I discovered early in my political campaigning that just because someone else is against Brexit and has been on all the marches does not mean that I have anything else in common with them. Which is probably why when I put a position on social media that someone disagrees with I get a “your not progressive your” response and then they proceed to make a lot of low-level insults? Or we get called Conservatives or Blairites. The truth is progressivism is none of these things.
Not that the system of government that is detailed in our manifesto is that hard to understand. The problem lies in that it is an interrelated system so when one detail is looked at in isolation it can not always be fully appreciated.
Therefore it has proved to be difficult to put pEp’s position on retaining our monarchy when replying to the comments of those who are advocating their removal.
The only way that I can hope to give justice to our argument is to quote directly from our manifesto.
The section on Constitutional Reform first covers the separation of the UK into regional governments and the implementation of direct democracy.
- Constitutional Reform
Part E. The Monarchy
Synopsis
Nature of the modern monarchy
Advantages of constitutional monarchy
Insufficiency of the alternatives
Expenditures on the monarchy
Constitutional implications and provisos
In our exploration of the present institutions of “parliamentary” democracy and “representative” government, we identified much that would benefit greatly from the changes suggested by (and made possible by) the new technologies. The case is rather different with the constitutional monarchy. If we apply the Free-Test to this curious and quintessentially British institution, the results are rather surprising. It may be argued that the selection of the nominal Head of State by the hereditary principle does not meet the requirement that it should be fair. This would be of some significance if any real power were attached to the office. There is a tendency in the modern world to regard the Monarchy as “family business” - and there is much to be said for this analogy. It would be unusual to suggest that the very natural wish of a small-town greengrocer or cobbler that his son or daughter should succeed him in his business should be thwarted because it would not be “fair”.
It is no longer the case that the Royal Family (as an example of family cohesion and right conduct) is seriously considered, by any significant section of the population, to be a model that invites emulation. A number of ill-judged remarks by some of its members have completely ‘demystified’ the Royal family However, the constitutional monarchy not only has very little power, it also has no very extensive influence. But it does still have a number of useful functions which will be considered below. On the question of responsibility, it is true that there are no formal channels for ensuring that the Monarchy is answerable to the people. But recent events have shown very clearly that the nature of the institution, in the modern world, requires it to be extremely sensitive to public opinion. And our history shows repeatedly that there are means “of last resort” for removing a given monarch from the throne. However, on the only occasion when the whole institution of the monarchy itself went into abeyance (during the “Protectorate” of Oliver Cromwell and his Puritans) its removal was soon adjudged to have been a dreadful mistake - not least because the “Lord Protector” proceeded to attempt to found his own dynasty. This latter tendency is still regrettably seen among some of the “political family dynasties” in republics throughout the world. To make a meaningful judgment about the extent to which our monarchy may be said to be economical or efficient is virtually impossible. The impact which it makes on people, both within and beyond these shores, is difficult to identify, impossible to quantify and depends on too many variables - not the least of which is the personality of the reigning monarch. It may reasonably be supposed, however, that a person who, from birth, has been trained and prepared for a particular occupation, whether it be the vocation of greengrocer or of monarch, is likely (barring some mental impediment) to excel in the skills and qualities required by the “trade”. That our monarchy is greatly admired by many foreigners (including, ironically, those who have unwisely jettisoned their own royal families) is a matter of common observation. That it is one of the pillars of our tourist-trade and helps to swell our reserves of foreign currencies, most would concede. That it lends a dignity which no mere president could supply to our rituals and at times of national import, is a fact of common experience. That it is the most potent symbol of our Union, and therefore of our unity, is beyond question. Even our enemies and zealous republicans admit (and usually regret) that our monarchy serves as a focus for patriotic feeling. That the monarchy is currently held in affectionate esteem by the great majority of British people, even when they disapprove of some of its particular actions, could probably be shewn.
The modern constitutional monarchy may have its flaws, but most of the alternatives are too horrible to contemplate. Would we really wish upon ourselves an executive President who does not have the necessary skills of international decorum. The examples of those republics that have an executive President are usually enough to make the blood of British nationals run cold, while a nominal presidency (for convenience but without executive powers) would have no discernible advantages over the present constitutional monarchy - and would probably be almost equally costly to maintain. It might rapidly become an expensive constitutional sinecure for retired politicians. The Progressive European Party therefore believes that, at present, there are no very good reasons for abolishing the monarchy altogether. There are, nevertheless, very good reasons for reforming the funding of the monarchy. Much of the land owned by the monarchy was seized from the noble enemies of former monarchs or (by Henry VIII) from the pre-Reformation Church. These lands should be reclaimed for the nation and the expenses of maintaining the monarchy should be greatly reduced. These expenses, under a Progressive administration will be part of the annual Budget. The restoration, if only in name, of the ancient “kingdoms” within a single Union would be greatly enhanced and strengthened by allegiance to a single, and preferably shared, monarch. It is possible that the Scots, if they become an independent nation, may wish to find a monarch with stronger Stuart credentials. It is also possible that they may eventually wish to become a republic. As they already have their own parliament, whose nature and functions may be expected to change with the introduction of direct democracy, that will be a matter for them. The same might eventually be said of the Welsh. In the event that any of the restored “kingdoms” (or Territories) decide - by a clear popular majority that a different Head of State is more appropriate to their needs, their wishes will, of course, be respected. Nor will any individual kingdom be prevented from seceding from the Union if a clear majority of its inhabitants believes this to be in the best interests of their nation. By the same token, if (at some future time) a majority of the inhabitants of the Union of Kingdoms wishes to do away with the monarchy, then that wish will be implemented. But we cannot on the one hand argue that Northern Ireland should remain within the Union for as long as a majority of its people wish it to do so, or that Gibraltar or the Falklands should remain British for similar reasons, without also, on the other hand, conceding the converse.
It will not, therefore, be a condition of participation in the Union that a given Territory should accept the House of Windsor, or indeed any Royal House, as the only legitimate source for their sovereign. And it is a corollary of these principles that, at least in theory, nations which have not, hitherto, formed part of the Union will not, henceforth, be discouraged from joining it.
The Free-Test that is mentioned in paragraph one is a method of evaluating policies by asking.
Is it: Fair? Responsible? Economical? Efficient?
The Progressive Party uses this test instead of the ideologies of left, right, green and so forth that other parties have adopted. Each policy can then be assessed on its individual merits free from biased opinions and the influence of lobbyists.
Philip Notley
progressiveeuropeanparty@gmail.com
2017 Progressive European Party Manifesto by
John Coats
