What should a Republic look like?

[Richard A]

OK, I'm not the republican that many in this room are. But there's an interesting side to the call to scrap the monarchy that I haven't seen discussed much: if we replace them with a President, how should they be appointed and what powers should they hold? Some have said that that's a side issue: the point is to replace a colonial overlord (as I think I said elsewhere, the republican movement is far less strong in England than it is elsewhere) and once that's been done, the details can be sorted out in due course. That was the approach that Bob Hawke took in the Australian referendum in the 1990s - and arguably lost it as a result. One Australian friend said he was a republican but voted No because he didn't trust Hawke that the "sorting it out later" would be anything other than on his terms. The Jamaicans are trying to thrash this out in advance, but again distrust between the government and the opposition are holding up a constitutional convention.

The US, inspired by France, went for making the President the executive branch; 130 years later, China went for a similar approach while 10 years after that, Ireland went for a much more titular President and a strong Prime Minister (Taoiseach).

Interestingly, when I asked a Bajan what model Barbados adopted when it sacked the monarch, she said she didn't know! But she then explained that it didn't matter because everyone knew who was going to run the country, regardless of what title they were given. I suppose that's one approach!

[Arneb]

It won't ever happen, because which fine upstanding Brit will imitate the Krauts, but I think at least parts of our system are worth exporting:
Federal system, strong (and equal) autonomy of the four parts; disentangle England from the UK. That might even prevent Norn Iron and Scotland saying good-bye.
Replace the House of Lords by a House of States representing the four parts of the United Republic. Make in actual chamber of Parliament and give it a strong say in the matters that concern the four parts.
Notary-like President; I have no strong feeling on whether she should be appointed by direct or representative vote.
PM elected by Parliament, dependent on Parliament's trust, and replaceable by Parliament; Parliament gets legislative initiative.
Introduce at least some form of proportional representation in your voting system (like you used to do for your European Parliament delegation, even if it meant seing UKIP MEPs ceremoniously taking a shit on their seats at the end of every session).
Put a strong emphasis on consensual processes for appointments to positions that shouldn't be partisan, e.g. appoint judges by a 2/3 majority, etc.
Write a consitution. Enshrine universal human rights in it. Appoint a constitutional court that has the last word.
Fucking get the fuck back into the fucking EU, you fuckers.

[g-one]

Introduce at least some form of proportional representation in your voting system

Hear hear!
We were promised this in our 2015 election, and some would argue it resulted in the win for the Liberal Party. The promise was quickly swept aside when they determined it would not work to their advantage.

[Lianachan]

I’m hoping Scotland will be a republic similar to some Scandinavian countries, Finland and Iceland for example seem to have good arrangements.

[Richard A]

Other than the fact that Finland has come up with a Prime Minister and President who are both outstanding leaders, I know very little about their political system. But they generally do well - good labour relations, probably the best childcare and education policies on the planet - so they seem pretty good at getting things right. Not a bad system for Scotland, or anyone, to emulate.

[Lianachan]

I must admit to selecting those two examples not only because they do indeed seem to be good systems, operated by competent people, but also because by most measures they're not really Scandinavian.

[Arneb]

Like, Monarchy 3 - 2 Republic?

[tubeswell]

So is a democratic republic more fragile to maintain than the Westminster parliamentary system ("constitutional monarchy" n'all)? Depends on who's Charlie at the time I guess.

[Richard A]

I'm not sure about that. I guess my launching this thread was sparked by 3 things. First, socialist friends and colleagues posting that the Harry & Meghan revelations show that we have to get rid of the monarchy - although those friends were firm republicans before Harry even met Meghan. But they didn't say anything about what should be put in its place. Second, the move in the Caribbean to ditch the monarchy. And third, the link between the campaign for indyref 2 and republicanism - unlike indyref 1, where I saw car bumper stickers, "Kingdom of Scotland". In England, republicanism, although it exists, is far less strong than elsewhere. The owners and editors of the Sun and the Daily Mail may be appalling, but they're also shrewd businessmen: they wouldn't be attacking Harry & Meghan for undermining the monarchy if they didn't think it would go down well. (Though the Sun belatedly realised it had overstepped the mark by publishing Jeremy Clarkson's column about Meghan last month.)

I'm not sure a democratic republic is any less - or more - fragile to maintain than a constitutional monarchy. The point is that in the UK, I've seen precious little discussion about what it should look like.