Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state | Hacker News Reader

Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state

npr.org

105 pointsjulianlam130 comments

"King Charles III had just taken the throne last week when one Caribbean leader floated the idea of doing away with the British monarch as his country's head of state."

This is sloppy reporting.

Browne has previously made clear his intention to do what Barbados did and hold a referendum to get rid of the British monarch as ceremonial head of state if and when wins another term. He was asked by the press at the accession ceremony whether he still intended to do that and responded, "yes, probably within three years but not right now".

Is that really "floating the idea"? It sounds like he's confirming what had always been his platform.

I mean, what would they expect him to say? "I was going to but I like Charles so much that I've changed my mind"?

Any UK monarchy news gets attention... Anything "may" happen, specially when it has been announced in the recent past. Like you say: there was always a plan for the ref, so this is non-news.

Also, why is this in HN frontpage. I get the curiosity of Republicanism v. Monarchy. This does NOT seem to be a good article to be having this discussion.

As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.

As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them?

I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but just wondering why? :)

>I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state

Genuinely curious what those would be?

I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical.

For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of governance is compatible with modern Canadian society (or at least what we would like to think it should be).

Not something that keeps me up at night, I don't think it will be removed any time soon mostly due to inertia, but I would definitely not be opposed to removing it.

> Genuinely curious what those would be?

You don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US.

I'm a republican (not a US republican, but merely favour republics) but I don't see how relinquishing the British Crown would change anything for the better for Canada or Australia? Canada would probably need to become a parliamentary republic like Germany or Greece, where the president has a ceremonial role.

> You [Canadians] don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US.

Yet?

I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it.

Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing.

This works specially well for the UK since the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends (Due to mostly tourism) and you have a setup that works for most everyone.

The negative I see, is that you always have in the back of your mind the possibility that one of these monarchs might, from time to time, want to exceed the powers given to them.

Not saying I agree with the system, nor do I have a fight into this, I'm Brazilian living in the US so I've never been under such system, but this is my impartial, look at this system.

> the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends

Only with very creative accounting, typically favoured and repeated by pro-monarchists (including the government).

People would visit the palaces without the royal family in them, and we'd be able to charge £20 a ticket to look around inside. (See: Versailles, or the Tower of London.)

See https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism

How would delegating any important job of a state (e.g. takes care of looking good) to a group of people you can't replace any good? Sure, there's always good kings and queens scattered in the history to be good or even great persons, but it's not guaranteed. When it's no longer the case, what's the plan then? I thought our civilization came this long way to realize the importance of being republic.

Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.

Not necessarily. You could choose them by lot and limit their terms.

That would make for a fun night of TV.... Who will be Canada's next monarch? Find out tonight on CBC.

>You could choose them by lot and limit their terms.

That is, by definition, not a monarchy

Contrary to Monty Python, you can actually vote for king:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy

I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right.

Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family.

The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.

Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).

Also, since monarchs have to be politically neutral, which is another absurdity on top of an absurd situation, a monarchy lacks the powers that a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections.

The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.

> […] a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections.

This is a bug.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2022_Tunisian_political_c...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Peruvian_self-coup_d%27ét...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-coup

> The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.

This is a feature. Let the politicians figure it out or go to the electorate and have them sort it out.

(I'm Canadian.)

No thanks. To take the contrary example, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy by definition, almost taking the playbook of the English monarchy verbatim. Except that the monarch has the conditional right to dissolve the parliament for any "valid" reasons. Monarch hates the PM secretly? Monarch doesn't like a new law being signed into place? Monarch feels a bit whimsical? Find a pretext, dissolve the parliament, rule in absolute until the next elections, by which time he will have devised another method to dissolve the next government.

> I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state

For them for sure, especially financially wise

Really? Do you have any references for how much money the Royal Family takes from Canada?

Couple reasons come to mind: 1) The institutional apparatus required to maintain the monarch as head of state is reasonably complex and expensive, both from a legal point of view and in a financial sense. The governor general is an unelected official whose power technically exceeds any democratically selected person in our government, and they make almost $300k/yr to do essentially nothing but administrative ceremony. I know that in the big scheme of things, $300k (plus whatever other perks/bonuses they get, along with their staff) is just a drop in the bucket, but it feels a bit like theft from Canadians given this role doesn't need to exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada

2) The royals do have a bit of a history of interfering in the politics of past colonies - the recent reveal a few years ago that Charles (I think...?) influenced the selection of high ranking Australian government officials in the 80's was a bit of a shock to many. Apologies, I can't find the right combination of phrases to yield anything in google except tabloid nonsense as a source. In any case, there is at least some evidence that the royals, either through wealth, old-school power politics, or direct action do play about with the politics of other countries, even when they explicitly should do not that. I detest this.

3) I really do not like what the royals stand for. Monarchism, colonialism, genocide, general crumminess. Spending £12 million to pay off one of the women Prince Andrew allegedly sexually assaulted as a minor, using public money, is an atrocious act and one I still cannot believe got so little media coverage here. Then there's all the general petty money issues: Prince Charles doesn't pay inheritance tax (why? Because, that's why). The royal family is except from all sorts of laws pertaining to wealth transfer actually, in some cases literally because it's coded into the laws themselves that Her Majesty is excluded. It's ridiculous. And here in the UK you still are not legally allowed to protest the monarchs. I mean - you can, but you can also be arrested for it. Just in the last 2 days there's been outcry as 2 people were arrested for anti-monarchist protest signs.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-... https://www.thenational.scot/news/21319718.protester-arreste... https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/1569270901685862403?...

It's time to let go of the past, try to build a future for ourselves that doesn't centre around the absolute worst parts of our collective histories.

To be fair, no Canadians pay an inheritance tax, royal or not.

I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades. Some say we already have ...

> I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades.

Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.

Maybe the Queen was the only thing holding back an invasion of the US … I saw a documentary about that once called Canadian Bacon I think.

Yeah, that was satire (for those who don’t know the movie).

This whole comment thread was satire (for those who can't recognize it on the internet).

To be fair, we all mostly thought the Russian exercises in January and early February in Donetsk and Crimea were just grandstanding, and now look where we are...

This is one of the most absurd things ever written on this website.

It's the Canadian monarchy just as much as it's the English monarchy.

It's wild how many people don't understand this.

To help spell it out for those who keep misunderstanding, when the Queen visited the USA in 2010, she did it as Queen of Canada, under the Canadian flag, with Canadian staff and security.

Flag shifter. Huh never knew she had that kind of tricks.

Even though the crowns are distinct, the crown resides primarily in the UK, no?

> Even though the crowns are distinct, the crown resides primarily in the UK, no?

Nope. Wholly domestic in Canadian law.

> This division is illustrated in a number of ways: The sovereign, for example, holds a unique Canadian title and,[82] when he and other members of the royal family are acting in public specifically as representatives of Canada, they use, where possible, Canadian symbols, including the country's national flag, unique royal symbols, armed forces uniforms,[87] and the like, as well as Canadian Forces aircraft or other Canadian-owned vehicles for travel.[88] Once in Canadian airspace, or arrived at a Canadian event taking place abroad, the Canadian Secretary to the King, officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other Canadian officials will take over from whichever of their other realms' counterparts were previously escorting the King or other member of the royal family.[88][89]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

In Scotland?

Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.

The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy.

That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

> Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.

There are lots of republics in which the president has only a ceremonial role. Germany and Italy, for example. There are absolute monarchs as well. The title does not indicate the effective power of the role.

> A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.

So is the president, if you have an appropriate constitution. This is the key, not the fancy title you give to your head of state.

A monarchy has the downside that who gets to be the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic.

> A monarchy has the downside that who gets to be the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic.

So I get 1/20 millionth of the decision in which of 3 or 4 members of an exclusive elite get a patronage position, and it's all good?

I'd just as soon eliminate the risk of handing that role to a political climber and leave the position to someone whose power we all clearly understand is only formal.

That being said, I understand and appreciate your arguments around a properly framed constitutional role for a president. If we ever do make the change, I'd like a non-imperial presidency...

You don't need a monarch for that. If you're going to have an unaccountable position filled by someone without any demonstrable merit, then have a lottery once per year that draws a random citizen to fill the role.

Let's pilot this project in the Senate...

And put his/her face on the money!

Everyone assumes that a republic would result in the US system with a strong executive.

Ireland is a much better model that would largely keep things as is, by replacing the Governor General with a ceremonial presidential figurehead.

Executive-branch head style presidents are a silly, bad idea. They only serve to give a single person a huge mandate that places them in a position to disregard the local mandates of the legislature, and at least in the US they appoint the judicial branch. So they pick the judges and can ignore the laws.

Prime ministers are representatives of the legislature, not above it, and presidents in a normal parliamentary system are like VPs in a US-style system - really just there for tiebreaking (and in that the responsibility for organizing government succession in ambiguous situations, but no real latitude.)

A monarch does nothing but make sure that a country always has race and rule by blood at the center of its constitution.

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

> At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy.

I'd say you have the correlation backwards: the current European monarchies only exist because they were smart enough to largely defer governance to democratic processes. The ones that didn't no longer exist.

That's what a constitutional monarchy is.

In practice that may be largely the case but it's not by definition true and still has counterexamples (Bahrain, Kuwait).

You've named all the European monarchies other than Luxembourg, Spain and microstates.

I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc.

See map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchies_in_Europe

> I don't see that these countries are any more or less stable than Ireland, France, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria etc.

One metric:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

Most of the top ones are constitutional monarchies. Next up seem to be countries that have symbolic heads of state, with mostly ceremonial duties (and "reserve" powers like the UK HoS/crown).

The list:

  NO Monarchy
  NZ Monarchy
  FI          Republic
  SE Monarchy
  IS          Republic
  DK Monarchy
  IE          Republic
  TW          Republic
  CH          Republic
  AU Monarchy
  NL Monarchy
  CA Monarchy
  UY          Republic
  LU Monarchy
  DE          Republic
  KR          Republic
  JP Monarchy
  GB Monarchy
  MU          Republic
  CR          Republic
  AT          Republic

I call that a draw.

≤2020 most of the top ten was constitutional monarchy, with most republics in the #11-20 range. 2021 seems to have been a bit of a shuffle (e.g., CA not being in the top ten for the first time in a ~decade).

Italy has had 69 governments since the end of WW2, they usually don't last more than a year. Not the prime example of stability.

> There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands etc.

What reason is that?

I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement.

I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.

I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing.

If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s not working and we can’t fix it sure. At that point we should find a new way, and our monarchs should know that. I think so far the queen and our new King do know that. Until then as a pragmatist I see no need to upend the status quo.

Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.

I would like to point that the Spanish ex-monarch practically _betrayed_ Spain to the Saudis (he's currently self-exiled there) and he still has a non-negligible amount of support in the population.

I find "support of a monarchy" an indefensible position. Bonus points if your only argument is "well the current monarch is kind of nice and therefore we're not in a hurry to remove him" because that's literally one rotten apple away of exploding in your face (see Spain) and by then it's likely too late.

Exactly. At the very least you need strong constitutional provisions to get rid of the current one, assuming that the next in line could be better.

That's a very nice way to put it. He took a donation from Bin Laden's family, namely from Osama's half brother, Bakr Bin Laden.

He was also heavily supportive of environmental concerns decades before it was mainstream, so maybe he's won it back again.

Carbon footprint of ordinary British person: 10 tonnes. Carbon footprint of Prince Charles: 432 tonnes. (2019)

Talks to his plants though, allegedly.

I don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.

I'm British, I want them gone. I'm not under any illusions that we have a meritocratic society but while we have a hereditary bloody monarchy I honestly feel somewhat gaslit whenever anyone claims we do (and they do claim that).

No system of government or society is pure, adhering to an unblemished ideal system. No communist government has been purely communist, no democratic system is perfectly democratic, no meritocratic system excludes all possible factors contrary to meritocracy. I don’t believe anyone has ever said our system is perfectly and ideally meritocratic in every way. That’s not what any reasonable person would take the statement “our system is meritocratic” as meaning.

It’s mostly meritocratic. Compared to many other systems, along with other comparable liberal democracies I’d argue it’s one of the most meritocratic systems developed so far. It’s also one of the most free, and the fact is free human beings don’t always make every decision based on merit. I think it’s clear if we chose to get rid of the monarchy we could do so through democratic mechanisms. So far we have chosen not to do so.

It's mostly meritocratic for the little people. 94% of UK children go to state schools, but only 50% of MPs went - and that's considered good.

A little bit of strawmanning there, implying I'm insisting on an unblemished ideal system. I simply think there's plenty of room for improvement on what we have, and stripping one family of a birthright to rule would count towards it.

I don't think it's at all clear we could get rid of the monarchy through democratic mechanisms! But that's rather besides the point - we wouldn't try, because the amount of state & media propaganda shovelled at us will prevent most people from wanting that. Unless some troubling events fast-track Harry & Meghan to the top of the succession order, of course.

Lets take a look at what the British people think so far: https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/156892329675376230...

Scottish people.

Scots aren’t British? That’s great news, I’m gonna go update my passport!

They aren’t “the British people”. Obviously.

1. "Let's take a look a look at what humans think about communism: <link to a video about North Koreans praising their leader>"

2. "That's just north koreans"

3. "North koreans aren't humans?"

Comment #3 is not a valid counterargument to comment #2. The point is that Scots may not be a representative sample of "all Brits", even if Scots are Brits.

No, my (possibly too subtle) point was that this might be the moment where Scots begin to cease thinking of themselves as Brits. I don't think there's any danger of the DPRK declaring themselves non-human

Considering they recently publicly decided to be British, they're about as British as you can be.

Technically, Scots as in those born in Scotland and still living there voted to not be British. The vote was open to all living in Scotland (above the age of 16), which includes many people from the other nations such as England who may (or may not) consider themselves Scots, and conversely some people may consider themselves Scots but not live in Scotland.

> The vote was open to all living in Scotland

In other words, people with an unambiguous stake in the outcome.

Heh touché, but I think we can all agree that’s maybe not really reflective of popular regional attitudes towards “British”-ness.

And I suppose we will see as the parade travels south and crossese the border, but I don’t think you will see the same sort of anti-Charles sentiment in Manchester or London.

Fair, I didn't like what look like a dismissal of the Scottish people's Britishness.

> explain themselves and answer for their actions

Is that really what happens, though? And if so, what if the monarch isn't satisfied with the answer?

The Monarch has no power to force an opinion but that is not the point. Having a safe and secret place for a PM to discuss difficult situations with somebody who has probably seen most of them before is immensely powerful.

I know some believe that all government should be open/public but I suspect in many cases that means that real discussions don't take place out of fear of offence or backlash from the public. If you were toying with the idea of e.g. privatising the NHS or selling off a load of gold for raising funds, you might want to discuss these privately before they end up as a Headline.

> Having a safe and secret place for a PM to discuss difficult situations with somebody who has probably seen most of them before is immensely powerful.

If the monarch is competent. History shows that it happens, but is far from being the norm. Blood lines do not guarantee anything in that respect.

They get to tell them so. I don’t think a holder of sovereignty has to have active power. Weee human beings. Symbolic power matters. If it’s ever not enough, we’ll find another way.

Perhaps I'm either too cynical or too naive, but I can't imagine someone like Boris Johnson being even slightly fazed by it. Having to stand in a room once a week for a couple of hours being disapproved at is nothing to someone that's been through the public school system and modern politics.

I note that your head of state met 15 prime ministers and had them explain themselves. And not once found fault with them.

That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss)

By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't.

The meetings are strictly private, no minutes are kept, and there is no one in the room with them. PMs have said it is about the only time they get to talk through issues and ideas with someone knowledgeable and invested, without any fear at all of backlash, or of it being leaked or misrepresented.

So your line of argument is way off.

> PMs have said it is about the only time they get to talk through issues and ideas with someone knowledgeable and invested

That's interesting - please could you give any pointers to who said this and when?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/57596969

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62844813

> And not once found fault with them.

How on earth could you possibly know that?

Except, of course, that England (and later the UK) has not had anything resembling a revolution since 1688, or 1642 if you don't consider the Glorious Revolution a real revolution. Constitutional monarchy has proven an extremely stable political system.

> England (and later the UK) has not had anything resembling a revolution since 1688

England, I'll give you. We can ignore Peterloo. But everyone always forgets Ireland successfully leaving the UK through a combination of armed struggle and political action. Not so much the stabilizing influence of the monarchy as the willingness to shell Dublin or fire randomly into protests in Northern Ireland. And quite a lot of the Twitter anti-monarchism at the moment has been from Kenyans.

You seem to have entirely airbrushed from history the loss of 1/3 of the UK's land area scarcely 100 years ago.

In Ireland we have an elected President whose duties are largely ceremonial (laying wreaths, giving speeches, meeting dignitaries incl newly appointed diplomats etc) but include one v important constitutional duty: to sign legislation into law. It has happened that a President refused to sign without first referring controversial legislation to the Supreme Court.

In the UK the Crown has nominally comparable authority but is in fact nothing but a glove puppet, or at least that has been the case to date. See e.g., the Queen's acquiescence to the illegal prorogation of parliament. She did was she was told to do in her own name. Her son may not be so accommodating and this may lead to a constitutional crisis.

Some check on an overweening executive is always good.

This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.

> the "better things aren't possible" party

Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that.

I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative, is pretty small. The House of Lords, the voting system(s) and the constitutional settlement of devolution are far more pressing issues.

The same revolutionary movement resulting in workers gaining state power is necessary for any of those changes. In practice it is the same struggle and it's useful to build as large an alliance as possible.

One fairly thorough answer:

https://www.republic.org.uk/a_new_head_of_state

> The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to:

* represent the nation

* defend our democracy

* act as referee in the political process

* offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration

> The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

> Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

How do you judge the internal forum in that case? If the head of state says that they chose X because it is the right choice, but it's pretty clear to everyone that they wanted to choose X for personal political reasons, how do you prove it?

And if you have a method to prove it, why not use that method to arbitrate instead?

The model is that of Ireland or Israel: the President's actual powers are similar to those of the King - a handful of 'reserve powers' for use in corner cases. Rather than Charles having to make the call, a ceremonial president does instead.

One of the joys(?) of losing an empire is that there are a bunch of independent countries with political systems derived from yours that can provide concrete examples of the effects of possible reforms...

Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of.

France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.

Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.

>Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode. That’s because the PM is part of legislative and executive branch and in theory can get more of their agenda done. In practice, it can vary.

I don't know of any cases among the developed English-speaking countries with Westminster-style governments where your latter sentence is meaningful. The Canadian Prime Minister, especially, is said to be the most powerful single government leader in the world, but really is merely the (to coin a phrase) first among equals among his peers in other countries.

For others' benefit, a Canadian Prime Minister can

* Appoint anyone he wants to cabinet positions

* Appoint anyone he wants to the Supreme Court[1]

* Appoint anyone he wants to ambassadorships and other high positions

* Sign any treaty he wants

* Call an election whenever he thinks he has the best chance of winning more seats than his party possesses in Parliament at the moment

* Get any law passed he wants (assuming that his party has a majority or equivalent thereof), with no meaningful need to deal with an upper house

* Run for reelection as Prime Minister as often as he wants

Most of the above apply to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. The Irish and British upper houses have little power, and New Zealand no longer has an upper house; only Australia has an upper house in the legislature with significant power.

[1] Yes, yes, I know about the convention that the PM names someone from a list of suggestions. That's all that is; a convention. The only actual requirement is that three of the nine justices have to be from Quebec.

> Interestingly, the PM in a Westminster model is actually more powerful than the President in the US mode.

One advantage is that you know who to blame, especially when it elections come around. Instead of the "dead lock" that can occur when both the Legislature and Executive say they have 'mandates' that are opposing to each other.

The US doesn't have a prime minister at all. The president is head of the cabinet, they get to appoint all the heads of the various departments, and then the senate confirms them. The cabinet heads are usually not even from congress, they're often just random governors and politicians who lost during the primary voting for the last election and whatnot.

That's because, in the US, the Executive Branch is vested in the singular person known as the President. The Cabinet is an optional body comprised of the heads of the various Departments of the Federal government. The Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate, but every other member of the Executive Branch serves at the pleasure of the President.

I don't think you can be a Cabinet member and a member of Congress. As Cabinet members are officers of the United States and you cannot hold another office while also being a member of Congress (Article 1, Section 6).

It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.

> It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.

Given that the first time the Speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tem were proposed as successors under Article II was during the literal 1st Congress in 1792, I think it’s pretty unlikely that any modern court would find that to be unconstitutional.

“Many of the actual people who signed the Constitution thought this was okay and demonstrated their belief by introducing legislation to that effect” is about as ironclad a precedent as you can hope to find.

Yes, I understand it's been like this for a while, but that doesn't make the law Constitutional. Several things the "actual people who signed the Constitution" did were deemed to be unconstitutional. Why? Because there were many people who ratified the Constitution, each with their own ideas.

Even when the 1792 version of the bill was signed, the issue was brought up. By the "actual people who signed the Constitution".

And we've never had to actually test the Presidential Succession Act, which is where the courts would decide if it actually meets the Constitutional standard. The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal.

> The fact that it is a law, has been a law for a while, and a version of it has been a law since nearly the beginning of the country has no bearing on whether or not that law is legal.

This is true! But it’s also immaterial to the point I’m trying to make.

I’m not arguing for or against the de jure constitutionality of the law; I’m saying that it’s unlikely any modern-day court would find it within themselves to overrule the de facto state of affairs that was created by the framers themselves.

I think Europe often had somewhat bad experience with overly strong heads of state. Reigning from relatively benign to pretty bad. Thus I think their roles have generally lessened and more power being moved to governments and parliaments.

I would describe myself as a practical royalist. If I were writing a constitution from scratch I'd never have an undemocratically elected head of state. But, what we have works. Id rather have the queen any day over another politician. I'm British I can understand other nations having differing pov.

I don't know how Canada does it but in the UK the prime minister is chosen by the party. You don't vote directly for them. As such it isn't a democratically elected position so it isn't really any better than the status quo.

I'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen through election, the transition of power is made safer in that the previous Prime Minister does not "own" that power. I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety - arguably because we have a head of state, but even assuming not, this is why we don't dwell on these kind of concerns.

Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa.

Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top.

In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)

Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that.

> I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety

Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy.

> the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.

We can get away with that because in reality that is what she is.

In these modern times there is no reason to have some special family enshrined to the the point you have to pledge allegiance to them or a country has to depend on them.

Society functions precisely because we have collectively agreed to acknowledge that the individual is not the highest and only form of authority. Formally, we agree to follow the laws in place. Informally, we agree to act with respect to each other. This requires some form of self sacrifice on our part. By swearing allegiance to the King, or a President, we are saying "I am willing to follow the rules which result from your exercise of power". These laws are the ones delegated through our legislative and judicial systems - the King in our case does not exercise it himself in Canada. Sure it's symbolic, but so is making a promise to a friend. Keeping our word is important to us. We could swear it to someone further down the line, like to "all police officers", but I think that would be far less self-respecting than forging that agreement with the highest level of power directly.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some rabid anti-republican, republics absolutely do work! But I think monarchies also work, and each have different benefits. A republic is more representative demographically speaking, for example, whereas a monarchy is more impartial and has a stronger line of succesion to name a few distinct traits. I don't feel like our system is broken, nor do I feel that a republic would solve any problems (and it may come with its own fresh ones).

The "In modern times" argument comes up a lot, but I'm not sure it applies. Just because something is old, even anachronistic, does not mean it is invalid. In fact, such things are more valuable precisely because they are no longer found today. However, I think you are right in that there is a disconnect between these rituals and symbols and our modern conception of society, and that is why I think Canada has poorly managed the relationship between monarch and everyday people, and let the institution decay. One solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up with a republic, and its not going to be the end of the world, but I am personally in favour of renewing our longstanding existing commitment.

Indeed my own father waited almost 30 years before he finally got his Canadian citizenship, and lived as a landed immigrant (with German citizenship); paying his taxes and participating in society but not becoming a citizen (and not getting to vote despite being a strong NDP supporter...) and his stated reason for this was his abhorrence for declaring allegiance to the monarchy. A monarchy which many Germans blame for the mass firebombing of civilians at the end of WWII.

It's fine for you and I who are born into citizenship without having to do this ritual. For immigrants, this can be very jarring.

There is no need for it. That Royal Assent requirement is both BS and law and needs to be done away with. But Canadians who love monarchy are happy to require others to 'swear allegiance to the King/Queen AND heirs' - which includes the pedophile Andrew. There really is no need for this third party to be involved in Canadian affairs. Yes it is in the constitution right now but if you have some self respect and feel that swearing allegiance to some other person is not in line with equality of human beings then you have to stand against it.

Props to Australia for taking the first step and making it not part of the citizenship oath. The other ties are still there but at least you are not making people swear allegiance.

Prince Andrew is not an heir to the throne. Well, he is, but he's so far down the list that we can safely ignore him.

Probably a non-executive elected president, like Ireland or Germany. The Irish position, in particular, was fairly explicitly created as a monarch substitute.

Though, Barbados went with a somewhat more powerful president; their one appears to have a veto.

Sort of. It definitely substitutes for a bunch of monarchial stuff, but the major function of the Presidency was to provide Dev someplace to retire to where he could still influence things.

Since he's gone it's been almost entirely ceremonial with the exception of the constitutionality of new laws part (and the dissolving of government, but that hasn't come up since 1994).

The notion of some abstraction beyond and devoid of day to day | year to year to year political grubbing has some value.

The US has its Constitution, Canada and Australia (my country) have had the Queen.

The monarchy in many Commonwealth countries is effectively toothless having no actual power (certainly in Australia; following the Queens GG in Australia dismissing the Whitlam government some years ago that last loophole of power was written out) but they serve as some notion of something that binds us and transcends party politics.

I'm not sure whether Australia will stay the course with the monarchy now the Queen has passed, the Republicans here have been a growing force and Charles III doesn't have the respect his mother had.

I certainly have no particular attachment to the UK firm.

Its pretty much for ceremony. In most cases, the Prime Minister or President would be give the duties, if there are any. The article mentioned Barbados gave the duties to the President.

I am not sure of reasoning behind the downvotes on your comment.

I am Canadian and I do not have a good answer either of why we have a head of state aside from historical tradition.

That is the answer: tradition.

You should look into how Adolf Hitler became a Führer to get an answer to that one. The reason is accountability and checks and ballances.

All those countries, except Scotland and Wales, NI, Mann should do away with the monarchy. The UK may if the whish so, but other countries should have done so a long time ago.

> "It does not represent any form of disrespect to the monarch. This is not an act of hostility, or any difference between Antigua and Barbuda and the monarchy," he added. "It is a final step to complete the circle of independence to become a truly sovereign nation."

Seems sensible to me.

I don't really understand how this whole monarchy thing is really big news. The monarch has mostly a ceremonial role and would see the door as soon it's trying to project power over the so called realms including the home country(i.e UK).

It's good to hear it at the end of the news but definitly not frontpage news.

It is ceremonial according to the PR department of the royal family.

In practise, Charles tried to influence government ministers, and Cameron seems to think there should be less transparency over this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/entirely-rig...

https://antiguanewsroom.com/how-china-has-poured-billions-in...

As they should.

Imagine being a Commonwealth state and having to update your money. Elizabeth was a handsome queen and looks fine on a bill. Charles, though ... well, he has a face only a mother could love.

If there's one thing monarchies have perfected it is the "flattering painting/coin" of the King where you can recognize it's the King even though it kinda doesn't look much like the King actually does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com