Should the British monarchy be abolished, the royal family exiled, and a Republican govt installed?
Debate Rounds (3)
As for exile, yeah at least for a couple generations because frankly the Brits would probably still fund the family even if their titles were removed. I believe once the monarchy is forgotten and no one would ever try to restore it, the family may return to Britain as normal citizens.
The current system in the UK is not actually a true monarchy akin to the Middle Ages. The Royal Family does not have the absolute power that kings and queens have historically held. The current governmental system is a Constitutional Monarchy, and the legislative power of the king or queen is limited by Parliament and the British Constitution. In fact, the Royal Family holds very little power. Queen Elizabeth's role is primarily ceremonial. While she does perform several important duties, it is in fact Parliament that holds true power in the UK and the elected Prime Minister is the true leader, at least where actual political and legislative power is involved.
As for the question of exiling the Royal Family, I cannot see the moral or legal justification for this course of action. The Royal Family as a whole has not broken any laws and has not in any conceivable manner oppressed the citizens of the UK. The only crime, that you seem to feel is worthy of exile, is that they won the genetic lottery (or lost, depending on your point of view). Besides, there are certainly many British citizens who would be opposed to a forceful takeover of the government. If the Royal Family were to be exiled from the country, it would make them out to be pseudo-martyrs, which would then likely lead to civil unrest.
And finally, there's the issue of a pure republic replacing the current Constitutional Monarchy. As the primary governmental body in the UK is already comprised of elected officials, a pure republic of elected officials wouldn't be massively different, especially in regards to representation of the general public. In addition, a total alteration of a governmental system is rarely a smooth transition. The fact that the public and the politicians will be massively divided on the issue will lower the efficiency of the government, and if the public gets too worried about possibly authoritarian measures undertaken by the new rulers, it is not unlikely for crime rates and general civil unrest to rise. And lastly, republics tend to have the nasty habit of wanting to perpetuate themselves at all costs. This is observable in the United States, particularly in the legislative branch (Congress). The US is a Democratic Republic with one governmental branch to create law, one to execute it, and one to interpret it. Of course, there are other complexities and the roles are sometimes blurred, but that's a discussion for another time. The fact is, the politicians by and large are primarily interested in perpetuating their own power/financial interests, the interests of their respective political parties, and the perpetuation of the status quo. The clearest example of each of these three interests is that Congress almost unanimously voted to be able to set their own salaries (along with regular healthy raises), Republicans will oppose the majority of Democratic initiatives while supporting the motions of fellow party members and vice versa, and whenever an independent politician defies the odds and wins an important election, the parties combine to make sure that s/he has no chance of accomplishing anything, as was the case with Governor Jesse Ventura. While this is not a short-term concern when establishing a republic, it is very common for a republic to grow detached from the public and become self-serving.
fuckthemonarchy forfeited this round.
fuckthemonarchy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.