-
Thanks for making me think. i think monarchical power is entirely embedded within both a british concept and a reality of the rule of law. extracting the monarchy from British legal and so-called democratic systems could easily be interpreted as being more significant change than simply 'a change in the law'. looking at it the other way, these same legal and democratic systems keep in place an institution of huge wealth and privilege and power, and is arguably designed to keep it in place. to get rid of the monarchy is to dismantle the british state, it would threaten the grip on power of so many of the most powerful people in the country.
I'm sorry if saying i was rebublican was annoying, i was using it as an example really, one that I have heard used as a test case for Prevent elsewhere, it isn't a badge I wear.
tmevans-
extracting the monarchy from British legal and so-called democratic systems could easily be interpreted as being more significant change than simply 'a change in the law'
I think we would all have said that about Britain's relationship with the EU in 2015, and indeed it was a point that the Remain camp correctly pointed out on many occasions.
To offer up a different thought experiment, to what extent do these proposed changes go beyond what is (technically) already on the statute book in relation to treason? I suspect not very far.
NickCJ
Reminds me of the old joke - how do you know some one is [anti-monarchy / doesn't have a TV / went to Oxbridge]? They tell you.
Your argument is a bit of a straw man. I don't think anyone would say that "supporting a change in law" is the same as "active or vocal opposition to the rule of law".