Off Topic Meghan, Harry and Oprah

YAWN

 

They wanted financial independence and are complaining that finance was cut off when they left. Duh !!!

 

Not being a fan of monarchy, I didn't watch it - but from what little I've read, I have some sympathy for them - just a little. It can't have been easy for either of them with her trying to join a family with an old racist like Phil the Greek in it, not to mention a couple of other oddbods. Maybe they shouldn't have bothered - or possibly asked for the program not to be shown in the UK?

 

Fair to say they won't be getting a Christmas card from the Royals and they won't be sending one either!

 

Not to mention all the other nationalities which have gone to make up the so called 'Royal Family', and, ultimately, mostly descended from Norman robbers. Yet the cap doffers of middle England will go on claiming that they are protecting an old British institution The bigger picture of all this is that the 'Royals' are also the apex of the aristocratic landed pyramid in England, which owns 30% of the land - despite being only 0.1 per cent of the population (a few thousand inbred Dukes, baronets and country squires). In a sense they are the visible symbol of the whole rotted English class system. I have nothing against Elizabeth Windsor herself - if she turned up on the doorstep she would be offered tea or coffee along with anyone else - but if anyone such as Harry and Meghan can hurl mud at the institution itself then so much the better. Wat Tyler was English, the Levellers and the Diggers were English, Cromwell was English, and the workers movement of the 19th and early 20th Century was English - but there is nothing 'English' about the institution of hereditary monarchy or aristocracy - it is time that the carrot crunchers realized that !

 

I just read this article about it in the Irish Times - and nearly wet myself laughing.

I have to say that the Irish certainly have a way with words - although quite possibly I admire their linguistic capabilities because I agree with everything said in the article.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...he-celebrities-is-complete-1.4504502?mode=amp

 

Great article!!!! Yes I can resonate with that........ so well put too

 

I am of the opinion that you don't start knocking your house about until you know that you have the materials available to change it to something different. The French revolution removed the monarchy from power to allow the common people the chance to rule as they wished, rather than being under the thumb of people that were treating them unfairly. Today I read that many people here believe that there is a new elite, rich and entitled by virtue of the schools and universities they attended, and for many years have formed the government. Later the Russian revolution took place for much the same reason, and has led once again to a series of dictators who have assumed the role of a monarch. Let us vote for a leader in the UK is one cry. Not sure that a President Trump or a Johnson is a good advert for such a way forward. One suggests to his followers that they riot against the constitution, while the other ignores the views of his own elected representatives. Change things by all means, but be sure of what you may want is what you will actually get.

 

I think it's fair to say that no monarchy has ever been removed via the ballot box Frenchie. All have disappeared as a result of revolutions or as a result of losing a war, or maybe as a result of a country gaining independence. So if the UK ended the institution of the monarchy it would be through means which have not been tried elsewhere. To be honest I'm not sure how it could be done. The assumption that the existence of a monarchy prevents some kind of dictatorship is easily disproved by the example of Mussolini who rose to power both against an existing monarchy and the Pope. I guess that most monarchs have been removed because they abused their powers and so a revolution inherited a system which was already brutal and had no real history of democratic institutions. So the USSR did have its horrific side but it was still a vast improvement on what had preceded it for the vast majority of people. Removal of a monarchy within a country with already existing democratic forms, and through democratic means, is something completely different - it obviously requires the redrawing of the entire constitution of a country.

 

"Removal of a monarchy within a country with already existing democratic forms, and through democratic means, is something completely different - it obviously requires the redrawing of the entire constitution of a country."

Quite. You might well find if something like that was proposed a revolution would take place as people didn't agree with the new form of government that was suggested. The only possible likelihood of something happening of that nature would be if you had a power hungry politician who wanted to be the supreme leader as Mussolini, and it didn't end well for him.

 

Fair point ofh, but when there's a majority view that favours change something has to be done. I'm not saying that such a view exists in the UK as a whole - but it does exist in Scotland.
After 'the interview' was broadcast, JL Partners carried out a UK-wide survey on Monday on a range of topics related to it - one of which was to ask the question about abolishing the monarchy. Perhaps a little surprisingly, for the UK as a whole it resulted in 50% disagreeing and 29% agreeing - but in Scotland 28% disagreed whilst 52% agreed.
Personally, I'm a little ambivalent - whilst I lean towards abolishing it, I'd be happy to go along with the majority. In 2014, SNP 'policy' was to retain the monarchy in the event of independence - but that was then and times have changed. Whilst there has been no updated policy on the issue, there is little doubt that the party membership actually oppose keeping it now. If independence is ever achieved (and the SNP retain power), I imagine that the question would be put to the public 'somewhere down the track', in which case it would likely be after the queen has died - and, as her heirs aren't particularly popular here, I would expect the country would vote to abolish it.

 

The removal of a monarchy through democratic means implies doing it through the ballot box Frenchie - in which case it would be the will of the people which decided the issue. I agree that it could open the door to something else just as obnoxious and this is the danger in a country with so much centralized power as exists in England. What the country badly needs, apart from electoral reform, is radical decentralization of economic and political power away from Westminster - this would be an essential step before abolishing the monarchy. However this would be a battle for another day, and even committed republicans in England realize that it is not worth risking the wrath of the Monarchistic 50% of the population to these ends - just let them score one own goal after the other. What really does annoy me is not the apex of the pyramid (ie the Monarchy itself) but rather the rest of it - meaning the small army of inbred Dukes, barons and other country squires who, despite being less than 1% of the population own over 30% of the land - and this on such a cramped island. The basis of that ownership being none other than being descended from Norman thieves. Another aspect of this is that having a monarchy leads to a false sense of security and to a certain political passivity on the part of the population - in countries without such an institution they know that they have to hold their politicians to account.

 

I agree that the case of Scotland within the UK is creating a powerful argument for some change. The existing London government seems to be sticking its head in the sand and trying to ignore it. Brexit of course has been the catalyst for the disturbance, showing up that without a proper definitive debate about what it actually meant, people have seized upon the bits that they felt it meant, and voted it through by a tiny majority overall.

Just where do things go from here? Looking at what happens in various countries, a federal state type of government seems to me to be a possible way forward. I listen to my Swiss friend who suggests that their system is a nightmare, and no one should adopt their model. There is some degree of autonomy for the regions in France, but that can be overruled by Paris. Corsica has a lot of self governance which took years to work out, but isn't too bad. Germany seems to have a manageable system. Proportional voting would be required across the whole UK, with a council of ministers drawn from each part of a federal UK. Oh dear that sounds a bit like the EU where everyone gets a say and the council of ministers is told to think again. This type of rule would not exclude the Queen or whoever might rule at that time, as it would be a political formation that had little effect on the family standing. What the UK needs to avoid is the English lording it over the other nations and the Queen being seen as supporting that type of action.

 

The German system is a manageable one Frenchie but only in times of stability. There needs to be a very clear definition of which powers are at regional (federal state) level and which are centralized. In times of emergency the transition of powers needs to be smooth and rapid. This has been shown up by the Covid 19 crisis where Merkel has been obstructed by the State presidents - Germany's decentralized model hasn't coped very well in this case. Strangely enough Switzerland turned very centralized, very quickly, to battle this crisis.

 

From time to time when other matters are not pressing, I will watch and listen to a Lords debate. Sanity seems to take over compared to the Commons. The problem that I see is that a government creates life peers simply to boost their party numbers. As soon as one of them starts on the party line it becomes obvious that they are saying what they have been told to say. The easiest thing to whip up in the general population is about these unelected toffs.

 

In others words, an impossibility. Whatever could be done to appease any sense of inferiority, as opposed to equality, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would have to detract from the position of power held by England. Given that they have already reneged on the transfer of powers agreed to in the Smith Commission report, I doubt that those in power in England would ever agree to that.

 

Add to that the fact that the HoC can simply ignore anything voted for in the HoL if they so wish, and the problem becomes greater.

 

I think that Scotland will have to take the route that it chooses which maybe could be declaring itself independent. I would not predict just where the UK will be in five years time. Economic pressure from both Covid and Brexit are going to be huge, and both could have an unsettling effect on the UK population at large. My friend in Northern Ireland tells me that the supermarket shelves were bare until supplies started to arrive on the direct routes from mainland Europe through the south. Empty shelves could override sovereignty in England. It is little wonder that government is in a panic trying to extend no checks on incoming supplies. There is a clear legal route for N. Ireland to leave the UK, and the shift in population numbers means that the unionists will be in a minority, if they are not already. If they left everything changes.

 

Sorry, I don’t really have time to read all this now, but I will at the weekend. I just wanted to say what a fabulous group of people I think you all are. You show respect for each other’s views, listen and respond. I think this board is the healthiest it’s been in years.

 

Just didn’t think I would be posting on a thread with this name!