A poll commissioned by ITN has shown a clear majority in favour of Queen Elizabeth II remaining on the throne until her death, and just 13% support for a British republic. Support for the Prince of Wales becoming Monarch appears to be lower than that for his eldest son.
The nod and wink politics of Ireland’s last two or three decades as practised par excellence by Bertie, Albert and Charlie is ultimately what has the Republic in the stew it’s in. Don’t get me wrong, the effective monitoring of those exercising of power does not demand full disclosure of everything all the time. But [...] read our review »
It’s not published until 3rd March, but one book I recommend you place an advance order for from Slugger’s Bookstore is James Harkin’s Niche. Belfast émigré Harkin examines a number of stories from business, culture and politics and comes to a single insight: everywhere the broad middle is collapsing. He offers Woolworths as an iconic exemplar [...] read our review »
The British monarchy evolved over many centuries, and it is not to be surprised that there are anomalies in the (unwritten) constitution. However, there is a constitution, it is contained in acts of parliament, conventions and custom which has evolved over time. It is far from perfect, but it suits the Brits. Indeed a person like a monarch in my opinion is far better than some superannuated politician.
The Irish constitution is very like the British, the president is the head of state, the prime minister runs the country. The American system is different. The ‘great experiment’ produced a president who is head of state and prime minister. It is a system which has problems too – very few US presidents could be described as ‘great’. Certainly both Ireland and UK have produced many more prime ministers who could be so described. And none required millions of pounds/dollars to get nominated and elected.
And as for Australia. The republic referendum was soundly defeated. The Australians have a system which suits them. Don’t knock the monarchial system, it has as much relevance as a republic.
“1688-90 secured what Cromwell wanted”
That’s right Fair_Deal. Complete with the Penal Laws that robbed Catholics of all their rights to buy and inherit land, get an education, enter business, and practice their religion. No doubt he would have been most proud. A true tribute to the tyrant himself. The only thing missing were the massacres. A king who had removed the restrictions against not only Catholics but also Presbyterians was thanked for that by Presbyterians in Ireland by them fighting against him. History makes strange bedfellows.
“However, there is a constitution, it is contained in acts of parliament, conventions and custom which has evolved over time.”
Which, and pay attention as THIS IS THE KEY POINT, can be amended at any time by a simple act of parliament.
Proper constitutional democracies can only amend the constitution by referendum. Which means there would be a hell of a time getting ID cards through in America, for example.
“Certainly both Ireland and UK have produced many more prime ministers who could be so described”
I really would disagree with that, but it’s besides the point.
It is truly amazing how far people will gom in convincing themselves that priviledge by birthright is a good idea. It stupifies me. Honestly, you deserve rule by divine right. That would cure the problem fairly sharpish.
“However, there is a constitution, it is contained in acts of parliament, conventions and custom which has evolved over time.”
But it’s not worth the paper its written on if it can be changed by the House of Commons and rammed through a government-appointed House of Lords. The most important aspect of a written constitution is that it is usually harder to change than a mere parliamentary majority vote – this is needed to ensure basic rights are continued throughout a period when governments will inevitably change from time to time. The essence of the republican model of government is that citizens have certain rights and responsibilities, and that a government cannot breach these rights. In the Republic of Ireland, only a referendum can change part of the constitution.
Thanks to the Terrorism Act, praising the Irish War of Independence, George Washington or maybe Wat Tyler (Peasants Revolt) might conceivably land you in a dungeon. Such are the consequences of A: The absence of a definition of terrorism in the Act and B: The non-existence of a written constitution to protect freedom of speech. Today it may be Al Qaida targeted by this law. But who is to say that a future govt will not use the lack of clarity in this law to suppress political opposition, on the supposed basis of fighting “terrorism”? Thank gawd for our constitution.
I mean the UK Terrorism Act.
“You will repeat the whole exercise every 4 years at huge expense to the taxpayer. And keep him/her at great expense for that period of time.”
The expense isn’t that huge. I imagine the President of Ireland costs only a fraction of what HRH costs to keep in handbags and palaces.
Kensei, I am well aware that the British constitution can be amended by an act of parliament. Some people seem to think that because the constitution is not written, that there isn’t one. However, in the British system there are checks and balances. No government will unilaterally attempt to change the fundamentals of the constitution. If they do wish to change the constitution it will appear in a party election manifesto, and if that party is elected, then they have a mandate for change. A very good example of this is reform of the house of lords. (Not very well done, but that is a different matter). I am not sure that the introduction of identity cards is a constitutional matter, we have had them before; indeed I still have mine. And every NI driving license is an ID card….
And as for Australia. The republic referendum was soundly defeated. The Australians have a system which suits them. Don’t knock the monarchial system, it has as much relevance as a republic.
