she does not "represent all the people".
    Our ambassadors abroad were not elected by us...do they not represent us?



    The original monarchy, if I have understood your use of 'invited', was introduced 300 years ago - surely we can no longer attempt to justify such an antiquated system which is causing increasing resentment?
    Resentment from whom? If you mean from you, then ou are just one person. If this has not been put to a referendum what statistics are you using to measure resentment towards stable government? If you could prove that it caused as much resentment as you say then perhaps we would start trying to see what to do about it?



    My argument needs to be understood here, before such a vehement rebuttal. The Queen does not have "the right to worship as she chooses". She must be an Anglican Christian. This violates every principle of religious equality and freedom from discriminations that religious groups experience.
    Well if the Queen does not worship as she chooses, you'd better write to your local MP and see that her case is heard! It is egregiously unfair what parliament - the representative of the people - has done, insisting the monarch has to be an Anglican. Pity she doesn't have a say in the matter


    Which do you think is more relevant -
    + a 300 year old law, which enshrines an undemocratic, antiquated Head of State
    or
    + a 50 year old United Nations law, which gives all people equality and freedom from discrimination, based on their "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."

    All laws passed by a recognised assembly are valid. Therefore, they are both valid. If you are saying that a 300 year old law is too long ago for it to have meaning today, are you denying the validity of laws that were passed by parliaments before 1930 when all adults were first given the right to vote, and laws passed before you were allowed to vote? A law's validity is not based on how old it is. Besides, as for the law that discriminates against potential candidates for the monarchy, this is an argument between you and parliament, the monarch had no say in it. The above is only an argument about the conditions of employment for a monarch not how sound monarchy as a system is. In other words, your disagreement with the idea of catholics being excluded is a red herring.

    PS: Please answer the questions I asked, they were not rhetorical. Thanks in advance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By the way Thermo, even the Anglican condition for a monarch is to prevent a conflict of interests between the word of Rome and the will of the people. Admittely it is probably no longer relevant, but at the time it was.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think we need one but I'm buggered if I can see how my life or the condition of the country would be markedly improved without one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I don't think we need one but I'm buggered if I can see how my life or the condition of the country would be markedly improved without one.
    I have to agree. It isn't a big deal whether or not we have one, so long as we have checks and balances on our system. I don't think it is reasonable to speak as though our "autocratic" monarchy has somehow adversely affected our day to day lives, or ever would under the current system. But personally, I would prefer the antiquity and splendour of this institution to remain a part of our country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    But personally, I would prefer the antiquity and splendour of this institution to remain a part of our country.
    So would I.

    Not so long ago I watched the State opening of Parliament on TV........men with odd titles, wigs, and Charles Dickens type shoes (with shiny buckles) richly embroidered cloaks and gowns, carrying swords and all sorts of other paraphernalia etc......and I thought to myself......this is really Lilliputian.....yet something so unique that I wouldn't trade it for the supposed savings of about 60p a year.

    Long may it continue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You really couldn't think of a better way to end your points? Firstly the Queen has probably got the greatest knowledge of the constitution of anyone in this country. She spent years training to be head of state and has been for over fifty years. Often she knows a lot more than her ministers and there are many notable occasions of her bringing to their attention important documents that they didn't bother to read. The Royals certainly are not idiots and by using that sort of language, it is obvious that it is you that is closer to being one.
    Calling them idiots reveals the emotion-over-reason nature of this argument. And above, you point out one of the reasons monarchs are hereditary. They spend a lifetime training for an absolutely unique job, and acquire knowledge of government and the constitution which often exceeds that of ministers who come and go.


    Why is it wrong that an unelected person has power over us? I didn't elect Tony Blair - the British public did. I can't change the government myself, yet it still has power over me. There are even occasions where the British public would not vote for an issue (say, to licence the use of airguns) - and yet this happens because the 'Scottish Parliament' likes it.
    I have a feeling it is a sad symptoms of the times that Democracy (which by some arguments I have read is interpreted to mean Oclocracy) in and of itself is now seen as gospel truth, the ultimate good, and an end in itself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    So would I.

    Not so long ago I watched the State opening of Parliament on TV........men with odd titles, wigs, and Charles Dickens type shoes (with shiny buckles) richly embroidered cloaks and gowns, carrying swords and all sorts of other paraphernalia etc......and I thought to myself......this is really Lilliputian.....yet something so unique that I wouldn't trade it for the supposed savings of about 60p a year.

    Long may it continue.
    Agreed.

    Getting rid of the monarchs would not only affect Britain but all nations who still consider them as head of state. I can only speak about where I'm from - Canada - where the Queen is only a figurehead. Still, it's part of our (short) history and it would be a shame to lose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Have the royals actually done anything controversial outside their private lives since Charles the 2nd? I quite like the way we have someone at the very top in a maternal role - above politics. It's just a shame we see the worse side of the royals more than the good side.

    I'd much rather an openly cronyist monarchy, than a cringeworthy crypto-cronyist presidency. For example, how that glorious beacon of Republicanism - France - has a President who is happy to give each of his old school mates a turn in the role of Prime Minister (without democratic election). Even worse: there's the European Commission and the Chinese Communist Party!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    So would I.

    Not so long ago I watched the State opening of Parliament on TV........men with odd titles, wigs, and Charles Dickens type shoes (with shiny buckles) richly embroidered cloaks and gowns, carrying swords and all sorts of other paraphernalia etc......and I thought to myself......this is really Lilliputian.....yet something so unique that I wouldn't trade it for the supposed savings of about 60p a year.

    Long may it continue.
    Good one.

    That's one of the main reasons to justify it, I think. But that argument is quite weak now that very few people are encouraged to show interest in the nostalgia of history, tradition and nation any more. It's probably becaus it's not a mood that comes out in peacetime so much.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chiron)
    This is a question I want you to answer, it is not a rhetorical question: How did we elect 650 odd members of parliament, and a prime minister in an undemocratic country? And I would appreciate a direct answer to this.
    People really are not reading my posts carefully, and just presuming that I have expressed an opinion on an issue, whereas you prefer to interpret it as though I have explicitly said we are an undemocratic country. What I have said is that "democracy is futile" without accountability.

    To answer the question, however, is difficult because what we term 'democracy' is different. Neither of our definitions of 'democracy' amounts of ochlocracy, which is, I admit, a dangerous system of government - no quarrels with that. All further reasoning from here onwards by myself shall refer to democracy as
    "a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law. " from Google's definition feature (wikipedia - fourth from the top)
    Power should lie with the citizens of a country. As regards lawmaking, it does currently, but the people have no say whatsoever in the government structure of our country. To that extent, we are undemocratic - the rule of the majority would, for example, on an issue like the Lords, be to abolish it, but because of their hold on power, it is impossible to achieve the will of the majority, and therefore democracy has failed. If a mandate of the British people said that they wanted to maintain a monarchy, fine - they majority would have spoken, and explicity said that they wanted this governmental system. The people themselves have never done this, as far as I am aware, and until power is ultimately returned to the people, we are undemocratic.

    There is an error of reasoning here. You are implying that "some aspects of power are not exercised by the people, therefore we are undemocratic". The problem here is if the definition of democracy was "all aspects of power are exercised by the people", we would clearly be undemocratic because we do not elect the Lords, we do not vote directly on legislation, we do not appoint ambassadors, we do not appoint judges, we do not appoint civil sernamts. Those are aspects of power that the public does not exercise, even in a republic, therefore are republics with elected heads of state undemocratic? Your argument would suggest they are
    See above. I have already addressed the issue of civil servants and ambassadors, who have meritocratically achieved their positions, as do judges, and all are accountable for their actions.

