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

81–90 of 140 posts

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

#81

Post by cmrdporcupine »

deskamess wrote: post #32
AmadsSalvage wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Indeed my own father waited almost 30 years before he finally got his Canadian citizenship, and lived as a landed immigrant (with German citizenship); paying his taxes and participating in society but not becoming a citizen (and not getting to vote despite being a strong NDP supporter...) and his stated reason for this was his abhorrence for declaring allegiance to the monarchy. A monarchy which many Germans blame for the mass firebombing of civilians at the end of WWII.

It's fine for you and I who are born into citizenship without having to do this ritual. For immigrants, this can be very jarring.

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

#82

Post by n4r9 »

kitd wrote: post #46
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…

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.

> PMs have said it is about the only time they get to talk through issues and ideas with someone knowledgeable and invested

That's interesting - please could you give any pointers to who said this and when?

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

#83

Post by [deleted] »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #74
smcl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scots aren’t British? That’s great news, I’m gonna go update my passport!

1. "Let's take a look a look at what humans think about communism: " 2. "That's just north koreans" 3. "North koreans aren't humans?" Comment #3 is not a valid counterargument to comment #2. The point is that Scots may not be a representative sample of "all Brits", even if Scots are Brits.

[deleted]

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

#84

Post by [deleted] »

nemothekid wrote: post #69
visiblink wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You could choose them by lot and limit their terms. That is, by definition, not a monarchy

[deleted]

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

#85

Post by sanitycheck »

kitd wrote: post #41
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.

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

Carbon footprint of ordinary British person: 10 tonnes. Carbon footprint of Prince Charles: 432 tonnes. (2019)

Talks to his plants though, allegedly.

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

#86

Post by Symbiote »

unpopularopp wrote: post #67

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden,…

You've named all the European monarchies other than Luxembourg, Spain and microstates.

I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc.

See map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe

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

#87

Post by Symbiote »

theplumber wrote: post #62

I don't really understand how this whole monarchy thing is really big news. The monarch has mostly a ceremonial role and would see the door as soon it's trying to project power over the so called realms including the home country(i.e UK). It's good to hear it at the end of the news but definitly not frontpage news.

It is ceremonial according to the PR department of the royal family.

In practise, Charles tried to influence government ministers, and Cameron seems to think there should be less transparency over this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/entirely-rig...

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

#88

Post by CogitoCogito »

unpopularopp wrote: post #67

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden,…

> There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

What reason is that?

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

#89

Post by thrownawaysz »

Symbiote wrote: post #86
unpopularopp wrote: post #67

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden,…

You've named all the European monarchies other than Luxembourg, Spain and microstates. I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc. See map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe

Italy has had 69 governments since the end of WW2, they usually don't last more than a year. Not the prime example of stability.

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

#90

Post by smcl »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #74
smcl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scots aren’t British? That’s great news, I’m gonna go update my passport!

1. "Let's take a look a look at what humans think about communism: " 2. "That's just north koreans" 3. "North koreans aren't humans?" Comment #3 is not a valid counterargument to comment #2. The point is that Scots may not be a representative sample of "all Brits", even if Scots are Brits.

No, my (possibly too subtle) point was that this might be the moment where Scots begin to cease thinking of themselves as Brits. I don't think there's any danger of the DPRK declaring themselves non-human
Post reply on HN