If the UK had a referendum on the monarchy (as Australia did in 1999) and became a republic, would Australia, Canada, NZ, etc, automatically become republics, or would the Queen remain head of state of those countries pending separate referendums?
Practically, would any decision about the future of the monarchy in Britain have to be made in conjunction with those other countries?
2006-12-08 01:05:37 · 10 answers · asked by beak6756 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Legally I think the Queen would remain as head of state of those countries, unless they too had a referendum. I suspect that if the UK went republican then virtually all the other countries would do the same, a kind of domino effect.
Mind you I dont think it will make any practical difference from the UK being a Monarchy. Effectively we have all the rights and responsibilities of being a republic without the label. Yes there are legalities which the monarchy could exercise, but its highly unlikely that the monarchy would exercise.
What the UK does or doesn't do shouldn't have any impact on other nations... what they do is up to them. There is no reason why say, Canadians (if they wanted to) could keep the monarchy as head of state even if the UK decided not to. But I suspect that if the UK went republican then all other states will, possibly some of the smaller pacific states may want to keep the monarchy but I wouldnt hold my breath
2006-12-08 01:17:06 · answer #1 · answered by Mark J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In terms of everyday life probably nothing, The chances are the government would be too lazy to rename everything like the royal mail and would just drop ceremonies. I think it is better to keep the monarchy since it is one of the things that makes the UK the UK. If we were already a republic I wouldn't suggest we create a monarchy but it would not be a good thing to get rid of what we have now. The royal family is a link to the past and can be traced back through both the Kingdoms of Scotland and England (although Wales and Ireland were essentially conquests of England). The Britain of today is the Britain of the Empire and the War of the Roses and the Scottish wars of Independence. The royal family provide a link to all that is good and bad in the collective pasts of the countries of the UK in a way that nothing else can offer. There is also the fact that no one person can ever have absolute authority over the UK (unless you're Margaret Thatcher) since the monarch can no longer govern absolutely and neither can parliament since they are both answerable to each other and the electorate. A president would be too closely linked to parliament and political parties and swayed by their own politics while the Queen must always remain impartial. A republic would essentially make us like France, no proud historic links just a large Euro-region named after a dead country.
2016-05-23 06:19:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The republican movement is strongest in Australia. If Oz goes republic, it is likely that New Zealand will quickly follow and that Canada might go republic too.
It is unlikely that UK will go republic. To do so could result in civil war - do not want that. Even though there is a large sector of the pop in UK which may want to go republic the opposing forces are pretty massive. You'll need to consider for example what the average soldier might feel he has to do, esp. when his general is telling him we're with the King.
Go for it!
2006-12-08 19:39:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definitely, the topic would be discussed with members of the Commonwealth.but if the decision was made by the British people, the all countries involved would revert soley to the Prime Minister as Head of State.And, we do do away with all the costs of retaining the connection to the monarchy, such as the Governor-Generals of the various members along with other such trappings that cost the taxpayers too much money.
2006-12-08 01:15:51 · answer #4 · answered by Ted 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would think it would depend on how the constitution of such a "Republic of Great Britain" was written. This would have to detail who is head of state, head of government, etc.
2006-12-08 02:19:31 · answer #5 · answered by Jerry J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Queen would be in a state, that's for sure.
Common sense says separate referenda.
2006-12-08 01:13:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they want her then they can have her. As for the rest I don't think the likes of Canada and Australia would be too bothered.
2006-12-08 01:19:15 · answer #7 · answered by Grae 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do your homework. The U.K. and the U.S. are a republic. Look it up. Everyone knows that the queen and her family are simply dignified welfare recipients. She has no power that Parliament does not give her.
2006-12-08 01:53:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
who bloody cares
2006-12-08 01:13:23 · answer #9 · answered by witheringtonkeith 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
dont know
2006-12-08 01:14:28 · answer #10 · answered by ◦ Cυяισυѕєr ◦ 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