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 » Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:30 am

derpy wrote:North Korea's government had been raised to govern


Exactly. UK monarchists' arguments make no sense. The Tibetan Buddhists accomplish the "brought up with skills and knowledge to lead" feat just fine by . . . wait for it . . . picking a random child and training him to be the Daili Lama. Is there any reason at all that if the UK really likes its playacting dress up diplomats so much that they couldn't get the same effect by randomly picking a newborn or two from a lottery and moving them to Elizabeth Windsor's buckingham house to be raised?

That's before you deal with the fact that . . . wait again . . . Elizabeth Windsor doesn't do anything but small talk and wear costumes.

Aquinas wrote:Imagine the time and energy a government would have to expend in order to change the constitution? It just wouldn't be worth it. There are bigger political priorities to focus on.


Why couldn't they just change every statutory and public mention of 'sovereign, 'king,' and 'queen' to 'governor general,' 'president,' or 'prime minister?' Don't they do that every time the monarch changes from a man to a woman?

Aquinas wrote:but how many could name, say, the ceremonial Presidents of Germany or Italy?


How many people can name the monarchs of Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Lesotho? Now how many people can name the presidents of Russia and Ireland?

This is what I mean. You're a sharp guy Aquinas. But the commonest monarchist defenses seem almost willfully fanciful.
derpy wrote:in a Republic like America can your Head of State abolish parliament?


Well he can dissolve it, but our presidents never use that power.

Jessaveryja wrote:Do you have any proof that your monarchy costs you any more money than our republic?


Of course it costs more proportionately because they have some 25 people (their prime minister plus Elizabeth Windsor plus all her close relatives) doing a job we accomplish with 2 people (our president and first lady).

I really wanna see how long this thread goes before a UK monarchist or anglophile makes the one credible argument in favor of monarchy. I'd bet it doesn't happen.
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 Aquinas » Thu Jun 09, 2016 12:12 pm

CCP wrote:
Aquinas wrote:Imagine the time and energy a government would have to expend in order to change the constitution? It just wouldn't be worth it. There are bigger political priorities to focus on.


Why couldn't they just change every statutory and public mention of 'sovereign, 'king,' and 'queen' to 'governor general,' 'president,' or 'prime minister?' Don't they do that every time the monarch changes from a man to a woman?


But think of all of the political hoo-ha you'd have to go through, getting the public support, getting the House of Commons and the House of Lords to agree, sorting out all of the knotty constitutional and legal implications... Even a republican Prime Minister would have to seriously ask him or herself whether all of the trouble was worth it or not. When you're in government, there is only so much you can get done, only so much political capital you have. Is abolishing the monarchy really going to be such a priority compared to everything else?

This is why, in practice, I think it is unlikely the monarchy will be abolished in the near-to-medium future. The political will to do it just isn't there.

CCP wrote:
Aquinas wrote:but how many could name, say, the ceremonial Presidents of Germany or Italy?


How many people can name the monarchs of Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, and Lesotho? Now how many people can name the presidents of Russia and Ireland?

This is what I mean. You're a sharp guy Aquinas. But the commonest monarchist defenses seem almost willfully fanciful.


With all due respect to Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Lesotho, the examples I gave - Germany and Italy- are more comparative with Britain in terms of general international prominence.

Ireland, by the way, has a Prime Minister or "Taoiseach", who is currently Enda Kelly, and a President, who is currently...(sorry I've forgotten his name...).
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

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

Postby CCP » Thu Jun 09, 2016 1:11 pm

Aquinas wrote:With all due respect to Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Lesotho, the examples I gave - Germany and Italy- are more comparative with Britain in terms of general international prominence.

Ireland, by the way, has a Prime Minister or "Taoiseach", who is currently Enda Kelly, and a President, who is currently...(sorry I've forgotten his name...).


Exactly. The moral of the story is that people generally do not know the names or faces of foreign politicians. Most people don't even know the names of most of their own countries' politicians. The politicians they do recognize are the ones who're featured or mentioned on TV all the time. Which explains why you'll likely recall the name of Ireland's former President Mary Robinson while current President Michael Higgins's name escapes you: Mary Robinson is mentioned much more often in the news media. The reason Elizabeth Windsor (and her predecessors) are well known (besides your country's occupations of half the world) is that UK media has heavily featured these people for centuries. I can see how that might make your monarchy seem an asset after-the-fact, but that's only a by-product: if you had no monarchy, the reporters would talk about someone else.

But you're right: France would've been a better example. Everyone knows who Nicholas Sarkozy and Vladamir Putin are (Francis Hollande and Medvedev not so much). Down to TV exposure again.

Aquinas wrote:But think of all of the political hoo-ha you'd have to go through, getting the public support, getting the House of Commons and the House of Lords to agree, sorting out all of the knotty constitutional and legal implications... Even a republican Prime Minister would have to seriously ask him or herself whether all of the trouble was worth it or not. When you're in government, there is only so much you can get done, only so much political capital you have. Is abolishing the monarchy really going to be such a priority compared to everything else?

This is why, in practice, I think it is unlikely the monarchy will be abolished in the near-to-medium future. The political will to do it just isn't there.


Sure, that's a serious political and pragmatist point. But I'm sure you'll concede it's not a substantive point in defense of UK monarchism.
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 Liu Che/Zhuli » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:31 pm

Maintain, of course.

First, the British monarchy costs less than a republic. If you look at the budgets for the presidents of the United States (presidential republic), France (semi-presidential republic), and Italy (parliamentary presidential republic), you will see that the British monarchy is cheaper.

Second, the powers of the British monarch are enacted per the advice of the Prime Minister. This means that, essentially, the Queen can only use her powers the Prime Minister allows it. This has largely been the custom since Queen Anne. Thus, the powers of the monarch are tied to a democratically elected legislature in practice, making the arguments for a potentially dictatorial monarch in Britain moot. By the way, POTUS cannot dissolve Congress.

Third, as a response to Aquinas, the Prince of Wales intends to "limit" the Royal Family, in terms of the civil list and many responsibilities, to his immediate family, achieving a scaling down of the monarchy that many agree with, which will more than likely further reduce the costs of the monarchy.

Fourth, in the event the monarch uses his or her powers in the event of a national crisis, without the advice of the Prime Minister, the monarch would merely be doing what most democratically elected heads of state would do. In many countries, there are laws on the books giving presidents what some would consider dictatorial powers in the event of a national emergency/martial law. A republic wouldn't change this one bit.

Fifth, Jess is correct, at the theoretical level, that monarchs are usually trained, from birth, for their future roles. Kim Jong-un was not trained from birth to take over North Korea. No one knew he was to be Kim Jong-il's succession until the 2000s. Family dictatorships do not apply to the UK as the UK is a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. No one here is arguing that a dictatorship is better than a democracy and vice versa.

Sixth, the Queen provides a sense of national unity, due to her being above politics and embodying the combined history of Great Britain and its culture. In times of great crises, like during WWII, the monarch is someone the people can rally around. The Queen also raises awareness for a variety of charitable causes. Further, the monarchy itself is a huge diplomatic tool that helps Great Britain conduct foreign affairs. A few years ago, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang made meeting the Queen as a "must" as he led some diplomatic talks with Cameron. Thus, the Queen does far more than conduct small talk and wear costumes.

Seventh, the constitutional change to a republic would be a nightmare. There would have to be debates on what type of republic to have, what type of elections for the head of state, when to schedule those elections, the powers of the head of state, potential conflict between a head of state and a head of government, etc. It would be far more than changing the title.

Eighth, Aquinas is correct. No one knows who the ceremonial presidents of European countries are. Putin is the Russian dictator, not to mention the official position of President of the Russian Federation is endowed with constitutional powers far greater than a ceremonial president. This has nothing to do with tv exposure so much as the role they have in the country. Monarchs are far better at the pomp and circumstance of ceremony than ceremonial presidents. Also, which Europeans and Americans can name the heads of state of any non-Western country?

Now that I have addressed some of the arguments, I can list some of my own.

1. The monarch serves as a check on politicians, humbling them and making a dictatorship more difficult to implement, especially of the modern variety (you know, dictators being elected and abusing their powers but having a "popular mandate", see many nations in Africa, Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, Russia, Belarus, etc.)

2. The British monarchy has a great deal more legitimacy than would a republic, for it not only has traditional and cultural legitimacy, but it also has popular and democratic legitimacy. Opinion polls continuously show high ratings for the monarchy, while the people, through their politicians, are tacitly approving of the monarchy by not abolishing it, making it democratic.

3. Cabinets, through my own research using post-WWII data in Europe, are more stable under constitutional monarchies than other republics, thereby allowing governments to have ample time to develop and implement good policy.

4. The monarch is less divisive, not only due to it being above politics, but also due to the monarch not being elected.

5. The monarch can better focus on his or her position and on the nation, as he or she does not have to constantly worry about running for reelection like presidents.

6. Theoretically, the monarch will put the nation first, as the nation can be seen as his or her property. Rationally, the monarch will want to improve his or her property since he or she will pass it down to his or her heirs. This requires long term focus and benefit, unlike presidents who only have to benefit the nation in the short term to achieve reelection.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

Postby Prometheus79 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:40 pm

Empty
Last edited by Prometheus79 on Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Prometheus79
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:30 am

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

Postby Liu Che/Zhuli » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:44 pm

Prometheus79 wrote:
Liu Che/Zhuli wrote:3. Cabinets, through my own research using post-WWII data in Europe, are more stable under constitutional monarchies than other republics, thereby allowing governments to have ample time to develop and implement good policy.


That's an interesting observation. Which countries did you look at?


I looked at the UK, Iceland, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Malta, Italy, Germany, Spain, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, and Greece.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

Postby Prometheus79 » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:48 pm

Empty
Last edited by Prometheus79 on Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Prometheus79
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:30 am

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

Postby Liu Che/Zhuli » Mon Jun 27, 2016 5:49 pm

NP.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

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

Postby Kubrick » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:10 pm

Dutch political coalitions are notoriously unstable if you ask me.
"see yah i think kubs is right" ~Zanz

"I’m pretty sure your buddy Kubrick was upset he couldn’t just resort to his old ways" ~Auditorii

"You can blame Polites and Kubrick for that nightmare" ~Doc
User avatar
Kubrick
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:47 pm

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

Postby Liu Che/Zhuli » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:25 pm

The Dutch and Belgian cabinets were the most unstable, but constitutional monarchies, in general, were shown to statistically (using a Cox's model) have longer lasting cabinets.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests