Britain would be much better off as a republic because...

[Alfred R Jones]

..how would we the people benefit if Britain became a republic?

[Eleanor]

Erm....we would have to vote for a President?  Well, not me actually.  But you all might enjoy it.

[Lyall]

The nation would finally look to the future instead of living in the past.

[Alfred R Jones]

The nation would finally look to the future instead of living in the past.

What does that actually mean?  In what way are we living in the past, and how would the quality of our lives change for the better?

[Lyall]

What does that actually mean?  In what way are we living in the past, and how would the quality of our lives change for the better?

We postponed facing up to reality in the 50s and failed to embrace European unity in 1957. Instead we looked to the US and became involved in disastrous actions with them, with big consequences for the world (as we're seeing every day). Our economy is too concentrated on financial institutions, that together with the US are involved in weakening the EU. That makes a lot of money for the few - as did our wars - but it doesn't benefit the rest of us. Restructure our economy along European lines and we benefit and they do too.

[Alfred R Jones]

We postponed facing up to reality in the 50s and failed to embrace European unity in 1957. Instead we looked to the US and became involved in disastrous actions with them, with big consequences for the world (as we're seeing every day). Our economy is too concentrated on financial institutions, that together with the US are involved in weakening the EU. That makes a lot of money for the few - as did our wars - but it doesn't benefit the rest of us. Restructure our economy along European lines and we benefit and they do too.

Correct me if I'm wrong but America doesn't have a monarchy does it?  What has any of the above got to do with the subject of the benefits of us becoming a republic?

[Lyall]

Correct me if I'm wrong but America doesn't have a monarchy does it?  What has any of the above got to do with the subject of the benefits of us becoming a republic?

Nothing's going to change while we're living in the past, and the monarchy is central to that. They assist successive governments with the fetishisation of the military. They aid the reactionaries. They are themselves the most powerful reactionaries.

[puglove]

Nothing's going to change while we're living in the past, and the monarchy is central to that. They assist successive governments with the fetishisation of the military. They aid the reactionaries. They are themselves the most powerful reactionaries.

Well, you can certainly rely on the scruffy, sulky Corbyn to send us spiralling into the past.

He scares the crap out of me.

[G-Unit]

Well, you can certainly rely on the scruffy, sulky Corbyn to send us spiralling into the past.

He scares the crap out of me.

Good. Time we had something different than the bland-say-nothing-don't-be-controversial -all-the-same-ideas lot that we have seen since Blair. To get people interested in politics you need politicians with significantly different ideas.

[Alfred R Jones]

Good. Time we had something different than the bland-say-nothing-don't-be-controversial -all-the-same-ideas lot that we have seen since Blair. To get people interested in politics you need politicians with significantly different ideas.

Can we please discuss Corbyn on the Corbyn thread, and why you feel the UK would be better off as a republic on this thread, thanks.

[Alfred R Jones]

Nothing's going to change while we're living in the past, and the monarchy is central to that. They assist successive governments with the fetishisation of the military. They aid the reactionaries. They are themselves the most powerful reactionaries.

So,you don't think Britain has changed in the last 100, 200 years?  Whereas France is an example perhaps of where you'd like us to be at?  Or if not France perhaps you can point to a country that has recently cast off its royal family and reaped great dividends as a result?

[G-Unit]

Elizabeth II has done an amazing job. Never a hint of scandal attached to her. Never a word out of place. Thousands of public appearances bravely borne. She was born into a certain family and fate then mapped out her destiny and she rose to the challenge. No matter what you think of monarchy it's hard to criticise this particular monarch. Britain has been very lucky, and that's the point. It's a matter of luck, a lottery. There's no such thing as choice with a monarchy. You get what you're given.

Will her heirs be able to show the same dedication to duty? I doubt it. The heir apparent has already put his personal needs above his duty. His uncle was forced to abdicate for a lot less. Once they can't take the moral high ground what argument can be used to continue with a monarchy? That they're harmless and bring tourists in? Might as well have cardboard cut-outs, and I think a certain prince has no plans to be a hear no evil see no evil speak no evil monarch. He has opinions and he is likely to make them known.

That's when the serious debate about monarchy v republic will take place.

[Alfred R Jones]

Elizabeth II has done an amazing job. Never a hint of scandal attached to her. Never a word out of place. Thousands of public appearances bravely borne. She was born into a certain family and fate then mapped out her destiny and she rose to the challenge. No matter what you think of monarchy it's hard to criticise this particular monarch. Britain has been very lucky, and that's the point. It's a matter of luck, a lottery. There's no such thing as choice with a monarchy. You get what you're given.

Will her heirs be able to show the same dedication to duty? I doubt it. The heir apparent has already put his personal needs above his duty. His uncle was forced to abdicate for a lot less. Once they can't take the moral high ground what argument can be used to continue with a monarchy? That they're harmless and bring tourists in? Might as well have cardboard cut-outs, and I think a certain prince has no plans to be a hear no evil see no evil speak no evil monarch. He has opinions and he is likely to make them known.

That's when the serious debate about monarchy v republic will take place.

And yet there seems to be a real confidence in the future of the monarchy, even amongst younger voters.  Do you really think cardboard cut-outs would inspire as much interest or affection as the real thing?  But casting all that aside for one moment, how do you think the country would tangibly benefit from getting rid of the Royals?

[Alfred R Jones]

Nothing's going to change while we're living in the past, and the monarchy is central to that. They assist successive governments with the fetishisation of the military. They aid the reactionaries. They are themselves the most powerful reactionaries.

Another point on your post - what do you mean by the above, highlighted in bold? Examples of states that do indeed fetishize the military would (IMO) include Russia and China, both of which used to be ruled by monarchs but are now ruled by Commies and ex-commies, so I'm not really getting your point?  Perhaps you can elucidate.

[Holly Goodhead]

How would we measure the advantages v disadvantages and on what basis? Economically, politically, culturally...?  My instinct is to keep the royal family providing future heirs serve the country on the same basis Elizabeth II has. 

I think many who oppose royalty do so on the basis they don't agree with inherited titles?  Perhaps be an idea to look at the House of Lords before royalty?

What happens if Princes William or George do not want to be the defender of any faith ie non-believer?  We would not see them attend church on Christmas day 

Australia has chosen not to go down the republic route so I can't see Little Britain anytime soon unless future heirs make a real pigs ear of it.