    Yup, Hitler was just one excellent example of the excesses of populism as an influence over the government. Thermo, as an aside from this argument, off the record, I think you can agree that populism amounts to Oclocracy, and most political philosophers -republican, authoritarian and monarchist - will agree that ultimately this is a very dangerous situation.
    We have already agreed, as you specified;
    "one cannot denigrate the merits of a position judging by the incumbents."

    Don't try to scaremonger the idea of a Republic by bringing up Hitler. It is fine to introduce previous governmental systems for comparison, but perhaps then I could refer you to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, who sacrificed over 12 million of their citizens in four years in a war that they both would ultimately lose. Do not respond to this, but I expect you to acknowledge that, as you say, "one cannot denigrate" either a monarchy or republic "judging by the incumbents."

    What happens if the president refuses to sign this into law? What happens if the president has a large enough majority to refuse to even introduce this legislation? Again, not a rhetorical question but a qeustion for which I would appreciate a direct response.
    When establishing the position of President, a referendum on such an Act should be held. The President would be held to common law, as the Queen is, and would be unable to refuse the request of Parliament, but would be able to ask for the reconsideration of a bill, as in France. It would be similar to the present "vote of no-confidence" in Parliament, and as such, it would impossible for the President to refuse the will of Parliament and the public.

    Our ambassadors abroad were not elected by us...do they not represent us?
    Yes, but they're directly accountable for their actions, and do not hold any real power or ability to introduce legislation, as far as I'm aware.

    Resentment from whom? If you mean from you, then ou are just one person. If this has not been put to a referendum what statistics are you using to measure resentment towards stable government? If you could prove that it caused as much resentment as you say then perhaps we would start trying to see what to do about it?
    I'm referring to the poll involved in this title - it's rudimentary, obviously, and closed (the reason for which I am unaware of), unfortunately, before I had an oppurtunity to express my opinion. From the brief time that I have tracked posts on this forum, I believe that there is a suitable political sample of the next generation, but perhaps an inadequate complete class and age range. Don't bother trying to discredit the poll - I admit that it is greatly flawed and futile to use as conclusive evidence, but since very little surveying has occured, I can but use the resources available. I also remember reading a poll that said that the Australian people were very likely to become a Republic after the Queen's death, but I can't quote any figures, unfortunately. It is unlikely that any genuine polling would have occured in the recent past in the UK; it was illegal, until June 2003, to call for the abolition of the Monarchy, which is an infringement of human rights, and thus abolished by the Law Lords.

    It is egregiously unfair what parliament - the representative of the people - has done, insisting the monarch has to be an Anglican. Pity she doesn't have a say in the matter
    So you agree that this aspect of the monarchy at least is fundamentally undemocratic and a violation of the human rights?

    All laws passed by a recognised assembly are valid. What law is more valid, the laws that were passed by parliaments before 1930 when all adults were first given the right to vote? A law's validity is not based on how old it is. Besides, as for the law that discriminates against potential candidates for the monarchy, this is an argument between you and parliament, the monarch had no say in it. The above is only an argument about the conditions of employment for a monarch not how sound monarchy as a system is. In other words, your disagreement with the idea of catholics being excluded is a red herring.
    I did not ask about the validity of law, but of its relevance in our modern society. As with Libertine North, you both like to jump to conclusions about what you wish I'd said, but the word I specifically used was "relevant".

