As a loyal Canadian I support our Queen and her constitutional rights as Head of our State. So far History has shown that the Monarchy has acted in good faith with our country and did not interfere or impede any changes we have made to our government or constitution. The JCPC council on the other hand was a pain in the neck.
Each Royal has also shown great support for this nation, from Queen Victoria helping to decide the location of our Capital to Queen Elizabeth II signing our repatriated constitution.
If The UK wants to oust them I’m sure we can build a palace for them here.
And that’s probably why no changes would be made anytime soon - they’d have to convene all of the countries of which Betsy is Queen and do a constitutional amendment in all of them. Most of those countries care so little about the monarchy one way or another that I don’t think they could be bothered. I know the press would have a field day here if it found out that they were spending a lot of legislative time over who was going to succeed to the throne.
Why is it half an argument? If I say, for the sake of argument, that I want to see an end to foxhunting, I don’t think I’m obliged to suggest an alternative. Or to put it another way, if your boss sacks you, s/he is not obliged to find a replacement unless there is still a job that needs doing - it’s called redundancy. Which brings me back to the Royals - I think they are redundant in a modern democracy. And there are alternative models all around us…
It hasn’t been our problem over here in the States since 1776, Mrs Face, so please don’t be offended by my raising the question. But, to use your example, if foxhunting were the established way of keeping the small-predator population down, protecting the poultry industry, yes, you would be obliged to suggest an alternative to it if you sought to abolish it.
Ergo, if you throw out the Royals, you need to decide what to do with the Prerogative Powers. And IMHO, giving them to the P.M. or to a superannuated politician of his party is not the way to go. As a loyal American, I have for 40 years now had to grapple with the dilemma of supporting [deep fruity voice]our President, the Chief Executive of Our Great Nation and our Commander-in-Chief[/deep fruity voice] and the fact that for a fair chunk of those years the man who currently held that office was espoused of policies that I didn’t agree with. Without knowing your politics, I think it’s a fair assumption that you either like Tony Blair and didn’t like John Major, or the other way around. Likewise for Harold Wilson and Maggie Thatcher, a few years previous. So what do you do with all those powers, that need to be there for crises but should not be at the instant disposal of the man in power? Having somebody who is constitutionally bound to support him in ordinary circumstances, but to exercise an independent judgment that he has no control over, strikes me as an excellent idea. Now, where do you get somebody who can do that job – and who will spend most of his or her life, when there is no crisis, effectively making celebrity appearances to dedicate this’n’that? And who doesn’t mind living in a goldfish bowl? God knows the House of Windsor is never going to win any MacArthur Genius Awards – but they do seem to have a talent for stable, rational thought, and judicious, well-timed decision-making, if a rather poor style of child-rearing (based on the last 100 years before Wills and Harry – if Charles does have one redeeming quality, it’s being a decent father to his sons, despite the horrible examples of his ancestors!).
As you said, “s/he is not obliged to find a replacement unless there is still a job that needs doing.” The Prerogative Powers, and the fact that Elizabeth herself chose two of her PMs (Macmillan and Home) when the Tories collectively couldn’t add 2+2 and get 4 reliably, mean that there is “still a job that needs doing.”
Might I just raise the point that, although I can’t speak for the Ozzies or the Canucks (who have their own separate issues), the actual impact of the Queen’s existence on our daily lives is approximately zero. The British Constitution is based on peculiar, archaic, impossibly complex rituals which shouldn’t work, but which happen to work quite remarkably well despite all the odds.
In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
Well, in Ireland we hold a popular vote election for the role of president. the president has very little powers, is seen as a figurehead and an ambassador. Infact, The Irish President has only spoken in the Dáil on two occasions. their role isn’t very party political, as their role isn’t very political.