Liberals must embrace republicanism (from 2009)

Back in 2009, I argued in favour of republicanism on Liberal Democrat Voice (was a non-party member at the time);

The current head of state is a lame duck. If Her Majesty – at the demand of The Sun – dissolved Parliament and dismissed her government over the expenses scandal, the Crown would be instantly attacked (and removed) via the governing party. Any Royal power would be seen as a provocative act towards Parliament (the Royal veto was last used in 1708). A Presidential system could solve many constitutional problems because, significantly, the President would have a democratic mandate to rule with authority and be political. Liberals may have led the way on electoral and House of Lords reform, but our voice is needed to justify the removal of the Crown. Britain, and her future, is better off under the administration of a republic.

……

The Liberal Democrats have a political duty to argue against the Crown. Monarchists will, inevitability, deny us the right to question the Crown and propose a counter-system. But we cannot steer away from the debate. A monarchist once asked me to choose between President Blair or President Thatcher, but the beauty is, as I said, both can be voted out of office. Queen Elizabeth cannot.

Read Full Post »

The Jubilee: Pardon my republicanism…

I’m confused: apparently I should celebrate the reign of an unelected Head of State. My republicanism is principled; I believe all authority should be accountable. After all, this is the premise of a democracy. Throughout the ‘celebrations’ it seems unwarranted for republicans to protest – freedom of speech is apparently suspended during the jubilee.

My objection to the Queen is nothing personal. I have no animosity towards her or the family, it would be quite uncalled for to randomly attack individuals just because of ‘Royal blood.’ Pointless and grossly damaging to the republican movement.

But, republicans should be grateful that we can protest and criticise the Monarchy and the jubilee (unlike the Olympics); some countries Monarch’s are so powerful and individuals face imprisonment and even death, in remote cases, for questioning a hereditary hierarchy.

Even though, I will admit, republicans are a minority (only 13% of us favour a ‘British Republic’), we are entitled to object to the institution of Monarchy.

Read Full Post »

BBC Scotland and the pointless art of monarchy

My republicanism is burning strong this afternoon. How hideous. Charles presented a weather forecast during a visit to BBC Scotland’s headquarters at Glasgow; a unelected mandarin, who will one day be Head of State, perfectly displaying how useless the institution of monarchy is.

I wish a taxpayer funded news channel did not help to feed the cult of personality that surrounds the British Royal family. This goes to show, during the jubilee, I shall no doubt have to leave the United Kingdom for a while and return when the celebrations have died down.

Read Full Post »

Gove you f***ing idiot

Give the Queen a new yacht for the jubilee, says minister

Michael Gove has brushed aside Britain’s economic problems to propose the public donate a new royal yacht to the Queen as a mark of respect during this year’s diamond jubilee celebrations, according to a confidential letter to fellow ministers.

I tend not to use offensive language on my blog, as a self confessed suave man of eloquence. But, Gove, you can fuck off, mate. Seriously.

Read Full Post »

Prince Charles and the secret veto

Since the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 the Prince of Wales’s consent has been sought on laws that affect the estate; from 2005, several ministerial departments have sought his permission regarding numerous bills. That’s the beauty of a hereditary dictatorship – laws can be interpreted to benefit the oligarchy and not the general population.

In a democracy, the government is meant to seek permission from the electorate. Funny that.

The Guardian have conducted another fine piece of investigation into lobbying matters. Members of both Houses, Commons and Lords, are now demanding Clarence House release the details of all information related to specific legislation (which his ‘advice’ was sought). Charles Windsor has a controversial history of meddling with government and parliamentary affairs; there is a distinct separation of powers with this  country, which prevents the ‘Royal’ Household from influencing the political debate.

If Mr Windsor would like to play the politician, then perhaps he should advocate a republic and run for the democratically elected position as Head of State; if not, would he mind keeping his opinions to himself?

Read Full Post »

So, the Prince of Wales is annoying. And?

We act surprised at the new Alastair Campbell revelations? During the premiership of Harold Wilson it was widely acknowledge, about Charles’s interference and obstruction to domestic politics. The Prince of Wales has a narcissistic and ego-centric personality; his arrogance is so obnoxious. Mr ‘King-in-waiting’ loves nothing more than giving an impression of a politician and he’s fully conscious of any repercussion from speeches. That’s why he continues to be a nuisance.

Royal family members are entitled to their opinions, but they must remain private – Parliament is the court for pontificating political and social propositions. Not the nursery of unelected puppets and fancy clothing in an obscure Palace.

In all honesty, I didn’t require another Alastair Campbell Diary to tell me. This is old news.

Read Full Post »

So much for austerity, Charles

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall Annual Review is out today. Oh boy, it’s certainly a fascinating read – especially the 18% income rise from taxpayers. Charles, over the years, has accumulated numerous salaries due to ceremonial roles in the armed forces.  Which he has earned based on birth right and the disgusting hereditary system of monarchy.

Rather insulting to the military, who are facing the reality of pay freezes and redundancies. Some animals are more equal than others, especially when your mother creates the laws in this country.

Taken from page two of the AR 2011, we can view the accounts for the year. With government implementing cuts, I cannot comprehended a legitimate scenario to increase the Prince’s pocket-money.

In all honesty, the British public should not be subsiding the avaricious and gluttonous behaviour of an undemocratic pleb. I’m still waiting for the explanation from Clarence House; I doubt we will receive any adequate justification.

The heir also increased his luxury travel by 56 per cent. What a wonderful man.

The annual review is available online at
http://addison.ceros.com/trh/ar2011/page/1/

Read Full Post »

Nick Cohen explains the predicament of Monarchy

“The trouble with monarchy, however, is that, by definition, no one can stop the Prince from becoming King Charles III, because the British are not allowed to vote for their head of state. Charles Windsor constantly interferes in politics and promotes every variety of reactionary superstition and new-age quackery. He sounded like the leader of a messianic cult when he announced in a recent book, “I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to … indicate possible ways we can heal the world.” Yet whatever his personal failings, he will be King because he was born to the right mother.”

Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2068467,00.html#ixzz1L00Dpgj6

Read Full Post »

Absurd world of the Royal Wedding

As a contrarian, I am naturally oppose the institution of the Monarchy and principle rule of hereditary succession. It is a grotesque, inhumane, corrupt circus that idolises a false concept based on the perception that people must be ruled from above.

The Monarchy manages to achieve a level of contempt in me, which far surpasses my attitudes towards organised religion, and it brings out the most indecorousness and insincerity of my behaviour; most Monarchs tend to share my feelings, but significantly more towards their own subjects. Not their own reign.

A constant feeling of dread overwhelms my spirit whenever I read or observe any material related to current affairs. Facetious news coverage; border lining on salacious emotions of newsreaders and reporters are reaching an inept and nauseating climax.

I fear for Kay Burley on the day of the Royal Wedding.

‘Our dear Kate’ has been swept into a fairytale story, glamourised by the adoring public and coerced into affiliation with the Church of England. But, alas, that is the inevitable outcome of building a constitution on the family and political values of King Henry VIII. Her previous freedom and privacy in life will be banished in valle lacrimarum once the title of Princess is anointed; a mark her new enslavement and imprisonment as our future Queen in waiting.

And yet we celebrate this tragedy and exhibit symptoms of a collective Stockholm syndrome, all in the spectrum of a ‘Royal Wedding.’

Read Full Post »

Republicans not welcomed in Camden

Camden Council have overturned a decision to allow a republican street party entitled ‘Not the royal wedding’ street party in Earlham Street, Covent Garden. From my understanding, there was no objections from the local police or community; it faced zero opposition.

By refusing to temporary close off Earlham Street it means the event cannot go ahead. Effectively banned and silenced.

However, freedom of expression and speech is not welcomed by Camden Council; nor opposing the Monarchy, either. Honestly, is the decision to refuse to close the street off for a republican wedding party a purely political decision?

Republic’s  Graham Smith released the following press statement on the news, promising to appeal against the decision and vowing to continue with plans for the street party:

“Our street party is designed to be a peaceful, fun, family event with
food, music and stalls. The police, local businesses and the council’s own
staff have been fully supportive of our plans. We can only assume this is a
politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.“

“In an earlier email the council said any party should seek to ‘draw the
community together in an act of celebration/oneness’ and that ‘it is very
likely that this event is not, or would not be, supported by the majority
of the community’. Camden Council is essentially saying that, as a
political minority, republicans have no right to be heard.“

“We are now taking legal advice to see if we can overturn this decision in
the courts.“

Read Full Post »