I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
is there anyway that the Monarch could actually sack a Prime minister?
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
is there anyway that the Monarch could actually sack a Prime minister?
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
I'll add to the list (from my lifetime....)
Presidents:- Heath Wilson Callaghan Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May
and perhaps the best argument ever for a constitutional Monarchy, the (now surreal) prospect that Corbyn could ever have held power.
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
is there anyway that the Monarch could actually sack a Prime minister?
Yes. Technically the queen can do literally anything.
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
is there anyway that the Monarch could actually sack a Prime minister?
No.
I learnt that in school 40 years ago.
She could, if she wanted, not accept a new Prime Minister forming a Government - that's why any new incoming PM that wins a General Election first goes to see the Monarch to ask their "permission". Remember back in 2010 when we had a hung parliament & there were various thoughts on whether Labour could form a minority Government, seeing as they were the "sitting" one. If Gordon Brown had tried to do this the Queen could have just said NO. I doubt if she would, but she has it in her power. But she can't get rid of one.
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
is there anyway that the Monarch could actually sack a Prime minister?
Yes. Technically the queen can do literally anything.
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
is there anyway that the Monarch could actually sack a Prime minister?
I know it is a sombre occasion, but Prince Charles looked very sad this morning at the Cenotaph. I think this is probably the first time that he has attended without one of his parents being there.
The President Johnson idea, scary as that is, is false.
In many working democracies ie France, Ireland, Israel, the role of president is separate from the of Prime Minister and they are elected on a different basis, often for a longer term (7 years) while their roles are more likely to be ceremonial with real executive power remaining with the elected government, as it should IMHO. They sometimes have power to resolve constitutional issues.
IE they do a lot of what the Queen does now but aren't hereditary.
As were aren't a republic or even have a written constitution it's impossible to say whether we'd have for example, an Irish model but I suspect we'd be closer to that than the American model if it ever happened. Which I don't think it will.
The President Johnson idea, scary as that is, is false.
In many working democracies ie France, Ireland, Israel, the role of president is separate from the of Prime Minister and they are elected on a different basis, often for a longer term (7 years) while their roles are more likely to be ceremonial with real executive power remaining with the elected government, as it should IMHO. They sometimes have power to resolve constitutional issues.
IE they do a lot of what the Queen does now but aren't hereditary.
As were aren't a republic or even have a written constitution it's impossible to say whether we'd have for example, an Irish model but I suspect we'd be closer to that than the American model if it ever happened. Which I don't think it will.
Why is it false? If we became a republic and chose to elect a president, would Boris Johnson not be permitted to run?
I know it is a sombre occasion, but Prince Charles looked very sad this morning at the Cenotaph. I think this is probably the first time that he has attended without one of his parents being there.
Isn't 'very sad' the only acceptable countenance at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday?
I know it is a sombre occasion, but Prince Charles looked very sad this morning at the Cenotaph. I think this is probably the first time that he has attended without one of his parents being there.
Isn't 'very sad' the only acceptable countenance at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday?
He looked quiet emotional as he laid The Queens wreath this morning
I know it is a sombre occasion, but Prince Charles looked very sad this morning at the Cenotaph. I think this is probably the first time that he has attended without one of his parents being there.
Isn't 'very sad' the only acceptable countenance at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday?
I did say it's a sombre occasion, but I think he looked particularly sad this time.
I know it is a sombre occasion, but Prince Charles looked very sad this morning at the Cenotaph. I think this is probably the first time that he has attended without one of his parents being there.
Isn't 'very sad' the only acceptable countenance at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday?
He looked quiet emotional as he laid The Queens wreath this morning
One is where the President is the top dog, like in the US and in France. That wouldn't really fit in with our parliamentary political system
The other is like the Irish system where the President is much more like our Constitutional Monarch, not involved in the day to day running of the country. If we ever ended up with such a system, it would be interesting what sort of person would stand, as it's a role with prestige but no real power
The President Johnson idea, scary as that is, is false.
In many working democracies ie France, Ireland, Israel, the role of president is separate from the of Prime Minister and they are elected on a different basis, often for a longer term (7 years) while their roles are more likely to be ceremonial with real executive power remaining with the elected government, as it should IMHO. They sometimes have power to resolve constitutional issues.
