The monarchist and the republican cases are both rubbish, but the monarchy is what we have. Monarchists claim that the monarchy embodies things that they spend the rest of their time complaining are not there, backed up by fanciful suggestions about tourism and about soft power. Republicans claim that a republic would be a step towards the classless incorruption that characterised no existing republic in the world, backed up by a fatuous remark about hereditary surgeons, as if there would be elected surgeons. The case for the status quo is weak, but the case for change has not been made.
The last person to win a General Election was Boris Johnson, so republicans must want him as Head of State. There would have to be a nomination process. Candidates would certainly require nomination by one tenth of the House of Commons, 65 MPs, and very probably by one fifth of that House, 130 MPs. Even in the first instance, in the wildly unlikely event of more than two candidates, then the House would whittle them down to the two who would then be presented to the electorate. Almost certainly, only two parties are ever going to have 65 MPs. Certainly, only two are ever going to have 130. In practice, they would probably arrange to alternate the Presidency between them.
Nor should those of us who strived for economic equality and for international peace wish to abolish the Royal Prerogative. Rather, we should be working for someone of our mind to exercise it, and to do so in its fullness. No one like that would ever make it onto the ballot paper for President.
What do you think of the argument that the King is like the one on a chessboard, occupying a space to stop anyone else from getting into it?
ReplyDeleteThey must teach that "chessboard" line about the monarchy at public school. Hence, if you point out that it is rubbish, then they just keep saying it ever more loudly. That is what they do with those lines. There are quite a few of them. Knowing them, and sticking to them, is part of being in the club.
DeleteIn reality, the monarchy enables the Prime Minister to occupy the entire board. Boris Johnson remained Prime Minister for months after having lost a confidence motion, and he openly intended to do so if he had lost his seat in the House of Commons. The then Queen had appointed him, only she could remove him, she acted only on the advice of the Prime Minister (even when he had been found in court to have lied to her), and he was the Prime Minister. So there.
Many of the usual republican arguments are still very weak. But none is quite as weak as the claim that the monarchy occupies a space that politicians therefore cannot. That is the opposite of the case. But we could use that to our advantage.
This brings to mind the island of your mother's birth, St Helena, which protests its unreciprocated loyalty for the monarchy, on the grounds that it's the only British institution they are guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteHope you will be submitting evidence to this enquiry on that and the other remaining British colonies, sorry "UK Overseas Territories" - https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3109
What a hideous term, a kind of American and French word salad!
Love your comments about the bloody Falkland Islanders, a bunch of pushy Karens who need to be bitch-slapped, and that's just the men, including that knuckle-dragging mouthbreather and St Helena reject John Clifford.