Welcome to the Community

Please choose one of the options below to log in and get stuck in!

Login with PPUK

Policy Suggestion: United Republic of Great Britain

ThyPirateDaveThyPirateDave South Wales
edited April 2016 in Policy Discussion
We have the policy that we wish to move towards a secular state here:

https://pirateparty.org.uk/policy/social-policy/move-towards-secular-state

Which I think shows we are interested in big democratic reform and not having reserved or appointed powers.

And the Republic's chief executive Graham Smith was recently quoted here:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/20/republicans-to-call-for-monarchy-referendum-when-queen-dies?CMP=twt_gu

What do Pirates thing of this? Are we pro-referendum on abolishing the monarchy?

Comments

  • I'm all for moving towards a secular state, but I don't see that this necessarily requires (or indeed should include) abolishing the monarchy.

    Today's monarchy is a largely harmless bauble that more or less pays for itself.
  • I would sit this policy suggestion right next to that I made about Parliament being more mobile and having a House of Sortition instead of the Lords, and also near the policy suggestion of abolishing the City of London.
  • Personally I'm pro referendum, with a simple "Keep the Monarchy" or "Remove Monarchy from positions of power"

    We can retain a Royal Family tourist attraction... thing... while removing the royals from any official political standing. The Queen no longer addressing the house of commons with her speech etc. There is still quite a lot of influence she has.

    In short, retain the history and revenue, remove the influence.
  • Which would rob the Parliament of some valuable experience, in my opinion.
  • Maybe - though I do question what that experience is. I don't really see the Queen ever giving advice on say... our economic policy. She gives a speech to the public and ministers but can't officially give any kind of advice on policy for example.

    If she is fulfilling some kind of useful function then I'm sure we can retain that in some way without having her a part of appointing "her" government etc.
  • She might not advise directly in Parliament, but she almost certainly does in the Privy Council, and any meetings she has with the PM
  • I suppose there is the bigger question then of if she should be influencing government without being democratically elected. The "UR of GB" would have a democratically elected Head of State taking the place of the Queen.

    The Queen is welcome to run for this position if she cares for the country so much :)
  • Except, I'm not sure that's helpful. The Queen can be "apolitical" precisely because she isn't elected, and making it an electable role only provides the same problems you'd get from having an elected Lords, or the problems the current US political system has.
  • The principle of having an upper and lower house is good, as is a different means of being elected to each but I don't think appointment in leadership or ownership positions are appropriate in government.

    I agree just because democracy is good and we want more of it doesn't mean that we shouldn't always force democracy into every scenario - I think the Swedish Pirates had that problem and we should learn from that. There are times where appointment is the most appropriate tool, such as in the civil service where you need those with knowledge for those who are elected to consult with and be supported by.

    I don't think the Queen really fulfils this function though. I think she influences and doesn't support. I think she influences and has some kind of notional ownership. That's not to say what the Queen is useful for cannot be retained somewhere else I just don't think her current office is where we should be putting her.
Sign In or Register to comment.