U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Anything that is not directly related to the game or its community.

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby CCP » Mon Jul 04, 2016 1:05 am

Reddy wrote:This raises an issue I've always wondered about and my Jamaican friends always appeared to be just as unsure about when asked. Why hasn't Jamaica ever sought independence? It's certainly large enough to form a viable state and whatever benefits it gets from remaining under the British Crown would surely be mostly preserved if it remained in the Commonwealth.


The previous prime minister tried, but it seems like with a recession to manage and a vocal(?) 'it isn't hurting anything' opposition, she didn't have enough political capital (or time?) to get it done.

Reddy wrote:I think it would be wrong for Britain to abolish such a unique and prestigious institution just to please the illusion that in a republic, everyone has the shot or opportunity to become head of state. This is certainly not true, political system are almost always rigged in a manner which ensures that a certain class of people monopolise power. I mean would it not be better to more concerned with the fact the Cabinet and Parliament are always dominated by Old Etonians and Oxbridge graduates since those are the bodies that actually wield political power?


This misses the point. A republic is not preferable because everyone has a serious shot at being head of state. It's preferable because the patronage, influence-peddling, and careerism necessary to become head of state are not legally limited by heredity. The US system for instance has repeatedly produced non-In-Group heads of state (Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton arguably, but more unambiguously Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln), not to mention major party presidential candidates as demonstrated currently by Donald Trump. It is not the norm in our system, but because our system is designed aspirationately and is propagandized to US citizens as such, after a while people have genuinely come to believe that literally anyone can be President of the United States if they want it badly enough. No amount of wanting will make anyone in the UK head of state, save maybe Anne, Andrew, or Edward Battenburg.

Importantly, while In-Groupism in the US is pernicious and based on an array of multi-generational corruption and criminality, it is not entrenched in our government system expressly by heredity. The Eton-Oxbridge Complex, on the other hand, was built by and through, and persists in large part on the basis of, the corrupting element of the UK's hereditary nobility.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby Siggon Kristov » Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:17 pm

CCP wrote:
Reddy wrote:This raises an issue I've always wondered about and my Jamaican friends always appeared to be just as unsure about when asked. Why hasn't Jamaica ever sought independence? It's certainly large enough to form a viable state and whatever benefits it gets from remaining under the British Crown would surely be mostly preserved if it remained in the Commonwealth.

The previous prime minister tried, but it seems like with a recession to manage and a vocal(?) 'it isn't hurting anything' opposition, she didn't have enough political capital (or time?) to get it done.

We have been independent for over 50 years. The previous Prime Minister tried to make us a republic, i.e. get rid of the crown, but we're already an independent state. We're just like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. They're independent states that are still in the Commonwealth. We're not a British Overseas Territory like the Cayman Islands.

Image
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby hts » Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:33 pm

Siggon Kristov wrote:
CCP wrote:
Reddy wrote:This raises an issue I've always wondered about and my Jamaican friends always appeared to be just as unsure about when asked. Why hasn't Jamaica ever sought independence? It's certainly large enough to form a viable state and whatever benefits it gets from remaining under the British Crown would surely be mostly preserved if it remained in the Commonwealth.

The previous prime minister tried, but it seems like with a recession to manage and a vocal(?) 'it isn't hurting anything' opposition, she didn't have enough political capital (or time?) to get it done.

We have been independent for over 50 years. The previous Prime Minister tried to make us a republic, i.e. get rid of the crown, but we're already an independent state. We're just like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. They're independent states that are still in the Commonwealth. We're not a British Overseas Territory like the Cayman Islands.

Image


Just came back from a vacation in the Bahamas. I talked to some people down there about politics (cab drivers, waiter, any other Bahamians I met), and in particular I asked them how they felt about the Queen. And they all answered about the same, they dont hate her but they dont love her either.

They said that she doesnt pay attention to them so they dont pay attention to her. It seems that they are relatively indifferent in regards to the monarchy.
“The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.”
User avatar
hts
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 11:15 am
Location: Saridan/The Clouds

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby Siggon Kristov » Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:44 pm

hts wrote:
Siggon Kristov wrote:We have been independent for over 50 years. The previous Prime Minister tried to make us a republic, i.e. get rid of the crown, but we're already an independent state. We're just like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. They're independent states that are still in the Commonwealth. We're not a British Overseas Territory like the Cayman Islands.

Image

Just came back from a vacation in the Bahamas. I talked to some people down there about politics (cab drivers, waiter, any other Bahamians I met), and in particular I asked them how they felt about the Queen. And they all answered about the same, they dont hate her but they dont love her either.

They said that she doesnt pay attention to them so they dont pay attention to her. It seems that they are relatively indifferent in regards to the monarchy.

Yeah, it really has no effect on our day-to-day lives. All of this goes back to my point that one doesn't really need any super-special skills - that a normal person can't be trained to get - to serve as the monarch.

Siggon Kristov wrote:
Jessaveryja wrote:I will point out that a monarch is usually brought up with the skills and knowledge to lead. The average person could never hope to learn all the special knowledge and skills that come from being raised by the leader to lead.

And later in the thread you argue that they don't have/use much power.
They really serve no visible role in the day-to-day running of the country, IMO, so it's irrelevant whether they have special skills or not.

Elizabeth II is the monarch of so many fucking countries, including Jamaica. I don't see her fixing our economic problems. If I ask why, you may say it's not her job to do it. If you say that, then it's irrelevant whether members of the royal family have special skills or not.


I mean, what does the Queen do apart from smile, wave, greet people, and read? My younger brother can do that. If there is anything else that she does... is it something that someone needs decades of training for? Is it that important that it can't be done by someone else? I'm not talking ceremonial bullshit, obviously.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby CCP » Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:25 pm

Siggon Kristov wrote:
CCP wrote:
Reddy wrote:This raises an issue I've always wondered about and my Jamaican friends always appeared to be just as unsure about when asked. Why hasn't Jamaica ever sought independence? It's certainly large enough to form a viable state and whatever benefits it gets from remaining under the British Crown would surely be mostly preserved if it remained in the Commonwealth.

The previous prime minister tried, but it seems like with a recession to manage and a vocal(?) 'it isn't hurting anything' opposition, she didn't have enough political capital (or time?) to get it done.

We have been independent for over 50 years. The previous Prime Minister tried to make us a republic, i.e. get rid of the crown, but we're already an independent state. We're just like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. They're independent states that are still in the Commonwealth. We're not a British Overseas Territory like the Cayman Islands.


Yea I guess I should've pointed that out to Reddy in my reply. I didn't read Reddy's post as turning on the distinction of independence vs. shared monarch though, I thought Reddy was just asking why Jamaica keeps Elizabeth Windsor as their head of state.

Anyway, but why didn't Simpson-Miller get it done? Was it a time issue, or did the opposition succeed in casting it as unnecessary?
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby Siggon Kristov » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:07 pm

CCP wrote:Anyway, but why didn't Simpson-Miller get it done? Was it a time issue, or did the opposition succeed in casting it as unnecessary?

I don't know. Some persons were saying that the processes (holding a referendum, and other legal blah blah) were too expensive, and the IMF has us on a tight leash with spending. She had expected to win the election in February. I'll ask her why she didn't get it done.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby Reddy » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:04 pm

CCP wrote:
Yea I guess I should've pointed that out to Reddy in my reply. I didn't read Reddy's post as turning on the distinction of independence vs. shared monarch though, I thought Reddy was just asking why Jamaica keeps Elizabeth Windsor as their head of state.


Indeed, I meant having a shared monarch. I just used some really clumsy wording.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby Reddy » Fri Jul 08, 2016 5:28 pm

CCP wrote:This misses the point. A republic is not preferable because everyone has a serious shot at being head of state. It's preferable because the patronage, influence-peddling, and careerism necessary to become head of state are not legally limited by heredity.


But that is the point. Why bother if you end up with same system except that it's not 'legally limited' hereditary but just de facto so? There are monarchies like those in the Nordic countries which are far more egalitarian and have healthier political systems than republics like the US, Brazil or China. Only the system should matter in this case, I think.

CCP wrote:The US system for instance has repeatedly produced non-In-Group heads of state (Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton arguably, but more unambiguously Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln), not to mention major party presidential candidates as demonstrated currently by Donald Trump. It is not the norm in our system, but because our system is designed aspirationately and is propagandized to US citizens as such, after a while people have genuinely come to believe that literally anyone can be President of the United States if they want it badly enough. No amount of wanting will make anyone in the UK head of state, save maybe Anne, Andrew, or Edward Battenburg.


I'm not fully sure what you mean by 'In-Group'. I suspect you mean 'elites' or 'establishment types.' I'm surprised to see you include a man whose father was President and his grandfather a Senator in your non-In-Group category. Trump also as someone who inherited a large fortune should probably be considered In-Group. As for the rest, the establishment always absorbs talented outsiders, this happens even in the UK. That's how it survives. As for the UK I'd say in the past 150 years or so, only three PMs (Lords Rosebery, Salisbury and Douglas-Home) were aristocrats. The rest were middle class.

I don't think a system that stop one from achieving the post of ceremonial Head of State but allows access to practically every other position of power is any less aspirationally constructed than one with an elected Head of State but a similar elite structure monopolising power.

CCP wrote:Importantly, while In-Groupism in the US is pernicious and based on an array of multi-generational corruption and criminality, it is not entrenched in our government system expressly by heredity. The Eton-Oxbridge Complex, on the other hand, was built by and through, and persists in large part on the basis of, the corrupting element of the UK's hereditary nobility.


But again, what's the important and practical difference between 'multi-generational corruption and criminality' and 'heredity'? The corrupting effect is the same on the political system. The UK's hereditary nobility is thus no worse than America's In-Group...at least the former does it in the open and has progressively been weakened over the past century. The House of Lords has only a very weak suspensive veto left as its only meaningful power and many of the Lords are appointed from middle and working class origin e.g Lord Prescott the former DPM.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby CCP » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:48 pm

Siggon Kristov wrote:I'll ask her why she didn't get it done.


That's a joke right? You don't seriously know Portia Simpson-Miller do you?
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: U.K. Monarchy, Abolish or Advance?

Postby Siggon Kristov » Fri Jul 08, 2016 8:29 pm

Reddy wrote:
CCP wrote:Yea I guess I should've pointed that out to Reddy in my reply. I didn't read Reddy's post as turning on the distinction of independence vs. shared monarch though, I thought Reddy was just asking why Jamaica keeps Elizabeth Windsor as their head of state.

Indeed, I meant having a shared monarch. I just used some really clumsy wording.

Yeah, we're already an independent state who simply shares Queen Elizabeth II as our monarch. The government of the UK has no more power over us than the government of the USA or China.

Reddy wrote:
CCP wrote:This misses the point. A republic is not preferable because everyone has a serious shot at being head of state. It's preferable because the patronage, influence-peddling, and careerism necessary to become head of state are not legally limited by heredity.

But that is the point. Why bother if you end up with same system except that it's not 'legally limited' hereditary but just de facto so? There are monarchies like those in the Nordic countries which are far more egalitarian and have healthier political systems than republics like the US, Brazil or China. Only the system should matter in this case, I think.

Agreed, here. I'm anti-monarchy because of the symbolism, but we need to recognise that the absence of a monarchy doesn't mean that patronage and other things go away. In the UK, influence-peddling and clientelism aren't limited by heredity; there are wealthy persons and big businesses that are still powerful, I imagine.

Reddy wrote:
CCP wrote:The US system for instance has repeatedly produced non-In-Group heads of state (Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton arguably, but more unambiguously Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln), not to mention major party presidential candidates as demonstrated currently by Donald Trump. It is not the norm in our system, but because our system is designed aspirationately and is propagandized to US citizens as such, after a while people have genuinely come to believe that literally anyone can be President of the United States if they want it badly enough. No amount of wanting will make anyone in the UK head of state, save maybe Anne, Andrew, or Edward Battenburg.

I'm not fully sure what you mean by 'In-Group'. I suspect you mean 'elites' or 'establishment types.' I'm surprised to see you include a man whose father was President and his grandfather a Senator in your non-In-Group category. Trump also as someone who inherited a large fortune should probably be considered In-Group. As for the rest, the establishment always absorbs talented outsiders, this happens even in the UK. That's how it survives. As for the UK I'd say in the past 150 years or so, only three PMs (Lords Rosebery, Salisbury and Douglas-Home) were aristocrats. The rest were middle class.

Agreed with you here again, Reddy, and I'll add my response to CCP's post, which is consistent with what I've been asking throughout the thread; why does it matter whether someone has a shot at being the head of state of the UK, Israel, Germany, or Trinidad & Tobago? The role is ceremonial.

Reddy wrote:I don't think a system that stop one from achieving the post of ceremonial Head of State but allows access to practically every other position of power is any less aspirationally constructed than one with an elected Head of State but a similar elite structure monopolising power.

+1

Reddy wrote:
CCP wrote:Importantly, while In-Groupism in the US is pernicious and based on an array of multi-generational corruption and criminality, it is not entrenched in our government system expressly by heredity. The Eton-Oxbridge Complex, on the other hand, was built by and through, and persists in large part on the basis of, the corrupting element of the UK's hereditary nobility.

But again, what's the important and practical difference between 'multi-generational corruption and criminality' and 'heredity'? The corrupting effect is the same on the political system. The UK's hereditary nobility is thus no worse than America's In-Group...at least the former does it in the open and has progressively been weakened over the past century. The House of Lords has only a very weak suspensive veto left as its only meaningful power and many of the Lords are appointed from middle and working class origin e.g Lord Prescott the former DPM.

Agreed here, as well.

CCP wrote:
Siggon Kristov wrote:I'll ask her why she didn't get it done.

That's a joke right? You don't seriously know Portia Simpson-Miller do you?

Small country, and other things.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests