Woke up this morning ... morphing to discussion on Heads of State.

I will explain DaisyAnne, not because I want to change your mind about anything but perhaps so that in future you will read what people actually post rather than making up your own interpretations of things and accusing them of having opinions that are nothing like reality.

President or Constitutional Monarch carry out a mainly ceremonial role and hold in reserve emergency political powers. Please tell me, when were these powers used by a ceremonial President. You seem to think that change would make a difference - why?
First part – no idea. Doesn’t matter. Why will it make a difference? Because a separation of powers in a government makes for a stronger government and we don’t have those checks and balances at the moment. The Queen and probably her successors have adopted a policy of staying out of everything, while pretending that they support the country. They don’t, they leave to country to get on with it.

You and Grany, so you tell me, believe that the Queen was in the wrong and therefore she needs to go. I will not speak for Grany. However that is not what I said at all and you are putting words in my mouth. I said that the Queen did not act in any way to respond when the PM lied to her and caused her to take illegal action. She carried on regardless after the event. So what is the point of having her there at all? There is no point at all in having a HoS whose actions are so limited, and who is only there to be waved at and adored. That you and Grany think you know better than all the advice and all the knowledge the Queen could call on at that time is bizarre. Grany can speak for herself. I don’t think I know better than anybody. I have a view of things that is not clouded by the hero-worship of an old lady.

Volver I don't think you know more than the combination of palace and parliament. Do you not? OK then. I believe that the government, whose job is to uphold democracy, could improve how they limit gross misconduct. When a government has an 80 seat majority they can do what they like. They can break the law and get away with it. In fact they have. We have to have a system of checks and balances and the one we have doesn’t work. Why would you want to have a possibly pointless upheaval in the country when we have ways we could work through that could improve the behaviour of politicians. Because I want the country to be governed using a system that is the best it can be and I don’t think that’s pointless. I don’t expect a republic to happen tomorrow, but I do expect an educated electorate to understand that change can happen in the future and that the electorate have a responsibility in a democracy to think about that, not put their fingers in their ears and go lalala. Because that is what you are complaining about. No its not, you are putting words in my mouth again. You want to sack the Queen because of Boris' behavior and Parliaments inability to stop him. No I don’t. I want to replace a hereditary monarchy where a person can stay in post for 70 years with a system where the HoS is responsible to the people. I’d like an educated and thoughtful electorate, but on the grounds of what I’m reading tonight that seems quite unlikely.

I do understand that it was very concerning to have a "Boris" as PM. But the country, not the Queen, put him there. I don’t blame the Queen for Boris, if you think I do then you are just making things up. I consider our current system not fit for purpose. You may think differently and that’s OK, but you must not make up lies about what I think and you must not attribute things to me that are untrue.

Finally, this is just one reason why I want to remove the hereditary monarchy. This topic has been done to death and I don’t have the energy to go over it again.

If you don't understand all of the above, then my reserves are empty. You'll just have to live with it.

Then explain. If you don't understand me I know that is my fault. If I don't understand you then I am afraid that is yours.

I think you're havering and making bizarre and incorrect assumptions about what I think and know DaisyAnne. Not only have you got the wrong end of the stick, you're got the wrong stick completely. But as long as you're happy.

^Whether a Head of State is elected, appointed or gets the job because of who their dad was, they should be able to take action against a law-breaking Prime Minister on behalf of the people. Otherwise what is the point of them?^Volver

President or Constitutional Monarch carry out a mainly ceremonial role and hold in reserve emergency political powers. Please tell me, when were these powers used by a ceremonial President. You seem to think that change would make a difference - why?

You and Grany, so you tell me, believe that the Queen was in the wrong and therefore she needs to go. That you and Grany think you know better than all the advice and all the knowledge the Queen could call on at that time is bizarre.

Volver I don't think you know more than the combination of palace and parliament. I believe that the government, whose job is to uphold democracy, could improve how they limit gross misconduct. Why would you want to have a possibly pointless upheaval in the country when we have ways we could work through that could improve the behaviour of politicians. Because that is what you are complaining about. You want to sack the Queen because of Boris' behavior and Parliaments inability to stop him.

I do understand that it was very concerning to have a "Boris" as PM. But the country, not the Queen, put him there.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

How the German and the Irish presidents are elected.

The only difference between Michael D. Higgins and the German president, Frank-Walther Steinmaier, is that MDH was elected by the electorate, whereas Steinmaier was nominated by and elected by elected representatives in the Bundestag. The roles are the same though and both do an excellent job.

The fact that they have limited terms of office is a good thing too.

I'll make myself clear DaisyAnne

I don't expect the queen to defend the constitution, as when she allowed Johnson to prorogue parliament many people then found out she has no power. So the country is in chaos for months, years queen as HoS can't do anything about this. I am saying we need an effective Elected accountable Head of State. The monarchy serves the politicians and the royals, not the people. Volver and I agree on this.

Heads of State do not have to adopt political positions, although trying to get people to understand that is like nailing jelly to the wall. It all depends on how the constitution of a country is made up.

So why not help everyone understand as you do, and look up the ones I suggested?

I'm not sure why you mentioned the Irish President further down this post. The position has been filled six times without an election. Isn't that a Coronation. I expect it works on the Buggins Turn principle as the Mayors do with some councils.

The powers held seem very similar to those held by our Monarch. I don't know much about Irish statecraft; could you tell me when the HoS used those powers?

Our outgoing PM broke the law by telling the monarch that it was legal to prorogue parliament.