IE they do a lot of what the Queen does now but aren't hereditary.
As were aren't a republic or even have a written constitution it's impossible to say whether we'd have for example, an Irish model but I suspect we'd be closer to that than the American model if it ever happened. Which I don't think it will.
Why is it false? If we became a republic and chose to elect a president, would Boris Johnson not be permitted to run?
If like the States, then no, as he was born in NY.
One is where the President is the top dog, like in the US and in France. That wouldn't really fit in with our parliamentary political system
The other is like the Irish system where the President is much more like our Constitutional Monarch, not involved in the day to day running of the country. If we ever ended up with such a system, it would be interesting what sort of person would stand, as it's a role with prestige but no real power
Which is why Johnson wouldn't stand or be elected.
One is where the President is the top dog, like in the US and in France. That wouldn't really fit in with our parliamentary political system
The other is like the Irish system where the President is much more like our Constitutional Monarch, not involved in the day to day running of the country. If we ever ended up with such a system, it would be interesting what sort of person would stand, as it's a role with prestige but no real power
Which is why Johnson wouldn't stand or be elected.
One is where the President is the top dog, like in the US and in France. That wouldn't really fit in with our parliamentary political system
The other is like the Irish system where the President is much more like our Constitutional Monarch, not involved in the day to day running of the country. If we ever ended up with such a system, it would be interesting what sort of person would stand, as it's a role with prestige but no real power
Which is why Johnson wouldn't stand or be elected.
I wonder who, in the world of politics in the UK would be most keen on a well-paid, ceremonial role, with no responsibility, untrammeled opportunity to earn money writing and the offer of immunity from prosecution. I imagine if the monarchy were to be abolished (which it won't) and replaced by such a presidential position, then there would be few sharp enough elbows to get past the current incumbent of number ten.
I am a huge fan of the Queen and all that she has done for our nation and will continue to support her until the end, but I feel that with her death should also mark the death of the monarchy. The world has moved on from this.
There are two words I use to dissuade people of the notion that we should move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic. Just two words. But the two words are suffused with enough nuance and fear that anyone in their right mind will know that the dangers of a British Republic are far too real to risk.
President Johnson
Would getting rid of the monarchy necessitate a switch to a presidential system? Surely we could/would continue with our current political structure and just have a figurehead head of state for opening supermarkets/doing a Christmas speech?
If they find a way to make people immortal, The Queen and Attenborough would be the first 2 people I'd want us to ask
You have to ask yourself if anyone who has lived that long, would want to continue to live in their aged bodies having seen the atrocities of man so much in their lifetime. Does the good outweigh the bad?
Comments
Presidents:-
Heath
Wilson
Callaghan
Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
and perhaps the best argument ever for a constitutional Monarchy, the (now surreal) prospect that Corbyn could ever have held power.
I learnt that in school 40 years ago.
She could, if she wanted, not accept a new Prime Minister forming a Government - that's why any new incoming PM that wins a General Election first goes to see the Monarch to ask their "permission". Remember back in 2010 when we had a hung parliament & there were various thoughts on whether Labour could form a minority Government, seeing as they were the "sitting" one. If Gordon Brown had tried to do this the Queen could have just said NO. I doubt if she would, but she has it in her power. But she can't get rid of one.
I think a Monarch can do that.
In many working democracies ie France, Ireland, Israel, the role of president is separate from the of Prime Minister and they are elected on a different basis, often for a longer term (7 years) while their roles are more likely to be ceremonial with real executive power remaining with the elected government, as it should IMHO. They sometimes have power to resolve constitutional issues.
IE they do a lot of what the Queen does now but aren't hereditary.
As were aren't a republic or even have a written constitution it's impossible to say whether we'd have for example, an Irish model but I suspect we'd be closer to that than the American model if it ever happened. Which I don't think it will.
One is where the President is the top dog, like in the US and in France. That wouldn't really fit in with our parliamentary political system
The other is like the Irish system where the President is much more like our Constitutional Monarch, not involved in the day to day running of the country. If we ever ended up with such a system, it would be interesting what sort of person would stand, as it's a role with prestige but no real power
President Attenborough perhaps
My feeling is that they may not.