Socialist Live Laugh Meme Abolish The Monarchy T-Shirt

Product Information

Aware of supporters electing to self-censor and hearing reports of others admitting they are too petrified to air their views for fear of being cancelled, the main republican campaign group is actively pushing calls to abolish the monarchy. She added that Charles has to demonstrate that he can save money and recognize the difficulties people face. This could be a reduction in the number of people on the payroll. Yes, actually, although yes, it’s also great that the Queen can get on a horse at 93. At least she isn’t a menace on the roads. I remember our school celebrating the queen's golden jubilee in 2002. Even at that age I didn't understand the hysteria around the event, or why people were so obsessed. 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.

Getting rid of the monarchy, or simply rescinding it of its ceremonial duties, would constitute “a huge change,” says Hazell, in large part because it would require a complete shakeup of the way the British state is governed. Unlike in the U.S., where the elected President acts as both the country’s head of state and its head of government, Britain’s parliamentary system splits those responsibilities between the monarch, whose role as head of state is inherited at birth, and the Prime Minister, whose role as head of government is decided by the British public (or, in the case of the current occupant of 10 Downing Street, a select group of Conservative Party members). Kennedy said that anyone who is familiar with British history knows that Kennedy’s two names predecessors were not the most beloved or successful in British history. While it is difficult to determine if it was the right name for the job, it seems unlikely that it matters to the majority of British citizens. Even at 14, I assumed most people would not want to live in the utterly infantilised state of being a subject. At one stage, I went to lots of meetings about republicanism and dry constitutional shakedowns and I was patronised by experts who told me Diana’s disruption was not the right kind: she was disturbing the narrative by not accepting its rules, that Charles could have an affair. The way to get rid of the monarchy had to be highbrow and political; it should never be personal. Or, actually, cultural.But in the past few years, something inside of me has shifted and since last September and the death of Queen Elizabeth II, whose 70 years of duty I have a great respect for, I find a growing sense of anger that to have a monarchy in 2023 is just plain wrong.

Well, a lot of people believe the monarchy to be an outdated institution. Many argue that the royal family no longer has a place in our country, particularly during a cost of living crisis and rising inequality across the country. Instead of a coronation we want an election. Instead of Charles we want a choice. It’s that simple. #NotMyKing #AbolishTheMonarchy— Republic (@RepublicStaff) May 6, 2023 For a long time, it was possible to argue that the monarchy should be retained because abolition would involve major constitutional upheaval. But leaving the EU has already opened the door to “root and branch” reform of how Britain governs itself. Even Scottish independence and Irish unification are now realistic prospects—foreshadowing, perhaps, the breakup of the British state. In this context, abolishing the monarchy alongside other constitutional reforms can be seen to make a great deal of sense, especially if the UK is to fragment into two or more entities. Certainly, Smith is right that demanding a British Republic is not to advocate a replay of the French Revolution, and that we already have most of the pieces in place to create a democratic parliamentary republic. But there is something revolutionary about the spirit of republicanism. As he points out, republicanism is essentially the demand for a true liberal democracy: ‘[republicanism is about] more than replacing one head of state with another—it’s about rebalancing power between government, Parliament, and people. … The challenge is to take what we have and make it democratic, top to bottom.’ Republicans should not be so coy about the radicalism of this project. Other republicans admit they feel bullied into supporting something they don’t believe in. “I feel unable to express an opinion without being branded disrespectful, so therefore I’ve been funnelled into complying with the country’s grief,” said Aisha, who also requested a pseudonym.

15. Justice

I s the Metropolitan Police a republican fifth column? Since it hauled the author of this book off to the cells hours before Charles III’s coronation, in full sight of the world’s media, the campaign group he heads, Republic, has almost doubled its membership. When the police clapped him in handcuffs, Graham Smith was preparing to perform that most fearful of treasons: shuffle around Trafalgar Square waving a placard bearing the words ‘Not my king’. Smith’s sixteen hours in police custody has generated more publicity for his organisation than the eighteen years he’s toiled away campaigning to replace the monarch with an elected head of state. If there was one resounding takeaway from Harry’s candid and at times, painful memoir, Spare (and I am not talking about descriptions of his frostbitten todger) is how utterly trapped he was and his family still are. 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? More surprising still, given that he leads a group called Republic, Smith appears to have little familiarity with the 2,500-year-old tradition of republican thought. Where are Plato, Machiavelli and Rousseau? Where are the Levellers, the Radical Whigs and the Founding Fathers? Thomas Paine does get a mention, though one is left with the suspicion that Smith’s acquaintance with him comes via The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations rather than Rights of Man, since he is invoked merely to make the point that the appearance of something being correct doesn’t make it so. 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.”

RECOMMENDED: Here’s the full schedule for the King’s coronation Why are there anti-monarchy protests? Their official statement goes on to say: "As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognizes success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service." Indeed many question why we are even having a coronation, given that most other European countries have long since abolished them, the last one in Spain was in 1555 and Denmark, Sweden and Norway have all deemed them archaic and unnecessary since 1906.) Here’s everything we know about the anti-monarchy protests – and whether or not it would actually be possible to abolish the royal family.Canadians may be divided on whether to cast off the royal moorings, but they have a clear idea of the method to use to decide the issue: a national referendum. Last September, 58 per cent of respondents told IPSOS they wanted Justin Trudeau to organize such a consultation. Obviously, the wish is stronger in Quebec (73 per cent), but one finds a majority everywhere except in the Prairies (where the figure is between 45 and 49 per cent.) Unwilling to make the case for republicanism on its own merits, Smith builds his argument on the apparent shortcomings of monarchy itself. Both in principle and in practice, he states repeatedly, monarchy contravenes the ‘values’ of the British people: it is undemocratic, expensive and impractical; it enthrones privilege, nepotism and inequality. He offers up a familiar list of royal peccadilloes – King Charles’s petulance, Prince Andrew’s promiscuity, Prince William’s indolence – and slays sacred cows along the way: Queen Elizabeth II was a tax evader; her mother was a racist; their Tudor and Stuart precursors were slave traders. 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.