Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by lbriner » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:30 PM UTC

n4r9 wrote: post #17

simonh wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Monarch has no power to force an opinion but that is not the point. Having a safe and secret place for a PM to discuss difficult situations with somebody who has probably seen most of them before is immensely powerful.

I know some believe that all government should be open/public but I suspect in many cases that means that real discussions don't take place out of fear of offence or backlash from the public. If you were toying with the idea of e.g. privatising the NHS or selling off a load of gold for raising funds, you might want to discuss these privately before they end up as a Headline.

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

#32

Post by deskamess » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:32 PM UTC

AmadsSalvage wrote: post #25

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'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen throug…

Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that.

> I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety

Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy.

> the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is.

In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.

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

#33

Post by mc32 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:34 PM UTC

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.

All those countries, except Scotland and Wales, NI, Mann should do away with the monarchy. The UK may if the whish so, but other countries should have done so a long time ago.

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

#34

Post by afavour » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:35 PM UTC

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.

This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.

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

#35

Post by benj111 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

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 would describe myself as a practical royalist. If I were writing a constitution from scratch I'd never have an undemocratically elected head of state. But, what we have works. Id rather have the queen any day over another politician. I'm British I can understand other nations having differing pov.

I don't know how Canada does it but in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the party. You don't vote directly for them. As such it isn't a democratically elected position so it isn't really any better than the status quo.

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

#36

Post by bombcar » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

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…

> 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).

How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted to choose X for personal political reasons, how do you prove it?

And if you have a method to prove it, why not use that method to arbitrate instead?

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

#37

Post by bombcar » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:46 PM UTC

giarc wrote: post #30

cfcf14 wrote: post #21

As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them? I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but…

I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...

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

#38

Post by bombcar » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:47 PM UTC

zach_garwood wrote: post #18

Imagine being a Commonwealth state and having to update your money. Elizabeth was a handsome queen and looks fine on a bill. Charles, though ... well, he has a face only a mother could love.

If there's one thing monarchies have perfected it is the "flattering painting/coin" of the King where you can recognize it's the King even though it kinda doesn't look much like the King actually does.

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

#39

Post by pjc50 » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #34

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.

This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.

> the "better things aren't possible" party

Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that.

I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative, is pretty small. The House of Lords, the voting system(s) and the constitutional settlement of devolution are far more pressing issues.

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

#40

Post by pmyteh » Mon, Sep 12, 2022, 2:51 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #36

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…

> 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). How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted t…

The model is that of Ireland or Israel: the President's actual powers are similar to those of the King - a handful of 'reserve powers' for use in corner cases. Rather than Charles having to make the call, a ceremonial president does instead.

One of the joys(?) of losing an empire is that there are a bunch of independent countries with political systems derived from yours that can provide concrete examples of the effects of possible reforms...