Can Britain become a republic soon?

Question

I believe the people of this country should be given the opportunity to democratically elect a head of state. Does anyone think this will happen soon?

Answer 1

I think it's a question of when we'll become a republic. One day people will wake up and reaise that the monarchy is an undemocratic and theocratic institution and they will reject it. I read an article in The Guardian suggesting that if we let Elizabeth finish her reign and give her the state funeral and all, then become a republic, people would be more up for that than if we just got rid of her now. I think that's the best idea really. Although I am a republican, Elizabeth has done her role well. She doesn't speak out of turn and she doesn't voice her opinions, which is how a consitutional monarch ideally should be. Charles, on the other hand, is very outspoken and critical. He'd be a bad monarch. I think it's likely that Britain will become a republic, or at least very seriously consider it, after Elizabeth's death.

Answer 2

The Monarch has only a little real authority. She's there for ceremonial purposes, and the doctrine of "royal assent" allows her to pass authority on to the Prime Minister, and only intervene if she believes that the government and its laws pose a threat to Britain. So aside from the costs involved in supporting the royal family, which aren't that big in the scope of a national budget, they really don't pose a threat. Plus I think that Mr. and Mrs. Britain see the royals as sort of a comforting figure. Odd though the current family are, the whole culture's built around "God Save the Queen" and oaths to protect King and country.

As for the PM, he or she is more or less decided by the people, insofar as he or she is typically the leader of the dominant political party in the House of Commons. So the people choose the general direction of the government, but can't choose the exact person at the top. While I'd like to see that change, I can only hope that the Brits don't fall into the same trap that America have, by ignoring credentials and voting for the person with the most charming television presence.

(That's not just a dig against President Bush; the same could be said about Presidents Clinton, Reagan, and probably Carter. They were elected because they were fun to watch, not because they knew how to lead.)

Answer 3

I don't think so... HM the Queen does in fact pack political clout and I can't imagine her relinquishing what she publicly calls her 'duty'. HM:
* can veto parliamentary bills/laws
* can call an early election
* is asked permission by the PM whether he can set an election
* represents the UK overseas

Without the Queen, there would be no Commonwealth, and we would have to pay considerably more for an 'El Presidente'. Our Royals are a tourist attraction and therefore attract revenue. Plus, the Monarchy has such a rich and vibrant history, intertwined with the history of this country.

It's a shame that HM didn't stop T-Bone sending her troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, but there's a constitutional monarch for you.

Answer 4

You don't seem to know the name of your own country, you patriot you! The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a Constitutional Monarchy and therefore a democracy - check it out. I do not hear any rumblings for change and am perfectly happy for our constitution to remain in its present format.. Therefore I believe that the people of this country do not seek the opportunity to re- elect the head of state. Therefore it will probably never happen.

Answer 5

God! Why do you want another politician, here today gone tomorrow. That doesn't present a sense of tradition and continuity. I would like to see you itchy arsed repulicans present a coherent argument as to why you think it would be an improvement over the thousand years of our current arrangement. We live in a democracy, so it wouldn't change that. You need something to represent the history, culture and traditions of the country which should be seperate from here today gone tomorrow politicians. I know, what about a Royal Family. Don't be indoctrinated by the TV media, Teachers or University Lecturers.

Answer 6

I bloody well hope not! Getting rid of the monarchy would we terrible, it would require a complete rewrite of the constitution (which is difficult considering it isn't written down) and I really don't trust the government to do that without screwing up the country. It would bring no good, just a lot of disruption, and all that would happen is that those few staunch republicans out there would find something else to campaign about. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and the monarchy works, so let it be.

Also, President Blair...eh...eh?

Answer 7

I would prefer an elected head of state similar to the irish situation, but don't you think we'd have to wait for Canada, Australia etc to become republics first.

It would be quite silly otherwise. Although we could sell the royal family to the highest bidder!

Answer 8

Why should we elect a head of state. The one we have now is fantastic. Lets face it though we can't even elect a good Prime minister or political party, so lets not tamper with a good thing like the Queen.

Answer 9

We're closer to it here in Scotland than England. Members of the Scottish Parliament do not swear allegiance to the queen as Westminster MPs have to. Instead they swear allegiance to the PEOPLE of Scotland.

Having said that, it should be pointed out that Westminster MPs representing Scottish constituencies (Gordon Brown and John Reid, for example) do still have to swear allegience to the queen and not the people of the United Kingdom.

I know which oath I'm happier to have my Reps take.

Answer 10

the queen may be head of state but she has no say in the running of the country. i think it's great that england still have a monarchy, but have a democratic approach to the actual running of the country