TomPhil

I'm in the middle of revising for my exams, and one of the topics I have to revise is whether we should replace the monarchy with a republican system headed by a President. Now I personally would not support this happening during the reign of our current Queen, but I may have to reconsider this when the possibility of Prince Charles becoming King arises (hopefully not for quite some time yet).

However, one interesting question that arose during my lectures on this subject, and that nobody could find an answer for, was this: if we did decide to go with an elected President in the UK, who would be an appropriate candidate for the job?

I'm assuming a few things: one is that the role of President would be kept separate from that of Prime Minister. Secondly, the President would be directly elected rather than appointed by Parliament or whatever. And thirdly, I assume that the battle would be fought on party political grounds - each party would stand a candidate under their party label (although, of course, some people may also stand as independents).

My question to you is, ignoring whether you are a republican or monarchist, if a Presidential election were to be held in the UK tomorrow, (a) who do you think would stand (and who would win) and (b) who would you like to see standing?

I've thought about these questions for a while and I really can't think of many answers. Out of interest, I wonder if anyone has any ideas?

__________________
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

Northumbrian

Don't you mean 'President of the United Republic'?

Westcountryman

My concern is that who decides the powers of the President? Ie. Would the President suddenly be the leader of the Country and thus command all the powers previously conferred upon the Prime Minister?

A constitution would have to be established to outline the role of each office - which I'm not too keen on, since a Constitution would likely impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Also, if the President held the power of veto, this would also undermine Parliament.

As for who would win office - is Jeremy Clarkson standing?

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

John Connor

I'm going to second Jezzer for Prez.

Unless someone wants to vote me in, of course. But then I'd do much the same as Jezzer would do.

__________________
There are three types of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists and those who haven't been paying attention.

Users on ignore list: Akria, Besoeker, Clippo, david H, Ian C.

TomPhil

Oops... didn't think of that! Perhaps while the country was being renamed, however, the opportunity would be taken to rename it to something more appropriate. "Airstrip One", for example. Or "European Union - North-West region". Or "The Democratic People's Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

__________________
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."

In Labour we trusted and now we are busted... again. It's the economy, stupid.

prober

Mugabe ? Idi Amin ?, there must be a long list of has been dictators looking for a job. Be in no doubt, historically an "elected " president would have major powers to display his initial benevolance followed by increasing authoritarianism. So why not cut out the phony early stage and go straight to a proven dictator from the international market.

Vortex

The Queen is the symbol of a (supposed) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, as the monarchy these days seems to exist to perpetuate itself rather than the nation, it is quite conceivable that she and her descendants would happily "rule" over a vassal state of the EUSSR as it would the nation state of Great Britain.

When I was asked which side I would have joined in the English Civil War, I researched the subject and decided that I would have supported Cromwell. I remain true to that view, but one important point needs to be added and its a very valid point. Cromwell never wanted to abolish the monarchy. He wanted an accountable monarchy dedicated to serving the people not the other way round. His hand was forced by the machinations of Charles I and his obsessional belief in the divine right of kings.

I therefore conclude that the institution of monarchy is an ancient British tradition that should be continued, but that the monarch must sit at his or her throne by the will of the people and serve them well, even in the face of standing up to such tyranny as those that seek world government by international finance or the EU superstae.

Internationalist

You would have to dig him up first, I'm afraid.

yaro

Haha, 1 more reason why it can't happen. UK is a well known "brand". You would have to replace all passports, rename the country in many texts, reprint all pounds.

In Europe, monarchies were usually abolished after some sort of revolution or war, not in peace time.

The only way how it could happen would be if northern ireland, scotland and wales decided to declare independence. Then England would become a republic.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

Ignore list: Hartlepool

Westcountryman

Er, the Queen is also Queen of England.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."