Should the UK become a Republic

dilbert2

I’ve always wondered if the UK was on the verge of removing the monarchy, and many of its perhaps antiquated vestiges, in order to become a Republic like the United States and France.

I know that the British media in general does not tow to British Republicans, or the concept of ridding Britain of the monarchy, but there seems to be many websites on the internet surrounding the issue, and while it is safe to say that such individuals may not as of yet constitute a majority in England, that there would appear to be a growing sentiment in certain sections of the UK with regard to the continuation of the monarchy.

While the Tory heartlands of Southern England (with the exception of areas of London) could always be depended upon to support the monarchy it seems, there are however large sections of Northern England, along with Wales and Scotland where support for the monarchy is, and was never as strong as it is in the "Home counties" of Southern England.

Could, or should the UK become a Republic - and could you ever see this happening, if not in our lifetimes, perhaps sometime over the duration of the 21st century?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Probably won't happen for a long time, but its a very stupid set-up they have the moment. Completely backward relic of the middle ages.

KeithAFC

No. I like the way the UK is at the moment.

mike65

There is no movement to push for one so the answer is not for a long time, if ever. UK is only one of several monarchies in western Europe btw.

RandomName2

It seems perfectly logical to have a monarch with a veto to block legislation that might be seen to threaten the constitution or otherwise endanger the state.

However, I don't know if, if push comes to shove, that this hypothetical veto could or would ever be used (a bit like with our own president).

Other than that the monarchy provides a cultural focal point and a tourist industry in itself (which afaik provides a net income after taxes spent on the royal family)

Manach

For God's sake will someone think of the Tabloids & the Kitsch China plate sellers.

KeithAFC

Its like saying should the republic of Ireland join the UK again.

blinding

Countries do what the Banks tell them these days. If the banks told them to, then you would soon see some politicians promoting it.

Ickle Magoo

I'd love to see it happen - the financial bill to the rest of the UK for a anglo-germanic family gifted an obscene inherited lifestyle to do nothing a democratically elected president could not do...and the tourists would still visit the castles/palaces...win-win. :cool:

Hannibal

The monarchy, royal and a class ridden society are too highly engrained in the British for them to ever remove the royals even though theyre more German than British. Personally I think its unbelievably odd and a relic but how and ever its not my country

sarumite

RandomName2 wrote: »

Other than that the monarchy provides a cultural focal point and a tourist industry in itself (which afaik provides a net income after taxes spent on the royal family)

I lived in England for a while and this was one I often heard whenever I suggested they lose their Monarchy. However it appeared to be a totally unquantifiable statistic based on so many assumptions as to make it meaningless.

The UK monanarchy is very wealthy with a lot of private land etc. I don't see why they shouldn't self finance beyond the current Monarch and the Heir apparent.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think there'd be very little support for it. Only non-nationalists I can think of off the top of my head in support of it are Richard Dawkins and the columnist for the newsletter who is a northern irish unionist and also an atheist - though I can't even remember his name.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

There aren't many...

RandomName2

sarumite wrote: »

The UK monanarchy is very wealthy with a lot of private land etc. I don't see why they shouldn't self finance beyond the current Monarch and the Heir apparent.

Well the monarchy has a lot of assets (land).

If they were to self finance they would have to sell off the land (not only to obtain cash - but also because the vast majority of their overheads come from the upkeep of their land and property).

If the land and buildings are sold to the state it becomes the same thing really - tax payer upkeep.

It could be sold off to private individuals and companies as well I suppose, but that might not be either a popular or even pragmatic decision.

pablomakaveli

RandomName2 wrote: »

It seems perfectly logical to have a monarch with a veto to block legislation that might be seen to threaten the constitution or otherwise endanger the state.

A president could do this though and at least the president would be elected by the people.

I'd say the UK will eventually become a republic. I'd say in another 100 years a lot of current monarchies will be gone. A lot of them are merely figureheads at this stage anyway including the UK monarch.

dubhthach

They'd have to change the name. I don't know if UR (United Republic) has quite the same ring as UK (United Kingdom).


Either that or they can revert to a modernised version of the name they had last time they were a "republic" eg.
Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Cromwellian: Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland aka: The Protectorate)

Ickle Magoo

dubhthach wrote: »

Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Not sure that's much of a reversion, iirc that's already on UK passports...

mikemac

For this happen, we'd see it in Australia first where it is debated

The UK would look to Australia for an example

Einhard

Dotsey wrote: »

The monarchy, royal and a class ridden society are too highly engrained in the British for them to ever remove the royals even though theyre more German than British. Personally I think its unbelievably odd and a relic but how and ever its not my country

How exactly are they more German than British?

mikemac

Reminds me of some article that Patrick Pearse intended to invite over some Prussian Prince to be head of state.
Not sure of the truth of the article, Sinn Féin was a monarchist party at the time also

Going offtopic a bit, sorry

pablomakaveli

feelingstressed wrote: »

Reminds me of some article that Patrick Pearse intended to invite over some Prussian Prince to be head of state.
Not sure of the truth of the article, Sinn Féin was a monarchist party at the time also

Going offtopic a bit, sorry

I know Griffith did advocate a type of dual-monarchy solution for Ireland and Britain at one point similiar to that of Austria-Hungary.

deise go deo

Going by the article, the 'Republic' group handed in a petition with 3000 signatures.

Might that have been a typo? You could get 3000 people to sign just about anything. Out of a population of around what? 65 million? They only got 3000 signatures.:rolleyes:

I would be all for the UK to become a Republic. Who Mummy and Daddy are is hardly any qualification for being head of state. But still this 'Republic' crowd would want to get their act together.

The Treason Felony Act 1848 prohibits the advocacy of a republic in print. The penalty for such advocacy, even if the republic is to be set up by peaceful means, is lifetime imprisonment.

Despite the fact that the British state can no longer enforce this law, it remaining on the statute books makes the UK the kind of country I would not like to live in. Too stuck with hidebound traditions.

Fratton Fred

deise go deo wrote: »

Going by the article, the 'Republic' group handed in a petition with 3000 signatures.

Might that have been a typo? You could get 3000 people to sign just about anything. Out of a population of around what? 65 million? They only got 3000 signatures.:rolleyes:

I would be all for the UK to become a Republic. Who Mummy and Daddy are is hardly any qualification for being head of state. But still this 'Republic' crowd would want to get their act together.

Despite the fact that the British state can no longer enforce this law, it remaining on the statute books makes the UK the kind of country I would not like to live in. Too stuck with hidebound traditions.

Isn't there a similar law in Ireland?

The vast majority of people in the UK are simply not interested. The monarchy has no real power. In terms of practical democracy, the UK has enough.

Yeah sure, monarchies are out of date etc, hut the system in the UK works, so why try and fix something that isn't materially broken.

deise go deo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Isn't there a similar law in Ireland?

I can't say I am aware of any law that prohibits the advocacy of a Republic in Print, with a penalty of Life imprisonment.

The vast majority of people in the UK are simply not interested. The monarchy has no real power. In terms of practical democracy, the UK has enough.

Yeah sure, monarchies are out of date etc, hut the system in the UK works, so why try and fix something that isn't materially broken.

It dose seam that most people in the UK are uninterested in Being a Republic, which is understandable, for most of their lives a Republican has been someone trying to blow them up.

However, I detest the notion that someone would be considered better than anyone else merely due to their Bloodline. I can't see any advantage that a Monarchy offers over a Republic and as such, I think that on terms of principle if not on terms of necessity, a Republic is a better model than a Monarchy.

OS119

deise go deo wrote: »

...I can't see any advantage that a Monarchy offers over a Republic and as such, I think that on terms of principle if not on terms of necessity, a Republic is a better model than a Monarchy.

we get to not have another stream of politicians - if the HoS post was worth anything we'd have party politics for the government and party politics for the president, if wasn't worth anything the HoS job would be yet another crony post for a cash donor or political has-been.

the monarchy in its current role, and - with the odd exception - its recent incumbents have worked pretty well, so why change a reasonably working system for one that may have a solution to a 'non-problem', but inherantly contains other problems that may be rather larger than the 'problem' it solves?

Son Of A Vidic

They'll never become a Republic, there's too much money in the monarchy. Christ, it's a virtual tourist industry in itself.

blinding

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

They'll never become a Republic, there's too much money in the monarchy. Christ, it's a virtual tourist industry in itself.

Yeah, your right its a money spinner alright.

They should have a beheading every now and again just to keep the tourists enthrallled. I mean thats what they would do in a good soap opera and thats what the monarchy is these days.

UglyBolloxFace

KeithAFC wrote: »

No. I like the way the UK is at the moment.

Out of interest, why?

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its like saying should the republic of Ireland join the UK again.

No it's not. You are just saying that in order to get a reaction.

UglyBolloxFace

This topic is something I am really interested in and at present I am involved with Anti-Monarchy organisations here in Scotland.
Monarchies disgust me. It is disgusting and morally wrong that in this day and age there is still an unelected Head of State for the United Kingdom and it's overseas 'dominions' such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc.

Why should your family position, and that alone, entitle you to become head of state of the Commonwealth?
What about those citizens who aspire to become President/Head of State? - They cannot accomplish this because of this stupidly, backward, archaic institute that is the Monarchy.

It is an absolute insult to the people of Britain that they are still the 'subjects' of a Monarch. It may offend some people, but in my opinion monarchies are insulting and immoral.

‎To those who say the British Queen has no real power and that she is Head of State 'In name only'...how certain of that are you?

By no means is it just a title - it is frightening the actual power the Monarch has.

I will list them here for you, and then you will see that by no means is the Monarch 'powerless':

- The Monarch is the Head of State, Head of the Church of England, and, most worryingly, Head of the Armed Forces. Now, to me, that seems like a lot of power.
--> what this effectively means is that the Monarch is the only person who can declare when the country is at war and when war is over. Does that not seem like real power to you?

Here, in this link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/21/uk.freedomofinformation) are some more of the Monarch's powers. To those who are pro-monarchy, when you have viewed these, come back and see if you can honestly say that it is 'just a title' and that the Monarch has 'no real power'.

The Monarch may bring in a lot of money for the British economy, but this is at the ultimate price of a fully democratic nation. I find it exasperating how countless British Prime Ministers harp on about 'democracy this, democracy that' when the UK itself doesn't even have a written constitution! - this is the height of hypocrisy in my opinion.

Iwasfrozen

deise go deo wrote: »

I can't say I am aware of any law that prohibits the advocacy of a Republic in Print, with a penalty of Life imprisonment.

Not prohibiting the advocacy of a Republic but there is one that punishes treason with life imprisonment. Which is kind of the same thing.

Duke Leonal Felmet

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its like saying should the republic of Ireland join the UK again.

Not a bad idea, given the record we have a running the shop this past 89 years...

Fratton Fred

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Not prohibiting the advocacy of a Republic but there is one that punishes treason with life imprisonment. Which is kind of the same thing.

That's the one I was thinking of.

Fratton Fred

Uglybolloxface, you are mistaken in a couple of points.

Firstly, British people are citizens, not subjects. The subject bit went decades ago.

The Monarch is the only person who can take the country to war, but can only do so on the instruction of the prime minister. That was pretty much the basis for the English civil war.

As for people aspiring to be head of state, how many people in Ireland want to be president? People aspire to be politicians, or taioseach maybe, but very few would aspire to be president.

The Monarch is the ceremonial head of the commonwealth, not the head of state. The majority of commonwealth members are republics.

If you are interested in the monarchy, or work with anti monarchy groups, I'm surprised you aren't aware of these basic facts.

As for inherited titles, Ireland isn't exactly a shining example in that regard.

getz

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

This topic is something I am really interested in and at present I am involved with Anti-Monarchy organisations here in Scotland.
Monarchies disgust me. It is disgusting and morally wrong that in this day and age there is still an unelected Head of State for the United Kingdom and it's overseas 'dominions' such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc.

Why should your family position, and that alone, entitle you to become head of state of the Commonwealth?
What about those citizens who aspire to become President/Head of State? - They cannot accomplish this because of this stupidly, backward, archaic institute that is the Monarchy.

