Commonwealth countries should become republics or have their own monarchy Show more Show less
Regardless of the state of the monarchy in the UK, Commonwealth countries should not be under it.
< Previous (4 of 4 Positions)
Commonwealth countries shouldn't have a British monarch as their head of state
It is inappropriate that countries with a history of colonisation should have a British monarch as their head of state.
< Previous (1 of 1 Argument)
The British monarch is also head of state for 15 countries outside of the UK, the largest of which are Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Whether or not a constitutional monarchy is a good idea, ex-British colonies should not have the British monarch as the head of state. Any ties to the old motherland have long gone despite many citizens having roots generations back in Britain. Britain’s lack of loyalty to its Commonwealth partners has been demonstrated many times: for instance when Britain joined the then European common market in the early 1970s, they immediately took on other European nations as preferred trading partners which caused significant damage to the economies of the commonwealth nations, seemingly without a second thought. Even in sport, the alleged royal family of Australia or New Zealand do not even pretend to support those teams when they play against a UK team. Therefore, there are no special ties between the UK and the Commonwealth which would suggest they should have a monarch from the other side of the world.
[P1] Whether or not a monarchy is a good thing, the 15 Commonwealth nations who have the British monarch as their head of state should not do so.