21–30 of 86 posts
Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK.
Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs?
Island nations are one thing, but Canada? Australia?
Dont get it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…
> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…
Plus, I think you misunderstand the role of a symbolic president, they are not meant to be the arbiter of fit laws passed in vote by parliament.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia voted no. Many assume this was older anglo Australians who revere the Queen and hope for a re vote when Charles accedes to the throne. He's a nong, and has much less visible support, and even active opposition. I personally suspect it's the dichotomy of directly elected president or a chamber elected symbolic president which functionally is what the governor general is. Basically the republican vote was spl…
> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…
While royal assent is technically a power held by a GG they don't actually wield it in practice, once that power were given to an elected office then the elections would become about the use of that power and the role would be very different.
As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…
>their laws can be overriden at any time
only in theory. I think the key to such a successful survival of the English monarchy is their understanding of the limits of their power - granted that understanding came as a result of almost losing it all back then. Yet they were the only one who survived the WWI - and i think it is no coincidence that their power was the most limited compare to the failed monarchies of Russia, Austria, Prussia.
I'm kind of fascinated by the steel will and nerves of the Queen who is maintaining that image of "granny" and is making sure to not show any teeth - and thus she is accomplishing the grand task of the survival of the monarchy on her watch. It it like the only thing that keeps her going is the high chance of failure of the monarchy if Charles gets the crown and she just can't let that happen.
As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…
Take, for example, Barbados, which is dependent on foreign tourism and foreign investment. If you are going to invest in Barbados, you'd like to know that your property rights will be respected, that contracts will be honored, and that there will be due process in case there is a dispute.
Being a commonwealth nation is one of the things that helps sway that in your favor, particularly for small island nations, primarily due to the British history of respect for property, English common law (which is less amenable to be changed by fiat), and an impartial judiciary.
Obviously that's not the only thing you'd look at, but it's one of the things you'd take into account.
On the other hand if you are a major nation like Australia it doesn't matter. But if you are an island like Barbados, you need all the help you can get to demonstrate to investors that their investment will not be confiscated the next time some populist comes to power.
Curious if when Queen Elizabeth passes away, if there will be a surge in republican interest in the various realms outside of the UK. For the vast majority of the population in those countries, she's the only monarch they've ever known. Once Charles, or perhaps William, takes over, that link to the past will have been severed.
This actually terrified me, as Britain being willing to give up the commonwealth when the Queen dies may mean serious contests for who gets to write new constitutions. It's not so much a matter of removing the Queen as head of state as unsealing the document, so someone says while you are there, we need this, and we will fight you if we don't get it. You see how this escalates immediately, and all together within mon…
No one is talking about terminating the Commonwealth. Nor does Britain qua Britain have any role in any of this. These are separate constitutional monarchies vested in the same individual but with entirely separate governments. Britain already gave up authority over them when they became independent.
> It's not so much a matter of removing the Queen as head of state as unsealing the document
In many cases, the documents have been revised multiple times in recent decades. They aren't Holy Writ. And while a less popular monarch may accelerate Republicanism, its unlikely to trigger a simultaneous rush for the exits.
> someone says while you are there, we need this, and we will fight you if we don't get it. You see how this escalates immediately, and all together within months of the Queen's death.
I see what you arr imagining, but I don't see it as particularly likely.
> What are the odds of over 50 countries ever trying to rewrite their constitutions in a lifetime,
Pretty high. In fact, pretty much every country on Earth, of which therr are significantly more than 50, has revised their Constituion in living memory, most have done so in the last 20 years. [0]
> and then again what are they to do that simultaneously ?
Again, there are probably more than 50 working on revisions at any given time. Not unusual at all.
> I can only hope it will be mostly peaceful?
Why wouldn't it be? The (much fewer than 50) countries sharing a monarch with the UK are largely ones that have revised their Constitutions peacefully multiple times recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This actually terrified me, as Britain being willing to give up the commonwealth when the Queen dies may mean serious contests for who gets to write new constitutions. It's not so much a matter of removing the Queen as head of state as unsealing the document, so someone says while you are there, we need this, and we will fight you if we don't get it. You see how this escalates immediately, and all together within mon…
>What are the odds of over 50 countries ever trying to rewrite their constitutions in a lifetime, Why would 50 countries be rewriting their constitutions ? Only 16 "realms" of the Commonwealth actually have the Queen as head of state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a symbolic minor depoliticised role is better to me There would be no harm in directly electing such a person, and it would be good to prevent the government of the day using its majority to elect a president who just rubber-stamps whatever they want. The advantage of having a directly elected president, is that they can act as a check and balance against a government which concentrates executive and legislative po…
If you gave an elected official outside of parliament the power to veto legislation they would have a lot more power than the governor general now wields in practice. While royal assent is technically a power held by a GG they don't actually wield it in practice, once that power were given to an elected office then the elections would become about the use of that power and the role would be very different.
As a non-Commonwealth person, I don’t really get it. Can someone explain why all these countries keep rejecting the idea of leaving the Commonwealth? The people keep doing it. Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK. Are people really so enamored by the crown? Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs? Island n…
Are you confusing leaving the Commonwealth with transitioning to a Republic? They are largely unrelated: many members of the Commonwealth have dropped the monarchy.
> Even as vassal states it is such a loose assurance of defense from the UK.
The Commonwealth is neither a set of vassal states nor a defensive pact (and many of the Commonwealth nations have strong defense commitments from, and to, the UK.
> Are people really so enamored by the crown?
I think they are often happy with the relative lack of drama of a locally appointed non-executive “President” exercise ministerial functions without the even the symbolic prestige of being even a figurehead head of state, with a formal head of state with no interest in intervening in government.
> Do they really feel comfort in the possibility that their laws can be overriden at any time but simply never occurs?
No, they probably realize that the actual power of a government actor isn't what's on a piece of paper but what people will back, and that intervention that is formally forbidden but political practical is a risk, while that which is formally permitted but politically impossible is none.
Sometimes I wonder if we generally have too high of expectations about how quickly good government can be established. Technology and media move very quickly, and it's easy to think "just git clone the laws and deploy" and you'll have the same results as whatever country you're emulating. But it doesn't happen that way. I'm not really making an argument here, just wondering out loud. I don't want this to be interpret…