Grantanow
I had a perfectly enjoyable Xmas, volver, and I'm still enjoying it. Hope you are too! The key point about presidents is to establish their terms of reference by law, what they can and can't do, what their role is, how long they are in office for and can they re-stand, how they can be removed and who elects them (universal franchise, the Lords, the Commons?), etc. The monarch's role has been worked out as essentially apolitical and Charles and his recent predecessors understood that but I do question whether a president with a political background could be self-restrained and whether, if they were given powers as in France, the US and elsewhere to make decrees, that would be acceptable. What would their role be in relation to the military and would that create any risks? It may be wearing to think about these matters in relation to Thatcher or Farage or Brown or anyone else but it is important.
I am also enjoying Christmas Grantanow, thank you for your comment.
The terms of reference of a president must indeed be worked out. But personally, I would find that an exciting thing to do. To decide for ourselves how we want our HoS to work.
We really, really have to understand that holding up the presidents of France or the US as examples of how things can go wrong in entirely invalid. Those Presidents are also Heads of Government. That is why they have the power they do. Those countries have an entirely different system to ours.
A constitutional system that has an elected Head of Government, and an Elected Head of State, is an entirely different matter. And we can have that, if only we stopped thinking it was important to have good manners, curtsey to people we think are above us in the hierarchy, and that being HoS needs a lifetime's training and a hat with jewels on.
That is why Eire, Germany, Finland... are such good examples. Their Presidents are not the same as the Presidents of France USA, Brazil... We can have what we want.
I'm worn out by people who can't see that.
