IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Barbados issues , Barbados politics , Sandra Mason

Reply
Old 29th November 2021, 08:47 AM   #1
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,113
Barbados sheds the Queen

Barbados has shed the Queen and become a republic. Under the new constitution, all of the Regal rights and duties now fall upon the newly appointed president.

Quote:
That means removing Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, a break with nearly four centuries of history in the former British colony.

Prince Charles, who has long used the island dubbed “Little England” as his polo playground, plans to join the celebrations in Bridgetown.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...epublic-queen/

Although a largely popular move, the change has come under criticism for its lack of public consultation and particularly for the parliament's failure to hold a referendum.

Under the model that has been adopted, the President is appointed by the parliament (a two thirds majority needed) and must act on the advice of the country's executive (especially the Prime Minister). This is the same model that was rejected by Australians in the 1999 referendum.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 09:03 AM   #2
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,166
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Barbados has shed the Queen and become a republic. Under the new constitution, all of the Regal rights and duties now fall upon the newly appointed president.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...epublic-queen/

Although a largely popular move, the change has come under criticism for its lack of public consultation and particularly for the parliament's failure to hold a referendum.

Under the model that has been adopted, the President is appointed by the parliament (a two thirds majority needed) and must act on the advice of the country's executive (especially the Prime Minister). This is the same model that was rejected by Australians in the 1999 referendum.
Which resulted in the irony meter presented to the country by Queen Victoria in 1896 exploding, it is believed it is beyond repair.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 09:04 AM   #3
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 99,166
One does wonder if the award “given” by QE2 to Piggott helped seal her fate?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 09:05 AM   #4
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 55,138
Was a referendum required by the old constitution?

In Australia, I understand the queen has to assent to being removed from the government. Was it the same in Barbados? Did they obtain the queen's consent, or did they proceed without it?

---

Did the Australians reject the government model because of issues they had with that particular model, or because they weren't really interested in changing the status quo anyway?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 10:19 AM   #5
Carrot Flower King
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: Northumberland, UK
Posts: 1,845
Graun story from over a year ago, which has more about the process - https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ome-a-republic
Carrot Flower King is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2021, 07:25 PM   #6
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,113
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Was a referendum required by the old constitution?
I don't know enough about the Barbados constitution to answer that. Australia is probably unique in that change to the constitution can not be done without a referendum. Most constitutions seem to only require a super majority (or even just a simple majority) in parliament to be changed.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In Australia, I understand the queen has to assent to being removed from the government. Was it the same in Barbados? Did they obtain the queen's consent, or did they proceed without it?
It's probably the same in Barbados. Regardless, the Queen wouldn't refuse assent.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Did the Australians reject the government model because of issues they had with that particular model, or because they weren't really interested in changing the status quo anyway?
It was the model that sealed the fate of the proposed republic. Most controversial was the provision allowing the prime minister to instantly sack the president for any reason or no reason at all (he had to justify the sacking to the House of Representatives afterwards but the dismissal couldn't be reversed).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 03:52 AM   #7
Wildy
Adelaidean
 
Wildy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 11,114
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Was a referendum required by the old constitution?
No. Section 49 of the Constitution of Barbados vests the power to change the constitution in the hands of Parliament. It needs to be passed by both houses (s. 49(1)), with the house it "is supported by" requiring the support of two-thirds of the members of that house (s. 49(2)).

Quote:
In Australia, I understand the queen has to assent to being removed from the government. Was it the same in Barbados? Did they obtain the queen's consent, or did they proceed without it?
Royal assent is essentially a formality rather than a proper request. The Governor-General acts on the advice of the government so they're not going to be told to refuse assent. Theoretically the Queen could have tried to do something to prevent assent, but that would have ramifications that would affect the 15 remaining Commonwealth Realms.

Quote:
Did the Australians reject the government model because of issues they had with that particular model, or because they weren't really interested in changing the status quo anyway?
Simple answer, Yes. Longer answer, there were a mix of reasons. The monarchists and pragmatic monarchists voted no because they were happy with the status quo. Then you had the republican movement which was split when a model was chosen because tbh their entire movement is like the Brexiteers, they want a republic but they all have different ideas for how the republic would work. Then of course you have to get the double majority in order to even pass a referendum...
__________________
Wildy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2021, 10:07 AM   #8
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,113
Originally Posted by Wildy View Post
The monarchists and pragmatic monarchists voted no because they were happy with the status quo.
That is not exactly true. Most of the monarchists were appointed by John Howard rather than elected. Their mission was to prevent an acceptable republican model being presented to the public. The republicans were divided into two groups: those who wanted an elected president and those who wanted a parliamentary appointed president. The monarchists voted with the latter group and even though the model didn't get majority support in the convention, John Howard put it to a referendum knowing that the voters would reject the model.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2021, 02:57 AM   #9
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 24,452
I see this as progress. Another country has figured out that only having, "Being a product of incest", in your CV is not sufficient qualification to be a head of state.

Last edited by Craig4; 5th December 2021 at 03:22 AM.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2021, 03:10 AM   #10
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,972
With Barbados being England's oldest colony (or was it France) it is sad to see it go.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2021, 03:24 AM   #11
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 24,452
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
With Barbados being England's oldest colony (or was it France) it is sad to see it go.
For whom? The people of Barbados seem happy to be well shot of the Queen. Barbados has a particularly dark legacy in that it is where the British created the slave codes that plagued the Americans for a few hundred years.

It's great to see another country ending its rule by members of the lucky sperm club.

Last edited by Craig4; 5th December 2021 at 03:25 AM.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2021, 03:29 AM   #12
junkshop
Critical Thinker
 
junkshop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Under the bed. Whose bed, you ask? That would be telling...sleep tight.
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
With Barbados being England's oldest colony (or was it France) it is sad to see it go.
Bermuda has a better claim.
__________________
Not a Cockney.
junkshop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2021, 07:03 AM   #13
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,191
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
Bermuda has a better claim.
Virginia too, in 1607.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.