Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Practical republican politics

You would do if you knew anything about irish republicanism. What contribution do you think dev made that's still relevant today in comparison to eg James connolly, Wolfe tone, ta power etc?

I’m just surprised by your admiration for him that’s all…I mean , I’m much more of a Collins fan boy TBF but each to their own. It’s a bit like the Tay Tay / Katy split innit.
 
What about an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We each take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week....
 
That comment comes because people do not know the difference between an exective president and a ceremonial president.
Even a ceremonial president can have powers, powers that become significant during moments of crisis:


"Thundering disgrace" was the bowdlerised version of what the Defence Minister said about President O'Dalaigh after the latter referred a special powers bill to the dail to check if it was "repugnant to the constitution". In the end, the court passed the legislation, but not before the president had resigned due to the insult to his office.
 
only if your liberal democracy can ensure the army respects the transition. If even 20% of them go Full Sass over the matter its civil war time. Again.
What would a new British civil war look like? I need a medium-budget Sky drama about this. Robert Carlyle and Suranne Jones play ex-lovers who find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict. He is a former Royal Marines commander who now runs security for the royal household. She is a special adviser to the special minister appointed to oversee the handover. Featuring Sean Bean as an embittered Tory ex-PM out for revenge.
 
What about an anarcho-syndicalist commune! We each take turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week....
What, with all decisions being ratified by a simple majority in the case of purely internal matters, but a two thirds majority for external decisions?
 
What would a new British civil war look like? I need a medium-budget Sky drama about this. Robert Carlyle and Suranne Jones play ex-lovers who find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict. He is a former Royal Marines commander who now runs security for the royal household. She is a special adviser to the special minister appointed to oversee the handover. Featuring Sean Bean as an embittered Tory ex-PM out for revenge.
needs room for Jeremy Irons but otherwise I'm sold.
 
only if your liberal democracy can ensure the army respects the transition. If even 20% of them go Full Sass over the matter its civil war time. Again.

I agree that of the forces commanded by the monarch, the army is more of a potential threat than the CofE. Doing something early to break those historic links would be strategically sensible.
 
What would a new British civil war look like? I need a medium-budget Sky drama about this. Robert Carlyle and Suranne Jones play ex-lovers who find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict. He is a former Royal Marines commander who now runs security for the royal household. She is a special adviser to the special minister appointed to oversee the handover. Featuring Sean Bean and a host of extras as embittered Tory ex-PMs out for revenge.

Fixed.
 
What would a new British civil war look like? I need a medium-budget Sky drama about this. Robert Carlyle and Suranne Jones play ex-lovers who find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict. He is a former Royal Marines commander who now runs security for the royal household. She is a special adviser to the special minister appointed to oversee the handover. Featuring Sean Bean as an embittered Tory ex-PM out for revenge.
I'd watch that. Although the reality could be a bit dull If a rerun of the last time; the Navy would come over for parliament. Bucket of sunshine on Oxford as the Royalist capital and the whole thing's done and dusted by teatime.
 
Even if their ineptness is sufficient, which hasn’t been the case historically, not even when Victoria went full hermit, the instinct for change would still need to be pegged to some practical and politically achievable objectives.

From what I remember, the support for/interest in republicanism in the UK thrived and grew substantially during her years of seclusion in the 1860s.
 
From what I remember, the support for/interest in republicanism in the UK thrived and grew substantially during her years of seclusion in the 1860s.

Yes, that’s my point - it thrived, but to no effect. Republican sentiment needs to be channeled towards achievable immediate objectives which can be banked as wins along the way to abolition.
 
Yes, that’s my point - it thrived, but to no effect. Republican sentiment needs to be channeled towards achievable immediate objectives which can be banked as wins along the way to abolition.

It clearly put the wind-up Westminster to a degree that they tried very very hard to coax her back into public life. If she had held-out a few more years longer, some replacement of the Royal role might have become a very pressing issue.
 
It clearly put the wind-up Westminster to a degree that they tried very very hard to coax her back into public life. If she had held-out a few more years longer, some replacement of the Royal role might have become a very pressing issue.
Wasn't it Prince Albert's death that turned the tables on that one?
 
Wasn't it Prince Albert's death that turned the tables on that one?

It was Albert's death that precipitated the crisis. There had been some calls for a Republic before of course but for five years after his death in 1861, Victoria went into virtual total isolation at Balmoral and Osborne, with IIRC only one public appearance of any significance and only occasional public sightings the whole time. Which excercised Parliament considerably because the demands to replace the "absent" Monarch grew louder and stronger and the attempts of persuasion to get her back into public life got increasingly desperate.

It was only when they finally got her back for the State Opening of Parliament in 1866 and her gradual resumption of the role of Monarch in the years after that diminished the calls for her removal/replacement.

I can't help but notice that in that period, neither an abdication in favour of or a regency for her Heir seemed to be an option considered. So having a completely/obviously unsuitable Heir might be a useful contributing factor?

The years after WW1 were also a period when republican feeling was considered a very real threat to the UK in Scotland. One of my father's family went to gaol for his politics/republican sympathies in that period, only to be released in order to satisfy the demand for experienced shipbuilders for the Queen Mary and later Queen Elizabeth Liners....! :D
 
And let’s head this one off at the pass:

“But we’d have President Boris!”

1. Well, we had prime minister Boris, so are you arguing against all elections?

2. It’s not actually a job, so we don’t need to replace it with anything.

i did ask a pro-royalist what the difference was between the british PM and an executive (american style) president if the PM can pretty much do what they like (using various actions of that twat johnson as examples) and they weren't really able to tell me.
 
You would have to been a very optimistic republican a few weeks ago to envisage the British public rejecting all images of the Windsor clan as probable fakes. And yet, here we are. Practical epistemic republicanism.
 
Back
Top Bottom