Republic, your views on being one?

Manach

I disagree, having a constitution monarchy instead of this elected oligarchy might have the benefit of having decisions based a long term viewpoint instead of an election cycle.

Hookey

Wow there's a lot of misinformation on here, and clearly a lack of understanding of the (lack) of power the British monarchy has. For a start, Brits aren't subjects, they're citizens (I've just checked my girlfriend's passport), there is no "divine right" to be a monarch (a certain O.Cromwell put a stop that nonsense a long time ago), and a constitutional monarch isn't any different for practical purposes than a figurehead president. Doesn't mean I agree with hereditary power, and particularly its UK expression of it (waste of money despite all the nonsense about attracting tourists), but would I feel any different if I was Dutch or Norwegian rather than Irish? Doubt it.

futurehope

Affable wrote: »

How does it effect the mentality? I used to be a firm anti-authoritarian and republican, now I'm not sure if it doesn't leave one feeling slightly empty to have no monarchy, and total equality. Who else you gonna treat as an authority? Politicians? Maybe arbitrariness is not such a bad thing.

Interesting thoughts Affable. The beauty of The UK monarchy is that it is above politics. Our head of state is politically neutral in the truest possible sense and can command the loyalty of all the people of The UK. It is it's very arbitrariness that gives it that special value. Wondeful...

BornToKill

Republic, your views on being one?

I think it would be nice.

Mayo Exile

Originally posted by Sand: Large parts of the country, particularly outside of Dublin are feudal democracies, with particular political clans claiming the allegiance of voters in return for favours in a pretty clear cut exchange.

Spot on! It's how one gets tarmacadam laid up to one's front door!

ChocolateSauce

So long as democracy and human rights are respected, I wouldn't mind living in a state that wasn't a republic. The important thing is ultimately that the citizens are free people, and while history has shown us that only democracy can truly accomplish this on a large scale, hypothetically it isn't a requirement. For example, Monaco and Lichtenstein are ruled by Princes and have very limited democracy, but the citizens are not oppressed in practice.

If I had to choose a form, I would say the American model is probably the best, although it wouldn't exactly fit a one-state nation. I do not like the way in Westminster-style parliaments the executive also occupies the legislative.

As it happens I think at this moment in time many of freer countries in Europe are also Kingdoms or otherwise Royal-The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Denmark...while some of the less free ones are Republics, like Poland, Germany and Austria.

Terrontress

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So long as democracy and human rights are respected, I wouldn't mind living in a state that wasn't a republic. The important thing is ultimately that the citizens are free people, and while history has shown us that only democracy can truly accomplish this on a large scale, hypothetically it isn't a requirement. For example, Monaco and Lichtenstein are ruled by Princes and have very limited democracy, but the citizens are not oppressed in practice.

If I had to choose a form, I would say the American model is probably the best, although it wouldn't exactly fit a one-state nation. I do not like the way in Westminster-style parliaments the executive also occupies the legislative.

As it happens I think at this moment in time many of freer countries in Europe are also Kingdoms or otherwise Royal-The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Denmark...while some of the less free ones are Republics, like Poland, Germany and Austria.

In what way would you see Germany as being "less free"? I find it to be one of the most liberal nations on Earth. Much more so than Ireland definitely.

My knowledge of Austria is not so great and of Poland much less but I don't understand where you are coming from.

ChocolateSauce

Terrontress wrote: »

In what way would you see Germany as being "less free"? I find it to be one of the most liberal nations on Earth. Much more so than Ireland definitely.

My knowledge of Austria is not so great and of Poland much less but I don't understand where you are coming from.

No doubt German people are more liberal than Irish ones in many ways, but there are a number of things you cannot do it Germany that you can here. In Germany and Austria, it can be illegal to express your opinion on the holocaust if your opinion is different from that of the official, state recognised version, and indeed people have been jailed for this crime (expressing a non-state approved opinion was a crime under Hitler and Stalin, and is on the books today in China). The fact the Government has the legal power to do this makes Germany a less free nation than many others in principle if not in practice.

I was mainly coming from this angle.

Terrontress

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

No doubt German people are more liberal than Irish ones in many ways, but there are a number of things you cannot do it Germany that you can here. In Germany and Austria, it can be illegal to express your opinion on the holocaust if your opinion is different from that of the official, state recognised version, and indeed people have been jailed for this crime (expressing a non-state approved opinion was a crime under Hitler and Stalin, and is on the books today in China). The fact the Government has the legal power to do this makes Germany a less free nation than many others in principle if not in practice.

I was mainly coming from this angle.

That is a fairly narrow criterion to have based your statement on which really must affect such a small percentage of Germans as to make it irrelevant.

The whole notion of blasphemous libel on our statute books is surely much more draconian than the German position.

Germany seems to have much less of a nanny state than most European countries. Liberal position on prostitution, drugs, speed limits. Strong employees' rights, anti-racism laws.

thebman

The last person I'd look up to is a political leader. They have all gotten their hands dirty to get to where they are.

I wouldn't mind if the president had more powers. I'd certainly prefer if the Taoiseach had less powers.

ChocolateSauce

Terrontress wrote: »

That is a fairly narrow criterion to have based your statement on which really must affect such a small percentage of Germans as to make it irrelevant.

With all due respect, if you think the relevance of the freedom to promote Nazi views depends on the number of people who actually want to, you don't understand what is at stake or why it is a problem.

The whole notion of blasphemous libel on our statute books is surely much more draconian than the German position.

While I wouldn't call the German laws draconian, they are more serious in some ways. The notion of a blasphemy law is silly and probably unenforceable; the notion that a Government can lock you up for expressing an opinion, no matter how abhorrent it may be, is scary, and Germany and Austria have done just this. Why just today this article showed up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8163918.stm), where the authorities had to decide whether or not to arrest a man for making a garden gnome which was Nazi saluting.

Germany seems to have much less of a nanny state than most European countries. Liberal position on prostitution, drugs, speed limits. Strong employees' rights, anti-racism laws.

I would say sensible positions, and the Germans are nothing if not sensible.

Bragadin

This country certainly isn't culturally bankrupt, but i do see a lack of something that many other european nations enjoy. In the constitutional monarchies of europe or even the US, the head of state represents more then just the guarantor of the constitution, he/she represents a sort of national continuity, the guardian of the cultural core of the nation.

In europe, the head of government and their ministers are representative of the current transient policies of today. So they fall from favour in accordance with their policies and they are exposed to open debate on them. When the head of state is decoupled from this they represent a national focus that is unchanging and personifies the spirit of a nation. Modern european monarchs have little power and thus can be separated from the contemporary change in prosperity and controversy.

This idea obviously does not require a 'monarch' per say, it doesn't have to take on an alien character i don't think. In the US the president isn't decoupled from his policies but he still some how represents this concept of national continuity in a different way.

There are other sources of 'national continuity' enjoyed in many countries. In Ireland we don't have a strong maritime or military tradition, nor do we have a distinct tradition of pageantry or ceremony, and sadly Irish patriotism is too often associated with revolutionary republicanism. This kind of idea naturally sometimes makes a virtue out of opposition to the establishment (no matter how well deserved) and can be counter productive. This problem isn't unique to our country, there are analogues in relatively new republics across europe. But i suppose we need to create a sort of national identity that can be reconciled with the state without forgetting how it came into being.

I'm not sure what this would be like exactly. There’s also a reasonable argument that we don't need any national identity other then a cultural one.