As Prince William becomes at least the third generation of his family to express Malthusianism, I continue to support the monarchy in order to keep sweet the people who need to be kept sweet, but I remain at a loss as to why it has that effect on them.
Would they not be better represented if, alongside the continuation of an essentially decorative monarchy, the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, or at least of the parts of it that made any political difference and thus including Royal Assent, were to be made subject to the approval of seven out of nine Co-Presidents, elected every eight years and required to name seconds in case they died or resigned?
Each of us would vote for one candidate, and the top nine would be elected. These would be non-party figures (then again, why would they have to be?), although of course the German and Irish experiences indicate that winning an election entails having an electoral machine such as ordinarily only a political party possesses, and the party card can just be dropped as part of that process. But even so.
People who think that the monarchy acts as some kind of bulwark against whatever it is that they might happen to dislike are akin to people who think that the EU was some kind of bulwark against Thatcherism, or that it is some kind of force for peace. Which privatisation did the EU prevent? Which dock, factory, steelworks, shipyard or mine did the EU save? How did workers' rights in the Britain of 1972 compare to those in the Britain of 2017? Did the EU prevent the war in Northern Ireland? Or in Yugoslavia? Or in Ukraine?
Likewise, which aspect of the Welfare State did the monarchy moderate, as those people would see it, in any way whatever? Which nationalisation? Which retreat from Empire? Which social liberalisation? Which EU Treaty? Which of Tony Blair's constitutional and ceremonial changes? Still, it keeps them sweet. And they need to be kept sweet. But why does it have that effect on them?
No comments:
Post a Comment