AERM Meets In Oslo 2014 To Discuss A Monarchy Free Europe

Started by Orchid, April 19, 2014, 03:41:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Orchid

"Monarchy-free Europe" is aim of alliance meeting in Oslo next week | Republic


QuoteThe Alliance of European Republican Movements (AERM) is holding its annual convention in Oslo next week, from 4-6 April.

The AERM, which is made up of national campaign organisations, will be focussing on sharing strategies and discussing recent developments around Europe.

In recent years the Swedish monarchy has come under fire as a result of various scandals, the Spanish monarchy has been rocked by scandal and court cases while the Dutch monarch abdicated in favour of her son.  In the UK the republican movement has been boosted by the royal wedding, jubilee and royal birth.

Graham Smith, speaking for the British republican organisation Republic, said today:

"This alliance is a crucial part of our long-term strategy.  By working with our European counterparts we can build a European-wide momentum against the idea of monarchy."

"Speaking to republicans from Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and elsewhere we can see that the issues facing these countries are much the same as here.  Monarchies are inevitably secretive, wasteful of taxpayers' money and intefering with the political process."

"There are only seven major countries in Europe that still have monarchies - it's time we reduced that number to zero.  By working together we can show that it is the idea of monarchy, as much as the specific issues here in Britain, that is the problem."
NOTES

The Alliance of European Republican Movements has member organisations from the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Spain.

You can find out more at Alliance of European Republican Movements | Working together for a monarchy-free Europe.

The Oslo convention will be attended by delegations from each member organisation.  Previous conventions have been held in Stockholm (2010), London (2011), Copenhagen (2012) and Brussels (2013).

Distilling the objectives of the alliance, the bedrock of their objective is to develop strength and momentum through shared strategies and a wider European unity.

What do our republican and monarchist members think of the alliance and its strategy?

 
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Windsor

I find the Republicans are organizing better these days, conferences and all are being hosted. However, I just wonder whether their messages are getting across to people, and if they are... are people really listening or bothered? I talk from experience at having seen Republican groups get together, numbers never make up their expectations.


Orchid

I've missed you in these threads old chap :hug:

That's certainly true of the London Republic protest in June 2012.  The numbers who actively turned out didn't even match the numbers formally registered with republic.  And I confess that as a supporter of the emerging republican campaign I wasn't there! 

I do think there is a trench between people who ideologically support a UK republic and those who actively get out there and show their support in protest. Hopefully, as such organised alliances like the AERM develop domestically and around Europe, people will begin to make active efforts to attend and thus involve themselves more actively. Speaking for myself, I'm more likely to attend a peaceful, organised convention with a specific political focus than I am a crowded protest in the streets. A modern echo of the French Revolution is not what any country or citizen wants!

Quote from: Windsor on April 21, 2014, 11:55:40 AM
However, I just wonder whether their messages are getting across to people, and if they are... are people really listening or bothered?

Republic definitely need to find deeper investment for far reaching public campaigns. Money is certainly a hurdle in getting the political message out there in a consistent and organised way. Consistency and a penetration of the media is what gains attention and that is lacking at present.

Are people bothered you ask?  Well, yes, I would say so, IF, by "people" you mean those who care about politics and the developing improvement and elasticity of democracy. Sadly there is a good percentage of people who never vote or take an interest in the systems of government. Worse, there are people who are simply passive and accept the status quo. But generally speaking, shifts in political models will always take a back seat to more immediate, domestic concerns (Maslows' hierarchy of needs) which causes a distinct degree of inertia. But as I've often said, inertia ought not be confused with a lack of support for the principles and prospect of a republic government.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

PrincessOfPeace

#3
But at the end of the day the status quo will win out then. I happen to think there is next to no support for a republic but if the existing republicans aren't going to make some noise and at least show they're willing to get out and publicly demonstrate against the monarchy, it will enjoy many future diamond jubilees

Republicans boast of the largest anti-monarchy protest in its history during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee (from their website) and yet according to the media that covered it (also from their website) only about 100 people were there while thousands of monarchists drowned out their jeers with God Save the Queen.

If you look at parliament, there are some fairly fringe groups that have political representation. I find it bizarre that republicans claim millions of members and yet don't have a block of MPs in government.

UKIP has shown that a one issue party can garner a lot of support. Millions of Britons do want to leave Europe and UKIP's numbers in the polls show this. They have elected MEPs and Nigel Farage will win his seat in the next parliamentary elections.

Why no republicans?

Orchid

#4
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 21, 2014, 02:15:22 PM
But at the end of the day the status quo will win out then.