It is an absolute insult to the people of Britain that they are still the 'subjects' of a Monarch. It may offend some people, but in my opinion monarchies are insulting and immoral.

‎To those who say the British Queen has no real power and that she is Head of State 'In name only'...how certain of that are you?

By no means is it just a title - it is frightening the actual power the Monarch has.

I will list them here for you, and then you will see that by no means is the Monarch 'powerless':

- The Monarch is the Head of State, Head of the Church of England, and, most worryingly, Head of the Armed Forces. Now, to me, that seems like a lot of power.
--> what this effectively means is that the Monarch is the only person who can declare when the country is at war and when war is over. Does that not seem like real power to you?

Here, in this link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/21/uk.freedomofinformation) are some more of the Monarch's powers. To those who are pro-monarchy, when you have viewed these, come back and see if you can honestly say that it is 'just a title' and that the Monarch has 'no real power'.

The Monarch may bring in a lot of money for the British economy, but this is at the ultimate price of a fully democratic nation. I find it exasperating how countless British Prime Ministers harp on about 'democracy this, democracy that' when the UK itself doesn't even have a written constitution! - this is the height of hypocrisy in my opinion.

UK have a monarch,ireland has a pope,who has the best deal

dsmythy

I would say it's none of our business what the British want to do with themselves. Whatever the people want they will get.

KeithAFC

getz wrote: »

UK have a monarch,ireland has a pope,who has the best deal

The UK.

Not a bad idea, given the record we have a running the shop this past 89 years...

I agree but i don't think the mini provos would though.

UglyBolloxFace

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Not a bad idea, given the record we have a running the shop this past 89 years...

That's a terrible attitude to hold, considering (and it may seem I'm moving into cliché territory with this) but people fought and died for that freedom - you can't just give it up like that.

That's all I have to say about that; it is my opinion and I do not wish to get into a discussion that will ultimately, as usual, just descend into stupid anti-British Armed Forces and anti-Irish sentiments.

Duke Leonal Felmet

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

That's a terrible attitude to hold, considering (and it may seem I'm moving into cliché territory with this) but people fought and died for that freedom - you can't just give it up like that.

That's all I have to say about that; it is my opinion and I do not wish to get into a discussion that will ultimately, as usual, just descend into stupid anti-British Armed Forces and anti-Irish sentiments.

We clearly can't steer this ship. Those who 'fought and died' did not do so for the Ireland that was created since. Try read the proclamation next time you are bored.

Anyway, I have a minimal sense of Irishness. I think nationalism is a pile of turd.

mike65

dsmythy wrote: »

I would say it's none of our business what the British want to do with themselves. Whatever the people want they will get.

Hmm, I was wondering when the Spain/Denmark/Norway/Sweden etc threads were being started.

aDeener

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its like saying should the republic of Ireland join the UK again.

it's not like saying that at all :rolleyes:

KeithAFC

aDeener wrote: »

it's not like saying that at all :rolleyes:

Of course it is. There is as much want of a republic in the UK as there is of the republic joining the UK.

biscuiteater

Britain was a republic under Oliver Cromwell he beheaded the king

UglyBolloxFace

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Uglybolloxface, you are mistaken in a couple of points.

Firstly, British people are citizens, not subjects. The subject bit went decades ago.

The Monarch is the only person who can take the country to war, but can only do so on the instruction of the prime minister. That was pretty much the basis for the English civil war.

As for people aspiring to be head of state, how many people in Ireland want to be president? People aspire to be politicians, or taioseach maybe, but very few would aspire to be president.

The Monarch is the ceremonial head of the commonwealth, not the head of state. The majority of commonwealth members are republics.

If you are interested in the monarchy, or work with anti monarchy groups, I'm surprised you aren't aware of these basic facts.

As for inherited titles, Ireland isn't exactly a shining example in that regard.

Don't be so naive as to think the Monarch has no real power.
I appreciate your input and I respect your point of view; however, I have the following reservations:
These are not 'basic facts' that you list...they are not 'facts' at all.

(1) British people are, in fact, still Subjects of the Monarchy; albeit they are treated as almost a mixture of Citizen and Subject.

