Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

Like Smith says in the book itself, if you are a monarchist, this book is probably not for you - which is the precise reason I would recommend it to all the monarchists out there. It has been long enough that monarchists and the democracy-averse refuse to engage with polemics that challenge their beliefs in hereditary rule and concentration of power in an secretive, corrupt, inbred and embarrassing bloodline. Smith correctly points out in this fantastic manifesto the fact that British media and public discourse does not allow for even a shred of anti-monarchy (thus pro-democracy) sentiment in the media or other spaces of debate, lest the lumpen learn that they’ve been duped into supporting their own (by all objective measures of wealth and political power) oppressors. The 2020s should be the decade when we finally get to decide who we have as our elected head of state. The accession of King Charles has fundamentally changed the monarchy and the public’s relationship with it. Charles is controversial, outspoken and far less popular than his mother ever was. Prince Andrew remains a person of interest in a criminal investigation. And Harry and Meghan continue to show that monarchy isn't just bad for Britain, it's bad for the royals too. Graham Smith, Abolish the Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will, published by Penguin, 1 June 2023. This idea of Britain’s parliamentary democracy as the blueprint the world has taken to its heart, of Britain as one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the world, is founded on a bargain that has suited the interests of both the royals and the political classes alike. The reality is somewhat different: a parliament that has stumbled from one reform to the next, begrudgingly moving on the issue of suffrage while slowly centralizing power in the hands of the House of Commons, and then concentrating power further into Downing Street. Simply put, who has power and why in Britain, is a matter of historical contingency. We could do a lot better.’

I was startled awake with the familiar story of the forced evacuation of the Chagos Islands not requiring any reference for an overview from Parliament and how the process is available to be repeated. And possibly has been because these need not be reported. The pessimists have long had the upper hand in the ongoing debate over whether to cut the umbilical cord that has linked Canada to the British Royal Family since the birth of this country. The obstacles between the start and end points have seemed too numerous or too insurmountable to even try. This book, written by Smith in the lead-up to that coronation, lays out concisely and with great precision his argument for abolition of the British monarchy, and how a republican system of government could work in Britain. this change will be a win for democracy and British pride, and the abolition of hereditary rule is a good rallying point for lovers of democracy, and furthermore a good first-step for other democratisation and anti-corruption practices that could be undertaken in government and Parliament Everyone would understand that unless otherwise decided, this configuration would endure. The amendment must also provide that if adopted by the 10 provinces and Parliament, a constitutional conference will be held within three years with only one item on the agenda: the formula for replacing the Governor General as head of state. Thus, the text of the amendment will prohibit any other subject from being discussed at this conference.The arrests were an affront to the very idea of British liberty. Graham Smith, the head of Republic, has denied that he and his fellow protesters had any equipment which would have allowed them to attach themselves to anything. But even if they did, they would have simply been victims of legal rather than illegal illiberalism. Second, in keeping with the idea of giving this amendment the greatest possible legitimacy through the popular vote, a national referendum should be held before the votes on the amendment take place in provincial legislatures and Parliament. If the public indicates it wants action, elected officials would, of course, be politically bound to accept their voters’ verdict. At the start of June 2022, we could see the Queen very publicly celebrating the jubilee. Yet just four weeks later, as the constitution, at the centre of which lies the Crown, was in crisis [because Boris Johnson's government ministers had nearly all resigned yet he still clung on as PM], the Queen had vanished. Not a word from the palace. No reassuring comment or useful clarification of the constitutional position offered. One moment we see the monarch, and are told of her great virtues, the next she is nowhere to be seen, as we're told that under no circumstances can the Queen be 'dragged into' doing her job.

the royals hold the power to do things that they shouldn’t (by political and moral standards), and don’t hold the power that a Head of State (by political standards, at least) should have If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for 65 € per month.Catherine Mayer, whose book The Heart of a King was published in 2015. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images Polls are showing young people wanting an elected head of state, support for the monarchy in Scotland has fallen below fifty per cent and Commonwealth countries are lining up to ditch the Crown. There is a growing appetite for answers to the questions that are raised when people turn away from the monarchy: what’s the alternative, how do I talk about this issue with other people, what are the facts I need to know about the monarchy, and can we really get rid of it? If you accept the monarchy, you must accept the moral compromise that comes with it, from its erosion of the principle of equality to the secret interference in our laws. But the good news is that we don't have to accept it. True democracy is within our reach.

When The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy was published 35 years ago and until very recently, the British monarchy seemed pretty unassailable. That finally seems to be shifting, as I've commented to several pro-monarchy acquaintances. Smith summarises why much more effectively than I managed to: This is a book that is bound to upset and anger monarchists, but at the same time, I think there are valid republican criticisms of it to be made. It is a great introduction to republican ideas and arguments for the undecided layman, but for those of us who are already convinced, I can say that I would like to see a far more equitable future than the tepid liberal democracy that Graham Smith envisions. This question alone exposes us to getting negative answers from one or two provinces. It is obviously politically impossible to use the Canadian average to impose the decision because that would give fiercely anti-monarchist Quebec far too strong a voice, which would irrevocably pollute the whole referendum debate.The formulation clearly distinguishes the two key debates: dumping the monarchy now and deciding what to replace it with later. For the time being, it would propose a minimalist change: the Governor General would be responsible for carrying out all the functions he or she has performed to date – no longer in the name of a King in London, but in the name of the Canadian government that has appointed him or her.

Canadians may be divided on whether to cast off the royal moorings, but they have a clear idea of the method to use to decide the issue: a national referendum. Last September, 58 per cent of respondents told IPSOS they wanted Justin Trudeau to organize such a consultation. Obviously, the wish is stronger in Quebec (73 per cent), but one finds a majority everywhere except in the Prairies (where the figure is between 45 and 49 per cent.)the year of the coronation. Republic's protests have made a big impact on the debate about the future of the monarchy, and we're seeing support for the royals drop sharply. Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse. Everything then hinges on the wording of the two questions to be asked in this Canada-wide referendum organized by Ottawa, with or without the provinces’ approval.