“God Save Our Gracious Thegn”: Designing a Great British Republic

2

Comments

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    The problem with elections is that there is no punishment for the inevitable lying that happens.
    I am completely out of love with democracy as practised almost everywhere. Hold the bastards feet to the fire over the promises. lies and unproven assertions that gain them such power and ability to enrich themselves and their cronies. Impoverish, humiliate and jail them if they don't keep their word.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited March 10
    Going back to Doublethink's specific proposal:
    When you say each party leader gets two nominations and three vetos, I presume you mean parties with seats in the Commons. Or in Parliament generally?
    What happens if parties collaborate in their vetoes in such a way that all candidates are vetoed?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Then your elected head of state would serve, say, 10 years unless impeached. They would then get the same functional powers as the current head of state, with a no political meddling requirement, and the equivalent of a sovereign grant.

    By 'same functional powers' do you mean that they would 'officially' be able to declare war, sign treaties, prorogue Parliament, etc, but that in practice they would take the PM's advice? Or would they exercise their own discretion with the prerogative powers, on the grounds that (unlike the Queen) they have a mandate to do so?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    GG--
    It's a bit like churches which claim to be 'non-denominational.'

    Pssst. I grew up in one. It was fundamentalist, but not part of any denomination or organization.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Canadian sidebar #1: @Lamb Chopped SPK wasn't taking a whack at Americans. To speak for SPK (preemptive apology to SPK if I'm putting words in his mouth), Canadians often suffer from an anxiety regarding the US and de facto absorption - the US is, after all, 10x the population of Canada.

    And I don't think that every Canadian who likes the monarchy as a dividing point with the USA is neccessarily anti-American either. I'd imagine most people in Louisiana would be unhappy if it were proposed to re-label their parishes as "counties", but that probably isn't a sign of anti-Every Other Stateism.

    (There are, unfortunately, a certain number of Canadians who elevate cosmetic differences between Canada and the States to the level of a moral issue, which can lead to some rather comical inconsistencies. I used to know a guy who a) criticized Americans for not following the British parliamentary system, and b) mocked them for not embracing metric. Even though metric is one of the least "British" aspects of Canadian culture.)

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    If anyone wants the job, they probably shouldn't get it as their aim will likely be to "Lord it" rather than serve.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 10
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Maybe, but I’d prefer we march no more children behind a coffin through our capital and drive less folk to suicidal despair for the sake of putting on a good show.
    They didn't march. It was a slow walk and in years to come they may well be proud of the moment.

    As for your second comment, those with issues need to seek help from a professional rather than a talk show host

    Coping with something terrible may be a source of pride, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should have been put in that situation in the first place. As to your second comment, an institution that repeatedly trashes the mental health of certain of its members is a problem - regardless of how they subsequently seek help.

    The history of our monarchy is a history people destroyed, both by the institution itself and by the way its powers have been used.

    In the twentieth century alone, we have the abdication - cos God forbid Edward marry for love. Then we have him unforgiven by the queen mother - not just for his nazi sympathies - but also because becoming king screwed up his brothers life. We have our queen raised in such a way she can not contemplate retirement even at the age of 94. We have the queen mother fucking up Charles and Diana’s lives by interfering to prevent his marriage to Camilla in the first place - cos God forbid Charles marry for love either. And we have the damage done by the tabloids. We have the massive absentee landhoarding, the reinforcement of a class system that mutilates lives on an industrial scale. We have the lack of personal freedom and agency inflicted on the “working” royals - perhaps William’s children won’t all be obliged to join the army but who knows.

    I could go on.

    And this is why I would prefer us not to have a hereditary monarchy. Quite simply, it's not fair that anyone should be born into being a character in the national soap opera without the option to leave and live their lives in the obscurity the rest of us are blessed with. If someone chooses to seek national prominence through election, then it's (arguably) reasonable to assume that they have done so with their eyes open and accept everything that comes with the job.

    I was rather headed in the other direction. Having kept the Monarchy as a sop to the conservative working class, I suggest you place them in an environment rather like the Truman show. Then run a TV show called "Royal Island", with a production team writing stories for them, little challenges to overcome and whatnot, and heavily edit the thing before broadcast of course. That way you could run tours of the Island, maybe charge enormous sums for guest roles on the show, get product placement in there and bing bang boom, the country is making a profit off the bastards.

    It might even help you get over the Brexit depression.
  • I thought... that was more or less what we were doing already....
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    edited March 10
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Maybe, but I’d prefer we march no more children behind a coffin through our capital and drive less folk to suicidal despair for the sake of putting on a good show.
    They didn't march. It was a slow walk and in years to come they may well be proud of the moment.

    As for your second comment, those with issues need to seek help from a professional rather than a talk show host

    Coping with something terrible may be a source of pride, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should have been put in that situation in the first place. As to your second comment, an institution that repeatedly trashes the mental health of certain of its members is a problem - regardless of how they subsequently seek help.

    The history of our monarchy is a history people destroyed, both by the institution itself and by the way its powers have been used.

    In the twentieth century alone, we have the abdication - cos God forbid Edward marry for love. Then we have him unforgiven by the queen mother - not just for his nazi sympathies - but also because becoming king screwed up his brothers life. We have our queen raised in such a way she can not contemplate retirement even at the age of 94. We have the queen mother fucking up Charles and Diana’s lives by interfering to prevent his marriage to Camilla in the first place - cos God forbid Charles marry for love either. And we have the damage done by the tabloids. We have the massive absentee landhoarding, the reinforcement of a class system that mutilates lives on an industrial scale. We have the lack of personal freedom and agency inflicted on the “working” royals - perhaps William’s children won’t all be obliged to join the army but who knows.

    I could go on.

    And this is why I would prefer us not to have a hereditary monarchy. Quite simply, it's not fair that anyone should be born into being a character in the national soap opera without the option to leave and live their lives in the obscurity the rest of us are blessed with. If someone chooses to seek national prominence through election, then it's (arguably) reasonable to assume that they have done so with their eyes open and accept everything that comes with the job.

    I was rather headed in the other direction. Having kept the Monarchy as a sop to the conservative working class, I suggest you place them in an environment rather like the Truman show. Then run a TV show called "Royal Island", with a production team writing stories for them, little challenges to overcome and whatnot, and heavily edit the thing before broadcast of course. That way you could run tours of the Island, maybe charge enormous sums for guest roles on the show, get product placement in there and bing bang boom, the country is making a profit off the bastards.

    It might even help you get over the Brexit depression.

    I'm not sure how 'reality shows' work on your island (ok - continent), but on this one the contestants volunteer to take part. If they don't want to be ritually humiliated, they don't have to volunteer for the show.

    (Yes, I know. @Simon Toad is joking. At least, I hope he's joking.)
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited March 10
    If the monarch is to be replaced, I would much prefer an elected Head of State, rather than someone installed by the members of the Lower House.

    It depends what you want the Head of State to do. Are you looking for a ceremonial role - someone to host state dinners, cut ribbons outside new community centres, and administer pats on the head to deserving people, or are you intending that the role should have an element of political leadership?

    In the former role, it seems like you'd be electing some kind of "national treasure" type celebrity. Mr. Jimmy Savile was quite popular at one point in time, wasn't he?
  • The Truman show idea is good. Marina Hyde (Guardian), commented that the royal family is a fairy story, but out of Grimm.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Maybe, but I’d prefer we march no more children behind a coffin through our capital and drive less folk to suicidal despair for the sake of putting on a good show.
    They didn't march. It was a slow walk and in years to come they may well be proud of the moment.

    As for your second comment, those with issues need to seek help from a professional rather than a talk show host

    Coping with something terrible may be a source of pride, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should have been put in that situation in the first place. As to your second comment, an institution that repeatedly trashes the mental health of certain of its members is a problem - regardless of how they subsequently seek help.

    The history of our monarchy is a history people destroyed, both by the institution itself and by the way its powers have been used.

    In the twentieth century alone, we have the abdication - cos God forbid Edward marry for love. Then we have him unforgiven by the queen mother - not just for his nazi sympathies - but also because becoming king screwed up his brothers life. We have our queen raised in such a way she can not contemplate retirement even at the age of 94. We have the queen mother fucking up Charles and Diana’s lives by interfering to prevent his marriage to Camilla in the first place - cos God forbid Charles marry for love either. And we have the damage done by the tabloids. We have the massive absentee landhoarding, the reinforcement of a class system that mutilates lives on an industrial scale. We have the lack of personal freedom and agency inflicted on the “working” royals - perhaps William’s children won’t all be obliged to join the army but who knows.

    I could go on.

    And this is why I would prefer us not to have a hereditary monarchy. Quite simply, it's not fair that anyone should be born into being a character in the national soap opera without the option to leave and live their lives in the obscurity the rest of us are blessed with. If someone chooses to seek national prominence through election, then it's (arguably) reasonable to assume that they have done so with their eyes open and accept everything that comes with the job.

    I was rather headed in the other direction. Having kept the Monarchy as a sop to the conservative working class, I suggest you place them in an environment rather like the Truman show. Then run a TV show called "Royal Island", with a production team writing stories for them, little challenges to overcome and whatnot, and heavily edit the thing before broadcast of course. That way you could run tours of the Island, maybe charge enormous sums for guest roles on the show, get product placement in there and bing bang boom, the country is making a profit off the bastards.

    It might even help you get over the Brexit depression.

    I'm not sure how 'reality shows' work on your island (ok - continent), but on this one the contestants volunteer to take part. If they don't want to be ritually humiliated, they don't have to volunteer for the show.

    (Yes, I know. @Simon Toad is joking. At least, I hope he's joking.)

    I want to say "only in the sense that it will never happen". But yes, I'm joking. I'm not joking about using the Monarchy as a sop to the conservative working class while you turn the place into an actual democracy with a written constitution and punishing death duties.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Panem et circenses? We can do better than that.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited March 10
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Panem et circenses? We can do better than that.

    Yes but we won't because few people believe strongly enough in anything else, and certainly there's nothing that most people believe in strongly and consistently enough.

    Chesterton again: "There was a time when the Established Church might have fallen, and the House of Lords nearly fell. It was because Radicals were wise enough to be constant and consistent... Ours is only an age of conservation because it is an age of complete unbelief... The net result of ... Communism, Anachism, Scientific Bureaucracy is that the Monarchy and the House of Lords will remain... It was Marx, Nietzsche, Bernard Shaw who between them... bore up the throne of the Archbishop of Canterbury..."
  • Or, mediocrity floats to the top.
  • Honestly, I think my off-the-cuff idea of a 5 year old in a paper hat has legs here. Pick one at random, and give them a year off school. If they fuck up, everybody will be "but they're only five".
  • Well five-year-old rulers are an occasional feature of monarchy as well! It doesn't usually work out well though.
  • It's only for a year, and they get to keep the paper crown.

    It's not like they're Joffrey.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    It's only for a year, and they get to keep the paper crown.

    It's not like they're Joffrey.

    Aha! I belive that is a reference to a popular televisual entertainment programme, known as "Pastime of Royal Chairs" amirite? I may be the last person in the world never to have seen an episode!
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited March 10
    I understand that poisoning five year olds is generally frowned on, no matter how badly they're behaving.

    I've never seen the show either. Fortunately, there were these books...
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Add Princess Margaret to the "God forbid they should marry for love" list.

    To be fair, until very recently, the idea that you would marry simply for love would be revolutionary for anyone. I don't think Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh was ga ga head over the heels in love when they first got together, they liked each other, and Elizabeth had a bit of a crush on Philip, but it was very much the idea that you married and you grew in affection and love over time.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    And yet there was Edward VIII thinking it might be a thing.
  • There's a whole "I treat my daughter like a princess, so I married her off to cement my alliance with the Duke of Saxony" meme.
  • If the monarch is to be replaced, I would much prefer an elected Head of State, rather than someone installed by the members of the Lower House.

    It depends what you want the Head of State to do. Are you looking for a ceremonial role - someone to host state dinners, cut ribbons outside new community centres, and administer pats on the head to deserving people, or are you intending that the role should have an element of political leadership?

    I thought the suggestion was about replacing the queen as a constitutional head of state - a role that is now clearly ceremonial. If anyone is suggesting any kind of "political leadership" my reply would be "no, no and thrice hell no! God save the Queen!"

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited March 10
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Fortunately, there were these books...
    And there may be some more books in the future. I think the plan is to hire Brandon Sanderson.
    (I haven't seen any episodes either.)

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Fortunately, there were these books...
    And there may be some more books in the future. I think the plan is to hire Brandon Sanderson.
    (I haven't seen any episodes either.)

