Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Joining the Commonwealth is a lot different to restructuring your soverignty | |
Author: Roberdin | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:19:46 11/26/04 Fri In reply to: Steph (U.S.) 's message, "compromise" on 21:11:53 11/26/04 Fri [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Freedom of opinion and expression | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:13:59 11/27/04 Sat Hey, a pro-commonwealth yank - fantastic. (Don't take offence at the use of yank - there're Brits, Aussies, Kiwis and Canucks here - it's shorthand to differentiate between Native and Immigrant-extracted US citizens, nothing more). Don't let anyone tell you you cannot post here. As one of the anti-US brigade I should be first to start the usual snide retorts but I won't - I object to US foreign policy, electoral system etc. but not to the people - you're human beings after all and are like all of us. This, of course, extends to having your own opinions which I welcome. Just because some of us disagree with you or the idea of a Commonwealth including the US doesn't mean you are to stop posting - quite the opposite. You have a definite stance and one I'd be quite happy to debate and disagree with you on. I'm not a founder or moderator, just a poster like yourself, so I speak in no official capacity but: welcome, glad to have you here. Now, the pleasantries out of the way, let's begin with the real debate: Given that the US is so committed to republicanism, how could you possibly accept taking the head of state you fought a much-publicised war against? Surely, as a Yank, you are diametrically opposed to the notion of hereditary head of states, are you not? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I appologise if my earlier post was a little rude, i merely meant to imply that there are some deep-seated differences | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:22 11/27/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Roberdin I agree and was not offended (NT) | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:02:40 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I mean that I agree that joining the commonwealth is very different than joining a federation | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:05:59 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Trixta History | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:55:45 11/28/04 Sun Trixta, I agree that monarchism might be a hard sell to people in the U.S. in as far as the republic has done fairly well, but I dispute absolutely your assertion that anti-monarchism was the cause of the revolution. The cause was due to differences about our rights as Englishmen. We held that just as taxes levied in the U.K. were and are a gift by the commons to the crown, taxes in the colonies were a gift of the colonial assemblies to the crown. Thus the stamp act and other taxes levied by parliament on the colonies were not well received. When the stamp act was repealed loyalty to the crown was high, in fact a large gold leafed lead equestrian statue of the king was erected in New York to celebrate. Ironically a few short years later the statue was torn down and the lead used for musket balls. Other complaints included the quartering of soldiers in the colonies without the permission of the colonial assemblies and the use of military trials for tax evaders when it proved difficult to get jury convictions. The declaration of Independence lists the grievances at length. The fighting only started when the government tried to seize our arms which the bill of rights of 1689 had guarantied us. This, not hatred of the monarchy was the cause of the war. The royal health was still being drunk after the fighting had started. It is worth noting in that connection that the fighting started in April 1775 but independence was not declared until July 1776. Even this did not end American affinity for British systems of government. The fact is that despite being a liberal revolution, the American Revolution was in many ways conservative in that we were rebelling against one of the most liberal states in Europe. We felt that our traditional rights were being violated by innovations in Britain. In fact, what is interesting about people on this site saying that our system of government is so different from the U.K. and the crown commonwealth, is that our system of government is basically not greatly changed since before the War for Independence. You have to remember that at this time in Great Britain the crown still had major say in the government. In the colonies we had no responsible government. We had a governor, usually appointed by the crown, a bicameral legislature composed of a council appointed by the governor and an elected lower house. That is basically the system our states are governed by today. When independence was declared, we wrote constitutions for our states and started electing the governor and the upper house was either elected by a different franchise or was chosen by the lower house and governor. While there have been some changes, this in essence still the system our states use. Only one or two states have unicameral legislatures. We still call our chief executives governors. When the Confederation was found to be unworkable, the British system was explicitly looked to as a model. If you read the account of the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, you will find extremely nice things said about the British system of government including a wish by some of the delegates to establish a monarchy, but with the recognition that by that point feelings had changed greatly. Even so proposals were made to have either the President or the Senate elected for life. The system we do have is basically modeled on the British system of government as it existed in theory in 1787 or for that matter today. The President is basically an elected monarch, you will note he is in theory not even directly elected. As the Queen is in theory part of Parliament and the royal assent is in theory necessary to make a law, the President, while not a part of Congress, has to grant his assent to laws, a difference is that Congress can by a supper majority pass a law without his assent. As the Queen is commander in chief, so is the President. The Queen is Chief Executive, so is the President. As the Queen in theory chooses her ministers, so the president chooses his cabinet with the consent of the Senate. In that context remember how much more powerful the lords were in 1787. Congress like Parliament is bicameral. The Senate while not composed of hereditary aristocrats was originally not directly elected but composed of members chosen by the state legislatures. While the Senate is not the highest court in the United States, it in conjunction with the president appoints judges to the Supreme Court and lesser courts. The Senate does retain some juridical powers in that it tries impeachments. The House of Representatives is directly elected like the House of Commons. All finance bills must originate in the House of the Representatives. In