CarbonRick

Thoughts/opinions please folks as its something I've wondered about but don't have the knowledge to make an educated opinion on.

Is it feasible and how likely is it to ever happen?

Roscco

Ummmmm............................................ ................................ what?

Iain Mac

If you mean a king or queen (or a general) taking control of this country, I'd say no.

To take over, you would need to have the armed forces and other apparatus of the state on your side and a monarch or government would have to persuade them to use force against the citizens (ie the troops own friends and family).

Besides which, I'd say that the VAST majority of the population would resist any kind of dictatorship, benign or not. Personally, I'll go to hell before bending my knee to anyone else, especially if they got there by force or accident of birth.

Isaac.Hunt

What the ... ? The UK is already under sovereign rule; the UK is a sovereign state as are most democratic nations.

Without meaning to be patronising, do you even have the vaguest idea about what you are actually try to ask?


That is not a sovereign state, that sounds more like a Feudal monarchy - i.e Feudalism.

fuzzy

id have thought a sovereign state is where the queen or king controls everything but in a meaningful way. here the queen is more like a tourist attraction with lots of cermony and tradition but little real involvement in day to day life.
a republic is were theres a vote appointed president but thats a bit like our current prime ministers role.

Iain Mac

I know that the UK is currently a sovereign state - a country with control of its affairs and recognised as such - but if Europe keeps gaining ground, that may not be the case for a lot longer.

I was guessing that he meant either a hereditary monarchy which, to our shame, we also have though thankfully without any real executive control, or a state where power is taken by force rather than by way of a democratic election.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

IIRC the queen still does have the legal power to dissolve parliament. Couldnt be any worse than what we have now Some old fashioned influence would do this country good IMO. Especially in a social way.

Iain Mac

You are right that she has to approve the Government and she has to dissolve the parliament, but those are really more like traditions than anything else now - these tasks could be removed, quite literally, in days.

Unfortunately, I simply can't agree that we'd be better under a hereditary monarchy than in a democracy. Power without responsibility is a terrible thing, and you can't fire someone there by birth.

Really, the whole hereditary principle should have been outgrown by now. Remember that if Betty's uncle hadn't ran off with an American divorcee he would have stayed King and we may never have gone to war - he was a Nazi sympathiser and, after his abdication, the new King and the government effectively exiled him as Governor of the Bahamas because of his comments and suspected links.

And if he had stayed in power, Betty, Charlie, Wills etc would be nothing more than minor players on the Civil list so it is hardly a divine inheritance that marked them out for "greatness".

CarbonRick

Possibly badly worded, and my misunderstanding of sovereignty.

Thats what I meant.

Have to agree on that. I personally wonder if conscription would help?

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

conscription would only help fix a problem thats already there. the real solution is instilling parenting skills so that conscription isnt needed in 40-50 years!!!

In that sense all conscription would do is aim to repair the damage from poor upbringing so many seem to have.

Sadly its a very long term solution needed to solve the social decline in britain and has been said in the BNP thread, our version of democracy would never allow such long term policys to come into effect.

The flaw as well is in the current generation of "blame everyone else, take responsibility for nothing" there would likely be a short term (10 year) decline of social standards as a significant number of parents would not bother to bring up kids properly complacently safe in the knowledge that conscription would "sort them out".

Sadly a lot of people are by the time of 18 too far gone to be "fixed". By that age a lot of core beliefs are permenant so those teens at that age who fundamentally believe that thieving/crime etc is ok would still think that after conscription. They just might understand then that its not acceptable to behave that way and hopefully the criminal system would have caught up so these people have enough of a deterrant to not commit crime.

even the most hardened criminals will change behaviour if they have a choice. Give them the skills to get a job/occupation etc then they have a choice, crime or go legit. Make the consequences of crime hard and nasty enough and almost all criminals will choose to go legit simply because crime wont "pay". At present crime "pays" too well so there is pretty much zero deterrant for reoffending.

Iain Mac

100% right.

I can't remember the name of the show, but the two gay designers, Colin & Justin, got the job of turning around a really tough sinkhole estate by improving the living environment - and that meant enlisting the support of the people living there, and getting them to put their effort into tidying up etc.

You can probably guess that some of the grown-ups and young kids were in favour, but the teenagers were set on destroying everything they did.

So they found out who the ringleaders were and destroyed THEIR things, bike, PS2, whatever. I found it hilarious to watch the wee hard man dissolve in tears as C&J spray-painted his stuff!

It would be interesting to go back and see what the place and people are like now...