Hilary Armstrong was quite right to warn against "the slippery slope towards the separation of powers".
So don't vote for Cameron's plan to abolish the monarchy, the standing contradiction of, and permanent bulwark against, that ruinous theory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cameron has a plan to abolish the monarchy? Where can I learn more about this?
ReplyDeleteFollow the link.
ReplyDeleteAs to why, see http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com/2010/02/huge-story-ignored-i.html
That link says nothing about Cameron or anyone else's plan to abolish the monarchy.
ReplyDeleteIt does suggest that the PM plus a "team" be elected separately to Parliament. While ludicrous, this in no way entails the abolition of the monarchy.
Oh, but it does. As Enoch Powell might have said, it cannot not.
ReplyDeleteOh but it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteSee, I can baldly assert things too. Break it down for me.
1. Elect PM independently
2. ?????
3. Abolish the monarchy.
I'm not seeing the missing step.
There is no missing step.
ReplyDeleteYou do know that PM is not head of state right? Nor would be under this plan?
ReplyDeleteNeither Cameron, nor anyone else*, has a plan to replace the monarch as head of state.
*OK, some lunatic fringe whackjob with pretensions to grandeur might, but let's be serious.
You couldn't come up with a better description of the people around Cameron.
ReplyDeleteThey have numerous reasons to hate the monarchy: it embodies social cohesion, it embodies Commonwealth ties, it embodies public Christianity, really posh people despise the Royal Family as immigrant parvenues and nouveaux riches, Blairites are sectarian Leftists from back in the day, and so on, and on, and on.
That it would entail the abolition of the monarchy has always, always been the reason given for not introducing a directly elected PM, a proposal only ever made by anti-monarchists.