Jamaica intending to ditch HM Queen Elizabeth II, well, the politicians are

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083112/I-think-time-come-Jamaica-ditch-Queen-official-Head-State-new-PM-vows-sever-colonial-era-links-Britain.html

'I think time come': Jamaica to ditch Queen as official Head of State as new PM vows to sever colonial-era links with Britain

- Portia Simpson Miller sworn in after landslide election win
- Pledges to ease deep poverty, boost economy and heal political divisions


Jamaica's new prime minister has been sworn in - and immediately vowed to ditch the Queen as her country's official Head of State. Portia Simpson Miller said she would sever colonial-era links by abandoning the British monarch and adopting a republican form of government. The Privy Council in London will also be replaced with Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice as its highest court of appeal in a bid to 'end judicial surveillance from London'.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/06/article-0-004C1FF600000258-102_306x423.jpghttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/06/article-0-0F5A2FDE00000578-66_306x423.jpg
Ditched: Queen Elizabeth II, pictured here (left) during her 2002 trip to Jamaica, may be removed as the country's official Head of State under plans unveiled by new Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller (right)


Taking the oath of office, she said: 'I love the Queen; she is a beautiful lady.' But then, speaking to the audience of 10,000 in Jamaican patois, she quipped: 'But I think time come.' Jamaica declared independence from Britain in 1962 but remains within the Commonwealth and has Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State.

The 66-year-old, who was sworn in yesterday for the second time, also pledged to ease Jamaica's deep poverty, boost the sputtering economy and heal its political divisions. Simpson Miller, whose one-year-long first stint in office ended in 2007, was sworn in on the grounds of the rambling, colonial-style mansion that is the official residence of the governor-general. Pop star Shaggy later performed at the event at which vuvuzelas and horns, which had been blown passionately on the night of her victory, were banned.

She scored a dramatic victory in last week's national elections, leading her slightly left-leaning People's National Party to a 2-to-1 margin in Parliament over the centre-right Jamaica Labour Party. Her opposition faction won a dominating 42 seats in the 63-seat legislature, leaving the incumbent party with 21. The plainspoken, charismatic Simpson Miller, who is the Caribbean island's first female prime minister, takes over from Andrew Holness, a 39-year-old Labour lawmaker who was leader for just over two months. In a 45-minute speech, she said: 'After being tested and tempered, I stand before you today a stronger and better person prepared to be of service to my country and people.' She vowed her government will 'ease the burdens and the pressues of increasing poverty, joblessness and deteriorating standards of living'.

Well if this passes its another end of an era, how far the mighty have fallen one might say. It is interesting that a poll out last year actually indicated that the majority of Jamaicans want to become an actual British colony again because in the words I remember 'under British rule we had jobs' and you can say that again. But whats the motive behind this one might ask? having a Monarch as Head of State always offers the best protection against military coups and in a general sense the most free and prosperous countries are those with constitutional monarchys. If PM Miller believes becoming a Republic will fix the problems of her country she is very much mistaken, and she only has to take a look at all the other ex-prosperous British colonies to see where it often leads. Besides, who would rather a politician as Head of State anyway?

One thing I always note though with all this 'independence' in the former British Empire is that strangely enough none of them have ever been independent or proud enough to stop taking our foreign aid contributions that so many of their corrupt governments and poor people rely on. Funny that, don't you think?

Thoughts?

[dbgtz]

One thing I always note though with all this 'independence' in the former British Empire is that strangely enough none of them have ever been independent or proud enough to stop taking our foreign aid contributions that so many of their corrupt governments and poor people rely on. Funny that, don't you think?

Probably because it's "our" fault that they get in such poverty, despite the people who decided to go around and dominate the earth are long gone.

Anyway I'm looking at this and seeing that, surely the replacement for the privy council will just be another thing that has to be paid for, so how would that help ease any poverty. I think it's a stupid idea and they will most likely fail, but they should have the right to do what they choose.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Probably because it's "our" fault that they get in such poverty, despite the people who decided to go around and dominate the earth are long gone.

Well thats just the typical argument used by leaders in the former colonies which are now starving to hide their own failure as well as using it as an excuse to get the begging bowl out, take President Mugabe who often uses it to hide the fact that he ran the prosperous Rhodesia (which we British created) into the absolute mess that is Zimbabwe. I mean lets be frank, most of the colonies since independence have been utter failures since the British Empire ended solely by their own fault and not by any fault of ours. The Empire is over for sure and I accept that entirely, but enough of this guilt-tripping that despots and to-the-left politicians take us on to open our wallets up.


Anyway I'm looking at this and seeing that, surely the replacement for the privy council will just be another thing that has to be paid for, so how would that help ease any poverty. I think it's a stupid idea and they will most likely fail, but they should have the right to do what they choose.

Oh indeed, as a sovereign state its entirely upto Jamaica.

[Technologic]

They have every right to ditch the Queen

[Lamz]

If Jamaica leave the country to there "government" it will get more ****** than it already is!

[Chippiewill]

If they do not want the queen as head of state then I think that's fine. I personally believe they have bigger priorities and they should only become a republic if their citizens want it but otherwise I see no problem.

[GommeInc]

They have every right to ditch the Queen
Obviously, but that's not the point. At the moment it seems to be the Prime Minister of Jamaica who wants to get rid of the Queen to make way for a Republic of Jamaica. It has to be down to the country to decide, and if they vote for the removal of the Queen then Jamaica is a real democracy. If Jamaicans vote to keep the Queen, then they are again, a real democracy. Getting rid of the Queen because of one individual's views does not make a democracy, it sets the foundations for a dictatorship.

[Special]

i'd love to know the real reason, not just 'time come'

[Grig]

Creating a republic would fail to tackle any of the growing fundamental problems within the country. As a commonwealth they actually benefit from various perks such as those from a security standpoint etc.

Although if they do want to go ahead with this, they would need a public vote and not just the PM saying so, otherwise it goes against the fundamental aspects of democracy. The people of the country ought to get a say on this issue.


If Jamaica leave the country to there "government" it will get more ****** than it already is!
This does not make sense. The Queen nor the commonwealth are running the country, the government are. Simply the commonwealth status gives perks to the country. So I have no idea why you so weirdly think someone else is running it.

[Catzsy]

Just another inflamatory story by the Daily Fail who have tagged it as 'ditch' to give it a negative spin to please their readers. They have every right to determine their own future.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just another inflamatory story by the Daily Fail who have tagged it as 'ditch' to give it a negative spin to please their readers. They have every right to determine their own future.

Well because anyone who values the Royal Family and the stability it brings to these nations does see this as a negative move. The Mail is a royalist paper like the majority of the British people hence is one of the reasons why it sells so well compared to the Republican papers of the Guardian/Independent, so its hardly a big suprise now is it that the paper takes a pro-Monarchy stance? But the question isn't whether they have a right to determine their own future, nobody disputes that. The question is do you think its a good move by the Jamaican government? and the majority of people in this thread have all said no and have given reasons as to why its a negative move if it goes ahead. Now how about you? you know, it'd be nice to have some intelligent responses rather than the usual 'OMGZZ DAILY FAIL'!

[Catzsy]

Well because anyone who values the Royal Family and the stability it brings to these nations does see this as a negative move. The Mail is a royalist paper like the majority of the British people hence is one of the reasons why it sells so well compared to the Republican papers of the Guardian/Independent, so its hardly a big suprise now is it that the paper takes a pro-Monarchy stance? But the question isn't whether they have a right to determine their own future, nobody disputes that. The question is do you think its a good move by the Jamaican government? and the majority of people in this thread have all said no and have given reasons as to why its a negative move if it goes ahead. Now how about you? you know, it'd be nice to have some intelligent responses rather than the usual 'OMGZZ DAILY FAIL'!

I am really sure that even the Royal Family would not agree with the word 'ditch' tbh so it could not be said to be a pro-monarchy stance just the usual negative tagging to appease their readership. The queen is a constitutional monarch only so tell me what difference it would make to them if they became a republic? What positive effect does having the queen as their monarch have?
It is all very well people having opinions as to whether it is a good move or bad move but who here knows enough about Jamaica
apart from what they read in the papers to even give a reasoned judgement on the situation. I don't so I am not going too.