Barbados to remove the Queen as head of state
Discussion
Barbados is to remove the Queen as head of state next year, saying “the time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind".
I doubt this move will change anything for the people of Barbados, but will it encourage the other 53 Commonwealth countries to break their formal connections to Britain?
https://news.sky.com/story/barbados-to-remove-quee...
I doubt this move will change anything for the people of Barbados, but will it encourage the other 53 Commonwealth countries to break their formal connections to Britain?
https://news.sky.com/story/barbados-to-remove-quee...
Lord Marylebone said:
Barbados is to remove the Queen as head of state next year, saying “the time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind".
I doubt this move will change anything for the people of Barbados, but will it encourage the other 53 Commonwealth countries to break their formal connections to Britain?
https://news.sky.com/story/barbados-to-remove-quee...
I imagine most Commonwealth countries are waiting for the Queen to die then say "having the Queen of head of state because that's how we've always done things is one thing, but we can't have a NEW head of state being from another country" and sever ties then.I doubt this move will change anything for the people of Barbados, but will it encourage the other 53 Commonwealth countries to break their formal connections to Britain?
https://news.sky.com/story/barbados-to-remove-quee...
Pothole said:
Depends how much wealth there is in being part of the commonwealth, surely?
^^thisif there is a financial benefit, they will stay.
also, for the smaller countries, there is a confidence and security to being part of the commonwealth.
as long as we are not actively intruding in their direct governance, where is the problem?
Greg_D said:
Pothole said:
Depends how much wealth there is in being part of the commonwealth, surely?
^^thisif there is a financial benefit, they will stay.
also, for the smaller countries, there is a confidence and security to being part of the commonwealth.
as long as we are not actively intruding in their direct governance, where is the problem?
Pothole said:
Depends how much wealth there is in being part of the commonwealth, surely?
They are not leaving the Commonwealth, just becoming a Republic within the Commonwealth, like India, Maldives, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Tanzania and many others.Can't say I blame them - Barbados is a proud independent nation so why wouldn't they want one of their own to represent them as Head of State?
ash73 said:
We should do the same.
It is purely a business decision for me.If someone can demonstrate to me, via indisputable economic/accounting analysis and evidence, that the country would be financially better off without the Royal family then I would agree they should be removed.
I would also add that if they could prove our presence in the world would be enhanced by having no Royal family, then I would go with that as well.
But at the moment, I remain comprehensively unconvinced that abolishing our monarchy would improve our financial position or status.
It is entirely up to them, and I do think having the Queen as head of state for other countries is an anachronism.
That being said, I think the Commonwealth is a completely different issue and has the potential to add significant value to many countries around the world.
Looking at specifics, some of the work sponsored by the Prince's Foundation working on behalf of the Commonwealth in dealing with exponentially growing cities in places you won't have heard of has the potential to improve more lives than you can imagine, so there is a clear demonstration that there remains a really valuable role for the Commonwealth.
FunkyNige said:
I imagine most Commonwealth countries are waiting for the Queen to die then say "having the Queen of head of state because that's how we've always done things is one thing, but we can't have a NEW head of state being from another country" and sever ties then.
Likely this.nmd87 said:
They are not leaving the Commonwealth, just becoming a Republic within the Commonwealth, like India, Maldives, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Tanzania and many others.
Can't say I blame them - Barbados is a proud independent nation so why wouldn't they want one of their own to represent them as Head of State?
And this.Can't say I blame them - Barbados is a proud independent nation so why wouldn't they want one of their own to represent them as Head of State?
Makes much more sense to have the same relationships but without the head of state bit.
Lord Marylebone said:
It is purely a business decision for me.
If someone can demonstrate to me, via indisputable economic/accounting analysis and evidence, that the country would be financially better off without the Royal family then I would agree they should be removed.
I would also add that if they could prove our presence in the world would be enhanced by having no Royal family, then I would go with that as well.
But at the moment, I remain comprehensively unconvinced that abolishing our monarchy would improve our financial position or status.
I think the other consideration is what the politicos would then do. I suspect they would find it very hard to resist having a "president", which personally I find totally unnecessary and fraught with issues.If someone can demonstrate to me, via indisputable economic/accounting analysis and evidence, that the country would be financially better off without the Royal family then I would agree they should be removed.
I would also add that if they could prove our presence in the world would be enhanced by having no Royal family, then I would go with that as well.
But at the moment, I remain comprehensively unconvinced that abolishing our monarchy would improve our financial position or status.
Given the choice between monarchy and presidency, I choose the former.
Murph7355 said:
Lord Marylebone said:
It is purely a business decision for me.
If someone can demonstrate to me, via indisputable economic/accounting analysis and evidence, that the country would be financially better off without the Royal family then I would agree they should be removed.
I would also add that if they could prove our presence in the world would be enhanced by having no Royal family, then I would go with that as well.
But at the moment, I remain comprehensively unconvinced that abolishing our monarchy would improve our financial position or status.
I think the other consideration is what the politicos would then do. I suspect they would find it very hard to resist having a "president", which personally I find totally unnecessary and fraught with issues.If someone can demonstrate to me, via indisputable economic/accounting analysis and evidence, that the country would be financially better off without the Royal family then I would agree they should be removed.
I would also add that if they could prove our presence in the world would be enhanced by having no Royal family, then I would go with that as well.
But at the moment, I remain comprehensively unconvinced that abolishing our monarchy would improve our financial position or status.
Given the choice between monarchy and presidency, I choose the former.
I suspect a 'President' type position would be quickly proposed by the Government in the event of us becoming a republic and I would rather have a (mostly) politically neutral Monarchy than a president figure.
loafer123 said:
ElectricSoup said:
irc said:
President Blair? Nuff said
https://www.republic.org.uk/winning-the-argument/presidentThe mere fact that it *could* be someone like Blair or the very nice Irish chap with the dog reminds everyone why change is bad.
I'd quite like to see Prince Harry stand for election as Head of State.
Edited by ElectricSoup on Wednesday 16th September 11:45
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff