Jock's Place - Monarchy or Republic? Neither, please, I want a Democracy. - Comments

I don't think you've read it...

Jock — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:18:23 +0000

...or at least have missed the point if so.

My issue is that it doesn't really matter whether we have an elected flunkie or a genetic flunkie as "head of state" when the power lies elsewhere and is far from democratic. Republicans, at least such as espoused in Tatchell's article, seem to think it will all be glorious if we just change the way we appoint a head of state. There are far more fundamental democratic defecits in the UK system to address first.

I'd be quite happy with the Swiss system where the nominal "head of state" rotates annually amongst the members of the Federal Council rather like ceremonial mayors are chosen in municipalities here.

Neither monarchy nor

Anonymous — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:32:23 +0000

Neither monarchy nor republic? So how would be the head of the state be decided? Democratically or by succesion? Make up your mind, please.

Monarchy or Republic? Neither, please, I want a Democracy.

Jock — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:32:03 +0000

I don't often keep an eye on CommentIsFree - there's just too much "comment" for me to get into. But Tim Worstall today highlighted this little one from Peter Tatchell ahead of today's "Republic Day". With uncharacteristic hubris Tatchell says: "But we democrats celebrate June 2 with a vision of what Britain could be: a democratic republic with an elected head of state, a representative of the nation who is chosen by us, the people."

By happy coincidence this week also sees the annual knees-up of the "G8", an event that supremely highlights the error of the tired republican claims typified by "democrats" like Tatchell above.