I say yes, it is undemocratic to have someone as your head of state that you can't elect.
2006-12-25 02:25:21 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
nahh the queen does nothign but represent the country.. she has no real power plus she hasn't doen anything bad
she is a nice lady
2006-12-25 02:27:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Britain tried that once, back with Oliver Cromwell. It didn't work very well.
The problem with a republic is that the President meddles too much in the affairs of parliament. When is the last time the Queen vetoed legislation passed by Parliament? She can do it, but she's wise to reserve that power for when Parliament gets completely out of control.
A president can be bought by corrupt special interest groups to introduce or block legislation in their interest.
The monarchy has worked pretty well for the past thousand years, I don't see a point in making a change now. How can it help?
2006-12-25 11:16:36 · answer #2 · answered by patrioticjock 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is undemocratic and THAT'S A GOOD THING!
No, Britain should not become a republic.
2006-12-25 10:27:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a republic. Check your definitions. A republic is where people are elected to do the citizens government business. The Queen is purely ceremonial. The House of Commons is elected to carry out the wishes of its consituency.
2006-12-25 13:53:35 · answer #4 · answered by Jimfix 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The queens role is purely ceremonial
2006-12-25 11:08:13 · answer #5 · answered by bill 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ofcourse Yes,,,,
The queen is a nice lady,,,,, But who knows about the future people to come,,,,,,
Besides queens and kings are not born twice ,,,,,
2006-12-25 10:34:15 · answer #6 · answered by me 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Leave it to the British people to decide.
2006-12-25 10:32:29 · answer #7 · answered by childofGod 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