You say that in such instances [as an indifferent electorate] the status quo will "win out".  This isn’t true by default, however I’m curious to know whether you think it’s a good thing. Should tradition survive off the back of indifference and the tradition of acceptance rather than a collective social consciousness?  Genuinely, I'd like to hear your analysis on this issue.

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on April 21, 2014, 02:15:22 PM
If you look at parliament, there are some fairly fringe groups that have political representation. I find it bizarre that republicans claim millions of members and yet don't have a block of MPs in government.
UKIP has shown that a one issue party can garner a lot of support. Millions of Britons do want to leave Europe and UKIP's numbers in the polls show this. They have elected MEPs and Nigel Farage will win his seat in the next parliamentary elections. Why no republicans?

Although interesting, this is an argument which doesn’t factor in the wider complexities of the political system and electorate.  The reality is that there are republican MP’s functioning in Parliament within the main parties. What doesn’t currently exist as yet is one politically focused republican party, and it’s a case of stepping stones. The current role of Republic is orientated around liaising with MP’s to build parliamentary support (which of course will be helped by the existing republican MP’s), push for reforms, highlight specific issues and, crucially, encourage individualistic activism by promoting the ideals and goals of the movement.  A UK Republic is, in its current life, embryonic and so it’s perfectly sensible [and to be expected] for a new political regime to gradually and peacefully weave itself into the political landscape and public consciousness. Change doesn’t have to be fast and aggressive to "make noise" and be effective in the long term. Tortoise and the Hare.

Funding also has a lot to do with the speed of progress.  You bring in UKIP as a comparable “one issue party” to somehow [weaken?] the degree and success of republican support. This is quite a narrow way of analysing the issue, one of the reasons being because it doesn’t take into account the extensive funding that UKIP is receiving in order to generate such wide-scale media coverage and public awareness (and thus votes/seats).  The latest example is the £1.5million poster campaign funded by former Tory donor, Paul Sykes.  If Republic secures a wealthy donor it’s guaranteed that their media drive will kick up on a national scale too! Money drives politics and activity in polling stations.  You also have to bear in mind that Britain's association with the EU is a recent political tie and not, like the monarchy, a deeply instituted one.  The difference, in terms of interacting with the politics, philosophies, causes and effects, is incomparable.  To some extent, modern society is distant from monarchy - it's origins and democratic effects - unlike more recent, "fresh" issues circulating around the EU. This both helps monarchy and destabilizes "seedling" relationships.

I’m reasonably objective and flexible in my approach to politics and difference, and in this way I will also say that Republic need to open a wider dialogue with the public about the most sensible alternative to monarchy. Currently they are promoting replacing the monarch with an elected head of state, however I’m not convinced about this model and whether a UK Republic needs to sustain two sets of government: a Head of State and a PM.  Naturally the configuration of these roles in a Republican system needs to be more clearly defined because as it stands I don’t support having a ceremonial Head of State and a PM as we continue to pay twice for governance and sustain ceremonial roles (it’s not just about elected figures!): so in some areas I feel the model and approach is flawed and needs redressing.  But of course, so too are the existing government/monarchy models flawed and that is why every citizen needs to openly engage with politics and culture and question the role of imbedded systems of governance and representation as objectively as human emotion will allow.  Holding on to systems for the sake of it, refusing to question them, or sustaining them for reasons of "continuity" or because they suited a past Britain aren’t sensible in my view.

I’m curious, PrincessofPeace. Clearly you are an avid supporter of the current system of monarchy. For all the benefits that you view in the institution, do you view any flaws/negatives/areas for reform?  You have proclaimed yourself to be a devoted “subject”, but as a citizen of a society, do you ever question aspects of the monarchy and its effects - good and bad - on the UK’s democratic character?
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

Orchid

QuoteThe Alliance of European Republican Movements (AERM) is holding its annual convention in Oslo next week, from 4-6 April.

The AERM, which is made up of national campaign organisations, will be focussing on sharing strategies and discussing recent developments around Europe.

In recent years the Swedish monarchy has come under fire as a result of various scandals, the Spanish monarchy has been rocked by scandal and court cases while the Dutch monarch abdicated in favour of her son.  In the UK the republican movement has been boosted by the royal wedding, jubilee and royal birth.

Graham Smith, speaking for the British republican organisation Republic, said today:

"This alliance is a crucial part of our long-term strategy.  By working with our European counterparts we can build a European-wide momentum against the idea of monarchy."

"By sharing information and experiences we can help put to rest this myth that European monarchies are any less corrupt or that they lead normal lives, cycling to work in the morning."

- See more at: Campaign News & Updates | Republic
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

cate1949

As someone who lives in a republic - a republic which threw off it's monarch - there are certain illusions that I think republicans have.  First - if you combine your PM and HoS - you risk what we have here in the US - the Imperial Presidency.  So much power is concentrated in the office of the President.  A second problem is that by the nature of how they get the office - elected and representing a specific party and platform, they cannot represent all the people.  Hence the President is not a figure of national unity but rather a divisive figure.  Because our president is not a figure of national unity we create other icons - Brits have their Queen.  Americans make icons of our constitution and our flag.  We have all sorts of laws about how one must treat the flag and jail sentences for those who fail to follow those laws.  The constitution - most people have little idea of what is even in it - but they are sure it guarantees them some rights - most of the time rights they do not in fact have or understand.  If Britain abandons the monarchy - what will your symbol of national unity be?  This is no small matter - and it will not be your PM or President.  The republican movement gives no thought to this but it is a concern to people hence they opt for continued monarchy.

The big problem as I see it - is that neither a republic nor a constitutional monarchy are superior to each other.  What makes for good government is people.  Specifically the willingness of people to participate in government - be responsible citizens (or subjects).  This requires knowledge - it requires a consensus about what sort of basic values the society will have.  It requires civility.  It requires less time knowing what your favorite sports team or movie star is doing and more time learning about issues.  We fail to have good government because we take our eye off the ball - and allow others to highjack government for their own uses.  This can happen in a republic as well as in a constitutional monarchy.   A republic will no more guarantee good government in Britain than what you have.   If people are not participating and using their rights in the existing system they are not about to change and do it in a new system.  This is why I use the word illusion.  There will still be entrenched elites even without a monarchy.  Those elites can only be balanced by an active informed people.

georgiana996

Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

TLLK


PrincessOfPeace

Quote from: cate1949 on June 30, 2014, 08:53:21 AM
As someone who lives in a republic - a republic which threw off it's monarch - there are certain illusions that I think republicans have.  First - if you combine your PM and HoS - you risk what we have here in the US - the Imperial Presidency.  So much power is concentrated in the office of the President.  A second problem is that by the nature of how they get the office - elected and representing a specific party and platform, they cannot represent all the people.  Hence the President is not a figure of national unity but rather a divisive figure.  Because our president is not a figure of national unity we create other icons - Brits have their Queen.  Americans make icons of our constitution and our flag.  We have all sorts of laws about how one must treat the flag and jail sentences for those who fail to follow those laws.  The constitution - most people have little idea of what is even in it - but they are sure it guarantees them some rights - most of the time rights they do not in fact have or understand.  If Britain abandons the monarchy - what will your symbol of national unity be?  This is no small matter - and it will not be your PM or President.  The republican movement gives no thought to this but it is a concern to people hence they opt for continued monarchy.

The big problem as I see it - is that neither a republic nor a constitutional monarchy are superior to each other.  What makes for good government is people.  Specifically the willingness of people to participate in government - be responsible citizens (or subjects).  This requires knowledge - it requires a consensus about what sort of basic values the society will have.  It requires civility.  It requires less time knowing what your favorite sports team or movie star is doing and more time learning about issues.  We fail to have good government because we take our eye off the ball - and allow others to highjack government for their own uses.  This can happen in a republic as well as in a constitutional monarchy.   A republic will no more guarantee good government in Britain than what you have.   If people are not participating and using their rights in the existing system they are not about to change and do it in a new system.  This is why I use the word illusion.  There will still be entrenched elites even without a monarchy.  Those elites can only be balanced by an active informed people.


:goodpost:

There will always be the people who drive in the black cars. I think the reason republican numbers have remained stagnant is after you get done with the ideologues, republicans don't have much to offer other. Britons are smart people, we only need to look around Europe at the basket case republics to know it wouldn't be the land of milk and honey.

We Britons 'get' monarchy and we are for the most part are comfortable with it. Do we really want to get rid of our hereditary system and replace it with a here today , gone tomorrow gormless president? The answer is in the polls. 

Orchid

^ "-the land of milk and honey" .... I'm not aware of any republican policy which equates a republic model of government to a utopia. Existing policies and ideologies are predicated on progressive politics and democratic principles, none of which promise a perfect utopia but rather a modernised, democratic mode of governance.

***

Great post cate1949!!  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:  I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and contribution to the discussion. You make some very interesting points which I'd love to discuss with you.  Hopefully, when I have a bit more time, we can engage in an interesting discussion on some of your perspectives.   

"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

cate1949

thank you Orchid look forward to that discussion

Something I do not know much about but very much wonder - as the European Union moves toward the grand goal of "Europa" - the "United States of Europe", what does this mean for the continued existence of European monarchies?  The goal of full European integration requires the abolishment of national identification and monarchies for sure help to maintain that sense of nationalism.  So I would think that the abolition of monarchy would be a feature of deeper European integration.  Has anyone written about this?  Is there any discussion about the EU Human Rights law and its implications for monarchy?  Seems like something important.

Limabeany

#12
Quote from: cate1949 on June 30, 2014, 08:53:21 AM
As someone who lives in a republic - a republic which threw off it's monarch - there are certain illusions that I think republicans have.  First - if you combine your PM and HoS - you risk what we have here in the US - the Imperial Presidency.  So much power is concentrated in the office of the President.  A second problem is that by the nature of how they get the office - elected and representing a specific party and platform, they cannot represent all the people.  Hence the President is not a figure of national unity but rather a divisive figure.  Because our president is not a figure of national unity we create other icons - Brits have their Queen.  Americans make icons of our constitution and our flag.  We have all sorts of laws about how one must treat the flag and jail sentences for those who fail to follow those laws.  The constitution - most people have little idea of what is even in it - but they are sure it guarantees them some rights - most of the time rights they do not in fact have or understand.  If Britain abandons the monarchy - what will your symbol of national unity be?  This is no small matter - and it will not be your PM or President.  The republican movement gives no thought to this but it is a concern to people hence they opt for continued monarchy.
I disagree with your premise of the imperial presidency given that presidents are elected every four years and after their presidency is over can be held accountable in a court of law for any wrongdoing and even during it. Any representative government, given the sheer number of citizens will be representative. But to have someone not ever be held accountable for any action they take and to have them as the party having the last word on any judgement of their actions is totalitarianism... A particular President may not be a figure of national unity but in a republic you are free to look for one every four or six years, the Queen may be a figure of national unity but that is not to say, and I sincerely doubt anyone can assure Charles or William will be a figure of national unity...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

cate1949

Well - first - the UK does not have a totalitarian government by any definition.  They have one of the oldest democracies in the world -= the oldest parliament.  The monarch power of veto over legislation from the parliament has never been exercised and would represent a constitutional crisis if it ever was.  The monarch has a constitutional obligation to advise and warn.  So - there seems to be a misunderstanding here in the impression that the UK has a totalitarian government.

As for the Imperial Presidency - it has been the subject of discussion since at least the Nixon administration and reflects the complexity of the US executive branch, the increased size of the executive office, the development of advisory bodies not answerable to congress such as the NSA or OMB.
Here is one link to a discussion of the Imperial Presidency but there are dozens of others if you are interested.  Digital History//

Right now there is a big debate and accusations by the Republicans that Pres. Obama is conducting an Imperial Presidency because he uses executive orders to bypass our dead in the water congress.  It is not a phenomena of one presidency - it is  supposedly a function of the times we live in and has characterized Presidents since Nixon.

As for accountability - when has a president ever been prosecuted for crimes to hold them accountable?  Given the secrecy associated now with government - how do we hold someone accountable?  We know now we were lied to re: Iraq - did we hold Bush accountable for that?

Since under the UK system - HM only advises or consents to actions taken by the government - what is she to be held accountable for?  Many nowadays in the UKIP think the Queen committed an act of treason when she signed the Lisbon Treaty - but parliament passed the treaty.  The Queen had no power to sign that treaty without parliaments passage of the treaty.  So who should be held accountable? 

We have a republic - yet we have virtually the same pressing problems the UK has.  Our republic has not spared us.  The disparity in the distribution of wealth is actually much worse in the US than it is in the UK.  Yet we have a republic.  Elites exist in republics too and those elites  can ( and many would say have) seize control of the government through their lobbies and influence peddling etc.  Neither a republic or a constitutional monarchy is immune to that problem.  The protection against that problem is certainly the people.  If the people are blasé, uninformed or only serving their own narrow interests than any government - republic or cons monarchy - will fail.

The Scandinavians are reputedly the most responsive and honest governments.  Yet all the scandis have monarchies.  I doubt it is their monarchies that give them good government.  I suspect it is because they have much higher participation in civic life and because they are more homogeneous populations.  This I would suggest is the real issue - elites take over not because there is a monarchy they take over because people allow this - because people are uninformed and uninvolved. 

You may be right - Charles may not be a particularly good symbol of national unity.  My point is that there must be some consideration given to what that symbol of unity will be in the absence of the crown.  I have seen none presented by republicans - they need to address that issue.  The primary reason the referendum to eliminate the monarchy failed in Australia was because there was no acceptable alternative to the crown as that symbol of the state.  If the republicans wish to be successful they cannot simply count on resentment - they need to find a more acceptable answer to that problem.