pwa wrote: Ah, right. I thought you saw having a low profile head of state as a problem, but clearly not. It would leave a gap in some people's lives but I think I would get used to it very quickly.
Almost all are low profile or, more likely, only of interest to people in their own country. All for the best I think.
And think how it would look to future generations when they learned that there was a time when the UK had a well established democracy but still had a ruling family. It is very odd when you think about it.
Is it a true democracy when people cannot choose a head of state or vote for who sits in the second chamber of Parliament?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
mattheus wrote:I presume that an elected President wouldn't get to stay in all the (current) Royal Castles!
So I wonder what would happen to them all? I don't think we're daft enough to burn them down and lose all the tourist dollars; would they just become the top of the Stately Home ladder, no one living there except perhaps the staff needed to run the tourist attraction?
We could keep the royal family on to serve as guides and curators. Maybe they and the president could use a corner of Buck House as flats.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
mattheus wrote:Define "true democracy"! How about a referendum for every single decision? Or elections for every public servant. (Judges, teachers, bin-men ...)
What's the quote? oh yeah:
"It's the worst form of government - except for all the other forms."
Everyone involved in passing acts of parliament into law should be elected not appointed or there by accident of birth.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
mattheus wrote:I presume that an elected President wouldn't get to stay in all the (current) Royal Castles!
So I wonder what would happen to them all? I don't think we're daft enough to burn them down and lose all the tourist dollars; would they just become the top of the Stately Home ladder, no one living there except perhaps the staff needed to run the tourist attraction?
We could keep the royal family on to serve as guides and curators. Maybe they and the president could use a corner of Buck House as flats.
Or follow the precedent set at Yekaterinburg in 1918.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
mattheus wrote:Define "true democracy"! How about a referendum for every single decision? Or elections for every public servant. (Judges, teachers, bin-men ...)
What's the quote? oh yeah:
"It's the worst form of government - except for all the other forms."
Everyone involved in passing acts of parliament into law should be elected not appointed or there by accident of birth.
Which is what happens. The Lords can only delay for further consideration. The Queen must sign what she is given. She has zero discretion.
mattheus wrote:Define "true democracy"! How about a referendum for every single decision? Or elections for every public servant. (Judges, teachers, bin-men ...)
What's the quote? oh yeah:
Everyone involved in passing acts of parliament into law should be elected not appointed or there by accident of birth.
Which is what happens. The Lords can only delay for further consideration. The Queen must sign what she is given. She has zero discretion.
Through convention the monarch assents to bills passed by parliament. The monarch does have the power to refuse. It hasn't happened for hundreds of years but the power remains so it's not correct to say the Queen must sign what she is given. The Lords can amend as well as delay. Depending on the timing a delay can mean a bill never reaches the statute book.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
The difference between our Royals and those of Russia, France -and others- is that they have been very well advised as to just how far they can go. It seems time has run out for them and their advisors. In a nation ruined by neoliberal capitalism, that can only be a good thing. Britain is the greatest nation on earth - so how did we fall so far? (See above).
pete75 wrote: Everyone involved in passing acts of parliament into law should be elected not appointed or there by accident of birth.
Which is what happens. The Lords can only delay for further consideration. The Queen must sign what she is given. She has zero discretion.
Through convention the monarch assents to bills passed by parliament. The monarch does have the power to refuse. It hasn't happened for hundreds of years but the power remains so it's not correct to say the Queen must sign what she is given. The Lords can amend as well as delay. Depending on the timing a delay can mean a bill never reaches the statute book.
Agreed but she knows damned well that if she refuses the Civil List will shrink PDQ.
Apart from the obvious injustice of privilege, one big concern with having the Big Job handed down a family line is that one day it will land on the lap of someone who is very unsuitable. Andrew is a reminder of that danger. Okay, he is nowhere near to being in line for that job so we have escaped this time, but one day the disgraced figure squirming in front of a BBC interrogator could be the monarch or their heir.
