Graham Smith the CEO of Republic, the campaign for a democratic alternative to the monarchy joined us this month.
Graham
 stated that the monarchy was both wrong in principle and in practice. 
It undermines our desire to make decisions for ourselves and “is an 
obstacle to a genuine flourishing of democratic ideals.”
Graham
 also accused the monarchy of corruption.  If we can define corruption 
as the abuse of public office for personal gain then Graham cited royal 
access to ministers to lobby for their own political agenda and using 
public money for personal use (i.e. £20,000 spent by Prince Charles for a
 4 day Scottish holiday) as examples.
The
 media states that the total cost of the monarchy to be £35 million a 
year.  But Republic contend that this figure is artificially low as it 
doesn’t include the costs of security, police, local council costs on 
visits and that there real figure is more like £200 million.  By 
contrast the Irish Head of State costs that nation £7 million a year.  
But Graham stressed that this wasn’t simply a question of cost. Even if 
the monarchy cost nothing its existence would erode our democratic 
potential.
To
 Graham  just as worrying as the high financial price of the monarchy 
was the fact that it is “out of control and not open to scrutiny”.  Both
 Prince Charles and the Queen have an effective veto on any legislation that affects their extensive private interests.  Civil 
Servants are duty bound to make them aware of any legislation that might
 do so.  The result is that legislation is changed in advance to avoid 
it affecting these private interests as Civil Servants know it will have
 to be amended in favour of the Royals anyway. 
When
 it comes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) the monarchy is exempt
 even though it is a publicly funded body.  The Act was later amended so
 that in addition to any internal Royal correspondence being out of 
bounds any correspondence between the monarchy and any other public 
bodies was also safe from scrutiny.  We know that Prince Charles sends 
plenty of missives to government but we’re not allowed to know their 
contents.  The Guardian has been fighting a long battle to get 
access to these letters with the government repeatedly losing in the 
courts and then putting in motion appeal after appeal. This lobbying explodes the myth that the monarchy is merely a decorative
 figure 
head, detached from politics.
Another such myth, according to Graham, is that the monarchy brings valuable tourist trade to the UK. 
So what’s the alternative?  Republic campaigns for a fully elected Parliament and an elected Head of State
 that acts as the Guardian of the Constitution. Graham gave examples of 
where proposed laws have been vetoed in Ireland when the President has referred them to the Supreme Court where they have subsequently been deemed unconstitutional.  We are not talking about the same style 
Presidency as Mugabe in Zimbabwe (as some of the audience seemed to 
think) but for a Head of State that protects the constitution and 
represents the country rather than running it as a personal fiefdom.
Once
 again it was a lively debate with even the bar staff joining in.  
Personally, what struck me is that for those who believe in the monarchy
 it very much appeared as more of an act of faith that an evidence based
 belief.  I was left wondering  why as a Nation many of us feel that 
this privileged family with no experience of everyday life are an 
accurate image of Britishness to project to the world and ourselves?  It
 is a cosy nostalgia for a supposedly simpler time where everyone know 
their place and things seemed a little more ordered?
NEXT MONTH: Christopher Snowden will challenge 'The Spirit Level' theory that more equal societies always do better.  It's bound to be a controversial stance so do come along. Thursday April 17th, 7pm, The White Horse. Full details HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment