British Republicanism

[Nadkor]

No, it wouldn't. The only way that would happen would be if the lawyers in question were as misinformed as you. This is a clear cut question, one of very few that exist. The Crown Estates are the property of the Crown not the Queen, the office not the officer, and are therefore the property of the state. It's really as simple as that.

The Crown Estates office is not owned by the state, its owned by the Crown which is independent of the government.

The Crown Estates are owned by the Crown, yes. In strict constitutional terms the Crown is the state. HM Government =/= the Crown. HM Government =/= the state.

The Crown Estate Commissioners manage the Crown Estates. They do not own them. The Crown Estates Commissioners are an independent body not part of HM Government

it only surrenders profit to the state, this doesn't mean that its owned by the state (unless i am completely mistaken)

It surrenders profit to HM Government, it is owned by the state.

my happy lawyer quote was only a remark because of my bad running s with lawyers in the past, and not a dig at you, just to let you know

I hadn't thought for a second that it was

[The UK in Exile]

ok, the answer is we reject this strawman arguement.

It is not a 'strawman'

What is the benefit of an elected figurehead over an unelected one, if they are both just figureheads...

How do you prevent an elected position being effectively bought by corporate sponsorship, just like every other elected position in government.

state subisidized, fixed term elections, alternatively the office of the head of state is vested in the cabinet, multiple individuals decrease the likelyhood of abuse. a cap on campaign spending. proportional representation.

What have you 'fixed' by changing one for another. What is the benefit from your proposed change.

You want to convince people to support republicanism, so convince them, basic sales technique, "Features & Benefits"

Feature : Elected Ceremonial Head of State or something completely different but accepted for the sake of debate.
Benefit : more representitive, holds a mandate to check government abuse of power, accountable via ballot.

[Aesthetica]

The monarchy is an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain,

No more expensive than El Presidente, who wants a nice palace to hold parties in...

it also gives politicians almost limitless power.
It does this is in a variety of ways:

Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

And you think that the leader of the new republic will give up that power once he's deposed the monarch and stuck one of his cronies in as 'elected' figurehead?

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

Hmm senior politicians... so if they side with the new republic, the leader will see that they stay on under a new name with the same job, or else replace them with his own cronies.

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

Ah yes, obviously the elected house of the new republic will decrease it's own power, voluntarily, because we all know thats what professional politicians do right, the guys who voted themselves a 25% pay rise one year while forcing the rest of us to make do with 2%. The people who suggested the expenses scandal could best be resolved by abolishing expenses and giving themselves a 100% pay rise...

Bound to decrease their own power, once they have an ELECTED figurehead...

[Scawendaen]

The British Empire has been ruled by a monarchy for hundreds of years, so the odds of abolishing all forms of monarchy in the country are very very low... I am an American, but I do not feel that monarchies are always a poor choice in government, especially not in England.

[Khytenna]

The Crown Estates office is not owned by the state, its owned by the Crown which is independent of the government.

It is owned by the Crown, yes. In strict constitutional terms the Crown is the state. HM Government =/= the Crown. HM Government =/= the state.

it only surrenders profit to the state, this doesn't mean that its owned by the state (unless i am completely mistaken)

It surrenders profit to HM Government, it is owned by the state.

my happy lawyer quote was only a remark because of my bad running s with lawyers in the past, and not a dig at you, just to let you know

I hadn't thought for a second that it was

Really i wouldn't think that it would be owned by the state (as in the Crown office) just becouse it surrenders it profit, i would of just though that the Profit is owned.

i am not arguing here, just surprised slightly by this. (which i think is slightly derailing that topic)

[Khytenna]

Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

All of which can be reformed (as they have been in other mordern monarchies ) without becoming a republic...

[Nadkor]

It is owned by the Crown, yes. In strict constitutional terms the Crown is the state. HM Government =/= the Crown. HM Government =/= the state.



It surrenders profit to HM Government, it is owned by the state.



I hadn't thought for a second that it was

Really i wouldn't think that it would be owned by the state (as in the Crown office) just becouse it surrenders it profit, i would of just though that the Profit is owned.

The comma was a delineation of related points. Perhaps a semi-colon would have been more appropriate, in hindsight.

But to attempt to state the point clearly: The Crown Estates Commissioners, a statutory corporation that manages the Crown Estates, surrenders the profits made by the Crown Estates to HM Government, but the Crown Estates are owned by the Crown (i.e. the state) not by HM Government, and not by the Queen.

i am not arguing here, just surprised slightly by this. (which i think is slightly derailing that topic)

No worries.

[Khytenna]

Really i wouldn't think that it would be owned by the state (as in the Crown office) just becouse it surrenders it profit, i would of just though that the Profit is owned.

The comma was a delineation of related points. Perhaps a semi-colon would have been more appropriate, in hindsight.

But to attempt to state the point clearly: The Crown Estates Commissioners, a statutory corporation that manages the Crown Estates, surrenders the profits made by the Crown Estates to HM Government, but the Crown Estates are owned by the Crown (i.e. the state) not by HM Government, and not by the Queen.

AHHHHHH i seeeeee

i can see where i am getting confussed, thank you.

[Aesthetica]

Feature : Elected Ceremonial Head of State or something completely different but accepted for the sake of debate.
Benefit : more representitive, holds a mandate to check government abuse of power, accountable via ballot.

Ah, 'representative' again, but representative of who...

The corporations who fund El Presidente's campaign and pull his strings. Nice. Have you paid ANY attention to how politics has changed in this country over the last 30 or so years?

Mandate to check abuse of power, so this Figurehead isn't a figurehead at all...
Replace a figurehead monarch with a buyable position with actual power, sounds even nicer... For the buyers.

Accountable via ballot, great elected as a result of that PR campaign we mentioned earlier, backed by whatever election gimmick policies the new powers will permit...

I smell deal cutting... "You make sure I get to be El Presidente again next term, and I wont 'checks & balances' your key policies into the toilet this term"

Isn't that the kind of dealing that people have been bitching about with old Putin and his many years of swapping offices...

More representative...

[Adaptus]

I think the argument about who owns what is pretty much invalid in an argument for/against a Republic.

To properly determine who owns what, you would have to know the means in which Britain became a republic. And then you enter the world of "what if's". Which is besides the point entirely.

[The UK in Exile]

Feature : Elected Ceremonial Head of State or something completely different but accepted for the sake of debate.
Benefit : more representitive, holds a mandate to check government abuse of power, accountable via ballot.

Ah, 'representative' again, but representative of who...

The corporations who fund El Presidente's campaign and pull his strings. Nice. Have you paid ANY attention to how politics has changed in this country over the last 30 or so years?

Mandate to check abuse of power, so this Figurehead isn't a figurehead at all...
Replace a figurehead monarch with a buyable position with actual power, sounds even nicer... For the buyers.

Accountable via ballot, great elected as a result of that PR campaign we mentioned earlier, backed by whatever election gimmick policies the new powers will permit...


I smell deal cutting... "You make sure I get to be El Presidente again next term, and I wont 'checks & balances' your key policies into the toilet this term"

Isn't that the kind of dealing that people have been bitching about with old Putin and his many years of swapping offices...

More representative...

i had a bunch of suggestions to prevent that. obviously its much easier to argue a strawman. another option is to have parliament appoint unanimously or 2/3 majority. anyone partisan can't get in.

[Adaptus]

The monarchy is an unaccountable and expensive institution, unrepresentative of modern Britain,

No more expensive than El Presidente, who wants a nice palace to hold parties in...

it also gives politicians almost limitless power.
It does this is in a variety of ways:

Royal Prerogative: Former royal powers that allow the Prime Minister to declare war or sign treaties (amongst other things) without a vote in Parliament.

And you think that the leader of the new republic will give up that power once he's deposed the monarch and stuck one of his cronies in as 'elected' figurehead?

The Privy Council: A body of advisors to the monarch, now mostly made up of senior politicians, which can enact legislation without a vote in Parliament.

Hmm senior politicians... so if they side with the new republic, the leader will see that they stay on under a new name with the same job, or else replace them with his own cronies.

The Crown-in-Parliament: The principle, which came about when parliament removed much of the monarch's power, by which Parliament can pass any law it likes - meaning our liberties can never be guaranteed.

Ah yes, obviously the elected house of the new republic will decrease it's own power, voluntarily, because we all know thats what professional politicians do right, the guys who voted themselves a 25% pay rise one year while forcing the rest of us to make do with 2%. The people who suggested the expenses scandal could best be resolved by abolishing expenses and giving themselves a 100% pay rise...

Bound to decrease their own power, once they have an ELECTED figurehead...

I should have also mentioned that, should the UK ever become a Republic, there would be an official constitution drawn up. Limiting powers, and defining roles as per the constitution.

Constitutional laws would state quite clearly the boundaries of which politicians can govern.

[Nadkor]

I think the argument about who owns what is pretty much invalid in an argument for/against a Republic.

I would agree, had someone not attempted to portray all republicans as greedy heartless thugs who were delighted to have the opportunity to bankrupt an elderly women (as the individual in question was determined to remind us the current monarch is, not that the fact that she happens to be elderly and female is worthy of note here) through a completely inaccurate understanding of the situation.

[The UK in Exile]

I think the argument about who owns what is pretty much invalid in an argument for/against a Republic.

I would agree, had someone not attempted to portray all republicans as greedy heartless thugs who were delighted to have the opportunity to bankrupt an elderly women (as the individual in question was determined to remind us the current monarch is, not that the fact that she happens to be elderly and female is worthy of note here) through a completely inaccurate understanding of the situation.

it was also argued that a republic would lose the crown estate revenues and hence was a bad idea.

[Keronians]

It is not a 'strawman'

What is the benefit of an elected figurehead over an unelected one, if they are both just figureheads...

How do you prevent an elected position being effectively bought by corporate sponsorship, just like every other elected position in government.

state subisidized, fixed term elections, alternatively the office of the head of state is vested in the cabinet, multiple individuals decrease the likelyhood of abuse. a cap on campaign spending. proportional representation.

What have you 'fixed' by changing one for another. What is the benefit from your proposed change.

You want to convince people to support republicanism, so convince them, basic sales technique, "Features & Benefits"

Feature : Elected Ceremonial Head of State or something completely different but accepted for the sake of debate.
Benefit : more representitive, holds a mandate to check government abuse of power, accountable via ballot.

State subsidised what?

The Cabinet... so rather than just one bought out guy, you have many bought out guys. Many individuals decrease nothing. They just increase the possibility of conflict, of irresponsibility, and unaccountability. You know, the reason why you advocate changing the UK to a republic.

A cap on campaign spending? Justified how? So, basically, you increase administration costs just for the hell of it, eh? You really think that it's good to have people whose sole job is to analyse the cap on campaign spending?

Proportional representation is already achieved from Parliament.

[Cromarty]

I should have also mentioned that, should the UK ever become a Republic, there would be an official constitution drawn up. Limiting powers, and defining roles as per the constitution.

Constitutional laws would state quite clearly the boundaries of which politicians can govern.

And completely and totally works and hasn't had any problems in the US, France or anywhere.

[Nadkor]

I would agree, had someone not attempted to portray all republicans as greedy heartless thugs who were delighted to have the opportunity to bankrupt an elderly women (as the individual in question was determined to remind us the current monarch is, not that the fact that she happens to be elderly and female is worthy of note here) through a completely inaccurate understanding of the situation.

it was also argued that a republic would lose the crown estate revenues and hence was a bad idea.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about that one.

[Adaptus]

I should have also mentioned that, should the UK ever become a Republic, there would be an official constitution drawn up. Limiting powers, and defining roles as per the constitution.

Constitutional laws would state quite clearly the boundaries of which politicians can govern.

And completely and totally works and hasn't had any problems in the US, France or anywhere.

I never said it wouldn't have problems. But a piece of parchment from several hundred years ago wouldn't work in modern society.

However an up to date and and depth constitution would, work a lot better. Until it is out of date, and there will be another discussion about what direction Britain should take, just like this one.

A dialectical constitution would probably work better. But that's me just pondering for a second.

[Aesthetica]

i had a bunch of suggestions to prevent that. obviously its much easier to argue a strawman. another option is to have parliament appoint unanimously or 2/3 majority. anyone partisan can't get in.

Now you are getting really convoluted...

We increase 'representation' by having an elected head of state, elected not by the people but by a 2/3 majority in the house, which it's self isn't that representative unless you also propose major voting reforms, eliminating FPTP as a bare minimum (about time).

How is the house selecting a fixed term monarch by a 2/3 majority not going to be 'partizan' if you get a strong majority govt., who can swing 2/3 with some alliances with little league parties.

Best you can hope for is a "Meh" candidate from a hung house, but a "meh" who actually has some power, will they be too meh to use that power, rendering their office irrelevant, or the other kind of meh, the quiet plotter (remember Major, oh so quiet the torys made him pm, THEN he revealed himself) who will then abuse his power to forge deals for his own benefit at our expense.

These are not strawmen, these are serious questions, you start with "swap queenie for elected figurehead" now that figure head is not a figure head and not elected...

With each answer, your representative republican head of state sounds more like at best, a waste of space and at worst a dictator in the making.

Do you actually have a coherent plan for this republic, or were you just hoping we'd all say yes please, and trust you to make it up later as you went along.

[Keronians]

I think the argument about who owns what is pretty much invalid in an argument for/against a Republic.

I would agree, had someone not attempted to portray all republicans as greedy heartless thugs who were delighted to have the opportunity to bankrupt an elderly women (as the individual in question was determined to remind us the current monarch is, not that the fact that she happens to be elderly and female is worthy of note here) through a completely inaccurate understanding of the situation.

You're probably referring to me.

In which case I'll tell you that I wasn't the one who said "nationalise them", and even said that most republicans probably don't believe in that.

[The UK in Exile]

i had a bunch of suggestions to prevent that. obviously its much easier to argue a strawman. another option is to have parliament appoint unanimously or 2/3 majority. anyone partisan can't get in.

Now you are getting really convoluted...

We increase 'representation' by having an elected head of state, elected not by the people but by a 2/3 majority in the house, which it's self isn't that representative unless you also propose major voting reforms, eliminating FPTP as a bare minimum (about time).

How is the house selecting a fixed term monarch by a 2/3 majority not going to be 'partizan' if you get a strong majority govt., who can swing 2/3 with some alliances with little league parties.

Best you can hope for is a "Meh" candidate from a hung house, but a "meh" who actually has some power, will they be too meh to use that power, rendering their office irrelevant, or the other kind of meh, the quiet plotter (remember Major, oh so quiet the torys made him pm, THEN he revealed himself) who will then abuse his power to forge deals for his own benefit at our expense.

These are not strawmen, these are serious questions, you start with "swap queenie for elected figurehead" now that figure head is not a figure head and not elected...

With each answer, your representative republican head of state sounds more like at best, a waste of space and at worst a dictator in the making.

Do you actually have a coherent plan for this republic, or were you just hoping we'd all say yes please, and trust you to make it up later as you went along.

appending pejorative adjectives to perfectly reasonable statements isn't doing anything except twisting my words, we get it your cynical. your a cut-price hobbes.

my personal suggestion would be a unicameral body elected by proportional representation. with the head of state being resident in a cabinet appointed by parliament (but distinct from it).

[Aesthetica]

appending pejorative adjectives to perfectly reasonable statements isn't doing anything except twisting my words, we get it your cynical. your a cut-price hobbes.

my personal suggestion would be a unicameral body elected by proportional representation. with the head of state being resident in a cabinet appointed by parliament (but distinct from it).

Now you have changed from elected by 2/3 of the house to selected by the 'cabinet'.

That's even less representative.

An appointed temporary monarch. This is a 'republic' ?

We'd be better off under a roman model frankly.

Two joint heads of state directly elected by the plebicite, and a generous supply of peoples tribunes to veto the rich twats in the house when they step over the line.

And the Roman model wasn't particularly good as governmental systems went.

Perhaps in spite of your lack of pejorative additions, you are not being clear in your definition of the ideal British republic...

Start at the beginning and lay out the whole plan, who gets to vote for what and how often, and who is really in charge.

[Nadkor]

I would agree, had someone not attempted to portray all republicans as greedy heartless thugs who were delighted to have the opportunity to bankrupt an elderly women (as the individual in question was determined to remind us the current monarch is, not that the fact that she happens to be elderly and female is worthy of note here) through a completely inaccurate understanding of the situation.

You're probably referring to me.

In which case I'll tell you that I wasn't the one who said "nationalise them", and even said that most republicans probably don't believe in that.

Do read my post again, would you?

[Farnhamia]

appending pejorative adjectives to perfectly reasonable statements isn't doing anything except twisting my words, we get it your cynical. your a cut-price hobbes.

my personal suggestion would be a unicameral body elected by proportional representation. with the head of state being resident in a cabinet appointed by parliament (but distinct from it).

Now you have changed from elected by 2/3 of the house to selected by the 'cabinet'.

That's even less representative.

An appointed temporary monarch. This is a 'republic' ?

We'd be better off under a roman model frankly.

Two joint heads of state directly elected by the plebicite, and a generous supply of peoples tribunes to veto the rich twats in the house when they step over the line.

And the Roman model wasn't particularly good as governmental systems went.

Perhaps in spite of your lack of pejorative additions, you are not being clear in your definition of the ideal British republic...

Start at the beginning and lay out the whole plan, who gets to vote for what and how often, and who is really in charge.

The Roman Republic was not a "republic." It was an aristocratic oligarchy. The patricians overthrew their king because he got out of hand and then replaced him with a pair of substitutes. The current British system seems to be working quite well.

[Adaptus]

The current British system seems to be working quite well.

It's not though. That's the point.