RayC

Given their influence, the suggestion that the President of the EU and (perhaps) the Commissars should be elected by the public has some merit imo. However, the idea that the UK system is somehow more democratic isn't supported by the evidence. The Conservative party won 43.6% of the vote at the last election but holds 56.1% of the seats in the House of Commons. At the other extreme, the Lib Dems received 11.6% of the vote but have only 1.7% of the available seats. Members of the House of Lords and the Head of State - two entities which have constitutional power - are appointed not elected. Not exactly a fair and equitable system of democracy.

You've lost me? What's your point? Edward VIII wouldn't have held Nazi tendencies if he had remained king? The UK have had many ties with many countries over the centuries. And?

You are incorrect. Edward VIII did get it. He was king and had all the constitution power that goes with that position. The fact that an undesirable individual who - but for his choice of spouse! - can be elevated to a position of influence in the first place should be a cause for concern. What more evidence is needed to debunk this ridiculous idea that some individuals - simply because of their birthright - will make more capable leaders.

Technically you are correct. However, I find it hard to believe that an individual with Nazi tendencies would have much regard for the constitution.

You're correct. No I don't. It would have been better if he hadn't got into a position where he could whield constitutional power in the first place. The fact that he was effectively ejected for wanting to marry a divorcee, rather than the more serious issue of supporting an ideology which rejected democracy suggests to me that the system wasn't working. Oh dear indeed. But what's your point? It isn't an 'either/or' choice between a constitutional monarchy or a (communist) totalitarian system as numerous functioning democracies around the world - which are neither one not the other - demonstrate.

See my reply to @puchooay. It's up to you to prove the proposition not me to disprove it. You don't have to go that far back. Try Edward VIII for size. A nazi sympathiser. I'm surprised by this comment. You usually bring out the crystal ball and berate people for making predictions. In any event, neither you, me or anyone else has any idea what type of monarch Charles, William or George will turn out to be like. China and Russia are not democracies. France and Germany are and seem to function pretty well without a monarchy nowadays.

Oh yeah, thanks. Completely forgot about him????

No but I can't categorically prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist either! The onus isn't on me to prove a negative, it is on those who suggest that a (living) monarchy increases tourism (revenue) to provide evidence to support their hypothesis.

Greece, Italy and Turkey also have hundreds of historical sites spread throughout their nations. Whether you compare London with Rome, Athens, Istanbul or the UK with Greece, Italy or Turkey, my question remains the same: Would these cities/ countries attract more tourists if they were currently kingdoms rather than republics?

Can you supply some evidence to support your view that tourism to Greece, Italy, Turkey, etc would be increased by having a constitutional monarchy? I'll repeat again. I've still to see a convincing argument for separating the roles of head of state and head of government but - again - if it is deemed necessary, then s/he should be elected. You inadvertently point out one advantage of having an elected head of state: If s/he turns out to be 'a tosser' you can vote them out. If an heritatory monarch turns out to be 'a tosser' we are stuck with them for their lifetime.

Right. Just as they do when visiting Rome, Athens, Istanbul and other cities. The original proposition was that the monarchy increases tourism. Do you think that these cities would get even more tourists simply by having a living monarch rather than an elected head of state?

You may well be right but the original contention was that the loss of the monarchy might have a detrimental effect on the number of overseas tourists visiting the UK. I do not believe that this is the case.

Based on this Wikipedia article, it seems unlikely that Hungary will withdraw. Looks like the EU are stuck with them for the foreseeable future https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#:~:text=Hungary is legally allowed to,thirds of the Hungarian parliament.

Following Greece; Italy; Austria; Portugal; France - I'm sure that I've missed out a few other countries - Hungary is the latest 'next' member state to depart the EU before its' inevitable collapse .... or maybe not? Perhaps, this is just wishful thinking on the part of disgruntled Brexiters? The EU has made proposals to cap energy prices, levy a windfall tax on energy producers and for member states to reduce peak electricity consumption by 5%. These proposals have not yet been agreed by the member states. In any event, it's unclear to me why these proposals would act as an accelerator in the demise of the EU as an institution.

No mechanism to do so https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union%23:~:text%3Din%20Poland's%20favour.-,Expulsion,but%20failed%20to%20be%20included.&ved=2ahUKEwi0p7r7vJv6AhXMO-wKHUkNBtcQFnoECAgQBQ&usg=AOvVaw2ZTL1zgvT_k11u1v-Yi19i

That might be true? However, I find it hard to believe that tourists visit the UK because they think that they are going to bump into the head of state on their travels.

Imo very little. France hadn't had a monarchy for +/-230 years but it's the most visited country in the world.

It appears that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. The idea that the existence of an independent head of state could prevent a coup d'etat by the incumbent government isn't supported by historical events. Indeed, in many cases an unelected head of state has been the instigator of a coup against the elected government.

I agree. I thought that could be inferred from my original point? As I said previously, I don't see the benefit or need to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. However, if it is deemed necessary, imo the public should have a say in matters rather than having someone foisted upon them. As you say, they are paying for him/her.

It's an interesting debate but, as you imply, probably best discussed elsewhere. (I'm also curious why certain, seemingly random sentences/ paragraphs end up in bold?????)

As you say I am making assumptions, but given that you imply that the public are unfit to decide upon a head of state whose role is purely ceremonial, surely it is not unreasonable to assume that you wouldn't entrust them with the more important decision to elect the political leader(ship)? If this is the case, the alternative is totalitarianism (effectively either an absolute monarchy or some other autocrat). I've yet to see a convincing argument for separating the roles of head of state and head of government. In any event imo - if it is deemed necessary - the individual should be elected. This arrangement seems to work pretty well in the RoI. It's unclear to me why a political leader should necessarily benefit from a weekly meeting with an individual who - because of their upbringing - has led a somewhat cloistered existence and who may not possess expertise in any particular field. Imo a political leader benefits more from seeking advice - where necessary - from individuals skilled in the issue(s) under consideration. However, I do agree with you re God and Pascal's wager. I was simply making a light-hearted comment about Dawkins (hence the ????).

You seem very contemptuous of the general public ("clueless, self-interested population") and their cultural pursuits (opera trumps football?): This might be taken as an argument for disenfranchising the masses and returning to a system of absolute monarchy. (Wouldn't like to be in Dawkins' position if God exists and he/she/it is vengeful and a republican ????)

Well said @Slip and you @baboon. Like my father, I'm indifferent to the monarchy but I'd use his words to describe my view of the Queen: "she's done her bit" (job).

Perhaps but I don't really think that is the case here. Truss is 48; young for a leader. She had probably another 15 years in which to consider running for leader. Moreover, it's not as though there appear to be that many charismatic potential leaders waiting in the wings of her party, so time was on her side. No one can predict the future - as many here remind us at regular intervals - but I would suggest that it is conceivable that if events go badly wrong for Truss in 2023, she might find herself on the political slag heap at 50. Imo this was a good election to lose for the other contenders.

That's the optimistic scenario from a Tory perspective and if Truss manages to turn things around - and I hope that she manages to do so - then she deserves another term. However, one alternative scenario is that we enter a recession that lasts until, at least, the end of 2023; that raging inflation and rising interest rates cause problems, not only for those at the bottom but also for the middle classes. By early 2024, Tory grandees decide that there is no chance of Truss winning the next election and dump her.