    /tangent As much as I admire Brandon's work-ethic, there are differing opinions as to his completion of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. I'd rather have George's flawed prose when he's ready.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Canadian sidebar #1: @Lamb Chopped SPK wasn't taking a whack at Americans. To speak for SPK (preemptive apology to SPK if I'm putting words in his mouth), Canadians often suffer from an anxiety regarding the US and de facto absorption - the US is, after all, 10x the population of Canada.

    And I don't think that every Canadian who likes the monarchy as a dividing point with the USA is neccessarily anti-American either. I'd imagine most people in Louisiana would be unhappy if it were proposed to re-label their parishes as "counties", but that probably isn't a sign of anti-Every Other Stateism.

    (There are, unfortunately, a certain number of Canadians who elevate cosmetic differences between Canada and the States to the level of a moral issue, which can lead to some rather comical inconsistencies. I used to know a guy who a) criticized Americans for not following the British parliamentary system, and b) mocked them for not embracing metric. Even though metric is one of the least "British" aspects of Canadian culture.)

    Indeed, this anxiety produces all sorts of contortions. In the 1980s The Monarchist League of Canada was selling tchotchkes of Ron and Nancy Reagan, which could be interpreted as (a) the American presidency is an elected monarchy, (b) the MLC was celebrating resurgent conservatism, (c) the MLC is ideologically incoherent, (d) some combination of the above.

    I note that the above posts criticising monarchism per se seem to do exclusively of the British monarchy, without any reference to the other monarchies in Europe. I admit that I'm behind in my reading of the Norwegian tabloids, but the Norwegian Royal Family would seem to be quite popular. King Harald VII seems to be the happy head of a happy family. King Willem-Alexander of The Netherlands, despite an unsavoury father in law and his own Covid misstep, remains popular. Which leads to my question: Is it really republicanism being expressed here, or a specifically British grievance?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 10
    @Pangolin Guerre

    1980s Western separatism had a similar cultural dissonance to it. I've seen an old poster from the NEP era, showing a proposed flag incorporating a Union Jack, but promising a "Republic Of Alberta".

    I think the basic idea was probably that the USA was viewed as more conservative than Canada, and the UK was viewed as the source of our white, anglo supremacist traditions, so both were superior to the vaguely continental socialism that Pierre Trudeau was supposedly pushing.

    I suspect something similar was going on with the royalists selling Ron and Nancy kitsch. People who like the Queen also tend to like white conservative politicians with angloish surnames.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited March 10
    @stetson Wasn't there a head of either the MLC or the Orange Lodge(!) about a decade or so ago whose surname was Italian?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    @stetson Wasn't there a head of either the MLC or the Orange Lodge(!) about a decade or so ago whose surname was Italian?

    No idea. I know there are non-whites in the Canadian Orange Lodge, eg. Mohawks and Blacks(though I think the latter are probably mostly of Loyalist or British Caribbean origin).

    And the former Globe columnist Michael Valpy is someone with what sounds like a non-anglo name, but who was a big-time monarchist. Don't know if he was a member of the MLC, though I'm guessing yes.

  • Golden Key wrote: »
    GG--
    It's a bit like churches which claim to be 'non-denominational.'

    Pssst. I grew up in one. It was fundamentalist, but not part of any denomination or organization.

    Sure, I know the type. I was involved with a so-called 'non-denominational' church which was more denominational than any denomination I've come across.

    I suspect yours was more funding and cessationist though.

    A few random reactions to things mentioned upthread ...

    William and Harry walking behind their mother's coffin. I think they have spoken quite movingly and inclusively about the trauma of that. I seem to remember that there were some rumblings from within Palace sources later that this had been a mistake.

    The Canadian constitutional stuff I find interesting as it makes me realise- shamefully - how little I know about Canada.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Okay, yes. I can't do a link, but apparently, Dominic Di Stasi, an Italian Canadian, was Grand Master for the Orange Lodge Of Canada in the 90s.

    According to the Orange Lodge website, Di Stasi had been a member of a specifically Italian-Canadian lodge, but that "For some of British descent, it took time to accept this lodge."

