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

51–60 of 140 posts

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

#51

Post by pjc50 »

Veen wrote: post #42
groby_b wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> England (and later the UK) has not had anything resembling a revolution since 1688

England, I'll give you. We can ignore Peterloo. But everyone always forgets Ireland successfully leaving the UK through a combination of armed struggle and political action. Not so much the stabilizing influence of the monarchy as the willingness to shell Dublin or fire randomly into protests in Northern Ireland. And quite a lot of the Twitter anti-monarchism at the moment has been from Kenyans.

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

#52

Post by kibwen »

> "It does not represent any form of disrespect to the monarch. This is not an act of hostility, or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy," he added. "It is a final step to complete the circle of independence to become a truly sovereign nation."

Seems sensible to me.

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

#53

Post by 627467 »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #4

"King Charles III had just taken the throne last week when one Caribbean leader floated the idea of doing away with the British monarch as his country's head of state." This is sloppy reporting. Browne has previously made clear his intention to do what Barbados did and hold a referendum to get rid of the British monarch as ceremonial head of state if and when wins another term. He was asked by the press at the access…

Any UK monarchy news gets attention... Anything "may" happen, specially when it has been announced in the recent past. Like you say: there was always a plan for the ref, so this is non-news.

Also, why is this in HN frontpage. I get the curiosity of Republicanism v. Monarchy. This does NOT seem to be a good article to be having this discussion.

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

#54

Post by visiblink »

bluepizza wrote: post #48
giarc wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms.

That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.

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

#55

Post by maccard »

smcl wrote: post #47
simonh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Scottish people.

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

#56

Post by melesian »

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.

In Ireland we have an elected President whose duties are largely ceremonial (laying wreaths, giving speeches, meeting dignitaries incl newly appointed diplomats etc) but include one v important constitutional duty: to sign legislation into law. It has happened that a President refused to sign without first referring controversial legislation to the Supreme Court.

In the UK the Crown has nominally comparable authority but is in fact nothing but a glove puppet, or at least that has been the case to date. See e.g., the Queen's acquiescence to the illegal prorogation of parliament. She did was she was told to do in her own name. Her son may not be so accommodating and this may lead to a constitutional crisis.

Some check on an overweening executive is always good.

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

#57

Post by kergonath »

visiblink wrote: post #49
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.

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

There are lots of republics in which the president has only a ceremonial role. Germany and Italy, for example. There are absolute monarchs as well. The title does not indicate the effective power of the role.

> A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

So is the president, if you have an appropriate constitution. This is the key, not the fancy title you give to your head of state.

A monarchy has the downside that who gets to be the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic.

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

#58

Post by melesian »

Veen wrote: post #42
groby_b wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to have entirely airbrushed from history the loss of 1/3 of the UK's land area scarcely 100 years ago.

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

#59

Post by bena »

culturestate wrote: post #44
bena wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unl…

Yes, I understand it's been like this for a while, but that doesn't make the law Constitutional. Several things the "actual people who signed the Constitution" did were deemed to be unconstitutional. Why? Because there were many people who ratified the Constitution, each with their own ideas.

Even when the 1792 version of the bill was signed, the issue was brought up. By the "actual people who signed the Constitution".

And we've never had to actually test the Presidential Succession Act, which is where the courts would decide if it actually meets the Constitutional standard. The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal.

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

#60

Post by kibwen »

visiblink wrote: post #49
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.

You don't need a monarch for that. If you're going to have an unaccountable position filled by someone without any demonstrable merit, then have a lottery once per year that draws a random citizen to fill the role.
Post reply on HN