In the past, readers may remember that I was largely supportive of the Campaign for an Elected Head of State — Republic.
My reason is relatively simple: Activities carried out at summits or meetings of the European Council of Ministers are carried out for the United Kingdom of England and Wales by the Prime Minister in the name of the Head of State. This means that no-one can carry out any checks or balances on what the person in charge of the largest party in parliament does on our behalf. Since 2005 the de facto Head of State has been chosen by the MPs representing the party voted for by less than 40% of the voting population.
But my support never progressed to membership because of views expressed in Republic that I did not agree with. They were against monarchy per se (which I am not) and were keen for the Royal Family to be made to work like ‘normal’ people. Whereas my gripe is with the hole their presence causes in the constitutional robustness of the country.
I mean how can anyone complain about the Royal Family costing each of us under 70 pence each per year when the European Union is estimated to cost us approximately 50 pence per day?
But following Sunday’s revelations that Prince Charles may take a more active interest in the games that politicians play, my support has evaporated entirely. The non-interventionist Queen has overseen gross attacks on her own power and the power of her Ministers by the European Union — if the next King intends to redress that balance, and provide a little, sensible, check and balance, he is fulfilling his constitutional role. Suddenly the need for an extreme overhaul of the Head of State is removed.
Of course Republic don’t agree and are now livid that the King may want to ‘interfere’ in his Kingdom’s running without being elected. But hang on, isn’t the Prime Minister effectively unelected? Isn’t the present situation much worse? Wouldn’t we be better off having an interested and politically independent Head of State than either of the alternatives: an apathetic Head of State or one elected due to the emotions of a small proportion of the electorate?
The electorate are imperfect and make God-awful decisions some of the time — I am excited by the prospect of actually having a Head of State again.
Elect the Lords
That said, I still think we should Elect the Lords!
Sponsored link
Earn money (really) for your normal purchases at we promise to.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Bill (Scotland) on November 19th, 2008 - 12:33 am
United Kingdom of England and Wales
I never heard of this country before; where is it and when did it come into being? The country we live in is the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – I happen to like that, although I recognise there are many who don’t, both in the SNP and the CEP, not to mention Plaid. Incidentallly, taking that title literally it could hardly be a ‘United’ Kingdom as one of the parties (Wales) has not had its own monarchy in a VERY long time and is currently a ‘Principality’ of England. Without Scotland the UK would cease to exist, whatever way you crunch it – I think that would be a bad thing, but the whole legal basis for the country would inevitably change if England and Scotland regrettably parted company.
Personally I see no need to change from a monarchy to a republic, although I’m not totally opposed provided a future President occupied a purely honorary position (e.g. like Ireland, Germany or Israel); what I would object very strongly to would be an Executive President, such as they have in the US or France, who represented a political party affiliation. It’s a pity that Anne couldn’t take over from the Queen; that’s one rule that badly needs changing, although whilst Charles remains alive that wouldn’t make a practical difference I suppose, as he is older.
#2 by Gav on November 19th, 2008 - 1:41 am
Sorry Bill, that was a cheeky dig at our constitutional mess — Scotland (and London actually) has its own representation at the EU Commission!
#3 by Jack Worthing on November 19th, 2008 - 11:43 pm
Meh, I’m a ‘wouldn’t start from here’ guy when it comes to monarchy v republic – I’d prefer the latter, but there’s nothing about the former that would have me storming the gates of Buckingham Palace.
Having said that, Gavin, you must realise that if you encourage an unelected HoS to become or remain politically active, you may get some political views expressed that you don’t like. What if during an election Charles started saying that in his view Labour policies would be best for Britain – would you be quite so approving of his intervention?
Closer to home, do you think this is a good use of senior officer time in Adur and Worthing?: http://jackworthing.blogspot.com/2008/11/fiddling-while-worthing-burns.html
#4 by The Political Thinker on December 4th, 2008 - 8:38 pm
Gavin, can I ask, how can you support the monarchy and yet at the same time support an elected House of Lords? Indeed, what is the rationale, if there is any, for the latter?
Also, I’m quite fond of the Queen and her role. While she must offer advice to ministers and cabinet members, it would be quite improper and nontraditional for her to do so in public. The Queen is a perfect role model for Charles as HoS.
#5 by wonkotsane on December 20th, 2008 - 5:40 pm
Still disagree with you on the elected Lords. I agree about having an unelected PM though, we should have elections for the post of PM.