| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| British Republic | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 13 2004, 06:51 AM (196 Views) | |
| ds9074 | Apr 13 2004, 06:51 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
Now I am not a great fan of this idea, but I thought I might raise this point. It seems to me that Britain could not become a Republic - at least lawfully - without the consent of the Dominions - ie Canada, Australia, New Zealand. The Act of Parliament which granted you almost total independence - The Statue of Westminster Act 1931 - contain the following clause: "The Crown is the symbol to the free association of the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and as they are united by a common allegiance to the Crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion". So it would seem we cannot change the succession without the consent of the Dominions. Additionally I presume it would also mean that we could not select William to succeed if Charles is an old man by the time the Queen dies. No without the consent of the Dominions at least. Nor can we change this arrangement - again except without consent. Does this also apply the other way around I wonder, that you cannot become Republics without the say-so of the UK Parliament? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Apr 13 2004, 09:16 AM Post #2 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I think that technically we could not become Republics without the say so of the current ruler, unless we fought a war of independance. Right now we require royal asent for all of our laws. Of course this is just a technicality and I don't think there is a recorded case where a law was turned down by the Govener-General (The Queen's representative for those who don't know) I wonder if the Govener-General would need to sign a Declaration of Independance. It is not the same as when the US had to fight a war for independance. These days the GG probably would sign. But precisely because they would, we probably don't feel the need to do so. In other words my answer is
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 13 2004, 09:22 AM Post #3 |
|
Admiral
|
I understand that your laws, like ours, must recieve Royal approval and that is just a formality. What I'm saying is slightly different. That to alter the succession (which become a Republic would entail) you would need the consent not just of the Canadian Parliament, but also from the Parliaments of Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Hopefully as you say it wont be needed any time soon, although its possible in Australia from what I hear. Didnt they vote on it a while back. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Apr 13 2004, 09:38 AM Post #4 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Well, I guess what I am saying is that probably, technically, under current laws, we would need the consent of the rest of the commonwealth, but after all, if we really wanted it we would just do like the Americans and declare independance. The only way to stop us would be to fight a war. But it ain't happening any time soon.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 13 2004, 10:26 AM Post #5 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
This wouldn't be some kind of ploy to get the US back under the crown is it? All the other countries are doing it so why don't we eh? Well I cann tell you right now that peer pressure does not work on the United States...... Okay fine, where do we sign Your Majesty? :lol: What is the mindset behind the whole Republic issue? Will it bring these countries closer or farther away from British rule? Also, I wonder who the US would support in a Canadian war of independence? With it happening right on our borders, it would be difficult if not impossible to stay neutral. Which ally would we fight with? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 13 2004, 11:03 AM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
I have thought that 2 countries which now perhaps should be "readmitted" to the club and join the Commonwealth are the USA and Ireland. Most Commonwealth countries have Presidents rather than the Queen as Head of State, just look at say South Africa or India as an example. It doesnt mean becoming a "Dominion" or anything like that. I think it would be really good to have you in the group. Its not like you have to give over Soverignty or anything, all members are equal. The USA is after all an ex-member of the British Empire.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 13 2004, 06:08 PM Post #7 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I don't see why you can't have a republic. Simply amend the Statute of Westminster Act of 1931. The UK is the United Kingdom of Britain, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland... isn't it? This is the principal area for discussion on a republic. Other nations under the "dominion" of the Queen would have the option of either seceding or joining a constitutional republic. First of all, the monarchy would have to go. While they are a figurehead, the Windsors are the titular monarchs. Next, the provisional government (or the caretaker government, whatever you call it) drafts a constitution for approval. Representatives of the House of Commons would vote on it. Those countries opting to join the republic would then vote on leadership. The position could no longer be prime minister, because that is a monarchist title, but something else like "president" is chosen. Former dominions then have the choice to join. They will have to change their forms of government as well. I don't think the USA would join. Ever. We are larger, and more powerful, and have already broken away from Britain by force and would never give up our sovereignty. Ireland might consider it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 13 2004, 07:43 PM Post #8 |
|
Admiral
|
I understand, but the Commonwealth is about shared values not giving up soveriegnty. There is less soverignty given away joining the Commonwealth than NAFTA, WTO, or even the UN. Remember its not the British Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth of Nations. A group of countries that share common values. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 13 2004, 09:38 PM Post #9 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
What if the British wanted to join us? Obviously they wouldn't be relegated to a state, but why not come into a closer union with the US? We've been friends since the War of 1812. As it is, all the treaties amount to us being close friends. Why not get all the nations in the Coalition together into some new mutual defense group? A NATO for the world devoted to fighting terrorism. Perhaps even a possible replacement for the UN? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Apr 13 2004, 11:20 PM Post #10 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
We've had the republican debate over here for a while, it was mainly stared up by the government before the election in 98 I think, and that was mainly to throw focus off their fiscal policy. I am from the younger generation, and I can tell you most of my fellow youngins say a australian republic will NOT happen anytime soon, cos the big question is why??? a) The Queen always, i mean always leaves decisions on australia up to our governor general. b) we love royal tours - the last time Diana was out, the country went crazy (GRHS) c) we love the Royal family, when Harry was out training as a Jackeroo, it was all over the media d) Most of us prefer a king or queen to a President e) who the hell do we pick as president? Paul Hogan, Nicole Kidman, or some obscure politician???? Most australians have trouble remembering our current GG's name. f) we wish to continue kicking ass in the Commonwealth Games g) lastly and most importantly, the current system works just fine, with the Governor general linked the the British Queen, our Prime Minister is the real leader of the country, the GG would never intervene or block legislation as australians would cry out that the poms are trying to influence us. If we every became a republic, the President would be selected by the parliament and not the people, and this president may get more invloved in having the last say on legislation as he/she would not have to worry about appearing to be influenced by the Brits. I dare say, Scotland will become a republic before Australia. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 14 2004, 02:23 AM Post #11 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Proton : We would be much better off without links to the Royals (who are a bunch of ultra-rich , ultra-pampered , self important parasites). We don't need them and don't want them. Maybe the Yanks might want them back. Who do we vote in as head of state - an Australian of high moral standing would be good. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Apr 14 2004, 03:49 AM Post #12 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
I think you just proved my point |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 16 2004, 01:22 AM Post #13 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Amending the Westminster Act probably would accomplish creating a Republic. As far as titles go for leaders, I doubt that much would change. You would probably end up with a figure head president functioning similarly as GG, and the real power would still lie with the PM. If you ask me, I think that about the only thing missing from including the US in a Commonwealth (as DS has described) is wording that makes it official. In this regard, I don't think that is something that is absolutely necessary. Despite occasions where feathers get ruffled, the ties between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. are about as good as one could hope for... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Apr 16 2004, 07:37 AM Post #14 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
As for the US joining a commonwealth. All I can say is that I don't want a monarch and nor do most other Americans. I already see enough of my money go to support lazy people who do not deserve it. You want to add a large familiy living in luxurious castles and palaces to the list. No thanks. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 19 2004, 07:07 AM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree with what Swidden says, although I would like to clear up 1 point 38957. You can be a member of the Commonwealth without having the Queen as Head of State. In fact I believe that is the case for the majority of Commonwealth countries. I gave the examples of South Africa and India. They are members of the organisation but have have Presidents and are totally independent of Britain. Its not a club which the British are in charge of. Canada, Australia and New Zealand - along with a few other countries - choose to retain the Queen as their Head of State but that is a different issue to being Commonwealth members. If Australia has become a Republic they could still have been full members of the Commonwealth. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |






2:13 PM Jul 11