MONARCHIES V REPUBLICS IN EUROPE

As an article written by a monarchist, this will clearly be biased in favour of monarchies over republics. I am also mindful of the recent scandal regarding King Juan Carlos of Spain and his elephant hunting in Africa. Nevertheless, this year I cannot help but notice that, so far (King Juan Carlos aside) 2012 seems to be shaping up as a year of strength for monarchy and weakness for republicanism in Europe. In Europe, the Danish have celebrated 40 years of service from their Queen Margrethe II, whilst Britain and the Commonwealth have celebrated the 60 year Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. Such celebrations have brought great happiness, optimism and community spirit in times of difficulty. In contrast, this year the presidents of Germany, Hungary and Romania have been compelled to stand down as their respective country's leaders due to various scandals. Germany's Christian Wulff resigned after a scandal relating to loans; Hungary's Pal Schmitt stepped down after a plagiarism scandal relating to his degree; and Romania's Traian Basescu has also been suspended due to disputes over his use of power. When talking to some Europeans from republics (and other republicans in general) about why they tend to disregard monarchy, they tend to say two things: monarchy is expensive and monarchy is outdated. As I said in my last article, monarchies have the potential to earn more money than they cost, and governments can control spending on the monarchy depending on the health of state finances. Meanwhile, saying something is "outdated" is hardly a good reason: just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better. Moreover, whilst on the surface it would seem better to have as many offices elected as possible, in reality this only really seems necessary in terms of the upper house of the legislature and the head of government in terms of shaping policy and laws, but elsewhere can lead to electoral fatigue and populism. Appointed officials tend to have more experience and practical knowledge, hence their appointment, whilst the advantages of a hereditary constitutional monarch were highlighted in my last article. Consider the advantages to monarchy highlighted in this article and my last, and the dignity and optimism associated with constitutional monarchies contrasts markedly with the instability and embarrassment caused by the aforementioned presidents this year. Whilst Europe experiences hard times, it relies on its leaders more than ever to provide moral leadership, support and optimism- something which the age-old monarchies seem to be achieving more effectively than their presidential counterparts in Europe.

CONGRATULATIONS TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN FOR SIXTY YEARS OF SERVICE

This week there have been Diamond Jubilee celebrations in the UK, the Commonwealth and beyond, marking sixty years since Queen Elizabeth II came to the throne of the UK and her other realms. Whilst three hundred years ago, many monarchs could take their positions for granted; today all institutions are under the relentless scrutiny of 24-hour media- and the monarchy is no exception. I will therefore explain the value of constitutional monarchy; dispel the many myths of monarchy's costs- including the view that royals are simply paid by the public to wave from car windows and carriages, and therefore have no importance.

In the UK the monarchy is important in six key ways: culture, charity, celebrations, advice, democratic safeguard and meeting international leaders.

1) Culture: looking at the history of the British Isles, there are relatively few and short periods in which there has been no monarch. This close bond between monarchy and the UK over the centuries has meant that they have inevitably shaped each other. Whilst the Census carried out across the UK last year can trace its roots to the Domesday Book of King William I (the Conqueror); under the Kings John and Henry III we saw the early development of parliamentary power and restrictions on monarchical absolutism, as well as the initial structure of what would form the world-famous landmark of the Houses of Parliament in Westminster; King Edward III's Order of the Garter marked the importance royal rewards and pageantry would continue to play in the relationship between monarchy and subjects; the Church of England's establishment under King Henry VIII; the establishment of the Union Jack and coat of arms under King James I of England /VI of Scotland; the first Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole, served under King George I of Great Britain and Ireland; the onset of modern British democracy with the First Reform Act under King William IV; the spread of British global influence, as well as economic and urban development, symbolised by Queen Victoria; as well as the wartime morale boosts provided by Kings George V and VI during the First and Second World Wars respectively. As well as history, there is the role of monarchy in other aspects of British life, from the many historical plays of William Shakespeare, to the prominence of the monarchy in British film-making in modern times. For centuries, royals have appeared on our coins, given royal appointments to everyday products in the UK, and developed and preserved great castles, palaces, parks and gardens across the country. Without the monarchy, surely the decline in British influence since the Second World War would have been intensified; had the country become another anonymous republic, led by another anonymous, suited politician, who would have attracted even less attention on the world stage. Moreover, the monarchy is one of the few remaining links that really seems to bind the Commonwealth together, continuing to highlight the ongoing cultural similarities between Britain and the likes of Australia, Canada, India, Belize and many others. Were it not for the monarchy, the historic and cultural ties between Britain and these other states would probably have been completely neglected.

2) Charity: the monarchy is able to speak for those who have no (electoral) voice. This not only refers to causes relating to the environment and wildlife, but also the homeless and young people. Politicians only really need to consider the main interests of those who can vote to stay in power, but the monarchy's lack of obligation to follow popular opinion, empowers them to shape it to some extent. The royal family are patrons of many charities in the UK and abroad, with Prince Charles (heir to the throne) already a long-term and influential activist on behalf of environmental issues, and founder of the Prince's Trust, which helps vulnerable young people engage with the modern world more effectively and enhance their prospects. Meanwhile, Prince William (second-in-line to the throne) slept rough for a night to highlight homelessness in the UK. Thus the monarchy engages with the voluntary, philanthropic sector to fill the vacuums which the state sector rarely ventures into. Were the monarch to be replaced by an elected head of state, they would once again concern themselves with swing voters in marginal constituencies, as all politicians do, rather than the broader society and national issues.

3) Celebrations: over the short term and long term, the monarchy is involved with many national events. These include the annual events such as the New Year's Honours, Easter Service, the Trooping of the Colour in the summer, War Remembrance services in November, then the Queen's/King's speech at Christmas. Not only does the monarch lead the country in celebrations and commemorations, but does so without the negative party and political associations politicians have. For example, a President Thatcher or Cameron may have been greeted with hostility by those they were honouring, as the person to be honoured may have directly or indirectly suffered as a result of jobs cuts. Similarly, a President Blair may have encouraged scorn leading a Remembrance service, because he led the UK into the dubious Iraq War. Lacking political involvement, the monarch lacks such controversial ties, inviting only some scorn from a minority due to the institution of monarchy (often relating to money, etc, which will be addressed later) but not by due the actions of the monarch personally. Thus events are untainted by the national figurehead's involvement. Although the UK tends to lack regular mass celebrations, this is more than compensated for by the relatively infrequent royal events, such as weddings, coronations and jubilees, which are carried out with great efficiency and spectacle to amaze people worldwide. On a smaller scale, such events bring communities together, whilst regular royal visits across the UK mean that areas that may lack electoral strategic importance, and therefore tend to be avoided by elected leaders, are far more likely to enjoy a royal visit.

4) Advice: compared with elected politicians, royals have a unique perspective on government and issues. Whilst politicians tend to require certain personality traits and a certain outlook to get to where they are, this is not the case for monarchs. These similarities are likely to narrow politicians' outlook in some respects; where as royals, due to the hereditary nature of monarchy, can approach their role with a variety of personalities and opinions, which can offer politicians a different perspective. Moreover, the inheritance of generations of political experience, along with the lifelong presence of royals within the establishment, mean their opinions are often insightful, based on substantial experience. Monarchs' lack of political ambition means they can also offer politicians opinions free from party bias and self-motivated ambition. Combined with this is the awareness that the more stable the country is, the more secure the monarchy's position is; so it is in the monarch's interest to share views based on the national interest.

5) Democratic Safeguard: ironically (given the institution's undemocratic nature) hereditary monarchy exists above political trends, providing continuity and stability, particularly crucial during times when extremists are growing in influence. Were the monarch given a completely, morally-objectionable law to grant assent to, the monarch would be expected to reject it, thus removing legitimacy from an extremist's actions. It is in the monarch's interest to resist extremism, based on the experiences of those who haven't: consider the dissolution of the Italian and Greek monarchies after their Kings consented to dictatorial rule. The monarchy represents long-term interests, not short-term trends.

6) Meeting International Leaders: for similar reasons as references to the honours system above under "celebrations"; the apolitical, non-controversial nature of the monarchy means that an international leader's reputation is not jeopardised by association with a constitutional monarch. The monarch can be conveyed as all things to all leaders: a leader of liberal democracy, yet also conservative tradition. Again, the wealth of experience monarchs have to offer also arms them with cultural understanding and long-term connections with countries and leaders that politicians, with four or five year-long electoral terms, cannot match. The monarch's unique position as head of state, not only of Britain but several other Commonwealth Realms, and not to mention head of the even more numerous group of countries within the Commonwealth as a whole, means they have cultural significance to a wider range of people worldwide. The monarch's respectful stance towards other cultures across the world also sets a good example, and endears the monarch and consequently their realms towards the countries they visit.

Given the above, the monarchy has played, and will continue to play, an important role in my country and others.

Urban Myth: The monarchy is a drain on public money, which would be more valued if spent in other areas during this economically difficult times.

Reality: The monarchy's income from palaces and property, as well as the indirect tourist appeal of an ongoing monarchy, outweighs what the monarchy takes to cover its costs- so the monarchy is effectively a profitable nationalised institution, not a drain on public resources. Were it to be abolished, the government would not receive the direct income in can currently take from royal property, and there would be a decline in interest in monarchy-associated institutions, not to mention the other tangible benefits listed above.

Urban Myth: The monarchy is an anachronistic and undemocratic institution, which embarrasses the modern democratic values of Britain and other Commonwealth Realms.

Reality: Just because something is newer doesn't make it better. Consider the many failed and unstable systems that have arisen then fallen during the twentieth century, let alone before and after; whilst the strengths of monarchy are still clear to see, even in the twenty-first century. Monarchies like the Commonwealth Realms and the constitutional monarchies of Western Europe tend to have a far greater record of defending democracy and liberalism than elsewhere in Europe- let alone the rest of the world. As was mentioned in my fifth point above, the monarchy helps defend democracy. Meanwhile, voting for all key roles sounds good in theory, but isn't necessarily so popular/effective in practice. The consistent popularity of the monarchy in opinion polls is far stronger than our elected prime ministers and other politicians, while turnout for the European Parliament can be so minimal that it's accurate representation of the public seems dubious. Plus, it should be needless to say that not all influential figures, besides the monarchy, are elected- with judges providing a good example. Judges have great influence based on their experience, not popularity- like the monarchy.

Urban Myth: There's no point in having a monarchy because they don't have any real power, do anything, or make a difference.

Reality: Reread this message if you haven't worked out this answer!

SYMPATHY WITH HISPANIC COUNTRIES DURING RECESSION

I would like to express particular sympathy for Spain and several other Hispanic countries with the news of Spanish companies being nationalised in South America. I sympathise with Spain, in the sense that the country has already been suffering due to the economic crisis, so it could do without its lucrative overseas businesses being seized and nationalised at this difficult time. Having said this, I can sympathise with Argentina (Falklands aside) and Bolivia in wanting to nationalise these companies, following a similar train of thought as my last post. It is understandable that a country would rather have control of, and keep profits from, its own resources. However, I can foresee a negative consequence of this being that international companies may fear making further investments in South America, due to the greater risk that their investments may similarly be lost because they are nationalised. Though it is better for countries to produce their own wealth, at times of difficulty all income is valuable- and overseas investment in your country is one of them.

ONGOING SALES OF BRITISH BUSINESSES

News today of the sale of the British cereal company Weetabix to Chinese company Bright Food marks yet another sale of a successful, long-established British company being sold off to international companies. Whilst in the short-term it demonstrates an interest in, and the value of, the British economy; in the long-term it can have several negative effects. When owned by a company outside of the UK, the is arguably a greater risk that operations could be completely removed from the UK- jeopardising hundreds of British jobs for certain communities. It also dwindles the impact the British government can have on the company so that it assists national interests, and in cultural terms also represents a loss for the country. Weetabix is the latest of many companies to be sold off, including Abbey National (now owned by a Spanish company), Cadbury (now owned by an American company) and EMI record company (also now owned by an American company.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM

It's been a topic that has now dragged on for over 100 years in the UK. There is a broad consensus that the UK's second legislative chamber, the House of Lords, is in need of reform to become more representative, but how this should be achieved has not yet been agreed upon. Proposals generally debate whether a completely elected chamber should be the goal- but then what would differentiate it from the House of Commons to justify its existence, and ensure that one House has more clout than the other?

My personal view is that the House of Lords should be based on a very original concept, with its membership composed of three types of lords/peers: Peoples' Peers, Life Peers and Society Peers.

Peoples' Peers: These would be elected through proportional representation on a UK-wide basis. So if 38% of votes for Peoples' Peers were for the Labour party, approximately 38% of the Peoples' Peers would come from this party. If 8% of votes came from UKIP then they would receive approximately 8% of the House of Lords' Peoples' Peers. As many smaller parties, and their supporters, complain that the First Past the Post System excludes them in the House of Commons, then not only would the House of Lords give them a chance for representation, but would also allow them to establish themselves as credible parties to lead the country and perhaps boost their success in General Elections. They could serve 7-year-long terms (without term limits, as term limits remove the incentive of working hard for the next election)

Life Peers: These would be appointed by the government on the basis of great service to the country in some respect. For example, it is likely that not only former Prime Ministers and high-ranking Civil Servants would be appointed, but also influential inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists and athletes would similarly be appointed for a life-long term (unless their position is revoked due to a scandal).

Society Peers: These would be representatives of various organisations within the UK, thus representing the public in a new and different way. Whilst representatives in the House of Commons reflect the areas people live in, Society Peers would reflect aspects of peoples' lives. So Society Peers could represent religions, causal pressure groups, employers, trade unions and other organisations which include a minimum quota of members, e.g. at least 100,000. Thus representatives of the Church of England, Trades Union Congress and the National Health Service would have seats as Society Peers. The basis of their election/appointment could be decided by the organisations they represent.

I believe this would represent British public opinion in new and original ways, offering even more of the diverse experiences and perspectives of members that the current House of Lords is already praised for today. Its unique configuration would justify its existence and avoid challenging the House of Commons, which it would by sharing a system that is too similar.

The current system doesn't really cause any problems for the public, but there is certainly room for improvement. However, if we're going to bother reforming the House of Lords, let's make it worth doing!

GALLOWAY ON THE FALKLANDS

Controversial Respect MP George Galloway recently made some interesting points regarding the Falkland Islands. Initially sceptical, I was surprised to find that he offered an alternative, yet rational respective on the Falkland Islands' future. Mr Galloway highlighted how the Falklands issue undermines Britain's valuable economic ties, not only with Argentina, but much of Latin America in the short-term. He also drew attention to how the global balance of power is shifting, meaning a repeat of the British victory in the Falklands War in 1982 is becoming increasingly unlikely in the face of a stronger and more united Latin America. Meanwhile support from the USA and EU is likely to be less straightforward for Britain in this scenario.

I believe Galloway's suggestion of bribing Falkland Islanders to relocate to Britain to placate Argentina would be humiliating for Britain, and unfair to the Islanders who would be forced to change their lifestyles due to the whims of politicians. However, his alternative idea of making more compromises and cooperation with Argentina over the Falklands seems much more pragmatic. As the issue of oil around the Falklands seems to have motivated the recent resurgence in tensions, perhaps it would be sensible to negotiate a share of the profits with Argentina, and maybe greater cooperation between Argentina and Britain when Falklands policies are likely to affect Argentina. This would sensibly alleviate tensions with Argentina, and improve Britain's ties with Latin America- and without humiliating Britain on the world stage. What remains awkward however is any concession of sovereignty, with Argentina wanting to make the Falklands part of their country; whilst the Islanders themselves want to remain entirely British, which seem to be mutually exclusive objectives. Hopefully the aforementioned compromises would be enough, though maybe some arrangement to demonstrate shared official control would be more accommodating, with an Argentine Governor working in partnership with the British Governor of the Islands.

PROPOSALS TO IMPLEMENT FAR-REACHING PRIVATISATION OF BRITISH ROADS

As the British government searches for new ways to reduce government debt and boost the economy, their sights have turned to Britain's roads. Already, there are several examples of privately-controlled roads and infrastructure in the UK, e.g. numerous British bridges require a toll to cross. However, there are suggestions that this would be a far more widespread phenomenon with Britain's roads.

I think this would be a very bad and unpopular idea for two reasons. Firstly, when drivers are stopped to pay for the tolls, it may only take 30 seconds, but it's long enough to cause long traffic jams, hindering commuters' progress on the roads. It strikes me that the prolonging of a journey would also have an environmental impact.

Secondly, there are frustrating costs involved: if this is implemented, I can foresee that, as roads would not be completely owned by the private or public sectors, that the public would be charged twice to travel on roads: once for road tax, then again at the tolls. To try and lessen the blow, I can imagine that they would reduce road tax temporarily, but that would rise again in the future; while tolls would also continue to rise, without accountability to the public to prevent it.

We do need to raise more money, but this is not a good idea. Please think again!