[QUOTE]Queen Elizabeth II could be out of a job.
In Jamaica, at least.
In a speech to legislators Thursday, Jamaican Governor-General Patrick Allen proposed a constitutional amendment "to replace Her Majesty The Queen with a Non-Executive President as Head of State" in the Caribbean nation.
...
One irony if this plan goes through: Allen was appointed by Queen Elizabeth II, just like other Jamaican governor-generals. In fact, the King's House official website notes that his title is "Her Majesty's representative in Jamaica," suggesting that Allen is effectively pushing to push himself out.
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/americas/jamaica-queen-elizabeth-marijuana/"]http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/americas/jamaica-queen-elizabeth-marijuana/[/URL]
It seems rather odd considering that quite a lot of people in Jamaica support the monarchy (in fact quite a few of them prefer the Queen to their incompetent politicians lol)
It's gonna be really weird later on down the line when we see a younger monarch for the UK
It will require a referendum I think
So will jamaica declare independence?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50144407]It's gonna be really weird later on down the line when we see a younger monarch for the UK[/QUOTE]
At this point I gave up on the fact that I'll ever see a new king of the UK in my lifetime.
I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
Just because they've always been there. Obviously if jamaica new country you won't give it a monarchy
These dastardly traitors are lucky we don't have a Navy any more, otherwise we'd give them a right good drubbing.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
they still help their countries economically and politically even though they have no power.
[editline]16th April 2016[/editline]
also tradition.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50144513]So will jamaica declare independence?[/QUOTE]
They've already been independent for half a century
[QUOTE=cody8295;50144513]So will jamaica declare independence?[/QUOTE]
Jamaica is already independent, it just has a British head of state like Australia and Canada.
Now if, say, Bermuda was doing this then it would be declaring independence.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50144513]So will jamaica declare independence?[/QUOTE]
They already are, this is just about who their head of state will be, like how Canada is an independent state but still has the queen as their head of state. It doesn't really affect anything overall.
Hm, ive been to jamaica and i dont know shit about them
[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;50144543]These dastardly traitors are lucky we don't have a Navy any more, otherwise we'd give them a right good drubbing.[/QUOTE]
We do have a Navy! If you call a land base 'HMS' for long enough, and think [i]reaaaaally[/i] hard, it becomes a ship, right? And we also have the world's most expensive harbour ornament/training ship! And no-aircraft carriers!
But in all seriousness, it's just sad to see the Navy in this state, but the shit that is going on behind the scenes in the RAF to try and keep things afloat is just as... well, shit. The Army is the only service not facing disaster because squaddies really need one wage and one set of kit and you're golden.
Good, if only Canada would follow suit, but with the clusterfuck of how our constitution gets amended it'll never happen, largely because of Quebec.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Or more accurately, if you already fixed it, don't fix it again.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50144936]Good, if only Canada would follow suit, but with the clusterfuck of how our constitution gets amended it'll never happen, largely because of Quebec.[/QUOTE]
Yeah be careful the soon to be 90 years old bag of wrinkles will take over your country and rule with an iron fist if you don't do anything to stop her.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50144936]Good, if only Canada would follow suit, but with the clusterfuck of how our constitution gets amended it'll never happen, largely because of Quebec.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see what much good there is to the Jamaicans becoming a republic
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50145428]If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Or more accurately, if you already fixed it, don't fix it again.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
Yeah be careful the soon to be 90 years old bag of wrinkles will take over your country and rule with an iron fist if you don't do anything to stop her.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well that 'broken' is very subjective. There can be no true democracy with an unelected head of state. Tradition isn't a reason, it's an excuse.
[QUOTE=Britain;50146379]Yeah, well that 'broken' is very subjective. There can be no true democracy with an unelected head of state. Tradition isn't a reason, it's an excuse.[/QUOTE]
A "true democracy" is dependent on the representation of the people in the law- and decision-making of the country. The monarchy has no bearing on how democratic a nation is.
[QUOTE=matt000024;50144524]I still don't get why monarchs still exist legally, even if purely symbolic, in 2016.[/QUOTE]
Because the Queen owns a good chunk of the UK and if you stop her from being queen she'll ask for rent.
[QUOTE=cody8295;50144641]Hm, ive been to jamaica and i dont know shit about them[/QUOTE]
I don't understand this mindset. You're obviously on a computer with an internet connection, which means you have access to one of the most powerful knowledge engines the world has ever seen, yet you can't be bothered to do a 5 second Google search on whether Jamaica is an independent country or not?
[QUOTE=download;50146456]Because the Queen owns a good chunk of the UK and if you stop her from being queen she'll ask for rent.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that's the reason why the Commonwealth still has a monarch. A monarch in a developed country would never try such a thing today.
Pretty much the reason why the Queen is still the Queen is because a) it's tradition, and it would be un-British to go against that tradition and b) no one would want to be the Prime Minister who disposed of the Monarchy. The latter point in particular is why some Australian republicans are waiting for Lizzie to pass away before the change to a republic happens.
[QUOTE=sb27;50146537]I seriously doubt that's the reason why the Commonwealth still has a monarch. A monarch in a developed country would never try such a thing today.
Pretty much the reason why the Queen is still the Queen is because a) it's tradition, and it would be in-British to go against that tradition and b) no one would want to be the Prime Minister who disposed of the Monarchy. The latter point in particular is why some Australian republicans are waiting for Lizzie to pass away before the change to a republic happens.[/QUOTE]
It s something they have to consider even if it's not the main reason.
[QUOTE=download;50146544]It s something they have to consider even if it's not the main reason.[/QUOTE]
It's not an issue that anyone even talks about. It's literally not even an argument used by pro-monarchists. You're the first person, before politicians, before campaigners, before lobbyists, to mention it.
[editline]17th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50145517]I don't really see what much good there is to the Jamaicans becoming a republic[/QUOTE]
There's no net benefit for becoming a republic. But transitioning from a constitutional monarchy to a republic is seen as the ultimate form of self-determination for a nation and its people, which is why people advocate for it.
[QUOTE=sb27;50146537]I seriously doubt that's the reason why the Commonwealth still has a monarch. A monarch in a developed country would never try such a thing today.
Pretty much the reason why the Queen is still the Queen is because a) it's tradition, and it would be un-British to go against that tradition and b) no one would want to be the Prime Minister who disposed of the Monarchy. The latter point in particular is why some Australian republicans are waiting for Lizzie to pass away before the change to a republic happens.[/QUOTE]
George the Third surrendered all proceeds (i.e. taxes, profits, assets) from Crown lands to Parliament in exchange for a fixed salary, every Monarch since has renewed this. To give an example of what exactly the Queen owns well; she owns at least 144,000 hectares of land with rights to mine them (some of which are in operation), has roughly £4 billion in commercial/property holdings, owns over 50% of the shoreline, most of the territorial seabed and the continental shelf rights.
So basically she makes our government a fair bit of money and without the agreement we'd be paying like two or three different taxes, a tax to the queen (if you lived on her land), a tax to the council and a tax to the government (who already taxes us on everything anyway.)
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;50146620]George the Third surrendered all proceeds (i.e. taxes, profits, assets) from Crown lands to Parliament in exchange for a fixed salary, every Monarch since has renewed this. To give an example of what exactly the Queen owns well; she owns at least 144,000 hectares of land with rights to mine them (some of which are in operation), has roughly £4 billion in commercial/property holdings, owns over 50% of the shoreline, most of the territorial seabed and the continental shelf rights.
So basically she makes our government a fair bit of money and without the agreement we'd be paying like two or three different taxes, a tax to the queen (if you lived on her land), a tax to the council and a tax to the government (who already taxes us on everything anyway.)[/QUOTE]
I know the Queen owns things. However, if the people of the UK were to vote in a referendum and choose to dispose of the Monarchy, the monarch would not fight to hold onto control over those assets. It would break centuries of convention.
I don't even know how it got to talking about republicanism in the UK. That's not going to happen for decades, and there's nothing wrong with having a constitutional monarch. But if Jamaica wants to be a republic, then so be it. The Jamaican people have a right to self-determination.
Imo the world would be better off without monarchies, but it's a pretty low-priority issue except in countries such as saudi arabia with real autocratic monarchs. The UK's monarchy is pretty harmless (notice I said pretty, they've done some bad shit even in recent times), doesn't consume many tax dollars, and arguably aids with tourism. The UK and presumably Jamaica have much more pressing issues they could be focusing on.
i know not so much about this situation BUT
if i was the queen i'd probably be like "yeah, alright"
If anyone truly believes that the old piece of paper that says people don't have to pay rent to the Queen while parliament has the lands would be taken seriously, there's a bigger, more obvious problem running on the same logic
That is that the entirety of our armed forces and all of our police have explicitly sworn an oath to them, and not the government, who rule through proxy on behalf of the monarchy. If the government tried to push through a bill to remove the monarchy, the monarchy can 1) veto it, and 2) technically call on the army such that they can't be used to depose them, and that's if somehow the houses of parliament became majority republicans and there's enough popular support for it
That said, its a political point of contention, not a set up for civil war, which would be extremely unlikely
edit:
In fact if you really want to dick with the old piece of paper argument, parliament could point to the magna carta that's far, far older than the lands transfer agreement (dating back to 1215) which I'm pretty sure gives the monarchy a legal obligation to represent the popular will of the people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
