Would Britain be better off as a democratic republic?

While in office the acting Prime Minister is obliged to hold weekly meetings with the head of state, the Queen, in which matters of government are discussed. The discussions that take place at these meetings are completely confidential.

However journalists keep singing the tune that the Queen is completely apolitical and does not interfere in politics. So what is the point of these weekly meetings? Is it just an excuse for tea and cucumber sandwiches?

It's also the case that the UK constitution is completely archaic and obviously has medieval origins. It may surprise many to find out that as a result of the Royal Prerogative Powers, the reigning monarch has the right to personally lead armies into war if they see fit to do so.

And how the royals are presented in public at times seems almost cultic. They are presented as virtual pop stars and cultural icons, and the whole thing comes across as a coordinated attempt to keep the royal popularity rating going. And the royals are in the news almost daily, for both the wrong and the right reasons.

A majority of the countries in the world are republics. Is it not time to modernize the British constitution and to put it to a vote, just as there was a referendum on leaving the European Union and a referendum on Scottish independence?

 

I do think a republic is preferable, but the British system ain't so bad.

In terms of undemocratic control the bureaucracy is a considerably greater threat in my opinion.

 

While remaining for democracy, I must admit having very few sympathy for politicians. They're often upstarts, cheap manipulators.

Royalties in the other hand have also a variety of flaws, disconnected of the daily life of the commoner, but I'm not sure they're worse.

Obviously, all of that should remain in the hand of the British people.

 

Yes... panties are tossed at the queen when she drives by.
/facepalm


The real problem is that the UK, is a united kingdom, of England, Scotland, Whales and North Ireland.
Scotland, Whales and NI got their own government. The England does not and is directly governed by the UK.
And so when England wants something, it's done on a federal level without a care if other states agree or not.
They are just made to deal with it. And I would imagine it's beyond annoying as f.

 

it may be time for the usa to consider parliamentary democracy.

 

Ew, cucumber sandwiches

 

Agreed, the Brits do like their Monarchs.

 

Largely yes, it is symbolic. Various past Prime Minsters have said that they welcome the meetings, being apolitical and unlikely to leak, giving them an almost unique opportunity to openly talk about major issues facing the country and the government. So, in itself, I really don't see this as a bad thing.

It's changed a lot over the years though, formally and informally. Something having medieval origins doesn't automatically make it bad or mean we should throw it away (otherwise, you'd have to call yourself Jakob rather than James ).

In theory but not in practice. If a monarch tried to use any of their major powers against the will of the Government, Parliament and (most significantly) the people, there would be a rebellion very quickly. Similarly, if the Government overstepped their authority, the monarch could step in. It is an odd but surprisingly effective balance.

No structural change is going to alter that. Even if the UK political system were formally changed, we'd almost certainly keep the monarchy in a ceremonial form and so all of those aspects would remain. In the short term, it could even get worse.

What kind of republic though? There is a massive range of options and variations for the form of a republic, especially when you get in to technical (but often important) details. If you really want to make a serious argument for change, I think you'd need a lot more detail in the exact problems you're looking to solve and the means by which you'd solve them (there are already republican campaigns and groups who have done some of that leg work of course).

 

It's Wales not WHaLES!!!!!

 

The answer is NO they would not be better off.

 

I can't believe people see themselves as that... The very word may have been the single biggest reason for the birth of the U.S.!

So demeaning!

 

WHO cares

 

English isn't my native language, but for me "commoner" has nothing demeaning, it's great to be a regular guy/gal, with obviously our own uniqueness.
I'm french, so we have a different relationship with our royalty, more sharpened. When I see Macron, Hollande and Sarkozy (our current leader and two formers one), I'm not sure we have won so much to the trade. At least Louis XVI had a sincere interest for his people. However, I'm not a royalist.

 

But it does

Here where I come from that word would earn you a round or two of fist·i·cuffs

 

Well, it probably matter to all the commoners in Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch.

 

LOL

 

To be fair, the only demeaning sense if the third. Being an ordinary person without rank or titles isn't demeaning, at least for me, as being me is a tittle is good enough (ironic considering my username mean "your Highness" in french), but I get some people don't appreciate it.

 

You could probably get by travelling around in a horse and carriage. But wouldn't it be easier upgrading to a modern automobile?

So many things in the current constitution are wrong and need changing. Under his/her executive powers, the Prime Minister can take the nation to war without a vote from Parliament if he/she so wishes. But surely, on such an important issue as that, a vote in Parliament should be a legal requirement.

 

Britain makes more money from the Royals than they cost. So they're going to keep them until they don't..

They're utterly useless though, and a bad example. They should go.

 

Sure, but they didn't just throw away the entire concept of the horse and carriage and start from scratch with cars. The first automobiles used the same basic structure of a carriage, just replacing the power source (many were even built by the same craftsmen for a long time). Similarly, all modern political structures are merely developments and evolutions of ancient ones. You don't need to toss something out just because it is old, sometimes just developing it is the best option.

As you've already pointed out, only the monarch can formally declare war but in practice that would be on the advice of the Prime Minister. Whether they have Parliamentary consent would inevitably be a factor in that decision. We could certain change the law so that it is a specific requirement but I'm not sure how much that would change in practice.

Formal declaration of war has become less of a key point given the nature of recent conflicts have been against non-state actors or as part of UN/NATO actions. I don't think the UK has formally declared war since WW2. The US (for example) has had debates on the same technicalities, where they already require congressional approval for the President to declare war, so while this is a valid and complex issue but not one specific to the question of republicanism anyway.

 

Nah, it would be better off as a Constitutional Republic with short-term limits and mandatory sentences for politicians who lie or deceive.

 

Where you come from you are all commoners.

 

You can refer to me as Sir.. We won that right by expelling the English tyrant lords from this country..

It's not the word SO MUCH as the arrogant people and the way they use the words that's insulting...

What is another word for commoners?

Would the English here care to be called Plebs, plebeians? Better yet, would moderation allow the word?

 

I'm sorry, right here in France, calling people by nobility title is quite demeaning, because it could mean "guillotine fodder", and I have too much appreciation for you to call you then such a title.

Edit : just to be precise, I'm joking, it's not always obvious to tell when you writte and without seeing the smile on my face.

 

You're beginning to misquote.

Both the monarch AND the Prime Minister have the same executive power. However under the present constitution the monarch's executive power would override that of the Prime Minister.