5 ms·

The assumption that things like this necessarily increase support for republicanism is probably misplaced. In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively

The assumption that things like this necessarily increase support for republicanism is probably misplaced. In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Higher levels in fact that when it happened. The U.K. monarchy clearly lacks the wherewithal to influence Australian politics today that it possibly had back then and has nothing like the influence (through the Euro) of the ECB on the democratic Governments of Eurozone countries. The lesson might actually be (ironically if so) that the monarchy would be more resilient to republican opinion if it wielded more power. It is the perceived pointlessness of it that will lead to its decline, not any strength.

lb1lf 4y ago
-Obviously, public opinion differs in different monarchies, but living in one constitutional monarchy - Norway - I feel that precisely as the monarchy is gutted of real power, its resilience is strengthened. One could quip that we need someone to inaugurate new infrastructure works, provide soothing, apolitical speeches in time of need and serve as an unelected symbol of our country - the 'unelected' bit being important, as otherwise we'd just end up with some has-been politician put out to pasture, someone probably the majority of the population had never voted for and don't see as 'their' head of state. Now, on principle, the monarchy is laughable, anachronistic and undemocratic - but donning my pragmatist glasses, I see it as probably the best way to ensure we have a (symbolic) head of state for performing just those duties where you need someone not overtly political. As long as the royals feel like doing the job, I say let them.
- marcus_holmes 4y ago
  As a dual-national UK/Australian, I can say it's a little more complex for us. In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here. In Australia, it's a remnant of colonialism, a foreign invader that destroyed one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations on the planet. If we're ever going to get over this, then we need to remove these remnants. Having a British constitutional monarchy in modern Australia is a ridiculous anachronism. The "advantages" could clearly be replicated without the historical baggage. We need to be a republic.
  - mst 4y ago
    I think having a nominal monarch for people to form parasocial relationships with rather than getting overly attached to any given politician has its advantages. But (note, UK person here, add salt accordingly) it seems like you could retain that part while also stripping any actual power - i.e. 'power-wise practically a republic, emphasis on the -nominal- in my first sentence.'
    - marcus_holmes 4y ago
      Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how Australia works this one out. I think becoming a republic is a matter of when not if, and there's a ton of ideas around about what to do about a head of state. We're not averse to trying out new ideas if they seem good - the Aussie voting system is about as close to perfect as you can get (but our politicians not so much).
      - mst 4y ago
        Having an 'above the fray' (or at least apparently so) head of state -somehow- is pretty much the thing I'm endorsing here. Implementation details thereof I don't have a strong opinion on except perhaps "if I ever do develop such an opinion you should probably ignore it anyway."
      - mikelward 4y ago
        I used to think that Australian preferential voting was the best practical method. Though the Ranked Choice Voting debate in the US has taught me that STAR voting and approval voting are both easier to count and avoid some edge cases.
        marcus_holmes 4y ago
        I think the Aussie system is flawed because of the party preferences thing - but that's more because the average voter just wants to tick a box for their party and be done with it. I'm not sure that the perfect system would actually be practical. I always vote "below the line" - it's more fun trying to rank all those micro-parties in order of how much I agree with them :) It's still miles better than the UK's system
sofixa 4y ago
> In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. How, exactly? I don't recall the EU appointing technocratic governments there, i recall elections and the Greek and Italian people making a choice. Choice in specific circumstances that probably influenced them, but same as any election during a crisis.
- znpy 4y ago
  Can you please help me remember exactly when the Italians voted in elections for Mario Monti as prime minister? I just can't recall that!
  - sofixa 4y ago
    You probably know this, but Italians don't vote for a PM directly, they vote for parliament and president. Monti was invited by the elected president to form a government, and confirmed by the elected parliament, after the previous PM resigned.
  - DocTomoe 4y ago
    In most European countries - and so in Italy, you don't vote for a person, you vote for a party. This is usually a good idea, but can lead to unintended side-effects (See: United Kingdom). Monti was supported by both democratically-elected Houses of Parliament, otherwise Napolitano would not have given him the task of creating a government.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > This is usually a good idea, but can lead to unintended side-effects (See: United Kingdom). In the UK you very much vote for a person, using the arcane first past the post system. People usually vote based on party allegiance, but at the circonscription level you cast a vote for the one winner, resulting in massive disenfranchisement.
      - iudqnolq 4y ago
denton-scratch 4y ago
> In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Both countries are beneficiaries of EU munificence. I wonder whether that has anything to do with it?

lb1lf 4y ago

-Obviously, public opinion differs in different monarchies, but living in one constitutional monarchy - Norway - I feel that precisely as the monarchy is gutted of real power, its resilience is strengthened. One could quip that we need someone to inaugurate new infrastructure works, provide soothing, apolitical speeches in time of need and serve as an unelected symbol of our country - the 'unelected' bit being important, as otherwise we'd just end up with some has-been politician put out to pasture, someone probably the majority of the population had never voted for and don't see as 'their' head of state. Now, on principle, the monarchy is laughable, anachronistic and undemocratic - but donning my pragmatist glasses, I see it as probably the best way to ensure we have a (symbolic) head of state for performing just those duties where you need someone not overtly political. As long as the royals feel like doing the job, I say let them.

marcus_holmes 4y ago
As a dual-national UK/Australian, I can say it's a little more complex for us. In the UK, the monarchy fits pretty well with the other European constitutional monarchies, and there are reasons to support it as you say. I still think hard questions need to be asked about the exact nature of the monarchy, but it's clearly an English/Scottish/Welsh institution that belongs here. In Australia, it's a remnant of colonialism, a foreign invader that destroyed one of the oldest, if not the oldest, civilisations on the planet. If we're ever going to get over this, then we need to remove these remnants. Having a British constitutional monarchy in modern Australia is a ridiculous anachronism. The "advantages" could clearly be replicated without the historical baggage. We need to be a republic.
- mst 4y ago
  I think having a nominal monarch for people to form parasocial relationships with rather than getting overly attached to any given politician has its advantages. But (note, UK person here, add salt accordingly) it seems like you could retain that part while also stripping any actual power - i.e. 'power-wise practically a republic, emphasis on the -nominal- in my first sentence.'
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how Australia works this one out. I think becoming a republic is a matter of when not if, and there's a ton of ideas around about what to do about a head of state. We're not averse to trying out new ideas if they seem good - the Aussie voting system is about as close to perfect as you can get (but our politicians not so much).
    - mst 4y ago
      Having an 'above the fray' (or at least apparently so) head of state -somehow- is pretty much the thing I'm endorsing here. Implementation details thereof I don't have a strong opinion on except perhaps "if I ever do develop such an opinion you should probably ignore it anyway."
    - mikelward 4y ago
      I used to think that Australian preferential voting was the best practical method. Though the Ranked Choice Voting debate in the US has taught me that STAR voting and approval voting are both easier to count and avoid some edge cases.
      - marcus_holmes 4y ago
        I think the Aussie system is flawed because of the party preferences thing - but that's more because the average voter just wants to tick a box for their party and be done with it. I'm not sure that the perfect system would actually be practical. I always vote "below the line" - it's more fun trying to rank all those micro-parties in order of how much I agree with them :) It's still miles better than the UK's system

sofixa 4y ago

> In Italy and Greece Governments have been effectively overthrown by the EU (or ECB/IMF) in fairly open ways with technocrats put in charge. How, exactly? I don't recall the EU appointing technocratic governments there, i recall elections and the Greek and Italian people making a choice. Choice in specific circumstances that probably influenced them, but same as any election during a crisis.

znpy 4y ago
Can you please help me remember exactly when the Italians voted in elections for Mario Monti as prime minister? I just can't recall that!
- sofixa 4y ago
  You probably know this, but Italians don't vote for a PM directly, they vote for parliament and president. Monti was invited by the elected president to form a government, and confirmed by the elected parliament, after the previous PM resigned.
- DocTomoe 4y ago
  In most European countries - and so in Italy, you don't vote for a person, you vote for a party. This is usually a good idea, but can lead to unintended side-effects (See: United Kingdom). Monti was supported by both democratically-elected Houses of Parliament, otherwise Napolitano would not have given him the task of creating a government.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > This is usually a good idea, but can lead to unintended side-effects (See: United Kingdom). In the UK you very much vote for a person, using the arcane first past the post system. People usually vote based on party allegiance, but at the circonscription level you cast a vote for the one winner, resulting in massive disenfranchisement.
    - iudqnolq 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

> In both countries support for the EU is running at very high levels despite that. Both countries are beneficiaries of EU munificence. I wonder whether that has anything to do with it?