Republic: Why the UK should wave goodbye to our monarch
Britain's Monarchy is one of the most famous in the entire world, due to Elizabeth the II's rule and their constant media appearances both good and bad. There is a train of thought at the moment that says that Elizabeth might actually be the last proper Monarch of Britain as many in the line of Succession do not wish to take the role, to some this is bad news and that it is the end to a long tradition that those people deem to be necessary even in a progressing society whilst there are people like me who look at the train of thought with some degree of excitement. Republicanism is the opposition to any unelected head of state, eg a monarch regardless of whether it is "constitutional" or Absolute. Republicans want to overthrow the Monarch and replace them with a Democratically Elected head of state such as a President. I want to de-bunk the myths or "reasons" why Britain and so many other countries "need" a monarch, a lot of the reasons given in the UK predominantly by Right wingers are Economical, and on the front of it do make sense, until you actually look at the numbers in the wide scheme of things, here are some of those reasons why they think we need a monarch, and the responses to why those reasons are either invalid or misleading:
1 - "The Monarchy brings in £500 Million to the UK Economy": This point is true until you look at the overarching economic significance of that claim. The UK Economy currently sits at a GDP of $2.6 Trillion, £500 Million or $700 Million in comparison to the overall economy isn't much that's about 0.03% of the UK's overall Revenue. £500 Million isn't even enough to pay for a week's NHS cost (at 2016/17 spending), so in the grand scheme of things they don't bring in that much money, it's such a small fraction of money that if the British monarch vanished tomorrow we wouldn't really see a difference in the Economy.
2 - "They do a lot for Charity": This is also true, but all of us do a lot for Charity, our grandmothers do a our bit for charity as well. Plus, doing their bit for charity is a relatively new thing for the Monarch's they haven't always done that. They kind of have to do charitable work because they are forced to be politically neutral so in some ways being charitable is their way of expressing their political nature without being sided one way or another.
3 - "If we didn't have them it might lead to a dictatorship": I have heard this from some conservatives, the line of thinking seems to come from that every other overthrowing of a Monarchy has been part of some kind of "Left wing uprising" like in the USSR, when the Tsars where shot and killed and replaced with what was a sort of dictatorship. Same thing could technically be said for the French Revolution, however, not all Republics are dictatorships and not all Monarchies aren't dictatorships. Just because one has had very public bouts with totalitarianism doesn't mean the other one hasn't either. We still live in a world where there are Absolute monarchies where the monarchs have absolute control over what people do with their lives and in the privacy of their own homes, perfect example being Saudi Arabia. Even Constitutional Monarchies like in the UK still give a lot of power to the Monarch, like even though the Monarch is supposed to be "Symbolic" they still have power that other people in the country don't, like the Queen still has the ability to declare war without the approval of the parliament, she can't be taken to court, she doesn't have to have a passport and completely veto laws all together.
4 - "They are a representation of British values": I thought that Britain called itself a Democracy and was proud of that fact, if that's not a British Value then i'm not entirely sure what you would be talking about. I have my issues with the way Democracy is run in this county, but for what it's worth, if we are supposed to be a democracy and progressive, the last thing we want is a un-elected head of state that still has more power than the elected parliament. Also the British Royal Family is a deeply religious institution, whilst 53% of the British population are non-religious, there is no point claiming they represent the majority of Britain when the data shows otherwise.
The 5th point that people make is along the same lines as the first, but a bit different. It's usually that they attract tourists that brings the £500 million in, however, i know many many people who have come to the UK and never once has it been for the Monarchy. It's usually for the weather, food, friends, the history, etc. Monarchists seem to think that abolishing the Monarchy automatically un-writes them from the history books, it really doesn't. The Palaces will still stand, the castles and buildings that used to house the royals will still be open to the public, if anything they will be even more open to the public and that will bring even more money in.
The biggest point in favour of Republicanism is that although the Monarch had an important purpose they no longer fit that purpose. Society is supposed to move forward, not drag traditions into the Modern age, we cannot claim to strive for Equality of any kind until we actually have equality across the board, and a good start to that is the abolishment of the Royal family. It is unfair to those on the streets or at the bottom of society to say we are equal when the places the often beg for food are in line of sight of a building that houses a family that is subsidised and paid for, for very little in return.
Abolish the monarchy.
Its not like the monarchy in UK executes any of the political power they supposedly have so whats the point in spending a lot of money changing something that wont change anything?
And the royal family isnt paid for by the public there upkeep is generated by their estates etc unless you are suggesting nationalisation of their properties (a bit like theft if you suggested doing it to any other rich family)
We are called a democracy but we are not who voted for May to be priminister for instance the ongoing strecht out brexit another?
Well you wouldn't really need to "spend a lot of money" to change something like that, I mean getting rid of the monarch would change quite a bit. It would change how bills are decided on, how the parliament is governed, how bills are signed into practice. Economically it would mean more money towards things like the NHS and Welfare state that is there to help a majority of people rather than a select one family, roughly £43 Million would go back into the money pot, and with the Royal family no longer living in the massive palaces and such, tourists would be mostly free to walk around the whole palace rather than select parts of it, allowing us to charge more than we already do.
So you are suggesting nationalisation of their properties
You said yourself they generate an income of 500 mil and here as argument to do it you mention 43 mil less than 10%!
How would it mean more money for NHS?
The abused welfare state is one of the problems there are many people out there perfectly capable of finding a job and working but dont so so because what for its more comfortable on the doe where you get paid to do nothing.
You say it wouldnt cost much to change consider what politicians get paid and think how many hours of debating over changing laws and such it would take them!
As it is we have a empty symbol who takes no part in rulling the country who's upkeep we dont pay for.
Sorry but your argument lets steal their possesions and give them to the poor doesnt appeal to my who would be next on the list?
An idea of for instance heavy taxation on bankers at least till they pay off the bailouts or capping politicians wages and expenditure would be far more constructive in my opinion
Well ideally i wouldnt rely on politicians to do it, as an anarchist i'd prefer that the people take the middle man outta the situation and do it themselves, but that's even less likely to happen. At least with politicians doing it, the mundane liberal public will be more in favor of that than something that at its surface is seen as immoral for example going full french revolution and decapitating the royals
The United Kingdom is not a democracy, and eliminating the figure of Monarch will not turn them into one either. At the most they will be the same as the rest of the nations, representative governments with elections.
Sure, but for me ironically it is down to the Symbolism. For the most part, people tend to judge a country more on the first thing they see, a lot of people see the monarch as an introduction to British Values and so on, but this like i outlined isn't much of an accurate representation of Britain, its more like a representation of Britain during the 1850s, we're in 2018 just now and it makes no sense to keep a inaccurate representation such as the Monarchy. Second of all, making a country that is a Republic makes more sense even in the realm of Representative governments. Many Republics have their Prime Minister who is a representative of the electorate and the government, then they have a president who is someone of a separate party that is there to mediate confrontations between the two, and is there to add an extra level of control to the people. Since having the Leader of the Opposition is great and all, but when you have a situation like just now where you have a Conservative Majority government with Theresa May in charge (who no one voted for, she just showed up) you could have a president who is a member of the Labour Party. Which would send either two messages, either the General election was a marketing failure that lead to a Conservative lead that when the Presidential elections came up everyone changed their mind, or that the Conservatives represent British Economic values and the President represents their Social values, it still wouldn't make a Democracy, but for the most part it would make more sense than having a very old tradition in charge that barely does anything other than collect dust and our tax money.
Then what? In what situation does that leave Canada and the rest of the countries that have British royalty as head of state?
No because what has tended to happen historically is once the "mother country" gets rid of their monarchy, once the last head of state dies the rest of the commonwealth will be left as a Republic as well, since the line of succession dies with the previous head of state.
Well, I do not think this is going to happen. But everything is possible in the world.