End of Monarchy?

[cromwell]

The Met added that it will continue to liaise with other law enforcement agencies who are leading the investigation into matters associated with Epstein. 

From the BBC link in post #15   

So maybe there could still be more allegations surfacing sometime...

If you think Pat that old cressidas "nobody is above the law" is anything other than bollocks then look no further than Anthony Bliar for one of many examples.

[patman post]

The Met added that it will continue to liaise with other law enforcement agencies who are leading the investigation into matters associated with Epstein. 

From the BBC link in post #15   

So maybe there could still be more allegations surfacing sometime... 

[Barry]

That's OK as far as I am concerned.
Sexual assault is easy to allege, difficult to refute, and extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, more so after 20 years have passed.

[T00ts]

So the Met have decided re Andy case closed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58866108

Is anyone surprised at that? The man(?) was and is a fool. He has always been very pleased with himself and hopeless at any job that everyone tried to give him to keep him out of trouble. He is described as entitled, arrogant among other things. He is just a black sheep of the family sadly.

[cromwell]

So the Met have decided re Andy case closed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58866108

[johnofgwent]

The real test for the monarchy will be when we next have an unpopular king or queen.

In about a decade then ...

[HDQQ]

I'm a republican as I think the idea of a hereditary monarchy is undemocratic. The current monarchy only exists because William the Conqueror seized possession of England nearly a thousand years ago. Over the centuries the powers of the monarch have been diminished until the current situation where the monarch has given up all meaningful political power in return for retaining its wealth and privilege. So this rather renders the monarchy pointless.

Having said all that, the Queen has been a good head of state and an example to others.

So what should replace the monarch here? My choice would be for an elected president. Not an executive president like the USA but one with a similar status to the monarch, as is the case in Ireland. The Prime Minister would still be the head of government as now. A president could be a bit more hands-on than a monarch though. For example there could be a safeguard where the country can only go to war overseas if both the prime minister and president agree.

OK, so we might end up with a President Blair or President May - or even a President Farage (heaven forbid) but at least they'd not have a lot of power and they'd only be in office for a few years. Which brings us round full-circle in that if the president has no real power and they might be hated by half the population, is there really much point in abolishing the monarchy any time soon?

The real test for the monarchy will be when we next have an unpopular king or queen.

[patman post]

I see no compelling reason to get rid of he monarchy or to get a written constitution. Both have developed and adapted over centuries to do their jobs. The monarchy has both entertained and provided stability. The "uncodified constitution" is based on agreements and treaties, custom and practice arrived at often in response to particular circumstances. Currently, should  conflict arise it can be resolved by considering current evidence and past practice and, guided by [HIGHLIGHT]constriction all[/HIGHLIGHT] law, choosing the best solution.


My worry would be the enormous amount of time energy required on something that doesn't seem necessary — exactly as SW has said...

Guess what that should have been before productive smelling got hold of it...

[srb7677]

I am by belief a republican but the thought of a president Bliar type makes me sick.

That one sentence encapsulates what I think to my soul, .

Blair as president? What a nightmare.

I tend to think that if we abolish the monarchy and go for an elected president, under our system such a president should cxontinue to have very limited powers like our monarchy. So would be less attractive to Blair unless he could make money out of it. But as an added precaution I would advocate barring anyone who has ever held elected office from standing.

But I am speaking for myself.

Republicanism has a fairly wide following in left leaning circles but as yet has little attraction in wider circles. Let's see what happens after Queen Liz. Even republicans have mostly decided to wait her out and then see what happens next. We all know that historically monarchies tend only to be as popular as reigning monarchs. So when Liz departs to the palace in the sky, it is all to play for.

[Streetwalker]

My worry would be the enormous amount of time energy required on something that doesn't seem necessary — exactly as SW has said...

Not to mention the bloodshed 

[patman post]

I see no compelling reason to get rid of he monarchy or to get a written constitution. Both have developed and adapted over centuries to do their jobs. The monarchy has both entertained and provided stability. The "uncodified constitution" is based on agreements and treaties, custom and practice arrived at often in response to particular circumstances. Currently, should  conflict arise it can be resolved by considering current evidence and past practice and, guided by constriction all law, choosing the best solution.


My worry would be the enormous amount of time energy required on something that doesn't seem necessary — exactly as SW has said...

[Streetwalker]

I'm not so sure.
The trick is not to make a president all powerful, but a spokesperson for the country.
Israel have that, and, as far as I know, it works.
They could still nominally sign off all the legislation.
We could probably do with a written constitution, too.

No the trick is not to change things that are not broken

[T00ts]

I have a distinct suspicion if William did stand for election as Toots suggested at the end of the OP he'd get the job hands down over pretty much any politician...

...if for no other reason than he appears to have a very balanced wife.

[johnofgwent]

I have a distinct suspicion if William did stand for election as Toots suggested at the end of the OP he'd get the job hands down over pretty much any politician...

[Barry]

Why? Our unwritten constitution has served us since forever.

Yes it has, but badly, don't you think?
Even our Speaker of the House, John Poisondwarf, bent the historical decisions to his favour for political ends.
He could not have done that with a clear constitution.

I'm not saying it is essential, but likely desirable if we move to boot out the Monarch.