Should Britain Become a Republic?

Last updated: March 8, 2019

Should Britain become a republic and if so then when, in what fashion and indeed what form of republicanism should we adopt? Should it be the French model, the German model or the US model.

Should Britain Become a Republic?
Yes because...

Britain Is An Old Fashioned System

Britain would be better off as a Republic. There are many reasons why Britain would benefit from a more democratic country, free from 'The Crown'.

The Monarchy are a relic of the past, an oppressive past. We as taxpayers currently give £150 million each year to the Monarchy, which includes their 'wages' and security to guard them. In fact £100 million is set aside for their security personnel...

Over the course of the last 10 years that's 1.5 Billion pounds, and what do they do for their money- very little. People argue that Monarchy bring in a lot of money via tourism, but surely if the Monarchy were removed from the Constitution then they would become even more of a tourist attraction- 'The Monarchy That was...'
Tourists would be more likely to spend money visiting Britain knowing that their money was going into a Republic, not a Monarch dictatorship.

It is a dictatorship. Each new Prime Minister has to report to the Queen on day one,outlining the new Government policies and ideas. The Queen's Speech is not her own but a summary of what Government suggests, so what's the point in her speech at all?

There are hundreds of 'quangos' in British politics- people not elected but who get paid taxpayers money for rubbing shoulders with Government- they are private oragnisations ,some of who end up in The House of Lords.
A good example is Alan Sugar- now Lord Alan Sugar. The Lords have over 360 pounds per day to spend of taxpayer's money. Those 'quangos' often get paid massive amounts, and more than 50 of them get paid more than the Prime Minister. They acount for more than 10 percent of public spending, and employ about 90 000 staff. Our country is corrupted by those rich quangos- they don't get elected or reviewed, and the public never hears about them.
Has the Queen done anything to address their secrecy? The Monarchy probabl;y approved the appointment of a lot of the 'quangos'.

The Queen, Princes, Duke and Baronesses , and all the other 'Royal-blood line'
people get millions from the taxpayer just for being them. It really is sickening to see the U.K. slave to an ideology. We pay the most amount of tax, and have some of the lowest wages in the developed World.

We have a shortage of available housing in the U.K.- an estimated 5 million homes need to be built to cope with U.K. demand.
Instead of expanding housing in the U.K. ,we have a system which gives 150 million per year to an already rich Monarchy,millions to the House of Lords and about 1000 quangos... It was reported that often 10 migrant workers have to live together in one house due to the lack of housing, which is a health and safety risk to them. Often people on council housing lists are put down the list in favour of refugees and migrants, which is due to lack of available housing.

Another report recently looked at the number of countries and islands which still pledge allegiance to the Queen which are actually hiding tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money. There are about 17 of them, some are known to be tax-havens. Rich businesmen, quangos,Royals and other wealthy people don't invest their money in Britain but send it to various locations around the World to hide it , to avoid paying tax. Monarchs have done this in the past- to make sure they always have cash at hand.

The Monarchy needs to be abandoned not just in Britain but around the World.
Australia is another country looking to become a Republic. It was formed by British laws, with a whites-only policy which created racism in Australia. The country is now very multicultural, and having lived there I noted that the new generations are more understanding of what a Republic means to them. Australia and many other countries would be better off freeing themselves from the allegiance to the British Crown. It is now America that does the command-and-conquer game. The U.S and Britain are known as the British American Empire these days- a bully which stems from Royal bullying, to achieve financial and militarial superiority.

If Britain could shake the old-fashioned Monarchy, we would save a lot of money for investing in Britain, the Monarchy would become just a tourist attraction and historical theme and Britain would benefit financially and be able to create a new constitiution which does not put British citizens under the 'Royals' and does not call its citizens 'strangers' .

This is a modern World. Britain hangs on to the oppressive, pompous old Monarch-worshipping ways. Many of our politicians are Royal supporters because they enjoy the 'status' of Britain's Monarchy and the power Britain used to have over the centuries. They don't want to admit that the British Empire doesn't really exist anymore, and we the taxpayers just prop up the relic which is the Monarchy.

Many other countries are truly democratic and have moved away from the Royal theme. Saudi Arabia is another monarchy, and their people are oppressed even more so- they don't get a chance to vote. In reality we don't get to vote for many aspects of our Government- The House of Lords are not voted in by the Public, the quangos are never mentioned or investigated, we don't get a vote for the Monarchy members, or get to choose how much the Royal family get in 'wages' and expenditures...

We live in a Medieval Britain, yet it's the 21st Century. We've wasted enough taxes on the 'Crown' and seen our housing crisis and financial sector become a posh-sub-Royal bunch of money grabbers, acting like Royalty but in reality are just a group of well-organized criminals.

If the government of the day doesn't measure up to our expectations, we, the people, can vote it out of office. We have no such power when it comes to the Monarchy. Politicians cannot even raise the subject in Parliament. At the very least, the British people should have the right to periodically decide whether the institution of Monarchy should continue or not. Anything less than this is a denial of true democracy.



No because...
I believe that Britain should not be a republic for many reasons. Firstly, the crown and the monarchy is an iconic institution of Britain, when one hears of Britain, they immediately think of the royal family, abolishing the crown would prove that we are willing to destroy our universal image as a kingdom.
Secondly, the government and the society of Britain has been built and developed under over 1000 years of crown authority, rejecting the crown would be rejecting our own past, the very fabric of Britain is built under the monarchy and many years of history would be cast aside for the sake of a republican.
Though many would believe the monarchy to be a relic of a dark past, a great amount of British history was created by progress and under the leadership of the crown.
Thirdly, with the monarchy abolished, it would depend on parliament to govern the country, the labour party currently residing over the courts have the inability to listen to the people and many of Britain's problems have been ignored by the prime minster due to his arrogance. Remember the tax scandel, they were let off.
And finally, the united republic doesn't sound right to me.

Should Britain Become a Republic?
Yes because...

Most other countries in Europe have abandoned the monarch

This makes Great Britain look outdated as most other countries in Europe and most of the world such as France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Russia and China have abandoned their monarchs so why should Britain keep theirs?
No because...


5
Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

2 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
David Reardon

NO!

The idea of a Britain becoming a republic has but one appeal, namely that the head of state would be elected rather than the people being possibility saddled with someone they neither like nor want. However, an elected head of state would be a political figure and I cannot think of anything worse than this, unless we adopt the Irish system of figurehead president with limited power (imagine someone like Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair or Gordon Brown being head of state!)

Despite our often turbulent history, internal and external, for more than 1,000 years the people of this country have rallied to the person of the monarch during both times of crisis and celebration. We can always rest assured that, under our present constitutional arrangement, the monarch will never be a political figure let alone a politician, regardless of their own political views. Therefore, any problems that arise in the country can rightly be placed in the hands of our elected representatives in parliament whose job it is to manage the affairs of state.

Also, despite the oft-quoted statement of “just look how many people visited Washington to see the White House”, I can only say look at how many more people in comparison visit London in the hope of not just seeing the Queen but any other member of the royal family but go away happy with just a photograph of themselves standing outside the gates of Buckingham Palace or pictures of some military parade (which nobody really watches in the US).

On the financial side, the latest annual report states that the British monarchy costs approximately £35.7 million per year, which works out at about 56p per person, per year for the taxpayer but brings in around £1.15 billion (or 32 times as much as it costs) compared to the running costs of the House of Lords of £93.1 million, which brings in just under £7 million per year (or a gross deficit of £86 million) – if ever an anachronistic body needed scrapping it is surely the House of Lords!

As to the “other realms” of which the Queen is monarch, there may be a growing republicanism in countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand but this never has nor probably ever will reach a point where any of these countries will vote to become a republic. Besides which, nobody in any of these countries has any idea of what kind of republic they want or would be happy with: as a case in question, after gaining independence from the UK, the people of Papua New Guinea chose to have the Queen as their head of state because they couldn’t agree on any other arrangement.

Finally, imagine the Commonwealth (probably the most international organisation outside of the UN) without the British monarch as its non-political head, bearing in mind that Mozambique is a member but was never a British colony. Who would these countries elect and how? Would they ever be able to agree?

Finally, the monarchy is older than the United Kingdom and the person of the monarch has kept this country united, not least Her Majesty the Queen.

locko

She has no real power so get rid of her and her ridiculous family. Not that I would class the queen the same as her useless relatives. Once QE2 dies we should get rid of this outdated, pricy, arrogant lot.

Category:




shares