I found myself saddened that I waited so long to join groups like Smith's Republic. I should have done this years ago. Elizabeth was not doing the good work I thought she was, and in all this time, the royal family have definitely wielded power. But it isn't that any of them did anything bad, per se - although Smith points out that at times they definitely did - it is that there is no moral, economic, political or even historical reason why we need to keep this corrupt institution in place. Indeed, if anything, it is imperative we get rid of them as soon as possible. The monarchy, Smith argues, is hindering our democracy. A crucial, riveting polemic in support of one of the most precious things humanity has built - democracy itself' OWEN JONES

It's wrong in principle and it doesn't work in practice. (And no, it's not good for tourism.) It doesn't have to be this way. So here is Prince Andrew, essentially dethroned. His sin was not his inhumanity, but giving an interview about his inhumanity. Remember that when you start defending his mother. Meanwhile, Meghan has been treated as a villain for combining princessiness with stardom and being biracial. For cost savings, you can change your plan at any time online in the “Settings & Account” section. If you’d like to retain your premium access and save 20%, you can opt to pay annually at the end of the trial. The formulation clearly distinguishes the two key debates: dumping the monarchy now and deciding what to replace it with later. For the time being, it would propose a minimalist change: the Governor General would be responsible for carrying out all the functions he or she has performed to date – no longer in the name of a King in London, but in the name of the Canadian government that has appointed him or her. Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now. (Admittedly, the Lords often has better discussions than anything that goes on in the Commons – but then so do most sixth forms.) We all know how the argument goes: you don’t like hereditary privilege? Well, do you think an elected head of state would be better?Angus Reid did not ask a direct yes or no question on severing the royal ties entirely but it found pluralities wanting to give it a try despite the constitutional difficulty, with fewer than one-third of respondents outside Quebec – 34 per cent being the highest proportion in Ontario – wishing for the country to “remain a constitutional monarchy for generations to come.” 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. Second, in keeping with the idea of giving this amendment the greatest possible legitimacy through the popular vote, a national referendum should be held before the votes on the amendment take place in provincial legislatures and Parliament. If the public indicates it wants action, elected officials would, of course, be politically bound to accept their voters’ verdict. To make things more interesting, within the Prairies and Atlantic provinces, premiers have made a commitment to exercise that veto if any single province in the region opposes the change. On top of all that, the Australian experience teaches us that even if a majority of citizens want to break with the monarchy, they do not all agree on what to replace it with, which can lead to a default victory for the status quo.

the monarchy is less staunchly supported than many think, and there are more than enough political mechanisms and resources for the establishment of a republic to come in the near future This question alone exposes us to getting negative answers from one or two provinces. It is obviously politically impossible to use the Canadian average to impose the decision because that would give fiercely anti-monarchist Quebec far too strong a voice, which would irrevocably pollute the whole referendum debate.If you accept the monarchy, you must accept the moral compromise that comes with it, from its erosion of the principle of equality to the secret interference in our laws. But the good news is that we don't have to accept it. True democracy is within our reach. Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.

One must therefore devise a road map that navigates each of these obstacles in a predictable and transparent way. Above all, the entire process must be based on the greatest possible legitimacy: the popular vote. Where do Canadians stand? The launch will include a Q&A session and drinks afterwards, as well as a chance to get your copy signed by Graham. The arrests were an affront to the very idea of British liberty. Graham Smith, the head of Republic, has denied that he and his fellow protesters had any equipment which would have allowed them to attach themselves to anything. But even if they did, they would have simply been victims of legal rather than illegal illiberalism. Moreover, since the Meech Lake Accord was negotiated behind closed doors in 1990, several provinces have passed legislation requiring provincial referenda to ratify significant changes to the Constitution. In addition, since the 1995 Quebec referendum, each region of the country – Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces – has been given by Parliament a veto over any change to the Constitution. Mayer notes that the alleged racism, bullying and image manipulation inside the institution are not being examined. Left alone, they have the power to dissolve faith in the idea of a hereditary head of state.

Customer reviews

Graham Smith, Abolish the Monarchy: Why We Should and How We Will, published by Penguin, 1 June 2023. this change will be a win for democracy and British pride, and the abolition of hereditary rule is a good rallying point for lovers of democracy, and furthermore a good first-step for other democratisation and anti-corruption practices that could be undertaken in government and Parliament The 2020s should be the decade when we finally get to decide who we have as our elected head of state. The accession of King Charles has fundamentally changed the monarchy and the public’s relationship with it. Charles is controversial, outspoken and far less popular than his mother ever was. Prince Andrew remains a person of interest in a criminal investigation. And Harry and Meghan continue to show that monarchy isn't just bad for Britain, it's bad for the royals too. 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 Boys The questionable behaviour of the royals is not new. But what is new is a public less tolerant and more critical of that behaviour and the family's loss of their trump card, the Queen. The Queen was their heat shield, able to deflect even the most serious questions and accusations, unable to do wrong in the eyes of much of the media and political class and, if she did, not someone many dared to criticise publicly. With Charles on the throne, that first line of defence is gone, in her place a man few would hesitate to criticise if they felt it was warranted. [...] Beyond that, two other men will continue to remind people - for very different reasons - what's wrong with the royals. Prince Harry, seemingly on the run from his own family, and Andrew on the run from serious allegations of sexual assault. As daylight gets through, behind the curtains of deference and secrecy, we increasingly see an institution that is ripe for challenge and criticism.