    Furthermore, it is not a "red herring" whatsoever that I object to the monarchical system of religious affiliation. It is just one of many aspects where the monarchy fails, in our modern society, to met the demands of democracy free from prejudice. It is also an argument that neither the monarch nor parliament has addressed, and one that I believe needs to be immediately to prevent this continuation of injustice. The only reason that is given to prohibit a Catholic monarch is that
    "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"
    That is discriminatory, and in the modern democratic society of Great Britain, our multicultural society should no longer be defined as a "protestant kingdom".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People really are not reading my posts carefully, and just presuming that I have expressed an opinion on an issue, whereas you prefer to interpret it as though I have explicitly said we are an undemocratic country. What I have said is that "democracy is futile" without accountability.
    Even if this was what you meant to say, you did not once explicitly say that. You actually said we cannot be a democracy with a monarchy and if you haven't edited your posts I can quote to prove that. Yes democracy is futile without accountability. As I have said above, both the monarch and the PM can only ultimately act in accordance with our laws. We have a parliament therefore accountability exists in our government, You are now changing the basis of your argument. You actually said "A tad hypocritical if we are running an undemocratic system". So YES you did say we are undemocratic. Don't try to extricate yourself by shifting the meaning of the word "if" in that sentence.


    To answer the question, however, is difficult because what we term 'democracy' is different. Neither of our definitions of 'democracy' amounts of ochlocracy, which is, I admit, a dangerous system of government - no quarrels with that.
    Then why did you say "not all power is exercised by the people, therefore, Undemocratic"? All power exercised by the people is Oclocracy.


    "a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law. "
    650 MPs, enough said. We are democratic.

    As regards lawmaking, it does currently, but the people have no say whatsoever in the government structure of our country. To that extent, we are undemocratic - the rule of the majority would, for example, on an issue like the Lords, be to abolish it, but because of their hold on power, it is impossible to achieve the will of the majority, and therefore democracy has failed. If a mandate of the British people said that they wanted to maintain a monarchy, fine - they majority would have spoken, and explicity said that they wanted this governmental system. The people themselves have never done this, as far as I am aware, and until power is ultimately returned to the people, we are undemocratic.
    Thermo you are trying to take the heat of your original statements. This is now a broader problem examining to what extent the citizenry should be involved in legislation. The problem is that even if the citizenry was asked everything, too often they are not qualified to make decisions for anything other than short term benefit or self interest. People are not asked to say if they apporve of the country's system of government every generation. I am sorry if you don't like it but many, many other people do. No country I can think of has ever voted riectly on what structure their government should have, that is usually done by elected representatives. Even people with republican sympathies do not necessarily have a problem with the structure of government. Some things are just not put up for discussion. If people hated it so much then where are the petitions and riots outside westminster? Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan says that the origins of government lies in the fact that people are essentialy selfish. So in order for life to be easier they make a contract with one another stating "you and I will not make decisions about the whole group, we will leave that in the hands of people to whom we will give up a little of our power, so that they can govern us all with out best interests in mind". Get this point Thermo: Power in a democracy never has been, never should be entirely in the hands of the people, beyond accountability and electing officials. You said "If a mandate of the British people said that they wanted to maintain a monarchy, fine - they majority would have spoken" The majority havn't spoken and hasvn't been asked. That isn't the monarch's fault. In any case, if the public were asked without previously showing discontent, to change the structure of government every generation this would be expensive and confusing.


    I have already addressed the issue of civil servants and ambassadors, who have meritocratically achieved their positions, as do judges, and all are accountable for their actions.
    As is the Queen.


    We have already agreed, as you specified;
    "one cannot denigrate the merits of a position judging by the incumbents."

    I specifically said it was an example. I can give you many more exampes. Populism is evil, bad and nothing more than bribery. Let us not argue this self evident truth. Sometimes a government must do things because they are best, not because people with short term horizons who put self interest before the common good, have asked them to change a law. In a populist state, the minority is not protected. Populism amounts to Oclocracy.


    Don't try to scaremonger the idea of a Republic by bringing up Hitler.
    It is fine to introduce previous governmental systems for comparison, but perhaps then I could refer you to Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, who sacrificed over 12 million of their citizens in four years in a war that they both would ultimately lose. Do not respond to this, but I expect you to acknowledge that, as you say, "one cannot denigrate" either a monarchy or republic "judging by the incumbents."

    You know that my example was to demonstrate what is wrong with populism not republicanism. Your above examples are examples of autocracy, yet ours is a special kind of monarchy called Constitutional Monarchy. Hitler is an excellent example in fact of what can (note I do not pretend that this is always the case) happen when an elected official goes mad, whilst in control of the army and the house of elected representatives.



    When establishing the position of President, a referendum on such an Act should be held.
    Held by who?


    The President would be held to common law, as the Queen is, and would be unable to refuse the request of Parliament, but would be able to ask for the reconsideration of a bill, as in France.
    But why should he listen? I asked you that before. He has power which he can exercise at will, the Queen doesn't.



    It would be similar to the present "vote of no-confidence" in Parliament, and as such, it would impossible for the President to refuse the will of Parliament and the public.
    The will of parliament might very well be his will if he has a majority



    I'm referring to the poll involved in this title - it's rudimentary, obviously, and closed (the reason for which I am unaware of), unfortunately, before I had an oppurtunity to express my opinion. From the brief time that I have tracked posts on this forum, I believe that there is a suitable political sample of the next generation, but perhaps an inadequate complete class and age range. Don't bother trying to discredit the poll - I admit that it is greatly flawed and futile to use as conclusive evidence, but since very little surveying has occured, I can but use the resources available. I also remember reading a poll that said that the Australian people were very likely to become a Republic after the Queen's death, but I can't quote any figures, unfortunately. It is unlikely that any genuine polling would have occured in the recent past in the UK; it was illegal, until June 2003, to call for the abolition of the Monarchy, which is an infringement of human rights, and thus abolished by the Law Lords.
    Could parliament vote away its existence? The reason some laws are not even considered is because their outcome could lead to an uncertain future. The Queen cannot put her existence to a ballot because our government system is based on her as the recognised authority, the starting point from which all other power is built on. Voting away the Queen could therefore be tricky. It's a closed loop remember.


    So you agree that this aspect of the monarchy at least is fundamentally undemocratic and a violation of the human rights?
    Yes but it is an abuse of the Queen's human rights.This is parliament's fault not the Queen's. Do you admit this? In any case, every job has conditions of employment. Religion just happens to be one of them for the Queen, she can quite easily abdicate if she wanted to (this can be allowed by an act of parliament).



    I did not ask about the validity of law, but of its relevance in our modern society. As with Libertine North, you both like to jump to conclusions about what you wish I'd said, but the word I specifically used was "relevant".
    ALL laws passed by a recognised assembly, unless otherwise repealed, are relevant. Should I start choosing which laws i do not want to obey upon my arbitrary decision of their relevance?



    Furthermore, it is not a "red herring" whatsoever that I object to the monarchical system of religious affiliation. It is just one of many aspects where the monarchy fails, in our modern society, to met the demands of democracy free from prejudice.
    No not the monarchy but P-A-R-L-I-A-M-E-N-T passed those laws. Therefore all that argument says, is that there is something wrong with the law, not with Monarchy as a concept. Therefore, red herring.



    It is also an argument that neither the monarch nor parliament has addressed, and one that I believe needs to be immediately to prevent this continuation of injustice. The only reason that is given to prohibit a Catholic monarch is that
    "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"
    That is discriminatory, and in the modern democratic society of Great Britain, our multicultural society should no longer be defined as a "protestant kingdom".

    No this is simply a law that has not been reviewed. A lot of them exist but that doesn't make the constitution inherently unfair. If my memory serves me, it is legal to kill a welshman after sunset except on a sunday in at least one place in this country (or was until recently), but that doesn't mean the constitution is "undemocratic, discrimantory.." The Papist condition was passed at a time when a Papist King was actually a liability.


    You still haven't justified how unelected ambassadors can represent our interests, but an unelected monarch can't. Please justify this in your reply. You did say "they have worked to get to where they are". This is changing the argument from "unelected representatives" to "meritcracy". These are separate questions. I am dealing here with how an abmassador can represent our interests even though they are unelected, but a monarch can't. My mother is unelected but safeguards my interests. My point here is, you do not need to be elected in order to safeguard the interests of somebody.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The main problem here thermo is that you have an idealised view of democracy. In democracy we only elect our officials we have no further participation in government. This has been the tradition of democracy since the Greeks introduced it to Europe. Democracy is a system with flaws, as all other systems of government. You seem to believe that democracy is power to the people. While the word means "government by the demos", it is rarely so literally applied. If you remember just one thing from "the other side" of this debate, let itbe this: The only difference between an Oligarchy/Plutocracy and a Representative Democracy, is that in a Representative Democracy, we elect our Oligarchs. After that, they call the shots and can legally do so without asking you or anybody else. I think you are looking at democracy as a "cure all" for every possible abuse of power, when it too can be abused and manipulated.


    I don't think we will ever agree on this, but I have so far given fair arguments for the monarchy's hereditary nature is essential, for how the monarch is a constitutional safeguard, as well as cogent arguments pointing out the difficulty of an all powerful but elected official, in addition to the limits democracy. In the end however, the Queen is a national mascot of sorts. She is a relic and therefore does not have to "do something useful" to justify her existence anymore than Nelson's Victory has to be "useful" in order to have significance. My final contribution to this argument will therefore be that the monarch is as much a part of the cultural fabric as our stately homes, buildings and other national relics. She doesn't have to be functional in order to have significance (incidentally as I have pointed out above, she does have an actual use, but since you do not find this role convincing I will not argue that anymore) . I think this is something I think we can all agree on, monarchists and republicans alike.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thermoregulatio)
    Explain to me why the Head of State in a democratic country should descend from one family that was appointed the Royal Family over 300 years ago.
    Because it's been working rather well...


    I said that the Prime Minister was "replaced" - the President of France currently has the backing of a large majority of the people there (82% - 2002 Presidential Election) and can therefore act with authority and the support of the people to replace the Prime Minister. If the Queen was to replace the Prime Minister, for example, if Blair was to resign, with an unexpected Labour MP rather than the popular Gordon Brown, she would not have the support of the public. Because the French President has achieved his position via a mandate from the masses, he could act in the interests of the nation and with their support.
    Again, you're giving the President of France more power than he actually holds. If the PM resigned, there's also the chance that she'd appoint the leader of the opposition as PM. It would be an interim measure before an election is called.


    But that is not solving the fact that his successor is chosen by an unelected official. I agree that if the Prime Minister suffers a referendum loss on a key issue, or receives a vote of no-confidence, he should resign. But his successor should be chosen by the people, or an elected representative thereof, rather than the monarch.
    The Prime Minister will be chosen as the person most able to sustain a viable majority in the Commons.


    Bill of Rights 1689
    There's no mention that the people can choose their current monarch, but that
    "William and Mary were the successors of James."
    William and Mary were not the normal successors of James VII. He had a son, who would rightfully have been James VIII (hence the existance of Jacobites even after James' death) - William was his son-in-law and not the rightful King by any measure of previous customs.

    the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging,

    That's the important part of the Act.


    But why should that prohibit Roman Catholics, or people of any other religion, from becoming King or Queen?
    I think it was self-explanatory. Because they have the ability to be controlled by powers external to the state.

    [ambassadors lack ] ability to introduce legislation, as far as I'm aware.
    Same for the Queen.

    it was illegal, until June 2003, to call for the abolition of the Monarchy, which is an infringement of human rights, and thus abolished by the Law Lords.
    1998, when the Human Rights Act was given effect. The Law Lords merely interpreted this in 2003.

    "it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince"
    That is discriminatory, and in the modern democratic society of Great Britain, our multicultural society should no longer be defined as a "protestant kingdom".
    The fact is that we are though. The established state churches are still the most popular churches in this country, the majority of religious people still class themselves as Protestants etc. So long as we have an established church, we are a Protestant Kingdom. Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps it isn't, either way it is not the subject of the debate.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 13, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.