Abolish the Monarchy: Why we should and how we will

Product Information

They say Britain should be proud to have the mother of parliaments, to be a shining beacon of democracy and an example to other nations. But there's an elephant in the room. the royals hold the power to do things that they shouldn’t (by political and moral standards), and don’t hold the power that a Head of State (by political standards, at least) should have See also: The Freethinker and early republicanism: the letter by a ‘librarian from Colchester’ that led to the formation of Republic The best and most recent data come from an Angus Reid Institute poll released in April. Majorities everywhere oppose “recognizing Charles as King of Canada,” ranging from 53 per cent opposed in Ontario to 59 per cent or more opposed everywhere else. As for swearing an oath to King Charles “at some official ceremonies,” the lowest number is 57 per cent against.

I was startled awake with the familiar story of the forced evacuation of the Chagos Islands not requiring any reference for an overview from Parliament and how the process is available to be repeated. And possibly has been because these need not be reported. Everything then hinges on the wording of the two questions to be asked in this Canada-wide referendum organized by Ottawa, with or without the provinces’ approval. Graham Smith is the Chief Executive of Republic, which is a campaigning group that calls for the abolition of the British Monarchy and it’s replacement with a democratic alternative.I came to the end of Graham Smith’s Abolish the Monarchy and found myself wanting to know more about the man. He recently hit the headlines when arrested on Coronation day in association with anti-monarchy protests. (The Met has subsequently expressed “regret”; Smith, CEO of the pressure group Republic, is taking legal action.) Here is an individual who, for the best part of his adult life, has fought to get rid of an institution long hailed the touchstone of British identity.

For the purposes of transparency, I'll state that I've been anti-monarchist for my entire adult life. It is with the death of Elizabeth that I became ardently anti-monarchist. I wish Smith's book had been around much earlier, I would not have wasted time waiting to take up the cause; I would have started years ago.

Republish this article

The existence of the royal bond is enshrined in the Constitution, so that must be changed. To do this, a constitutional amendment must be approved in each of the 10 provinces and by both the House of Commons and the Senate. To make matters worse, modern history tells us that if anyone tries to amend the Constitution for one reason, all of the many players will scramble to add their own proposals in other areas, leading inevitably to failure. It would start by deftly defining the needed constitutional amendment. It would, in my view, state that the office of Canada’s head of state should henceforth be held, not by the head of the British Royal Family, but by the Governor General, until such time as a constitutional conference decides otherwise. Which takes us to the ‘how we will’ part of abolishing the monarchy. It will be achieved, says Smith, by forcing the public to come to its senses about the chasm between its own values and those of the crown, perhaps by giving everyone a copy of this book. Eventually, the government will be unable to ignore public clamour for a referendum on the monarchy’s continuation. Then, the crown will simply be voted out of existence. Smith is hazy on the itinerary, but that doesn’t stop him looking forward to a time when the ‘champions of our most cherished shared values’ appear in place of the king on stamps, and the likes of Carol Ann Duffy are put to work writing a republican constitution. If you were hoping that the fall of the Windsors would at least mean no more tampon metaphors, think again. For People Who Devour Books The first should revolve around this: Do you want Canada to appoint a Canadian head of state, rather than keeping the head of the British Royal Family in that position? Yes/No. No president would be perfect, but they would be accountable, and they would represent us in a way no monarch ever could. Personally, I would prefer a head of state who could effectively enforce a written constitution and bravely lead the way in defending liberal values. Think of Václav Havel and Mary Robinson, two presidents who proudly supported Salman Rushdie in the 1990s while our own head of state, the great champion of our vaunted liberties, was silent. Our monarchs seem to have spent more time secretly lobbying for tax exemptions than standing up for liberty.

This is a very timely reminder of the constitutional absurdity of our taxpayer-funded Royal Family that is at war with itself. Whether you're in favour of abolition or a more slimmed-down monarchy in keeping with modern Britain, Graham Smith puts the case for reform eloquently and forcefully. Robert Verkaik, author of Posh BoysWhat I was realising in reading this is that Graham Smith is dealing with a much bigger topic than simply #NOTMYKING. But I held off any strong public declaration of wanting to see the monarchy abolished out of respect for Elizabeth whom, I had already been led to believe, was doing a great service for the country in all the work she did with leaders around the world. Plus, there were always the arguments that the monarchy bring in huge revenues in tourism and that the British public overwhelmingly loved the royal family. And in the end, they don't have any power, surely, so it does no harm to keep them. All good stuff, right?