    One can only imagine what that is a euphemism for.
  • Canadian sidebar #1: @Lamb Chopped SPK wasn't taking a whack at Americans. To speak for SPK (preemptive apology to SPK if I'm putting words in his mouth), Canadians often suffer from an anxiety regarding the US and de facto absorption - the US is, after all, 10x the population of Canada. It not only predates our Confederation, that anxiety was in large part the motivation for our Confederation. Canadians often (lazily, IMO - SPK can speak on that judgement himself) define themselves vis-à-vis Americans by an awkward via negativa; a habit that reflects well on no one.

    Canadian sidebar #2: Without boring the congregation with the finer points of the Canadian constitution, while there is a mechanism for making a structural change at the top that could change the role of the Queen and/or the Governor General (The Constitution Act, 1982, V.41, 41 (a)), it is, in practical terms, Gordian. Further, after our near death experience in the Quebec referendum in 1995 and the battle over the subsequent clarity act, a change in the monarchy in the UK would invite a crisis in Canada - not merely political, but potentially existential - that no reasonable person would happily greet. A constitutional assembly in Canada would be a pig's all-day all-you-can-eat buffet of every province and territory bringing an infinite list of grievances and wishes.

    God save The Queen. (And God help us all.)

    While the dream of Manifest Destiny has pretty well expired, those of us who have had to deal with US worthies on bilateral issues are well accustomed to their puzzlement that Canada exists. A desire to retain marks of difference, however peculiar, is partly one to continue to be a distinct country-- we glory in our polymer banknotes! Many non-Canadians will not be able to get this; but we have been sleeping with the elephant for a few centuries now and we know how it works.... @Pangolin Guerre points out the nightmare of abolishing the monarchy for us, butomits that we need 10 provinces to agree, thanks to the late Richard Hatfield. I doubt if a referendum vote for that to pass could be obtained. Ever. Elizabeth may have to move here with the corgis.

    As far as the UK is concerned (well, we'll have to change the name), one could do worse for a model than that of the Irish presidency which was modelled itself on de Valera's perception of the role of a dominion governor-general. Dev was keen on parliamentary supremacy and was a leading theoretician (for a while) of the First Dail as the sovereign incarnation of the Irish people, and did not want sovereignty to translate to the presidency. This accounts for the limitations and systemization of presidential powers and the occasionally complex way of nominating for the presidency.

    The presidency's two-maximum term of seven years each seems to work well for the Irish. After the first Celtic revival worthy and de Valera himself among a series of apparatchiki (identifying their names requires a degree of nerdiness which astounds Canadian constitution nerds), the Irish have had a series of noteworthy presidents and they seem to really like this.

    Scottish nationalists will possibly submit that the union is personal in the person of the monarch, but I suspect that this is a useful talking point rather than a fondness for the heritage of the Stewarts.

    Another poster has noted the nature of the political class in the UK which I think is a greater problem than that of the monarchy; switching to a republican mode is no guarantee of that being addressed in any way, but that's another thread. Perhaps one could solve many things by relying on the ancient principle of the ruling house being deposed by the arrival of the Prince of Orange, this time piloting his own aircraft.
  • Absolutely not. Any change to an elected head of state snacks of being too American and thus defeats the ultimate purpose of the Monarchy in Canada: it isn't t American.

    Is there a chance you could stop taking whacks at America? I mean, we get it, you think we suck. That's fine, you're entitled to think tht way. But it's getting distracting.

    I was taking digs at Canada. Insecurities and all.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Panem et circenses? We can do better than that.

    Nope. We can't. See attempted fascist coup led by a fat bastard TV star, result inconclusive.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited March 10
    stetson wrote: »
    @Pangolin Guerre

    1980s Western separatism had a similar cultural dissonance to it. I've seen an old poster from the NEP era, showing a proposed flag incorporating a Union Jack, but promising a "Republic Of Alberta".

    Wow. Can't believe I was able to find this.

    A hat, not a poster, and its territorial parameters were a bit more impressive than just Alberta, but the essential contradiction is there.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Maybe, but I’d prefer we march no more children behind a coffin through our capital and drive less folk to suicidal despair for the sake of putting on a good show.
    They didn't march. It was a slow walk and in years to come they may well be proud of the moment.

    As for your second comment, those with issues need to seek help from a professional rather than a talk show host

    Coping with something terrible may be a source of pride, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should have been put in that situation in the first place. As to your second comment, an institution that repeatedly trashes the mental health of certain of its members is a problem - regardless of how they subsequently seek help.

    The history of our monarchy is a history people destroyed, both by the institution itself and by the way its powers have been used.

    In the twentieth century alone, we have the abdication - cos God forbid Edward marry for love. Then we have him unforgiven by the queen mother - not just for his nazi sympathies - but also because becoming king screwed up his brothers life. We have our queen raised in such a way she can not contemplate retirement even at the age of 94. We have the queen mother fucking up Charles and Diana’s lives by interfering to prevent his marriage to Camilla in the first place - cos God forbid Charles marry for love either. And we have the damage done by the tabloids. We have the massive absentee landhoarding, the reinforcement of a class system that mutilates lives on an industrial scale. We have the lack of personal freedom and agency inflicted on the “working” royals - perhaps William’s children won’t all be obliged to join the army but who knows.

    I could go on.

    and through all this, Her Majesty continues with her whole life task. She has been let down a lot but she carries on
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I'm perfectly happy for her to hang up het clogs. Whatever it is she does, be it ever so industriously, is as relevant to me as the fortunes of the Swiss olympic beach volleyball team.

    I don't really mind whether a president is elected through a direct public vote or voted for by Parliament. I rather think the role could be combined with that of leader of a reformed upper chamber replacing the House of Lords.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    My other objections notwithstanding, I do like that last suggestion. It has a neatness to it and a nod to the past.
  • Absolutely not. Any change to an elected head of state snacks of being too American and thus defeats the ultimate purpose of the Monarchy in Canada: it isn't t American.

    Is there a chance you could stop taking whacks at America? I mean, we get it, you think we suck. That's fine, you're entitled to think tht way. But it's getting distracting.

    I was taking digs at Canada. Insecurities and all.

    FWIW this was my understanding of what was happening.
  • Pangolin GuerrePangolin Guerre Shipmate
    edited March 11
    @Augustine the Aleut I didn't mention unanimity, the difficulties therewith, etc. because that was getting into the niceties I had hoped to avoid. I thought that describing it as "Gordian" would be enough to get the sense across to those outside the tribe.

    I some strange twists of history, I could create a scenario by which the monarchy in Canada outlives that in the UK. Some cadet branch comes to Canada to paste over the cracks left by a vacuum on the throne in the UK while we get our affairs sorted out, and we never quite finish the job. We have a genius for the half-assed.
  • stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    @Pangolin Guerre

    1980s Western separatism had a similar cultural dissonance to it. I've seen an old poster from the NEP era, showing a proposed flag incorporating a Union Jack, but promising a "Republic Of Alberta".

    Wow. Can't believe I was able to find this.

    A hat, not a poster, and its territorial parameters were a bit more impressive than just Alberta, but the essential contradiction is there.

    All the incoherence that can be contained in one cranium.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    @Pangolin Guerre

    1980s Western separatism had a similar cultural dissonance to it. I've seen an old poster from the NEP era, showing a proposed flag incorporating a Union Jack, but promising a "Republic Of Alberta".

    Wow. Can't believe I was able to find this.

    A hat, not a poster, and its territorial parameters were a bit more impressive than just Alberta, but the essential contradiction is there.

    All the incoherence that can be contained in one cranium.

    Yes. At least Rhodesia had enough political awareness to remove the Union Jack from their flag when they became a republic. Even though the whole idea of the UDI was to preserve some idea of "Britishness" in Africa.
  • churchgeekchurchgeek Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    The problem with elections is that there is no punishment for the inevitable lying that happens.
    I am completely out of love with democracy as practised almost everywhere. Hold the bastards feet to the fire over the promises. lies and unproven assertions that gain them such power and ability to enrich themselves and their cronies. Impoverish, humiliate and jail them if they don't keep their word.

    The trouble with that is what is often seen as a "lie" is really a change of mind once new information becomes available or as situations change. I agree with your principle that it would be good to hold them accountable, but I'm not sure how it could be done - other than a change in culture to where people recognized that promises aren't worth much and we actually weighed the merits of serious policy proposal, but most of us aren't savvy enough with regard to laws and government policy to really understand the details well. We'd need trustworthy interpreters, and our media is no longer that by any stretch.
  • SusanDorisSusanDoris Shipmate
    demas wrote: »
    This thread is a good example of how hard this change would be. There are a million different models, and every Tom, Dick and Harry will be pushing their own political viewpoint under the cover of the change to a Republic. I would recommend you all talk to the Aussies on this one. There's barely a single Australian who has an emotional connection to the Royals and yet the 1999 Referendum still couldn't pass. And that's from a starting point of a written constitution that already partially sets out the role of the Governor-General (as Queen's viceroy) and the executive...
    When I started reading this thread, I was skimming a bit, but definitely liekt this post of yours. In my strongly hehld opinion, all these ideas of electing someone and abolishing this and that just won't work. There are at leaste a thousand years of history behind the situation as it is. Much of it, yes, conflict and problems, but that history and tradition will hold firm for a very long time to come. It's a system that may be broke here and there, but it doesn't need a radical fix now or during the next century or so.
  • churchgeek wrote: »
    The trouble with that is what is often seen as a "lie" is really a change of mind once new information becomes available or as situations change. I agree with your principle that it would be good to hold them accountable, but I'm not sure how it could be done - other than a change in culture to where people recognized that promises aren't worth much

    I think you have that backwards. We currently have a culture where promises are worthless things cheaply made by dishonourable lying scum. If we had a culture where promises were held to be of value, then people wouldn't make promises they didn't intend to keep, and then we could have a sensible discussion about principles and intentions, without trying to hold anyone to a promise that they made in different conditions, because they wouldn't have made a promise at all.
  • @Augustine the Aleut I didn't mention unanimity, the difficulties therewith, etc. because that was getting into the niceties I had hoped to avoid. I thought that describing it as "Gordian" would be enough to get the sense across to those outside the tribe.

    I some strange twists of history, I could create a scenario by which the monarchy in Canada outlives that in the UK. Some cadet branch comes to Canada to paste over the cracks left by a vacuum on the throne in the UK while we get our affairs sorted out, and we never quite finish the job. We have a genius for the half-assed.

    Gordian is easy to deal with-- all you need is a hyperactive Macedonian with a sword. Constitutional conferences.... oy.....

    I fear that I have enjoyed annoying some constitutional geeks (the sort who are employed as such) by pointing out that we may retain the Windsors years after they are banished from the British throne, as there is no provision in law or constitution to do otherwise. If the direct heirs are not interested in the job, then someone down the line might be (although if it ends up with Andrew, then Mr Trudeau's procrastination super-power will come into play full force, and immigration formalities may well take their time... decades if the file be misplaced).
  • churchgeek wrote: »
    The trouble with that is what is often seen as a "lie" is really a change of mind once new information becomes available or as situations change. I agree with your principle that it would be good to hold them accountable, but I'm not sure how it could be done - other than a change in culture to where people recognized that promises aren't worth much

    I think you have that backwards. We currently have a culture where promises are worthless things cheaply made by dishonourable lying scum. If we had a culture where promises were held to be of value, then people wouldn't make promises they didn't intend to keep, and then we could have a sensible discussion about principles and intentions, without trying to hold anyone to a promise that they made in different conditions, because they wouldn't have made a promise at all.

    Strongly disagree. When polticians tell the truth they are immediately jumped upon by the evil general public who do not like to hear the truth. That is why there is such pressure on politicians to lie. Only because they are, by and large, abnormally noble is the situation not worse.
  • @Augustine the Aleut I didn't mention unanimity, the difficulties therewith, etc. because that was getting into the niceties I had hoped to avoid. I thought that describing it as "Gordian" would be enough to get the sense across to those outside the tribe.

    I some strange twists of history, I could create a scenario by which the monarchy in Canada outlives that in the UK. Some cadet branch comes to Canada to paste over the cracks left by a vacuum on the throne in the UK while we get our affairs sorted out, and we never quite finish the job. We have a genius for the half-assed.
    stetson wrote: »
    Okay, yes. I can't do a link, but apparently, Dominic Di Stasi, an Italian Canadian, was Grand Master for the Orange Lodge Of Canada in the 90s.

    According to the Orange Lodge website, Di Stasi had been a member of a specifically Italian-Canadian lodge, but that "For some of British descent, it took time to accept this lodge."

    One can only imagine what that is a euphemism for.

    Probably a euphemism that he didn't a Waldenesian.
  • As n American with no stake in this, but a sympathetic concern, I just want to say that Madison's theory of governance based on the separation of powers is a crock of shit, as we have proved repeatedly for 234 years. Don't fall for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.