Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 140 posts

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#11

Post by deskamess »

Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

There is no need for it. That Royal Assent requirement is both BS and law and needs to be done away with. But Canadians who love monarchy are happy to require others to 'swear allegiance to the King/Queen AND heirs' - which includes the pedophile Andrew. There really is no need for this third party to be involved in Canadian affairs. Yes it is in the constitution right now but if you have some self respect and feel that swearing allegiance to some other person is not in line with equality of human beings then you have to stand against it.

Props to Australia for taking the first step and making it not part of the citizenship oath. The other ties are still there but at least you are not making people swear allegiance.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#12

Post by mightypirate »

Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

No post body was provided.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#13

Post by ajvs »

simonh wrote: post #6
Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…

Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#14

Post by defrost »

Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

The notion of some abstraction beyond and devoid of day to day | year to year to year political grubbing has some value.

The US has its Constitution, Canada and Australia (my country) have had the Queen.

The monarchy in many Commonwealth countries is effectively toothless having no actual power (certainly in Australia; following the Queens GG in Australia dismissing the Whitlam government some years ago that last loophole of power was written out) but they serve as some notion of something that binds us and transcends party politics.

I'm not sure whether Australia will stay the course with the monarchy now the Queen has passed, the Republicans here have been a growing force and Charles III doesn't have the respect his mother had.

I certainly have no particular attachment to the UK firm.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#15

Post by rsynnott »

Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

Probably a non-executive elected president, like Ireland or Germany. The Irish position, in particular, was fairly explicitly created as a monarch substitute.

Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#16

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

One fairly thorough answer:

https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state

> The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to:

* represent the nation

* defend our democracy

* act as referee in the political process

* offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration

> The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#17

Post by n4r9 »

simonh wrote: post #6
Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…

> explain themselves and answer for their actions

Is that really what happens, though? And if so, what if the monarch isn't satisfied with the answer?

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#19

Post by throwaway47263 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #16
Pasorrijer wrote: post #3

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

One fairly thorough answer: https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state > The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to: * represent the nation * defend our democracy * act as referee in the political process * offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration > The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new hea…

No post body was provided.

Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

#20

Post by triceratops »

throwaway47263 wrote: post #19
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One fairly thorough answer: https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state > The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to: * represent the nation * defend our democracy * act as referee in the political process * offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration > The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new hea…

Quoted post unavailable.

Countries with ceremonial presidents don't necessarily have career politicians in the role. The easiest example I can think of is India's ex-president Kalam, who was a scientist.

And I think republicans prefer the scoundrel chosen by the people than the one descended from a long line of worse and worse scoundrels, the further you go back.

(I personally don't have strong opinions either way).

Post reply on HN