According to the Oxford Dictionary (bear with me, it won't get anymore boring) a subject is someone "under the dominion of a monarch". And as you may know, a Citizen is someone who has rights, such as the right to vote etc.

So of course British people seem to be both - but how can you say they are not Subjects, when they are directly 'ruled over' by the Monarchy.

There may appear to be some confusion whether a person is a Subject of a Citizen - however, Britain has only itself to blame for this, because if, like a true, normal functioning democracy, they had a written constitution, then there would be no confusion and the people of Britain would know where they stand.

But of course, you could say that since the 1994 Maastricht Treaty we are all citizens of the EU - but that's a debate for another day!

(2) Actually I believe you are wrong on that point:
The Monarch is the one whom the Government go to to ask can they send her troops to war. She can either say yes or no. Therefore, technically she has the power to wage war. Now, of course it is very unlikely the Monarch would go against the Government, but the possibility is there; why can't you see that?

'All officers in the UK armed forces swear allegence to the Monarch, not to the Government and all UK forces wear the crown in the form of a badge to show allegence to the crown' - remember that. - the fighting cannot and would not happen without her approval, and therefore, as I have already explained, she has the power to wage war.

(3) Your point about who aspires to become head of state - who are you to speak for the approx. 61 Million British people? How do you know whether or not they want to become head of state or not?
You state "..but very few would aspire to be [head of state]" - what about the few who do have this aspiration? Are you going to just ignore their wishes? Very democratic, isn't it?:rolleyes:

(4) You state "the Monarch is.....not the head of state".
Read the first sentence of this paragraph from the official Monarchy website, royal.gov.uk; http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx

The Queen is Head of State of the UK and 15 other Commonwealth realms

Now, do you still think that she is not the Head of State of the UK?

And how dare you say this

If you are interested in the monarchy, or work with anti monarchy groups, I'm surprised you aren't aware of these basic facts

when I have backed my claims up whereas you have simply stated your opinion and popular misconception as fact.

I don't mean to offend, but your coming onto this forum and accusing me of wrong information and then stating your opinions as facts, is astounding and ignorant. Before you state something as 'fact', make sure you know what you are talking about first.

As for your comment "as for inherited titles, Ireland isn't exactly a shining example in that regard", I agree. But we are a Republic now, so that argument/point is invalid.

I have taken a lot of time to write this; I don't expect you to, and I can't really see you doing it, but please come back on here and try to refute the points I have made above.




I must point out that this is nothing personal against the Monarch itself, but simply against the disgusting institution it represents.
Anyway, for anyone interested, below is some other reasons why I believe the Monarchy is downright wrong and immoral:

Another thing that irritates me is the sheer sectarianism present within the Monarchy; only Protestants can be married into the Royal Family. And of course, I could and would say the same about the Arab/Muslim Royal Families.

And also there is other aspects which border on the farcical side of things - the British Queen is basically above the law. How can a country call itself a democracy when it's head of state can do whatever she pleases and not be subject to prosecution? (of course, it's not like she's going to go on a murderous rampage anytime soon, but it's the principal of it) - one of the reasons she has a Senior Police Detective as her Close Protection agent, besides protecting her from harm, is to ensure that she doesn't break the law!

UglyBolloxFace

KeithAFC wrote: »

Of course it is. There is as much want of a republic in the UK as there is of the republic joining the UK.

Give me some facts/links supporting this, otherwise your above post makes no sense whatsoever.

KeithAFC

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Give me some facts/links supporting this, otherwise your above post makes no sense whatsoever.

Read my post. Im basically saying there is no real want for the republic to join the UK. Same with the UK wanting to become a republic.

biscuiteater

i thought camilla parker bowles was catholic

slimjimmc

biscuiteater wrote: »

i thought camilla parker bowles was catholic

Nope, CoE. Her ex was Catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camilla,_Duchess_of_Cornwall

Fratton Fred

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Don't be so naive as to think the Monarch has no real power.
I appreciate your input and I respect your point of view; however, I have the following reservations:
These are not 'basic facts' that you list...they are not 'facts' at all.

(1) British people are, in fact, still Subjects of the Monarchy; albeit they are treated as almost a mixture of Citizen and Subject.

According to the Oxford Dictionary (bear with me, it won't get anymore boring) a subject is someone "under the dominion of a monarch". And as you may know, a Citizen is someone who has rights, such as the right to vote etc.

So of course British people seem to be both - but how can you say they are not Subjects, when they are directly 'ruled over' by the Monarchy.

There may appear to be some confusion whether a person is a Subject of a Citizen - however, Britain has only itself to blame for this, because if, like a true, normal functioning democracy, they had a written constitution, then there would be no confusion and the people of Britain would know where they stand.

But of course, you could say that since the 1994 Maastricht Treaty we are all citizens of the EU - but that's a debate for another day!

The Oxford English dictionary is fine, but I prefer law. The 1981 British Nationality Act clearly defined what a British citizen is.

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

(2) Actually I believe you are wrong on that point:
The Monarch is the one whom the Government go to to ask can they send her troops to war. She can either say yes or no. Therefore, technically she has the power to wage war. Now, of course it is very unlikely the Monarch would go against the Government, but the possibility is there; why can't you see that?

Technically she does, but ONLY on the advice of her ministers. The Monarch cannot declare war on his or her own.

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

'All officers in the UK armed forces swear allegence to the Monarch, not to the Government and all UK forces wear the crown in the form of a badge to show allegence to the crown' - remember that. - the fighting cannot and would not happen without her approval, and therefore, as I have already explained, she has the power to wage war.

No, she does not, not on her own. There was a civil war over this very point. the Monarch does what parliament tells her. There isn't a dirty great big statue of Ollie outside Westminster for nothing. As far as the oath goes, think of the monarch as the living embodiment of the country. swearing an allegiance to the crown is in effect swearing an allegiance to the country.

read the royal website for more info

The Queen is the only person to declare war and peace. This dates back from when the Monarch was responsible for raising, maintaining and equipping the Army and Navy.

Today, this power can only be exercised on the advice of Ministers.

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

(3) Your point about who aspires to become head of state - who are you to speak for the approx. 61 Million British people? How do you know whether or not they want to become head of state or not?
You state "..but very few would aspire to be [head of state]" - what about the few who do have this aspiration? Are you going to just ignore their wishes? Very democratic, isn't it?:rolleyes:

I haven't, you're right. but why would anyone want to be the head of state, when the Prime minister is the real leader of the country, again, i refer you back to the afore mentioned statue of Cromwell

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

(4) You state "the Monarch is.....not the head of state".
Read the first sentence of this paragraph from the official Monarchy website, royal.gov.uk; http://www.royal.gov.uk/hmthequeen/hmthequeen.aspx

But I didn't state that, that is why you have not quoted the whole sentence. You stated that why should birth give someone the right to be head of the commonwealth. I pointed out (Correctly) that she is not the head of state of the commonwealth, which she is not.

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Another thing that irritates me is the sheer sectarianism present within the Monarchy; only Protestants can be married into the Royal Family. And of course, I could and would say the same about the Arab/Muslim Royal Families.

Yep, that is a law that really needs changing, but as it affects very very few people each generation the urgency just isn't there. now if Kate Middleton was a Catholic then I'm pretty sure it would be changed PDQ. this rule, by the way, was put in place by parliament, not the royal family themselves and only parliament can change it. (What were you saying about being above the law)

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

And also there is other aspects which border on the farcical side of things - the British Queen is basically above the law. How can a country call itself a democracy when it's head of state can do whatever she pleases and not be subject to prosecution? (of course, it's not like she's going to go on a murderous rampage anytime soon, but it's the principal of it) - one of the reasons she has a Senior Police Detective as her Close Protection agent, besides protecting her from harm, is to ensure that she doesn't break the law!

King Charles 1st thought he was above the law as well.

Again, that statue..........

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes, the UK should become a Republic

ISAW

KeithAFC wrote: »

Its like saying should the republic of Ireland join the UK again.

Republican politicians have suggested rejoining the Commonwealth. It isn't such a silly or alien idea as you may think.

KeithAFC

ISAW wrote: »

Republican politicians have suggested rejoining the Commonwealth. It isn't such a silly or alien idea as you may think.

Joining the UK. Ie, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland?