Make America Great Britain Again

[Noraika]

With that said, much of the empire, and especially its most significant territories, with exception to India, remained under the monarchy, in the same manner as is being proposed by the OP. Even Scotland wanted to keep the monarchy if they seceded. The empire fell, and the Commonwealth of Nations took its place, and the United States can apply any time, since it was under British administration.

When was the last time a former British land applied to become a part of the commonwealth after being a republic?

You do know that republics exist within the Commonwealth of Nations right? Even separate monarchies exist within it. The point though is that the major actors within the Commonwealth of Nations maintained the monarchical status, and even secessionist stats such as Scotland want to keep the British monarchy.

Plus, the countries that became republics are not the paragons of democracy, with Nigeria and India being the predominant actors therein. The republics are quite undemocratic, and often viewed as being republics only in name. The democratic and developed nations within the CoN have maintained the monarchy, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, et cetera.

[Hakons]

I will have to disagree with you on those points. As I am a staunch republican. Also I don't think the Parliamentary system is worse as I don't believe that the head of government should be chosen by or from legislative branch. The head of government, in my opinion, should be completely separate from the legislative assemblies

And I would disagree with you there.
So long as the legislature is democratically elected, the Prime Minister is selected through the expression of the people through election results. Since the Prime Minister is selected with the confidence of the legislature, this usually means that the legislative program that the party leader campaigned on has a much more solid foothold to be implemented, since the question of political divides between the executive and legislative branches are all but eliminated. In addition, the ability for the executive to act is directly tied to the support of the legislature, and the actions of the government are directly tied to and responsible to the legislature. Those are just a few points, but let's not get off topic by debating the merits of parliamentarian democracy.

But that leads to a massive amount of unchecked power to the majority party. A political divide actually makes people think of what the other side wants and makes a compromise. Also, the People should be the ones deciding the leader of the nation. When power is moved from the People to the hands of the few, the Democracy heads closer to an Oligarchy.

[Calimera II]

When was the last time a former British land applied to become a part of the commonwealth after being a republic?

You do know that republics exist within the Commonwealth of Nations right? Even separate monarchies exist within it. The point though is that the major actors within the Commonwealth of Nations maintained the monarchical status, and even secessionist stats such as Scotland want to keep the British monarchy.

Plus, the countries that became republics are not the paragons of democracy, with Nigeria and India being the predominant actors therein. The republics are quite undemocratic, and often viewed as being republics only in name. The democratic and developed nations within the CoN have maintained the monarchy, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, et cetera.

You really think that has to do with Republicanism vs Monarchism, and not maybe with, let's say: the type of colony?

[United Dependencies]

I suppose a parliamentary system would appease all these people who are upset with the current two main parties. I also have always enjoyed the trappings of monarchy and we'd get a chance to celebrate the Queen's platinum jubilee.

[Thermodolia]

When was the last time a former British land applied to become a part of the commonwealth after being a republic?

You do know that republics exist within the Commonwealth of Nations right? Even separate monarchies exist within it. The point though is that the major actors within the Commonwealth of Nations maintained the monarchical status, and even secessionist stats such as Scotland want to keep the British monarchy.

Plus, the countries that became republics are not the paragons of democracy, with Nigeria and India being the predominant actors therein. The republics are quite undemocratic, and often viewed as being republics only in name. The democratic and developed nations within the CoN have maintained the monarchy, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, et cetera.

But I still ask the question when has a former British land, which left everything to do with the empire and became a republic, choose to join the Commonwealth?

[Hakons]

I will have to disagree with you on those points. As I am a staunch republican. Also I don't think the Parliamentary system is worse as I don't believe that the head of government should be chosen by or from legislative branch. The head of government, in my opinion, should be completely separate from the legislative assemblies

And I would disagree with you there.
So long as the legislature is democratically elected, the Prime Minister is selected through the expression of the people through election results. Since the Prime Minister is selected with the confidence of the legislature, this usually means that the legislative program that the party leader campaigned on has a much more solid foothold to be implemented, since the question of political divides between the executive and legislative branches are all but eliminated. In addition, the ability for the executive to act is directly tied to the support of the legislature, and the actions of the government are directly tied to and responsible to the legislature. Those are just a few points, but let's not get off topic by debating the merits of parliamentarian democracy.

Indeed. I've made my support for monarchism no secret, and I don't know why you would think I wasn't being serious?

Nah, it's just that it's fundamentally stupid to even think that the USA would be better off under Queen Elizabeth. Constitutional monarchy works fine for the UK, but here?

Noooope.

What specific and unique conditions exist in the United States which, in your opinion, would cause a Constitutional Monarchy as Head of State to be incompatible? Is not the British monarchy, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II already immensely popular in the United States?[/quote]

Keep in mind the Kardashians are immensely popular in the US. Just because someone is liked doesn't mean they should be ruler. For example, I like Pope Francis, but he's not my spiritual leader.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

lol isn't this forum full of british chauvinists

Eh, not really, but I'll admit that I've seen a few people who think America should be taken by the "more tolerant Europeans."

i've seen a few people who think the entire world should be taken by the more tolerant europeans

[Thermodolia]

When was the last time a former British land applied to become a part of the commonwealth after being a republic?

You do know that republics exist within the Commonwealth of Nations right? Even separate monarchies exist within it. The point though is that the major actors within the Commonwealth of Nations maintained the monarchical status, and even secessionist stats such as Scotland want to keep the British monarchy.

Plus, the countries that became republics are not the paragons of democracy, with Nigeria and India being the predominant actors therein. The republics are quite undemocratic, and often viewed as being republics only in name. The democratic and developed nations within the CoN have maintained the monarchy, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malta, et cetera.

Also Malta is NOT a monarchy they are a Republic in every single sense of the word

[Noraika]

But that leads to a massive amount of unchecked power to the majority party. A political divide actually makes people think of what the other side wants and makes a compromise. Also, the People should be the ones deciding the leader of the nation. When power is moved from the People to the hands of the few, the Democracy heads closer to an Oligarchy.

I fail to see how a presidential system prevents this. If the president is of the same party of the legislative majority, then the laws get passed anyway. If the president is not of the same party of the legislative majority, then there is gridlock. Politics can be divided in a parliamentary system (watch Prime Ministers Questions in the United Kingdom for an example of really divided politics), and can represent a wide range of views. The people still choose the representatives, and often elect them off the basis of the direct candidate, in the form of the party leader. I don't see how a parliament of elected representatives is at all undemocratic.

You really think that has to do with Republicanism vs Monarchism, and not maybe with, let's say: the type of colony?

I'm not saying that. The point was against my fellow debater saying, to summarize, that Republics were a more free and democratic system because no country that's thrown off the monarchy has returned to it...when just about all of the republics in the CoN would be labeled as 'Hybrid Regimes' or 'Authoritarian Regimes' on The Economist Democracy Index.

Also Malta is NOT a monarchy they are a Republic in every single sense of the word

Noted. Thank you for the correction. My apologies, I'm really tired.

[Hakons]

But that leads to a massive amount of unchecked power to the majority party. A political divide actually makes people think of what the other side wants and makes a compromise. Also, the People should be the ones deciding the leader of the nation. When power is moved from the People to the hands of the few, the Democracy heads closer to an Oligarchy.

I fail to see how a presidential system prevents this. If the president is of the same party of the legislative majority, then the laws get passed anyway. If the president is not of the same party of the legislative majority, then there is gridlock. Politics can be divided in a parliamentary system (watch Prime Ministers Questions in the United Kingdom for an example of really divided politics), and can represent a wide range of views. The people still choose the representatives, and often elect them off the basis of the direct candidate, in the form of the party leader. I don't see how a parliament of elected representatives is at all democratic.

You really think that has to do with Republicanism vs Monarchism, and not maybe with, let's say: the type of colony?

I'm not saying that. The point was against my fellow debater saying, to summarize, that Republics were a more free and democratic system because no country that's thrown off the monarchy has returned to it...when just about all of the republics in the CoN would be labeled as 'Hybrid Regimes' or 'Authoritarian Regimes' on The Economist Democracy Index.

Also Malta is NOT a monarchy they are a Republic in every single sense of the word

Noted. Thank you for the correction. My apologies, I'm really tired.

However, appointing the executive power is completely undemocratic. The US already apoints it's Supreme Court Justices, so appointing the President would shift all power to the legislator, thus destroying our system of checks and balances on a single person's power in government. To repeat, abolishing elections for president would be cutting our Democracy.

[Thermodolia]

Also Malta is NOT a monarchy they are a Republic in every single sense of the word

Noted. Thank you for the correction. My apologies, I'm really tired.

No problem. Know if the USA was to join the Commonwealth of Nations rather than the Commonwealth Realm of be quite fine with that. As the Commonwealth of Nations is a political alliance of sorts and that the USA still gets to keep its current form government. The Commonwealth realm poses more problems than it solves.

[Noraika]

However, appointing the executive power is completely undemocratic. The US already apoints it's Supreme Court Justices, so appointing the President would shift all power to the legislator, thus destroying our system of checks and balances on a single person's power in government. To repeat, abolishing elections for president would be cutting our Democracy.

Adopting the monarchy would require a constitutional rewrite, in which we would likely establish an independent body, or advisory committee, in charge of judicial appointments, in a similar fashion to other monarchies, or hand that role to the governor general appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. Or heck we could even elect them!

There are mechanisms in place, in a variety of manners, which we can turn to, in order to maintain an independent judiciary from the legislature. All the most democratic nations in the world - according to The Economist - have parliamentary systems, and 3 of the top 4 are monarchies, so I am not convinced that "no president = no democracy". Everything observable points otherwise.

[Communist Xomaniax]

Given just how much larger, wealthier, and stronger the US is as compared to the UK, a political union of any sort would be tantamount to an American annexation of the latter. The only way to keep the British government and laws British would be to restrict America's ability to make laws and vote. Which means rebellion.

There is also the issue of the guns, which Americans won't be willing to hand over. And also the issue of the dollar vs the pound, the military, different laws, etc.

The US doesn't really gain anything from joining the UK in any form.

[Biona]

Given just how much larger, wealthier, and stronger the US is as compared to the UK, a political union of any sort would be tantamount to an American annexation of the latter. The only way to keep the British government and laws British would be to restrict America's ability to make laws and vote. Which means rebellion.

There is also the issue of the guns, which Americans won't be willing to hand over. And also the issue of the dollar vs the pound, the military, different laws, etc.

The US doesn't really gain anything from joining the UK in any form.

we don't have much to lose from associating with our fellow british colonies, rwanda and mozambique in the commonwealth at least. I don't think we do, anyway...do we? I mean sure half of them are kleptocratic shitlordships, and the other half are run by demagogic idiots. But those easily describe our allies elsewhere.

[Dinake]

How did I miss this thread for so long?
Anyways, I am an American monarchist, so I'm obviously in favor of bringing back the monarchy in the US. But, I think the US is too varied- in both history and culture- to have a single monarch over all of it. Each state should have a monarch- some will have to share, obviously- based on its history. These monarchs should notably include Iturbides, Bourbons, a native Hawaiian, Romanovs, and Elizabeth II.

[Thermodolia]

Given just how much larger, wealthier, and stronger the US is as compared to the UK, a political union of any sort would be tantamount to an American annexation of the latter. The only way to keep the British government and laws British would be to restrict America's ability to make laws and vote. Which means rebellion.

There is also the issue of the guns, which Americans won't be willing to hand over. And also the issue of the dollar vs the pound, the military, different laws, etc.

The US doesn't really gain anything from joining the UK in any form.

we don't have much to lose from associating with our fellow british colonies, rwanda and mozambique in the commonwealth at least. I don't think we do, anyway...do we? I mean sure half of them are kleptocratic shitlordships, and the other half are run by demagogic idiots. But those easily describe our allies elsewhere.

The Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms are two very different things.

[Thermodolia]

How did I miss this thread for so long?
Anyways, I am an American monarchist, so I'm obviously in favor of bringing back the monarchy in the US. But, I think the US is too varied- in both history and culture- to have a single monarch over all of it. Each state should have a monarch- some will have to share, obviously- based on its history. These monarchs should notably include Iturbides, Bourbons, a native Hawaiian, Romanovs, and Elizabeth II.

If I had to choose between your stupid idea and the US choosing a British monarch, I'd take the Brit.

[The Snazzylands]

I don't see why not. God save the Queen!

[Biona]

However, appointing the executive power is completely undemocratic. The US already apoints it's Supreme Court Justices, so appointing the President would shift all power to the legislator, thus destroying our system of checks and balances on a single person's power in government. To repeat, abolishing elections for president would be cutting our Democracy.

Adopting the monarchy would require a constitutional rewrite, in which we would likely establish an independent body, or advisory committee, in charge of judicial appointments, in a similar fashion to other monarchies, or hand that role to the governor general appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. Or heck we could even elect them!

There are mechanisms in place, in a variety of manners, which we can turn to, in order to maintain an independent judiciary from the legislature. All the most democratic nations in the world - according to The Economist - have parliamentary systems, and 3 of the top 4 are monarchies, so I am not convinced that "no president = no democracy". Everything observable points otherwise.

Well, the constitutional parliamentary monarchies anyway are stable democracies. Saudistan, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain to begin things are far from that tree. I guess we could have the prime minister appoint the judges or something. Maybe they could be randomly selected from the federal justices by sortition? I dunno. I'm not sure how electing judges to the SC would work out, as we do that in Ohio since the constitution of 1851 and the elections are quite political in nature.
Oh and by the way can I use

♔ Make America Great Britain Again ♔
give grace and thanks to nora
[spoiler=you too can make america great britain again]

Code: Select all

[b]♔ [color=#0080FF]Make[/color] [color=#FF0040]America[/color] Great [color=#FF0040]Britain[/color][color=#0080FF] Again[/color] ♔[/b]


[/spoiler]
as my sig?

we don't have much to lose from associating with our fellow british colonies, rwanda and mozambique in the commonwealth at least. I don't think we do, anyway...do we? I mean sure half of them are kleptocratic shitlordships, and the other half are run by demagogic idiots. But those easily describe our allies elsewhere.

The Commonwealth of Nations and Commonwealth Realms are two very different things.

I know. I was merely suggesting that the US could at least join the Commonwealth...I mean, the realms are just Commonwealth members in a personal union with the UK, aren't they?

[Biona]

How did I miss this thread for so long?
Anyways, I am an American monarchist, so I'm obviously in favor of bringing back the monarchy in the US. But, I think the US is too varied- in both history and culture- to have a single monarch over all of it. Each state should have a monarch- some will have to share, obviously- based on its history. These monarchs should notably include Iturbides, Bourbons, a native Hawaiian, Romanovs, and Elizabeth II.

So basically do an Indonesia (wait- or is it Malaysia?) with the monarchies?
*shrug* k den this oughta be interesting
if I go back to Cali will I swear allegiance to Felipe VI?

How did I miss this thread for so long?
Anyways, I am an American monarchist, so I'm obviously in favor of bringing back the monarchy in the US. But, I think the US is too varied- in both history and culture- to have a single monarch over all of it. Each state should have a monarch- some will have to share, obviously- based on its history. These monarchs should notably include Iturbides, Bourbons, a native Hawaiian, Romanovs, and Elizabeth II.

If I had to choose between your stupid idea and the US choosing a British monarch, I'd take the Brit.

It's not too stupid. I mean, Indonesia has sultanates. Or Malaysia. One of the two (or both? not sure) has indigenous sub-monarchs, and one of them is a unitary presidential republic, and the other is a federal parliamentary monarchy.
and the republic has had at least 2 more dictators than the monarchy...

[Dinake]

How did I miss this thread for so long?
Anyways, I am an American monarchist, so I'm obviously in favor of bringing back the monarchy in the US. But, I think the US is too varied- in both history and culture- to have a single monarch over all of it. Each state should have a monarch- some will have to share, obviously- based on its history. These monarchs should notably include Iturbides, Bourbons, a native Hawaiian, Romanovs, and Elizabeth II.

So basically do an Indonesia (wait- or is it Malaysia?) with the monarchies?
*shrug* k den this oughta be interesting
if I go back to Cali will I swear allegiance to Felipe VI?

California would probably share Maximilien Gotzen Iturbide with Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, unless Norton I has living descendants.

[Biona]

So basically do an Indonesia (wait- or is it Malaysia?) with the monarchies?
*shrug* k den this oughta be interesting
if I go back to Cali will I swear allegiance to Felipe VI?

California would probably share Maximilien Gotzen Iturbide with Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, unless Norton I has living descendants.

...forgot about Agustin there for a sec. Shame I can't share a king with Spain. Who's Norton? Is he another Iturbide?

[Dinake]

California would probably share Maximilien Gotzen Iturbide with Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, unless Norton I has living descendants.

...forgot about Agustin there for a sec. Shame I can't share a king with Spain. Who's Norton? Is he another Iturbide?

He was a homeless crazy guy in San Francisco who declared himself emperor, and did some monarch-like things. He seems to have been recognized as such by the people of at least San Francisco.
I doubt he has living descendants. But he is another option.

[Ifreann]

California would probably share Maximilien Gotzen Iturbide with Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, unless Norton I has living descendants.

...forgot about Agustin there for a sec. Shame I can't share a king with Spain. Who's Norton? Is he another Iturbide?

You aren't familiar with the reign of Norton I, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico? What do they teach in history classes these days?

[Biona]

...forgot about Agustin there for a sec. Shame I can't share a king with Spain. Who's Norton? Is he another Iturbide?

He was a homeless crazy guy in San Francisco who declared himself emperor, and did some monarch-like things. He seems to have been recognized as such by the people of at least San Francisco.
I doubt he has living descendants. But he is another option.

Guess he is.