Royal Wedding

[Bill Walker]

Trump is a perfect example of why having an elected head of state may not be as great an idea as people think. One of the purposes of a head of state is to act as a figurehead and rise above the differences across the country - a lot harder when they are elected and automatically have a polarising effect.

They had a referendum in Australia a couple of years ago where the options were to keep the Queen or become a republic and have an elected head of state. They took one look at the available candidates for an elected position and said 'Nah mate, we'll stick with Liz'.

But the big difference is that they can vote Trump out after 4 years, no-one can vote the Queen out.

The Oz referendum was 19 years ago not a couple. It was quite close and in 19 years weve had a lot of immigration, almost a million every 4 years, consensus is that the Republic will happen next time, and Im sure there will be a next time.

 

[Henkeman]

But the big difference is that they can vote Trump out after 4 years, no-one can vote the Queen out.

The Oz referendum was 19 years ago not a couple. It was quite close and in 19 years weve had a lot of immigration, almost a million every 4 years, consensus is that the Republic will happen next time, and Im sure there will be a next time.

Well, we kind of can. The only reason we still have a monarchy is because the vast majority approve or acquiesce in that. The biggest problem republicanism has is that the people don't agree.

It's a perfectly honourable position to hold, but if you can't persuade the public of its merits, it's not a conspiracy, it's just life and politics. Same reason that the US doesn't change TO a monarchy.

Incidentally, on Australia, it'll be when the Queen dies. Even a lot who would vote for a Republic respect her. Canada similar.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Comparing the UK system to the US system is apples and oranges; they just don't compare. The Senate leader does not compare to the UK PM in powers, and the US has two elected houses that vote on laws.

The UK monarch is not a political figure, and the idea of 'voting them out' makes no sense. Why would there be a need to? A few hundred years ago, the monarch lost political primacy in the UK, and there's not been any significant drive to change the situation.

From what I recall, the Australian vote was nerfed by being binary, with the alternative being quite awful (similar in some ways to the stitch-up when Blair(?) shafted the House of Lords reformation, by throwing support behind an alternative which was politically partisan to mirror the Commons - that meant that all the options failed, when one of the others might easily have passed).