The public should have a debate on the monarchy Billboards

Oh dear, Gareth just messaged me.
He doesn't want the job.

I vote for Gareth Southgate ?

Yay, I could get into this!

MawBe

^You posted Alegrias "As for who would be head of state, we've answered that about 146 times^ “

And you post 4 links.
Does that count as an exponential decrease?

???

If you live in Ireland or the US, for example, you can go to a book shop and get a complete copy of the constitution, which tells you how the country is run, who has what power and who decides who gets to be in government or become head of state. Both constitutions are fairly clear and easy to read – the US one slightly less so because of its age – and both provide a clear framework, a set of rules, that no-one can simply ignore.

We can have a properly written constitution

Our head of state is constitutionally pointless. People claim she is independent and above politics. Well, she’s not. The Queen is there to do as she’s told by the prime minister. So why bother with a head of state at all if the PM is exercising her powers? Well, there is a role for an independent head of state, one who can guard the constitution and represent the nation. The Queen is a fig leaf for excessive government power, nothing more.

A constitutional monarchy

People often talk about Britain being a parliamentary democracy, but we’re not. We’re a constitutional monarchy that has a parliament. And there is a difference, which is the Crown in parliament and the lack of limitations on the parliament or government. The answer is a genuine parliamentary democracy, taking everything we have and making it democratic. A fully elected parliament, sovereignty of the people enshrined in a written constitution and an effective, elected non-partisan head of state.

That’s a constitution we can all have a hand in shaping, and which we can all then vote on, and change through clear, accessible democratic processes. And it’s one that we can all be proud of in the future – a parliamentary democracy run by the people for the people, and a head of state who is one of the people.

Now that we've cleared that up, what about all the other suggestions for a head of state that will amount to the 146 you claim have already been made?

No, not really. ?

It was your post on the third link you provided that mentioned both Gary Lineker and Marcus Rashford Alegrias. So the post you have quoted is not the one I referred too so when I say "I genuinely missed" something I did, and I resent any suggestion that I am not being honest.

Now that we've cleared that up, what about all the other suggestions for a head of state that will amount to the 146 you claim have already been made?

Grany

The process of moving from a monarchy to a democratic head of state is pretty straightforward.

The move will only be made once MPs and the public agree to it, although the politicians only have to agree to a referendum, and let the voters decide the rest. So once polling is consistently showing support for the move and politicians have been persuaded to act the following steps are needed:

A law is passed by MPs allowing for a referendum and voters then get to decide if they want to make the change.
If voters vote 'Yes' then a date is set for the election of the head of state and the introduction of new rules that will govern the reformed political system (which will be in the form of a new constitution).
As part of this process parliament passes the Crown to the people - which means that Crown properties such as the Crown Estate remain with the nation.
On a date a few days or weeks after the election the new head of state will be sworn in, the new constitution takes effect and the monarch retires from office.

Who would decide who will be eligible for candidacy for HoS? Would there be a limit to the number of HoS candidates? Who would draft the "new rules that will govern the reformed political system"?

I genuinely missed them.

Direct quote from my post:

My recommendations for President - Sarah Gilbert, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Marcus Rashford. People of honour who represent the best of British values.

Yet you didn't miss Rashford? Should've gone to Specsavers.

Sorry posted to earily. The crown being head of state i.e. The Queen

But! dont politicians swear an alligence to the crown?

The process of moving from a monarchy to a democratic head of state is pretty straightforward.

The move will only be made once MPs and the public agree to it, although the politicians only have to agree to a referendum, and let the voters decide the rest. So once polling is consistently showing support for the move and politicians have been persuaded to act the following steps are needed:

A law is passed by MPs allowing for a referendum and voters then get to decide if they want to make the change.
If voters vote 'Yes' then a date is set for the election of the head of state and the introduction of new rules that will govern the reformed political system (which will be in the form of a new constitution).
As part of this process parliament passes the Crown to the people - which means that Crown properties such as the Crown Estate remain with the nation.
On a date a few days or weeks after the election the new head of state will be sworn in, the new constitution takes effect and the monarch retires from office.

A very big "exponential decrease" MawBe

You posted Alegrias "As for who would be head of state, we've answered that about 146 times “

And you post 4 links.
Does that count as an exponential decrease?

No I didn't "Conveniently decide to ignore" them Alegrias I genuinely missed them. So does that mean then that the two pages on the last two links you provided contain 138 of the 146 you posted have already been suggested, and do you really think that a "Putin type", "Piers Morgan", "Jenny from Gogglebox" and "one of the Siddiquis" should be regarded as actual suggestions?

That's the trouble with many Royalists, no sense of irony where the monarchy is concerned.

Plus I noticed you missed the 2 serious candidates I mentioned right before Mr Rashford, in the same post, but have conveniently decided to ignore. Not that I think Rashford isn't serious.

Sarah Gilbert and Jocelyn Bell Burnell.

You posted Alegrias "As for who would be head of state, we've answered that about 146 times". Well I've just looked at the first link you've provided and the only two 'suggestions' on that page are a "Putin type" and "Piers Morgan" so I'm rather .

So, I looked at the second link you provided and the suggestions there are "Jenny from Gogglebox", "Gary Lineker", "Marcus Rashford" and your personal support of "One of the Siddiquis" if one of them stood.

Wont waste my time looking at the other two links you provided as each is only one page each, I fail to see how the remaining 140 out of the 146 you say have already been suggested as head of state will appear on only 2 pages!!

Spoilt for choice.....or an opportunity for more hate and division?

So first the country will be divided over whether to keep the monarchy

Its already divided, we just don't get to vote on it.

Who are "you folk"?

But I know, all this democracy, its a chore, isn't it?

Candidates may be people with successful careers in law, business, foreign affairs, teaching, science, or someone who has made a name for themselves championing a popular cause or running a big charity. In a great country like ours, with over sixty million people, we'll be spoilt for choice.

Republic supports a non-partisan head of state who is not involved in making political decisions or running the government. So we don't support a system like they have in France or the United States.

We believe the best alternative to the monarchy is a head of state who is able to do the job that the Queen cannot do. It is a serious job of representing the nation, acting as referee in the political process, championing the interests of the people and defending our democratic traditions.

The great thing about an elected head of state is that their actions, behaviour and public spending are all open to proper scrutiny, and if they do something wrong they can be sacked. So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they step out of line.

Why do we want a republic?
It's simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

And because we can’t hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest. The Queen can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.

Alegrias1 Given that we haven't decided yet if we want an elected HoS, I venture to comment that this question is a bit premature.
So first the country will be divided over whether to keep the monarchy, then divided over whether to have a HoS, and then divided again over who it should be. More argument, more division. I thought you folk were constantly harping on about how dividing the country was damaging our society, yet here you want to create more division.

www.gransnet.com/forums/chat/1293120-On-borrowed-time-the-royals?pg=12.

www.gransnet.com/forums/ask_a_gran/1288404-William-and-Kate-s-rail-trip?pg=9.

www.gransnet.com/forums/news_and_politics/1296090-Royalist-is-our-post-Brexit-religion?pg=4.

www.gransnet.com/forums/chat/1294473-How-the-Royal-Family-might-change-with-Charles-then-William-as-Monarch?pg=6.

Knock yourselves out.

I'll put it on my list of things to think about. Looking at the list I might get round to it eventually, then again I might not live that long.

The public can debate what they want at any time. This is a delightfully free and open country in which to live and express free speech

Rosycheeks

Isnt treason to try to get rid of the monarchy?

Isn't it dictatorship not to allow citizens to decide how to run their country?