What happened about that? Sweet Fanny Adams.

Whether a Head of State is elected, appointed or gets the job because of who their dad was, they should be able to take action against a law breaking Prime Minister on behalf of the people. Otherwise what is the point of them?

A republican president would be a ceremonial Head of State with limited powers. Grany

In countries that use the parliamentary system, the symbolic head of state has some emergency political powers. However, they are seldom, if ever, used in any democratic country. Countries do this whether the symbolic HoS is a president or a constitutional monarch.

I was going to google them but it doesn't matter who the current incumbents are, does it?

Heads of State do not have to adopt political positions, although trying to get people to understand that is like nailing jelly to the wall. It all depends on how the constitution of a country is made up.

I think Grany and I are alike that we understand that we need a HoS who will stand up for the constitution, not take political party positions. Either overtly, or covertly.

I'll mention the President of Ireland and the usual suspects can have a conniption fit.

You are right volver the Head of State is the Queen, although the Governor General performs most of her duties. So not someone involved in the political running of that country.

Being involve politically is, however is what Grany expects of the Queen in the UK. She seems to want the Queen to have some sort of super-power she would not to be allowed to use, but which would solve all problems.

How about the other two now you've shown us with the easy one?

Do you know who the head of state for Germany, Canada or Israel is, for instance?

Head of State of Canada is the Queen.

I don't think its Grany who is confused.

DaisyAnne you seem to like to criticise posters, is it you feel you have ownership as you started the thread topic?

I post how I want to maybe several different topics at once or not you can can pick one, or move on. I don't criticise posters I just comment on what was said, or not. I will say when copied that is the correct way.

You seem confused about what a ceremonial Head of State is and what is expected of them. A republican president would be a ceremonial Head of State with limited powers. As I've said the queen as Head of State does not defend our constitution as other Heads of States do that is the job of HoS ceremonial or not.

Grany, you seem to be throwing subjects at us, one after another, and then inundating the thread with unreferenced quotes. This form of posting makes a reasoned discussion very difficult.

The position of the Queen is one of your very strongly offered opinions. However, you are trying to compare a ceremonial Head of State - such as our Queen, to a political leader. A Head of State is someone who acts on behalf of a country (state) at the highest symbolic level. Do you know who the head of state for Germany, Canada or Israel is, for instance? Your comments about the Queen seem very confused and are therefore hard discuss.

Why not start single threads on each topic? It might then be possible for those interested in individual ones to find a way to discuss them with you.

The reason the Queen is still Queen is she would never consider abdicating , her father became king in the shadow of
his brother who had to leave the county

Grany could you please highlight what are your own words and what are those you have copied form elsewhere without pointing that out - again!

Changes we need as we consider what's next after queen.
A conference from Republic put on during the jubilee was informative
Representatives of Swedish and Duch monarchies spoke about their various campaigns that were having a positive effect.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mGUU7zyWa8&t=76s
Swedish and Dutch Monarchies will go

Alliance of European Republican Movements
The Alliance of European Republican Movements is a grouping of republican movements from across Europe. It was established in Stockholm in June 2010, after the wedding of Swedish Crown Princess Victoria and Daniel Westling.

Countries in the Caribbean have said they want to become republic also Australia New Zealand Canada are talking about this too.

The Commission on Political Power's paper options though limited were good and the talk between Polly and Alendra should be very informative and interesting to listen to when on YouTube.

So there are people that think changes are needed after queen goes there needs to be discussion and there is discussion taking place with the CPP paper. It's been said and thought that the reason queen staying on so long is Charles would not make a good king

Well between a monarchy or a president what else is there to choose.

I'm not rooting for the monarch Grany just don't think a president is any kind of solution.

PR is a given for me. But not the half-baked version we rejected during the coalition government!

The first thing we should do that will make a real difference is PR Andy Burnham said Labour should seize this moment opportunity.

A bill of rights is something the parties should consider, a written constitution

A responsible Government would respond with a process for a new British Bill of Rights. A smart Opposition would demand one.

The Commision on Political Power gave some interesting but limited options. Conversation discussion between Polly Toynbee and Alexandra Hall Hall. With Polly winning the argument worth seeing when it is on YouTube

A president would have limited power but would defend our constitution NotSpaghetti unlike the queen as Head of State The monarchy serves the politicians and the royals, not the people.

Thank you Grany. I did read the links but so much was raised in them I actually didn't really know what you were thinking.
Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think a written constitution is something we can do well enough, quickly enough. I am not hostile to it but we have to deal with the current mob first.
A president seems a mistake as it's putting power in the hands of one person.

NotSpaghetti

I feel this is very off-track now to be honest.

I'm still hoping for a reply from you Grany to my question from Monday - 11-Jul-22 21:51:15
I feel that you are making statements but not really entering into conversation.

I think we need to do as Elegran suggests to be honest - sort out this specific mess first.

Well NotSpaghetti I think I made my views clear if you read through the posts. A president, a written constitution.

I feel this is very off-track now to be honest.

I'm still hoping for a reply from you Grany to my question from Monday - 11-Jul-22 21:51:15
I feel that you are making statements but not really entering into conversation.

I think we need to do as Elegran suggests to be honest - sort out this specific mess first.

The suggestions sound very interesting. I knew Brown was working on something but I didn't catch what.

I have been saying for years that we need to turn the HoP into a parliament for England and have the upper house as a revising house and a parliament for each and all the nations.

I can't see what they intend to do with the HoP. Worth watching. If Brown has put this together, he will have been very diligent.