English Republic

[Kaelin]

I support the creation of a 32-county Socialist Irish Republic and there is an active movement for that. There is also a (relatively) active movement for the creation of an independent Scottish state and possibly a Republic. Why is there no movement to create an English one (apart from remembrance of that already proclaimed under Cromwell as the Protectorate in 1649)? The monarchy should be abolished and a Republic (ideally a Socialist one) should be proclaimed. Is anyone here willing to help create a movement for the establishment of a Republic in England and does anyone agree with the notion that England should be a Republic?

[apathy maybe]

In the current system it would be good to have a republic in Britain. Charlie or his mother can go live in Australia or something. But in the long run ... Fuck it. I want anarchy baby.

Is a republic something that I feel anarchists should fight for? Well not really no. If the issue came up I would support a republic, the same as I support an independent Scotland. However, aiming for a republic (not matter how socialistic) is still at odds with my aim of anarchism.

(Quick disclaimer: I'm from Australia.)

[Whitten]

I'm pro Republic (at least compared to what we have). I have nothing against Great Britain remaining united, in a federal republic. I think its better for the union to stay united, in the spirit of internationalism. However should The Northern Irish or Scotish people decide by popular referendum to become independent, they should be allowed to do so.

I think if you ask people on the street in England whether they would support the concept of a British or English republic, you would get at least a large minority, if not a majority these days, in favour. Its just one of those things that's never been a focus in the political theatre. I think the reason is because the monarchy has very little actual role in British politics, and so major parties dont consider it worth the risk. Its a bigger factor in NI for obvious reasons, and in Scotland as an result of the independence movement (if there was an independent kingdom of Scotland in this present day I doubt republicanism would be so big).

[Goatse]

The independence of any of the British countries would do no good if it was not followed by a socialist revolution. Why build walls between Scottish, English, Irish and Welsh workers? Life would get no better if capitalism remained.

[apathy maybe]

Anything that weakens the power of the state is a good thing.

Personally I am in favour of fragmenting the various existing states in many ways, but also (and not contradictorily) in favour of strengthening such things as the EU.

If you have weak and many national governments with police forces that don't have authority in another state and so on, this is good. Then if you have something such as the EU which does remove barriers to trade and the movement of people, this is also good. People being able to move, but police and authority not, this is good.

[bolshevik butcher]

We don't need indepence in Scotland or England or Wales. The recent moves towards nationalism by some socialists in Scotalnd is mearley an attempt at populism and an attempt to win over some leftward leaning SNP (Scottish Naitonalist Party) members. Uniting working class people and internationalism are valuable traditions among socialists and we shouldn't seek to divide the working class of Britain along national lines, just another way for the ruling class to play us off each other.

[RedAnarchist]

I've always been very much anti-monarchist, but I don't want a republic and I don't want an independant Scotland, Wales or England - division of the working class only benefits the ruling class.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:03 am
I've always been very much anti-monarchist, but I don't want a republic and I don't want an independant Scotland, Wales or England - division of the working class only benefits the ruling class.
Imperialism divides the working class. Breaking up Britain can only be a good thing for the workers of the world.

[grove street]

Oliver Cromwell anyone?

England use to be a republic, after the execution of King Charles.

If only Cromwell had hunted down and killed Charles 2.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Conghaileach+February 20, 2007 10:27 am--> (Conghaileach @ February 20, 2007 10:27 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:03 am
I've always been very much anti-monarchist, but I don't want a republic and I don't want an independant Scotland, Wales or England - division of the working class only benefits the ruling class.
Imperialism divides the working class. Breaking up Britain can only be a good thing for the workers of the world. [/b]
I would have to agree with that. Considering what you said, we need to think globally, so it would be more beneifical to the world to break up Britain.

[Fodman]

Is anyone here willing to help create a movement for the establishment of a Republic in England and does anyone agree with the notion that England should be a Republic?
count me in ;)

not too sure about the breaking up of the Union however...

[phoenixoftime]

No, don't do that! Then my fair country would have to rewrite just about every law in existance. Just kidding ;)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2007 11:12 am
not too sure about the breaking up of the Union however...
Why not?

[Hate Is Art]

It divides the collective working classes of England, Scotland and Wales, it makes sense for them to retain a sense of togetherness. If we separate them we will have three weaker worker's movements as opposed to one united movement.

NI, I think needs to be in the hands of the Irish though.

[Whitten]

Perhaps not taking an official stance on independence would be in the best interests of any such movement in Britain. We could support the abolishion of the monarchy in the British Isles, and be pro-referendum on the issue of Scottish independence. In all honesty the Welsh sepratist movement isn't particuarly strong anyway (although they can have a referendum if they want).


Originally posted by Kaelin
Is anyone here willing to help create a movement for the establishment of a Republic in England and does anyone agree with the notion that England should be a Republic?

What sort of "movement" are you thinking of? An electoral party? or a campaign group?

[Fodman]

yes, the Union workers would benefit by staying united - that is my reason

however northern ireland should join Eire in my opinion, as it would do it a lot of good; Eire, since gaining its independence, has been recently voted by the UN as 'best country to live in in the world' - couldn't be a bad idea to join them methinks...

[StartToday]

Why a republic? Republics are ruled by representatives.

[BreadBros]

I certainly support self-determination so if the workers of the UK want to break up the UK into smaller entities I'm not opposed.

My only question is: isn't England essentially already a republic? Of course the Monarchy still exists as an official institution and is still technically "the head of State". However, it seems to me that if we peer beneath the laws and look at the reality of the situation, England/The UK already essentially operates as a republic in terms of its institutions and its machinations. What exactly would change if England became a republic other than the writing on the paper. In other words, what would be the concrete ramifications? Keep in mind Im in the US so Im not entirely familiar with the governmental differences, this is just what it looks like to me from here.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 18, 2007 05:35 pm
We don't need indepence in Scotland or England or Wales. The recent moves towards nationalism by some socialists in Scotalnd is mearley an attempt at populism and an attempt to win over some leftward leaning SNP (Scottish Naitonalist Party) members. Uniting working class people and internationalism are valuable traditions among socialists and we shouldn't seek to divide the working class of Britain along national lines, just another way for the ruling class to play us off each other.
All well and good, but we don't fancy another round of what Thatcher subjected us to in the eighties. We never voted for her and she decided to punish us for it.

That is the route of the independence movement in Scotland. It isn't nationalism, we just need to protect ourselves from the fact England is more right wing than us.

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm Scottish myself mate. And I thinkt that your analysis is entirely wrong. It's a nationalist analysis, we did this and we did that. It's not a question of what England and Scotalnd did, thats not the right analysis, the correct analysis is a class analysis, why was Thatcher able to pull working class votes? How should the working class organise correctly etc.

"England is more right wing than us", this is the class nonsensical nationalist attitude. Is England really more right wing? Are the workers of yorkshire, east London and Merseyside not what the British socialist movement was founded upon? Along with those from south Wales and our very own Glasgow.

[Idola Mentis]

I'm a citizen of a constitutional monarchy (Norway), and I wouldn't recommend going for republic. What we got here when the issue got reheated was a polarization between republicans and monarchists, no other options visible. Since I'm just as opposed to a president as I am to a hereditary monarch as head of state, the whole thing was just an annoyance to me.

When forced to choose between two otherwise equally unappetizing options, I'd say a neutered figurehead is better than any of the alternatives you risk by throwing an election. Go for the option with least power split on the most heads. Our monarch can't vote, much less have a public opinion on anything of consequence. As a descendant of serfs, it's sort of sweet observing that the last remaining serf in this state is also the last aristocrat...

[Whitten]

What seperates the British political/legal system front a de facto republic is the massive centralisation of power in the hands of the prime minister (in the name of the monarch), the church being headed by the PM in the name of the Queen, the Church being guarenteed a certain number of seats in the upper chambre of parliament (although that could change over the next few years anyway), the completly unfair representation of the arristocracy (yea, the feudal class) in the legislature, and the almost complete subservance of the judiciary to the House of Lords. The last statement being the most important.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 21, 2007 02:09 pm
I'm Scottish myself mate. And I thinkt that your analysis is entirely wrong. It's a nationalist analysis, we did this and we did that. It's not a question of what England and Scotalnd did, thats not the right analysis, the correct analysis is a class analysis, why was Thatcher able to pull working class votes? How should the working class organise correctly etc.

"England is more right wing than us", this is the class nonsensical nationalist attitude. Is England really more right wing? Are the workers of yorkshire, east London and Merseyside not what the British socialist movement was founded upon? Along with those from south Wales and our very own Glasgow.
Yeah it's true and I would love to aagree with you. I don't like to think in terms of the Scottish and The English but I think we have to be pragmatic. Also I tend to see the British state as inherently imperialist and anything to dismantle that has to be a good thing to me.

Also Scottish nationalism, in whatever form it takes, tends to not hold the danger that British nationalism does, something which I think the Government wants to embrace. Half the reason I want an independent policy is to get away from this and have an independent Scotland is because I think a Scottish state would be less racist and nationalistic.

All that said though, an independent Scotlands is hardly necessary. There ought to be more home rule though, because I feel we do need to protect ourselves much more from people like Thatcher or Blair down south.

As For "England is more right wing". Yeah it is a broad stroke and maybe not very helpful. But people like Thatcher could pull working class voters down South and never managed that to any great extent up here. Obviously we want to export that common sense down South, but as it stands right now, that sort of thing should be used to keep us safe from the current wave of neo-Liberal policies finding favour in London.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:53 pm
[QUOTE=bolshevik butcher,February 21, 2007 02:09 pm]But people like Thatcher could pull working class voters down South and never managed that to any great extent up here. Obviously we want to export that common sense down South, but as it stands right now, that sort of thing should be used to keep us safe from the current wave of neo-Liberal policies finding favour in London.
Blair, who is just continuing what Thatcher started, gets a huge percent of the vote from Scotland.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:54 pm

[QUOTE=bolshevik butcher,February 21, 2007 02:09 pm]But people like Thatcher could pull working class voters down South and never managed that to any great extent up here. Obviously we want to export that common sense down South, but as it stands right now, that sort of thing should be used to keep us safe from the current wave of neo-Liberal policies finding favour in London.
Blair, who is just continuing what Thatcher started, gets a huge percent of the vote from Scotland.
That' because Scotland still has an emotional attachment to the Labour movement. In an independent Scotland (or even one where Scottish Labour simply functioned seperately) Labour would probably go back to it's routes.

That being said though, the Labour vote is collapsing (finally). Watch what happens in May.

At any rate Blair only got about 40% of the vote up here. Hardly a majority.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:54 pm

[QUOTE=bolshevik butcher,February 21, 2007 02:09 pm]But people like Thatcher could pull working class voters down South and never managed that to any great extent up here. Obviously we want to export that common sense down South, but as it stands right now, that sort of thing should be used to keep us safe from the current wave of neo-Liberal policies finding favour in London.
Blair, who is just continuing what Thatcher started, gets a huge percent of the vote from Scotland.
Not the correct comparisson. While it's true that Blair is an agent of the ruling class inside the Labour movement he is in the Labour Party not the Tories. Most Labour voeters are voting consciously for the working class party. They see it as their party. While it is led by agents of the ruling class it is still essentially the traditioanal mass working class party.

[bolshevik butcher]

Demegregon, the British state is an imperialist one. And I'm pretty sure that after Scotland broke away it would continute to do so. I don't think that dividing the British working class into nationaliaties is a good way to try and bring about socialism or working class unity.

Scottish nationaism is small nation nationalism, it's not the same as British nationalism I agree, it's highly reactionary and divides the working class but it certianly doesn't have the same support for imperialism. It's not the socialist internationalism that we need.

The tories once had a huge support in Scotland, in the 1950s they got more than 50% of the popular vote. While it's true that the working class in the south east of England is more likely to vote Tory this isn't a universal truth, just look at London.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 21, 2007 06:37 pm
Demegregon, the British state is an imperialist one. And I'm pretty sure that after Scotland broke away it would continute to do so. I don't think that dividing the British working class into nationaliaties is a good way to try and bring about socialism or working class unity.

Scottish nationaism is small nation nationalism, it's not the same as British nationalism I agree, it's highly reactionary and divides the working class but it certianly doesn't have the same support for imperialism. It's not the socialist internationalism that we need.

The tories once had a huge support in Scotland, in the 1950s they got more than 50% of the popular vote. While it's true that the working class in the south east of England is more likely to vote Tory this isn't a universal truth, just look at London.
Aye, I accept a lot of what you say. And of course places like London and the North of England certainly don't have the same problem as the South of England (London excluded obviously). I am not a Nationalist and would certainly take a Socialist Britain over Scotland Being Socialist and England not. It's just that I don't feel we have that option right now and it would be easier to achieve Socialism in Scotland and have it spread than to try and compete with the British state (yes I know a Scottish state would be no better, but hopefully less capable of resisting change).

[bolshevik butcher]

I hear this all the time from perfectly good comrades who describe themselves as internationalist socialists. If we want to achieve international socialism then why would we want to start by chopping a wee bit off of Britian. I really don't think it's a good idea. All it does is alienate English workers. If there really was an atmasphere of high polorization and a mood for class struggle would it stop at the border, would Berick be a nice stable place and dumfrise the apitamy of the revolution or something? Surely if there was going to be a socialist revolution in Scotalnd it would be part of a more general UK trend?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by bolshevik [email protected] 21, 2007 07:40 pm
I hear this all the time from perfectly good comrades who describe themselves as internationalist socialists. If we want to achieve international socialism then why would we want to start by chopping a wee bit off of Britian. I really don't think it's a good idea. All it does is alienate English workers. If there really was an atmasphere of high polorization and a mood for class struggle would it stop at the border, would Berick be a nice stable place and dumfrise the apitamy of the revolution or something? Surely if there was going to be a socialist revolution in Scotalnd it would be part of a more general UK trend?
I respect your position, it's one I have held at times myself, and I guess our difference is really just one of tactics. Nobody would be happier than me for revolutionary change to come to England right off the bat, I just don't see it happening. If I am proven wrong I'll be happy, it's a good thing to be proven wrong over. I hnestly just feel that we need to start somewhere and that might as well be here, preferably without London breathing down our knecks.

At any rate, while I'm sure we agree that Scotland is an artificial state, same as any other. We need to remember Britain is as well. It has borders the same as any other state and is something to be opposed. I know you'll think me mad for saying the solution to this is for another state and another set of borders, but I think if it leads to an overall increase in speed in creating a WORLD without such things. It's worth a bit of short term nonsense.

Of course as I say, there's no need to seperate Scotland (though again that might help chase off the monarchy), I think we just need a bit more autonomy. I certasinly agree trying to drive a wedge between ourselves and our brrothers and siusters in England would be a terrible course of action.