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

41–50 of 140 posts

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

#41

Post by kitd »

ajvs wrote: post #13
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…

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

He was also heavily supportive of environmental concerns decades before it was mainstream, so maybe he's won it back again.

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

#42

Post by Veen »

groby_b wrote: post #22
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…

I note that your head of state met 15 prime ministers and had them explain themselves. And not once found fault with them. That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss) By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obviou…

Except, of course, that England (and later the UK) has not had anything resembling a revolution since 1688, or 1642 if you don't consider the Glorious Revolution a real revolution. Constitutional monarchy has proven an extremely stable political system.

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

#43

Post by shortsightedsid »

wikfwikf wrote: post #5
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.

Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of. France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.

Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.

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

#44

Post by culturestate »

bena wrote: post #28
onychomys wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn't have a prime minister at all. The president is head of the cabinet, they get to appoint all the heads of the various departments, and then the senate confirms them. The cabinet heads are usually not even from congress, they're often just random governors and politicians who lost during the primary voting for the last election and whatnot.

That's because, in the US, the Executive Branch is vested in the singular person known as the President. The Cabinet is an optional body comprised of the heads of the various Departments of the Federal government. The Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate, but every other member of the Executive Branch serves at the pleasure of the President. I don't think you can be a Cabinet member and a member of Congress. As Ca…

> It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.

Given that the first time the Speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem were proposed as successors under Article II was during the literal 1st Congress in 1792, I think it’s pretty unlikely that any modern court would find that to be unconstitutional.

“Many of the actual people who signed the Constitution thought this was okay and demonstrated their belief by introducing legislation to that effect” is about as ironclad a precedent as you can hope to find.

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

#45

Post by Veen »

ckdarby wrote: post #9
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 am not sure of reasoning behind the downvotes on your comment. I am Canadian and I do not have a good answer either of why we have a head of state aside from historical tradition.

That is the answer: tradition.

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

#46

Post by kitd »

groby_b wrote: post #22
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…

I note that your head of state met 15 prime ministers and had them explain themselves. And not once found fault with them. That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss) By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obviou…

The meetings are strictly private, no minutes are kept, and there is no one in the room with them. PMs have said it is about the only time they get to talk through issues and ideas with someone knowledgeable and invested, without any fear at all of backlash, or of it being leaked or misrepresented.

So your line of argument is way off.

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

#47

Post by smcl »

simonh wrote: post #26
ajvs wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.

Lets take a look at what the British people think so far: https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/156892329675376230...

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

#48

Post by bluepizza »

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…

Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.

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

#49

Post by visiblink »

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.

Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.

The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy.

That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

Post reply on HN