short our system is not that different in theory from the British System. The practical differences are the result of the fact that we started electing the monarch so there was less support for the legislature when it tried to use the power of the purse to control the executive. Therefore we did not develop the Prime Ministerial system. The French revolutionaries made a big deal about how our state constitutions were so conservative and aping the evil monarchical system instead of concentrating all power, legislative, executive, and judicial, in a unicameral body which they conceived as the “proper” republican thing to do. This led John Adams, later our second president and then ambassador to the court of St. James, to write his three volume “A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States.” In the Defense Adams looks at basically all of the republics through out history to defend our state constitutions. He uses the word republic in its proper sense to mean governments that are not absolute monarchies, absolute aristocracies, or absolute democracies and discusses the British system in flattering terms under the category Monarchical Republics. The Defense not only had a good deal of influence on republican thought in Europe, but was published as the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was meeting in Philadelphia. Further his earlier “Thoughts on Government’ published during the revolutionary war was influential when the state constitutions were being written. In that pamphlet he drew on the American experience with the colonial governments and the British system. He even recommended that the more aristocratic states like Virginia might choose to have a hereditary upper house. He also wrote the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the oldest written constitution still in force. Anyway anti monarchism was not the motivating force behind the war for independence and our government is not as different or un-British as some might think. P.S. I am not offended by being called a yank. I understand the problem is that we are over paid, over sexed, and over here ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Steph, I dare say you are far more aware of this history than most Americans | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:26:15 11/28/04 Sun You are obviously far more knowledgeable about it than I am. I'm not so sure that current US citizens would view this historical relationship with the British monarchy and the British system of government in quite such a positive way. I am, as always, more than happy to be proved wrong. Regardless of the common origins of our forms of government, I do feel there is a substantial difference in functioning between a parliamentary system, with a symbolic head and a government based on a majority of local representatives, and a presidential system, with a powerful head and frequent conflict between executive and legislative branches. My experience of living in Brazil is largely responsible for this feeling. I, for one, would be astonished and very pleased if the USA should show interest in joining the Commonwealth, not so much because of anything related to the monarchy, but because joining an organisation that would put it on the same level as Lesotho would be an important sign of multilateralism. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:44 11/28/04 Sun I agree that many Americans have a less positive view of our early conection to the crown. But I do think that many of us have a positive view of Great Britain. We were allies through all of the 20th Century. There are substantial differences in functioning between our systems. I only wanted to point out that they are different developments of the same system. If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world. As for us joining the Commonwealth it is something that would have to be worked at just as Federation will have to be worked at. As for having only one vote, we had only one at the U.N. and the U.S.S.R. had three. We didn't like it but we lived with it. Regarding multilateralism, I guess I hold to view that the purpose of the state is to defend the persons, rights and interests of its citizens. To sacrifice those to international concensus would be to deligitimize itself. Cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:39:20 11/28/04 Sun I don't always agree with Dubya, but making US defence policy dependent on the consent of foreign nations is rather an abrogation of the Commander-in-Chief's responsibilities. Look at how much fuss we're making over here about the Euro-army! It would be hypocritical for Brits to criticise Americans for refusing to do something which we refuse to do ourselves. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Emperor or President | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:26:37 11/28/04 Sun I agree with Ian and think that perhaps you study political history or something similar. Would I be right? My point is that, in today's US, selling the concept of an impotent monarch over an all-powerful president would be an uphill struggle at best. I accept there are are a huge number of similarities between our systems - that's why we refer to Westminster as the mother of all parliaments. The British system is one that has been exported all over the world and forms the very backbone of modern democracy. As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie. > The President is basically an elected monarch, you will note he is in theory not even directly elected. Agreed. >As the Queen is in theory part of Parliament and the royal assent is in theory necessary to make a law, the President, while not a part of Congress, has to grant his assent to laws, a difference is that Congress can by a supper majority pass a law without his assent. In theory, okay. In practice, however, very different. The Queen dare not oppose parliament, assenting to legislation is little more than a rubber stamp. The Queen cannot initiate legislation, influence parliament to introduce legislation or, perhaps most significantly, hold any political affiliation. Thus, the monarch is always separate from political machinations, she can be neither conservative nor labour. The president is, obviously enough, part of a political party and, in fact, elected as much for his party affiliation as for his own policies. >As the Queen is commander in chief, so is the President. The Queen, however, cannot send her troops into battle - she can only agree with the PM should he wish to do so. As I understand it the president can send US forces into combat without the consent of the houses, albeit for a limited period. >The Queen is Chief Executive, so is the President. In name only. As above, she has no political influence, she leads no party, she cannot instruct the politicians on any matter, legislative or otherwise. > As the Queen in theory chooses her ministers, so the president chooses his cabinet with the consent of the Senate. Yet again theory and practice are two completely different things. As you no doubt well know, the PM picks his cabinet and the Queen rubber stamps it for the sake of tradition. So, really, the British system works almost in reverse to the US system: the British head of state has no real power or say in the running of government, merely a few administrative niceties to perform as and when instructed to by the PM. The US system has a powerful, monarchical head of state whose political affiliation dominates the daily governmental regime and dictates policy. In summary, yes, I agree that the US system is an imitation of the British system, which is itself an imitation of the earlier Greco-Roman systems. Practically all democratic systems in the world today share the same roots and almost all British ex-colonies have the Parliamentary system at their core. However, I disagree that they are the same, or anything close, because (as you observe) the US system has replaced an hereditary head of state whose power is continually waning with an elected head of state whose power would seem to be continually on the increase. By the way, how would you describe the commonly held view of the war of independence? If asked, how would the average Yank tell the story? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Revolutionary wars | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:26:02 11/28/04 Sun I recently wrote an article on the origins of the American Revolution, which was quite well received by various professors. If you're interested, I'll e-mail you a copy. Without wishing to flatter, the views which you express on this forum reveal you to be a well-informed and thoughful human being (much as I occasionally disagree!), and I'd be interested in what you think. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes I would be interested to read it | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:13:15 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Righty ho. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:20:59 11/28/04 Sun I would be interested to get a reaction from an American point of view, just as, I presume, you would be curious to read about the Revolution from a British standpoint. Consider yourself emailed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good Article | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:55:45 11/30/04 Tue Ed I realy enjoyed your article. You were right on about the causes of the revolution. It was intresting to read about the War of Independance from a the point of view of imperial policy. That is as a failure, rather than a success. By the way you might be intrested in Ben Fraklin's Albany Plan of Union of 1754. Which would have created a Federal Colonial government for British North America. It called for a President General appointed by the crown, and a council chosen by the colonial legislaturesl. cheers Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Powers of the Crown | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:18:31 11/28/04 Sun You are quite right to think that I studied history at university or as we yanks would say ¡§I majored in history at college.¡¨ ƒº My knowledge of government is due to that and personal study. I agree that monarchism would be a hard sell. Personally I have monarchist tendencies. For me, the hard sell would be the over integration of the legislative and executive and a lesser extent the judicial functions in the Prime Ministerial system. I would be very happy with a monarch and a directly elected head of government. You wrote, ¡§As it happens I disagree with you on the idea that the monarch held such sway at the time of the war. Since Cromwell did his one good thing, taking the power from an absolute monarch into representative government, the monarch has been increasingly disempowered while, on the contrary, the US presidency has become more powerful over time. At the same time that the monarch was effectively being made little more than a glorified meet-n-greet diplomat the US president was forming the basis of its role as policeman of the world. Our empire fades, yours ascends - c'est la vie.¡¨ Well I may have over stated the authority of the crown at the time of the revolution, but I think you are understating it. George the Third was the most dynamic monarch since the Hanoverians came to the throne. Lord North was very much his minister. It is not until the civil list is established and the monies of the crown and the monarch were clearly sperate, that the Prime Ministerial system is clearly established. The madness of George the Third was such a serious problem because he was still an important part of the government. In a very real sence, the dissolute nature of George IV is the foundation of the current system. William, Mary, and Anne had not been mere figure heads though they were constitutional monarchs. George I was unable to speak the English language and George II was not that much better. George III the first really English Hanoverian was a much more active monarch than his grandfather or great grandfather. In that context it is also worth noting that during the 18th Century, the opposition tended to congregate around the court of the Prince of Wales, because his influence would be important for patronage purposes. Re Cromwell, he was in no sence a Prime Minister. As Lord Protector he was King in all but name and he excersised the royal prerogatives including proroguing parliament, dismissing it, and ruling with out it. Remember the words with which he dismissed the long Parliament, ¡§You have sat to long here for any good you might be doing, be gone I say and let us have done with you. In the name of god go!¡¨ To quote myself ¡§If Cromwell had made the Protectorship directly ellected and their had been no restoration, the American system would be standard through out the English Speaking world.¡¨ So while it is true that the Americans had an exaulted view of the powers of the Monarch which reflected the past more than future, and assigned sed powers to our president, the issue was not so clear in 1787. As late of the budget crises of the early 20th Century, the government had to ask for the power to appoint enough lords to break the power of the lords to the will of the commons and that was granted only after parliament was desolved and the government sustained by the electorate. Even today laws are not made by parliament, but ¡§enacted by the Queen¡¦s Most Excellent Majesty.¡¨ Personally I think things have gone to far. The commons now have almost the power that the French revolutionaries were advocating for a single unicameral legislature. Some checks are needed. More later, Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "Some checks are needed": not wrong there! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:57 11/28/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ed, Article | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:26:49 11/28/04 Sun Ed , could you email you article to me at adamben9187@yahoo.co.uk, thanks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sure! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:04 11/28/04 Sun But I don't promise that it'll be any good! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |