If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s not working and we can’t fix it sure. At that point we should find a new way, and our monarchs should know that. I think so far the queen and our new King do know that. Until then as a pragmatist I see no need to upend the status quo.
I find "support of a monarchy" an indefensible position. Bonus points if your only argument is "well the current monarch is kind of nice and therefore we're not in a hurry to remove him" because that's literally one rotten apple away of exploding in your face (see Spain) and by then it's likely too late.
Talks to his plants though, allegedly.
It’s mostly meritocratic. Compared to many other systems, along with other comparable liberal democracies I’d argue it’s one of the most meritocratic systems developed so far. It’s also one of the most free, and the fact is free human beings don’t always make every decision based on merit. I think it’s clear if we chose to get rid of the monarchy we could do so through democratic mechanisms. So far we have chosen not to do so.
A little bit of strawmanning there, implying I'm insisting on an unblemished ideal system. I simply think there's plenty of room for improvement on what we have, and stripping one family of a birthright to rule would count towards it.
I don't think it's at all clear we could get rid of the monarchy through democratic mechanisms! But that's rather besides the point - we wouldn't try, because the amount of state & media propaganda shovelled at us will prevent most people from wanting that. Unless some troubling events fast-track Harry & Meghan to the top of the succession order, of course.
2. "That's just north koreans"
3. "North koreans aren't humans?"
Comment #3 is not a valid counterargument to comment #2. The point is that Scots may not be a representative sample of "all Brits", even if Scots are Brits.
In other words, people with an unambiguous stake in the outcome.
And I suppose we will see as the parade travels south and crossese the border, but I don’t think you will see the same sort of anti-Charles sentiment in Manchester or London.
Is that really what happens, though? And if so, what if the monarch isn't satisfied with the answer?
I know some believe that all government should be open/public but I suspect in many cases that means that real discussions don't take place out of fear of offence or backlash from the public. If you were toying with the idea of e.g. privatising the NHS or selling off a load of gold for raising funds, you might want to discuss these privately before they end up as a Headline.
If the monarch is competent. History shows that it happens, but is far from being the norm. Blood lines do not guarantee anything in that respect.
That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss)
By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't.
So your line of argument is way off.
That's interesting - please could you give any pointers to who said this and when?
How on earth could you possibly know that?
England, I'll give you. We can ignore Peterloo. But everyone always forgets Ireland successfully leaving the UK through a combination of armed struggle and political action. Not so much the stabilizing influence of the monarchy as the willingness to shell Dublin or fire randomly into protests in Northern Ireland. And quite a lot of the Twitter anti-monarchism at the moment has been from Kenyans.
In the UK the Crown has nominally comparable authority but is in fact nothing but a glove puppet, or at least that has been the case to date. See e.g., the Queen's acquiescence to the illegal prorogation of parliament. She did was she was told to do in her own name. Her son may not be so accommodating and this may lead to a constitutional crisis.
Some check on an overweening executive is always good.
Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that.
I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative, is pretty small. The House of Lords, the voting system(s) and the constitutional settlement of devolution are far more pressing issues.
https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state
> The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to:
* represent the nation
* defend our democracy
* act as referee in the political process
* offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration
> The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).
How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted to choose X for personal political reasons, how do you prove it?
And if you have a method to prove it, why not use that method to arbitrate instead?
One of the joys(?) of losing an empire is that there are a bunch of independent countries with political systems derived from yours that can provide concrete examples of the effects of possible reforms...
And I think republicans prefer the scoundrel chosen by the people than the one descended from a long line of worse and worse scoundrels, the further you go back.
(I personally don't have strong opinions either way).
France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.
I don't know of any cases among the developed English-speaking countries with Westminster-style governments where your latter sentence is meaningful. The Canadian Prime Minister, especially, is said to be the most powerful single government leader in the world, but really is merely the (to coin a phrase) first among equals among his peers in other countries.
For others' benefit, a Canadian Prime Minister can
* Appoint anyone he wants to cabinet positions
* Appoint anyone he wants to the Supreme Court[1]
* Appoint anyone he wants to ambassadorships and other high positions
* Sign any treaty he wants
* Call an election whenever he thinks he has the best chance of winning more seats than his party possesses in Parliament at the moment
* Get any law passed he wants (assuming that his party has a majority or equivalent thereof), with no meaningful need to deal with an upper house
* Run for reelection as Prime Minister as often as he wants
Most of the above apply to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. The Irish and British upper houses have little power, and New Zealand no longer has an upper house; only Australia has an upper house in the legislature with significant power.
[1] Yes, yes, I know about the convention that the PM names someone from a list of suggestions. That's all that is; a convention. The only actual requirement is that three of the nine justices have to be from Quebec.
One advantage is that you know who to blame, especially when it elections come around. Instead of the "dead lock" that can occur when both the Legislature and Executive say they have 'mandates' that are opposing to each other.
I don't think you can be a Cabinet member and a member of Congress. As Cabinet members are officers of the United States and you cannot hold another office while also being a member of Congress (Article 1, Section 6).
It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.
Given that the first time the Speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem were proposed as successors under Article II was during the literal 1st Congress in 1792, I think it’s pretty unlikely that any modern court would find that to be unconstitutional.
“Many of the actual people who signed the Constitution thought this was okay and demonstrated their belief by introducing legislation to that effect” is about as ironclad a precedent as you can hope to find.
Even when the 1792 version of the bill was signed, the issue was brought up. By the "actual people who signed the Constitution".
And we've never had to actually test the Presidential Succession Act, which is where the courts would decide if it actually meets the Constitutional standard. The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal.
This is true! But it’s also immaterial to the point I’m trying to make.
I’m not arguing for or against the de jure constitutionality of the law; I’m saying that it’s unlikely any modern-day court would find it within themselves to overrule the de facto state of affairs that was created by the framers themselves.
I don't know how Canada does it but in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the party. You don't vote directly for them. As such it isn't a democratically elected position so it isn't really any better than the status quo.
Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa.
Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top.
In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.
I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)
> I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety
Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy.
> the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.
We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is.
In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.
Don't get me wrong, I am not some rabid anti-republican, republics absolutely do work! But I think monarchies also work, and each have different benefits. A republic is more representative demographically speaking, for example, whereas a monarchy is more impartial and has a stronger line of succesion to name a few distinct traits. I don't feel like our system is broken, nor do I feel that a republic would solve any problems (and it may come with its own fresh ones).
The "In modern times" argument comes up a lot, but I'm not sure it applies. Just because something is old, even anachronistic, does not mean it is invalid. In fact, such things are more valuable precisely because they are no longer found today. However, I think you are right in that there is a disconnect between these rituals and symbols and our modern conception of society, and that is why I think Canada has poorly managed the relationship between monarch and everyday people, and let the institution decay. One solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up with a republic, and its not going to be the end of the world, but I am personally in favour of renewing our longstanding existing commitment.
It's fine for you and I who are born into citizenship without having to do this ritual. For immigrants, this can be very jarring.
Props to Australia for taking the first step and making it not part of the citizenship oath. The other ties are still there but at least you are not making people swear allegiance.
Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.
Since he's gone it's been almost entirely ceremonial with the exception of the constitutionality of new laws part (and the dissolving of government, but that hasn't come up since 1994).
The US has its Constitution, Canada and Australia (my country) have had the Queen.
The monarchy in many Commonwealth countries is effectively toothless having no actual power (certainly in Australia; following the Queens GG in Australia dismissing the Whitlam government some years ago that last loophole of power was written out) but they serve as some notion of something that binds us and transcends party politics.
I'm not sure whether Australia will stay the course with the monarchy now the Queen has passed, the Republicans here have been a growing force and Charles III doesn't have the respect his mother had.
I certainly have no particular attachment to the UK firm.
I am Canadian and I do not have a good answer either of why we have a head of state aside from historical tradition.
I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.