Barbados set to abolish its 394 year-old monarchy and become a republic

[Seatherny]

As I keep pointing out, most of the time whenever the monarchy goes to a referendum, the people in the Commonwealth realms want to retain it. If Australia, Tuvalu and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are happy with their constitutional set up that they've had since their country became a country, who are you to tell them otherwise? If Barbados had held a referendum on it and chosen a republic then fair enough, but the fact the PM did not hold one suggests she was afraid of losing.

In what way does replacing a tried and tested system of government with a politician somehow make it better?

See below.


Mottley, who has campaigned on republicanism, won a landslide victory in 2018 elections when her party won all 30 seats in the House of Assembly. Mottley believes the people of Barbados gave her a clear mandate to break with the monarchy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

See below.

Mottley, who has campaigned on republicanism, won a landslide victory in 2018 elections when her party won all 30 seats in the House of Assembly. Mottley believes the people of Barbados gave her a clear mandate to break with the monarchy.

It wasn't a big issue in the election at all and has often been spoken about but not done.

That's like saying Sturgeon has the right to pull Scotland out of Britain because she secured a majority in Parliament.

[Seatherny]

It wasn't a big issue in the election at all and has often been spoken about but not done.

That's like saying Sturgeon has the right to pull Scotland out of Britain because she secured a majority in Parliament.

I just think you feel personally offended because a country has removed the queen as HOS. It's ok, more countries to follow as it is USELESS to have the queen as HOS. It is better to have an actual resident.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I just think you feel personally offended because a country has removed the queen as HOS. It's ok, more countries to follow as it is USELESS to have the queen as HOS. It is better to have an actual resident.

You're not actually explaining why this is a good idea nor why the people of Barbados couldn't have been directly consulted on this constitutional change.

I can say why I think it is a bad idea. It's a bad idea because having a constitutional monarchy keeps the executive of any country out of the hands of the political class. This has nothing to do with Queen Elizabeth II and could as easily apply to Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain which are also constitutional monarchies for this reason. For instance, Queen Margrethe of Denmark reigns not only over Denmark but also over Greenland. Two proven examples of island monarchies becoming republics and then suffering for it are Fiji and Trinidad and Tobago - both of which suffered military and political instability after becoming republics. I could name countless former Commonwealth realms which also descended into dictatorships once the executive switched from monarchy to republic and became political. It is far better to have an executive strictly non-political and immune from corrupt politics, of which these countries suffer more than others.

As for the geographical point you keep making, not once have you recognised that the Queen's representative, a Governor-General (or Governor if a Colony) does the day to day running of the government and is almost always a native of their respective country, and nominated by the respective country. It's akin to you saying that it's useless having President Putin as the Head of State of the Russian Federation given he does not reside in Siberia - what relevance does that have in the modern world?

[-:Undertaker:-]

@Saurav;

Also, it puzzles me that you think an executive abroad which does not exercise power without the advice of home ministers is such a bad thing, yet you were an enthusiastic supporter of an executive that did wield power and had two Presidents - the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission - based in Brussels, making law for Britain against the wishes of British ministers.

What is so bad about Queen Elizabeth II reigning from abroad but was so good about Presidents Herman Van Rompuy and Barroso ruling from abroad?