Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

No president would be perfect, but they would be accountable, and they would represent us in a way no monarch ever could. Personally, I would prefer a head of state who could effectively enforce a written constitution and bravely lead the way in defending liberal values. Think of Václav Havel and Mary Robinson, two presidents who proudly supported Salman Rushdie in the 1990s while our own head of state, the great champion of our vaunted liberties, was silent. Our monarchs seem to have spent more time secretly lobbying for tax exemptions than standing up for liberty.

This idea of Britain’s parliamentary democracy as the blueprint the world has taken to its heart, of Britain as one of the oldest, most stable democracies in the world, is founded on a bargain that has suited the interests of both the royals and the political classes alike. The reality is somewhat different: a parliament that has stumbled from one reform to the next, begrudgingly moving on the issue of suffrage while slowly centralizing power in the hands of the House of Commons, and then concentrating power further into Downing Street. Simply put, who has power and why in Britain, is a matter of historical contingency. We could do a lot better.’ The result is a very timely work, though it is doubtful how relevant this book will remain outside of this year, let alone the coming decades. the year of the coronation. Republic's protests have made a big impact on the debate about the future of the monarchy, and we're seeing support for the royals drop sharply. Second, in keeping with the idea of giving this amendment the greatest possible legitimacy through the popular vote, a national referendum should be held before the votes on the amendment take place in provincial legislatures and Parliament. If the public indicates it wants action, elected officials would, of course, be politically bound to accept their voters’ verdict. Perhaps what is most encouraging about this book is Smith's arguments against the contention that most people want the monarchy to continue. The figures have come down over recent years so that even royalists admit it is close to half the country wanting to be rid of the institution. Their argument is the old classic 'now is not the time' when it comes to demands for a referendum. Wait until the consensus is much greater and don't make a fuss now, they argue, ignoring the fact that much of the change in opinion has come through the efforts of people like Graham Smith, campaigning for years. Smith counters this argument brilliantly in essence showing that there is a great difference between being actively in favour of something and passively being ok with it continuing. This is the crux of the matter: it is likely that those who truly want to keep the monarchy are actually now in the minority.Moreover, since the Meech Lake Accord was negotiated behind closed doors in 1990, several provinces have passed legislation requiring provincial referenda to ratify significant changes to the Constitution. In addition, since the 1995 Quebec referendum, each region of the country – Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces – has been given by Parliament a veto over any change to the Constitution. This centralisation of power, and the powerlessness of our head of state in the face of it, is one of Smith’s favourite themes. Without an elected head of state and a written constitution, we are left at the mercy of parliamentary sovereignty—which in practice means the supremacy of the government. There is almost nothing stopping the Prime Minister of the day from legislating for whatever they wish, so long as they have an unassailable parliamentary majority. And this is not even to mention the sweeping powers, not subject to any sort of democratic process, afforded to the Prime Minister by the royal prerogative and the Privy Council.

The pessimists have long had the upper hand in the ongoing debate over whether to cut the umbilical cord that has linked Canada to the British Royal Family since the birth of this country. The obstacles between the start and end points have seemed too numerous or too insurmountable to even try. I found myself saddened that I waited so long to join groups like Smith's Republic. I should have done this years ago. Elizabeth was not doing the good work I thought she was, and in all this time, the royal family have definitely wielded power. But it isn't that any of them did anything bad, per se - although Smith points out that at times they definitely did - it is that there is no moral, economic, political or even historical reason why we need to keep this corrupt institution in place. Indeed, if anything, it is imperative we get rid of them as soon as possible. The monarchy, Smith argues, is hindering our democracy. The existence of the royal bond is enshrined in the Constitution, so that must be changed. To do this, a constitutional amendment must be approved in each of the 10 provinces and by both the House of Commons and the Senate. To make matters worse, modern history tells us that if anyone tries to amend the Constitution for one reason, all of the many players will scramble to add their own proposals in other areas, leading inevitably to failure.

The first should revolve around this: Do you want Canada to appoint a Canadian head of state, rather than keeping the head of the British Royal Family in that position? Yes/No.

Even in my most evangelical of days as a teenager (I really must have been insufferable in my religious fervour) I could see that the belief the monarchy was somehow 'God-given' was simply not true. There is no biblical basis for it whatsoever. Charles, even before Diana's death, was clearly a selfish fool and his father was already infamous for his foul faux pas. In more recent times we've seen Charles can't even deal with a pen without having a hissy fit. Canadians may be divided on whether to cast off the royal moorings, but they have a clear idea of the method to use to decide the issue: a national referendum. Last September, 58 per cent of respondents told IPSOS they wanted Justin Trudeau to organize such a consultation. Obviously, the wish is stronger in Quebec (73 per cent), but one finds a majority everywhere except in the Prairies (where the figure is between 45 and 49 per cent.) the royals hold the power to do things that they shouldn’t (by political and moral standards), and don’t hold the power that a Head of State (by political standards, at least) should have At the heart of power is a single family. They weren't elected but they live off the public purse. They aren't accountable to anyone, and yet between them they are privy to more government secrets than many cabinet ministers. Divinely appointed using a special hat, the head of the family is your superior, you his subject. Apparently he is guardian of our constitution - but we're also told he wouldn't dream of interfering in politics.

Season 2 starts on February 11.

Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse. Even in the 1990s when the late Queen was struggling with an annus horribilis, her children’s marriages imploding left, right and centre, the overall popularity of the monarchy remained robust at 69 per cent, only falling to 55 per cent in the wake of the Prince Andrew and Harry debacles. But regardless of the odds, for over two decades Smith has been tugging away at the stitches of our constitutional monarchy, pulling at loose threads, developing his republican thesis and focusing his ire. If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for 65 € per month. If you accept the monarchy, you must accept the moral compromise that comes with it, from its erosion of the principle of equality to the secret interference in our laws. But the good news is that we don't have to accept it. True democracy is within our reach.

Mayer notes that the alleged racism, bullying and image manipulation inside the institution are not being examined. Left alone, they have the power to dissolve faith in the idea of a hereditary head of state. One must therefore devise a road map that navigates each of these obstacles in a predictable and transparent way. Above all, the entire process must be based on the greatest possible legitimacy: the popular vote. Where do Canadians stand? For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. If you’d like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial.What I was realising in reading this is that Graham Smith is dealing with a much bigger topic than simply #NOTMYKING. When The Enchanted Glass: Britain and its Monarchy was published 35 years ago and until very recently, the British monarchy seemed pretty unassailable. That finally seems to be shifting, as I've commented to several pro-monarchy acquaintances. Smith summarises why much more effectively than I managed to: This question alone exposes us to getting negative answers from one or two provinces. It is obviously politically impossible to use the Canadian average to impose the decision because that would give fiercely anti-monarchist Quebec far too strong a voice, which would irrevocably pollute the whole referendum debate. Unlike Smith, I don’t predict or want the demise of the Crown in the foreseeable future. I do, however, think our political landscape is richer for protest movements like his – police, take note – and that our constitutional monarchy is potentially stronger when it’s tuned into its most vociferous opponents. Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now. (Admittedly, the Lords often has better discussions than anything that goes on in the Commons – but then so do most sixth forms.) We all know how the argument goes: you don’t like hereditary privilege? Well, do you think an elected head of state would be better?