I’m not sure if readers are aware that the Australian referendum on a republic was effectively sabotaged by the (pro monarchy) Howard Government. One reason was that the (majority) pro republic vote was fatally split by those who didn’t support the (selected by politicians) model for a president put up by the Government. Most Australians wanted a directly elected president, so voted against the model presented by pollies.
As regards the Australian situation vis-a-vis the republic, the masses did not reject a republic in principle, merely the form they were being offered, thanks to the machinations of the arch-monarchist Johnny Howard. It was better to carry on as usual than to accept a flawed model for the country. Instead they decided to have another beer and head off to the beach…
Donnacha snap!
by the way, I did vote against the referendum, for the reasons you describe, but I resent the accusations of heading off to the beach.
What, were the races on at Tangmalangmaloo? In that case I apologise to yourself and all others on the West Island of NZ….
Meanwhile, here in NZ, the monarchy debate is more muted. Although our eminently sensible and capable (it says here) PM Helen Clark is a republican herself, and has said the move to cut the apron strings is inevitable, there’s no rush. The Govt didn’t even bother to send her any sort of pressie more expensive than a congratulatory letter adorned with a commemorative stamp. The decision will most likely be made to move to a republic after the death of Liz Windsor, but given her genes and her comfy lifestyle, it’s probably a fair bit away yet.
kensei,
the ROI’s constitution isn’t doing much to stop McDowell’s crazy legislation. http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/12/08/story577513338.asp .This isn’t the first time he’s trampled on basic rights without allowing any decent debate in the Dail. http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2004/02/04/story132707.asp
A constitution (written or otherwise) is only as good as the judges and politicians who should implement it. But ultimately of course, the voters get the politicians they deserve.
If you want to remove the Monarch from choosing the Government, then who does decide in a hung Parliament?
The People. You just keep voting till you get a clear result. For example, between June 1981 and November 1982 we had to have three general elections in the Republic before a stable coalition emerged.
Of course, it would also help if Britain got rid of your crazy electoral system. I believe Tony Blair currently holds ultimate power with about 36% of the vote?
That’s democracy, and shows the fundamental psychological difference between a Republic and a Monarchy. The Monarchist instinctively looks for Someone In Authority to come along and tell the politicians what to do in a hung parliament. The Republican looks to the People to make their minds up.
Donnacha
Good on your NZ government for its low-key and entirely sensible approach.
How cringe-making was that when your ol’ neighbour Germaine Greer actually bowed the knee to Brenda.
A mind like GG’s, an authority on literature etc, and she’s kowtowing to . . . to what exactly? Has anybody ever discovered what ER can actually do, besides open bridges, envelopes and her mouth?
The worrying thing about support for Prince William over Charles is because he is young a goodlooking, is this really a criteria with which to choose the head of state. There are an awful lot of silly, silly people in the UK today as evidenced by this longing got William to be king.
” is this really a criteria with which to choose the head of state”
Bilbo, the British people cannot choose their head of state, and they seem perfectly happy with that, god knows why…
“Bilbo, the British people cannot choose their head of state, and they seem perfectly happy with that, god knows why…”
The simple reason is that, as pointed out above, it works. We can look to the Republics in Southern Ireland or in the United States and frankly, don’t feel like we’re missing out on a huge amount.
Wasn’t there talk of Bono or Saint Geldoff running for president of the Republic? If ever there was a reason to retain the monarchy…
In post 5 Martin said “Personally I would rather rever a person as the symbol of the state than a flag or a piece of paper “. I think that glosses over the idea that it is the explicit expression of the ideas and principles through that piece of paper that is supposed to replace ‘mythical’, and thus emotive and easy to exploit, ways of validating authority.
That is the idea anyway, and it is one which is much more progressive and transparent than the idea of a divinely appointed source of authority which, if you cut away the machinery of Executive, Parliament, Judiciary, is what the authority of the British state actually rests upon.
“Wasn’t there talk of Bono or Saint Geldoff running for president of the Republic? If ever there was a reason to retain the monarchy…”
But they didn’t run.
If they had, we would have the option of voting for them or not.
There was also talk once of William dating Britney Spears. She could have become Queen (maybe, eventually) and there would be nothing anybody could do about it.
Just what did the current monarch in Britain do, to deserve to be head of state of a progressive modern country like the UK? What merits did she possess other than being born before her siblings, with the right surname?
She wouldn’t even be the head of state now if her uncle hadn’t abdicated, what a joke of a system! It’s indefensible, unless you’re privilaged under it, I guess… I can’t understand the serfs sticking up for their masters. I can understaind anyone being proud to be British, the UK is a great country, but to be proud that the system tells you you’re born inferior… it boggles the mind!
Pope: we in the UK could change the system if there was popular desire for it. The monarchy is there by popular consent.
With a few interruptions (notably in the 1650′s) the monarchy has provided Britain with great constitutional stability. That’s why it remains such a popular institution.
The monarchy took a dip in popularity after the Princess Diana episode and that’s why there is a question mark over the succession. People do not really trust Charles and that is part of the reason why the present Queen remains so popular. She is a safe pair of hands. Remarkable for her unremarkability. People like that.
Elfinto – good points I agree.
Slug… I understand that, it’s the popularity that I find so crazy! To my mind there’s no reason on earth why you yourself shouldn’t aspire to being head of state in your own country…
A bit off topic but amusing nevertheless.
Ray Davies, songwriter for the Kinks (for those of you who are completely out of touch), got an OBE or MBE last year. He had recently survived being shot by a mugger in New Orleans.
When the Queen was presenting him with his award she enquired about the shooting and said that she hoped ‘they get the bastards who done it’.
An amused Ray Davies later related the story to the media. A Buckingham Palace spokesperson swiftly issued a denial insisting that the Queen ‘would never use such language’.
“With a few interruptions (notably in the 1650’s) the monarchy has provided Britain with great constitutional stability. That’s why it remains such a popular institution.”
That may be true, but who is to say a President could not have provided similar stability?
Also, though stability may have existed, with few interruptions, in Wales and England, at times other parts of the empire were not so enamoured with the monarchy.
Also, though stability may have existed, with few interruptions, in Wales and England, at times other parts of the empire were not so enamoured with the monarchy.
That’s a given. Thus a monarch’s top priority was to remain popular in England. It ensured survival, sometimes literally!
Different systems are suited for different countries, e.g. Ireland – republic, Britian -constitutional monarchy, Iraq – liberal democracy!!
“Bilbo, the British people cannot choose their head of state, and they seem perfectly happy with that, god knows why… ”
Not being a complete moron, I am aware of that, I was referring to the poll that this thread is supposed to be about in which more people wanted Prince William to succeed the Queen than people who wanted Prince Charles. My point was (as it was clearly lost on you), that I found this appalling. Its after reading things like that poll that makes me damned glad the public cannot choose the head of state, they would treat it as an extra big version of the X-factor no doubt. Sad times, sad, sad times.
I like that idea Bilbo.
The Queen lying in state. Charlie, William and the rest of the Windsors have to perform a song live on stage and win a public vote. It would make great TV!!
Bilbo,
“Its after reading things like that poll that makes me damned glad the public cannot choose the head of state, they would treat it as an extra big version of the X-factor no doubt. Sad times, sad, sad times.”
I think you misunderestimate the great British public (to borrow a phrase from a president!). That’s a choice between Charles and William, who is to say that if someone else (perhaps Tony Benn?) were running, they wouldn’t be chosen by most people. You need to have a little faith in electorates, they’re not (that!) thick.
The monarchy is in big trouble, and I’m sure that the Royal family knows this.
The trouble stems from the fact that the yare reliant on the media to partcipate in a promulgate the myth of Royalty.
Thus we get the occasional pseudo documentary of William on a VSB type holiday, where he helps out some photogenic ethnics in Africa.
We’re told that he even cleans the toilets as part of his duties, and we’re supposed to marvel at the fact he would stoop to doing the kind of thing most of us have to do every day.
Most of Dianas popularity was based around the fact that she was willing to lower herself to the level of us mere mortals, and talk to us as ordinary people, not the scum we so obviously are in relation to her.
But it only works if the media continues to be a willing partner in the deception in perpetuity.
That is simply not going to happen.The Royals made a fatal blunder in deciding to try and use the modern media to gain more popularity, and we can see from the present Queens reticence to reveal herself that she understands this.
For Royalty to succeed there has to be mystery.
Watching William clean toilets seems like a good idea, but in the long run it will just serve to remind people that he has to shit, the same as everyone else.
This love affair is doomed.
And the republicans amongst us know that all we need is time, and we’ve got lots of that.
Our day will come….
Elfinto – “The Queen lying in state. Charlie, William and the rest of the Windsors have to perform a song live on stage and win a public vote. It would make great TV!!”
Careful there. Those of us who have only just now managed to wipe away the tears after Siobhan O’Hanlon’s death might use that tasteless little sally of yours as our latest excuse to take the huff, and start whine, whine, whining.
Thats an interesting point Karl, I seriously doubt that republicans will have the good grace to be respectful when the Queen does pass away.
KR,
The sense of humour by-pass appears to have been successful.
Michael,
Well, let’s just wait and see. I suspect HRH will be around for a while yet. No use getting offended about something that hasn’t happened yet.
Michael Shilliday
“I seriously doubt that republicans will have the good grace to be respectful when the Queen does pass away”
Small “r” republicans like myself will accord her the same respect due to anybody who passes away, as you put it.
If the deceased has done something meritorious, he or she will get more respect. One thinks in this context of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, that sort of person.
We republicans don’t usually accord more respect to a person simply because an ancestor of hers lopped off more heads with his broadsword, or whatever, and so became top dog.
I hope you can see this.