The monarchy

But I’m not allowed to ask questions about the Republican system.

I answered your questions Lathyrus. Maybe you didn't like the answers, I don't know. But I answered your questions and you have now adopted the position that you are being told you can't ask questions and you are being dismissed.

Now there's talk of a Totalitarian government. Its bizarre, honestly.

Lathyrus

Would the HoS Role be separate to the Government or incorporated as in America?

I’d find it interesting if you could give a picture of what the new constitution would look like in practice, how elections would be held, what powers an elected HoS would have etc.

I don’t really have much faith in ideologies. I always want to know how would this work.
Taking into account human nature?

A few of my questions.

volver

A republic wouldn't be Shangri-La. Look at the US; the attempted coup in Jan 6th last year. And if you're Googling, also Google the Thai monarchy, see what happened there recently.

No governance system is foolproof. But the system I favour is one where we can remove a HoS from office if they turn out to be a stinker. Where the HoS isn't the HoG, but an additional, effective and integral part of how this country is run. And where they actually do some work for us, rather than expecting us to be grateful for a wave and their gracious presence at the village fete. They are at the apex of the class system in this country, and I feel we need to fix that dysfunctional part of our society.

As for all the questions about how it would work, here's the thing; we get to decide. Not a 1,000 year old tradition that makes us look and feel like a medieval fiefdom, but we decide, here in the 21st century. And despite all the chaos we have at the moment in Parliament, it's better that we decide rather than just having to put up with what we're given. I am incredulous that people think we shouldn't rock the boat because we can't be trusted with any additional democracy.

We were only one polo accident away from King Andrew, remember.

This was your next post

Lathyrus

A couple more questions, if people don’t mind.

How would an elected President step in if they believed a Government was acting against the Constitution. I mean exactly would they have the power to do?

If they had the power (like Charles l) to close Parliament how would a President be stopped from taking power.

Which leads me onto what process would there be to remove a President who was abusing their position?

I am interested in how a Republic would work, not just having an argument ?

A few more of my questions

An elected HoS would be the opposite of relying on personality.
Really? And you’d guarantee that how? Someone with no personality would stand no chance. Someone who knows the right words and knows how to work the system would find it easier.

volver

Lathyrus

A couple more questions, if people don’t mind.

How would an elected President step in if they believed a Government was acting against the Constitution. I mean exactly would they have the power to do?

If they had the power (like Charles l) to close Parliament how would a President be stopped from taking power.

Which leads me onto what process would there be to remove a President who was abusing their position?

I am interested in how a Republic would work, not just having an argument ?

I don't think it helps to compare a modern democracy with how things panned out in the 17th century. I also don't think we can draft a whole new constitution on Gransnet .

Anyway. There's no belief about it. If we have a proper constitution that defines what the roles and responsibilities of a government are, the any HoS would be able to identify when the "rules" have been broken, or are in danger of being broken. That doesn't mean they "take power", it means they use the authority our constitution gives them to ensure Parliament is sovereign; not that a PM and their buddies thinks they can change the rules about when Parliament sits to suit themselves, or that a government can enforce policies that haven't been voted for in a manifesto.

They can be removed from power because they have a fixed term of office and so get to vote for them. If they are corrupt and line their own pockets, vote them out. If they end up being in cahoots with the PM of the day and undermining the stability of this nation, vote them out next time round.

As opposed to having a family we venerate because of who their ancestors are, who will do nothing to prevent the above things happening and line their own pockets because we think its only right that they have nice things.

Your next post

I don’t think you really answered anything. Just reduced it to the “family” that you don’t happen to like.

Actually I’ve just thought. It all sounds a bit like Brexit.

Just do it, don’t ask how it’s going to work, we’ll sort that out afterwards.

That turned out well.

I answered your questions Lathyrus. I answered them to the best of my ability. If you were waiting for itemised points from a constitution that has not yet been written, then you are going to be disappointed.

You have ended by assuming that I "don't like" a particular family. I don't know if I like them or not because I have never met any of them. I know that I dislike the fact that we defer to people and allow them privileges not because of what they do, but because of who their ancestors were.

This, in fact, is why I wish I'd never started the thread. It's impossible to actually have a proper conversation, because underlying it is the accusation that we can't tell you the absolute way things will work. Some people want to create the future, some want to have it all set up for them without any risks. Some won't take a broader view of anything but want everything explained and itemised, line by line. Guess which group I'm in.

