Craster wrote:
Surely the only undemocratic thing about the current setup is the monarch's veto, which has never been used (and never will be)?
I agree with you that the monarch's veto is undemocratic and is unlikely to ever be used, I'd just like the option of being able to elect a ceremonial head of state. (Incidentally, realise that Britain becoming a republic is completely inconceivable for the foreseeable.)
Squirt wrote:
I think a referendum on the Monarchy would result in one significantly in favour of keeping it. Not necessarily because everyone loves the idea of a Monarchy, but because people would see it as a way for politicians to increase their own importance. Plenty of people like the Queen, but plenty of people also hate the idea of "President Blair".
Ah, the old strawman that all republics are presidential republics.
Most European republics have presidents who are merely ceremonial figureheads. France being the famous exception.
sinister agent wrote:
People say that, but I'm pretty sure the industry would make it up pretty easily. It's not like tourists come over here and have tea with the queen.
Yup. TBH, I've known plenty of people who've not only come to Britain for tourism, but have also settled here, and their reasons for coming to the UK
never involve the royal family. (I mean, who here's been to Spain on holiday? Plenty, I imagine. Did you go there specifically because it's a monarchy? Doubt it.)