Peter Tatchell wants the UK to become a Republic. After the mild problem of our having to change the name of the country if it does happen (that Kingdom bit does rather give it away) here’s what he says he wants:
But a US-Style president is not what most republicans want. I favour a
low-cost, purely ceremonial, elected president, like the German and
Irish presidents.
What we’ll end up with is a President John Prescott.
Which pretty much kills that idea, doesn’t it?
In
But the red cap tabloids need something to boost flagging circulations:
“Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has admitted he had an affair with one of his secretaries. . . ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4945170.stm
Shouldn’t we be calling it a Queendom? We wouldn’t want to be accused of sexism.
“Which pretty much kills that idea, doesn’t it?”
Well, no. The fact that it was suggested by Tatchell pretty much killed it for me….
Changing the country’s name is a plus point for me. At one time we were called Great Britain & i’m not exactly sure when we became the United Kingdom. I am not particularly anti-royalist but I’d rather be primarily identified as great than as a subject.
I don’t think we would. Remember Ken Livingstone getting elected despite not being an official party candidate?
I’d have more faith in the monarchy if it weren’t for the fact of who is the heir to the throne. I’d rather have Prescott.
What in God’s name would we need a President for? There is no sensible case for abolishing the monarchy if all you do is replace it. The good case for abolishing the monarchy is that the post of Head of State is just silly.
My idea, is keep the Monarchy, but have a vote – Windsor or A.N.Other.
Leave a Reply