Lathyrus

I don’t think you really answered anything. Just reduced it to the “family” that you don’t happen to like.

That just about sums up the 5 pages of this thread.

Volver has answered questions and explains things very well.

What an Elected president does his role in defending our constitution

Don't know what else you would need explaining

You also have to compare it to what we have to see the difference

Here is Republic website
Might give you understanding what is wanted and how it could happen.

www.republic.org.uk/what_we_want

Is this the latest thing on GN? Title a thread with one word to discuss the opposite. Could be lots of fun.

Volver, do you think a constitutional monarchy helps to perpetuate the social class structure as is?

If so, would you or someone else take us through the argument?

Grany

Volver has answered questions and explains things very well.

What an Elected president does his role in defending our constitution

Don't know what else you would need explaining

You also have to compare it to what we have to see the difference

Here is Republic website
Might give you understanding what is wanted and how it could happen.

www.republic.org.uk/what_we_want

Actually Grany, like volver says, I’m someone who wants the detail.

So with sound bites like an elected President will defend the Constitution or an elected President will call the Government to account my questions will always be so how will that actually work, what will happen when he does that?
What will the Presidents powers be to intervene? Confined to pointing out that the Government is going against the Constitution? Power to dismiss the Government? What exactly?

Now I know my mindset might be irritating to people who prefer to operate on the vision and the big picture, but I think it’s just as valid a way of exploring the issue.

Volver, do you think a constitutional monarchy helps to perpetuate the social class structure as is?

Yes I do. Obviously it does. A constitutional monarchy gives an unelected person access to influence the government, only because of who their ancestors were. That person may be good at the job, or they may be diabolical. But whatever their talents or lack of them, we can do nothing about it. We have to accept it because years and years of tradition mean that they get a go and we don't. This reinforces the idea that some people can do certain things that others of us will never be able to do and will never have the chance to do, just because they happen to have been born in the right place.

Actually Grany, like volver says, I’m someone who wants the detail.

Then understand that the detail doesn't exist yet and no matter how much you demand to know, nobody can tell you. So you just sit there demanding What exactly? What exactly? and the rest of us will work it out and tell you. But don't come running complaining about how you didn't get a say.

An elected president, an elected government !

?

So just plunge ahead blindly and hope for the best?

Well, like I said, it worked for Brexit. Didn’t it?

No of course not. Why are you even saying that? It's ridiculous. We are talking about the concept of Republic compared with the concept of a Monarchy. Nobody's asking you to vote in a referendum tomorrow.

Can we not talk about any change at all until we have a completely detailed and costed plan? We'll never get anywhere with anything.

Comparing this discussion with Brexit is even more ridiculous. I'm quite speechless, actually.

But if you can’t answer even the most basic questions about what powers an elected President would have, you haven’t thought it through at any level at all.

It’s just an egalitarian dream of an ideal world where all wrongs will be righted and everyone, especially the President, will be a model of justice and work for the common good.

I think it’s like Brexit because people might be swayed by the big vision, to vote for something that they think will make their life better when, in real life, things stand or fall by the detail you so despise.

Like I said.

Ridiculous.

volver

^Volver, do you think a constitutional monarchy helps to perpetuate the social class structure as is?^

Yes I do. Obviously it does. A constitutional monarchy gives an unelected person access to influence the government, only because of who their ancestors were. That person may be good at the job, or they may be diabolical. But whatever their talents or lack of them, we can do nothing about it. We have to accept it because years and years of tradition mean that they get a go and we don't. This reinforces the idea that some people can do certain things that others of us will never be able to do and will never have the chance to do, just because they happen to have been born in the right place.

This is true, and no monarchists can deny it.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

volver

^Actually Grany, like volver says, I’m someone who wants the detail.^

Then understand that the detail doesn't exist yet and no matter how much you demand to know, nobody can tell you. So you just sit there demanding What exactly? What exactly? and the rest of us will work it out and tell you. But don't come running complaining about how you didn't get a say.

'the detail doesn't exist yet'
So we just have yet another thread on the OP's dislike of the present system, same old

So we just have yet another thread on the OP's dislike of the present system, same old

You haven't actually read and understood any of my posts, have you?