Apparently, it's disrespectful in the week of the Platinum Jubilee to question the monarchy's existence. I don't see why. It's hard to knock the fact that Her Majesty has done an amazing job, being the nation's stable rock during 70 years of massive change. But the big problem with the monarchy is that while in theory the Government rules in the Queen's name, in practice she has no power to override them when they misbehave.
A proper head of state with reserve powers would have prevented the illegal proroguing of parliament in 2019. And they would be enforcing the ministerial code, ensuring those who break it (like the Home Secretary and more recently the Prime Minister) are actually made to step down. They could prevent the government breaching international law. A hereditary monarch can't do that without calling into question our entire democracy (although let's be honest our PM has been doing a pretty good job of that on his own recently).
So, should we have a president?
I'm far from being a monarchist, but I also feel that an elected president just puts another major position into the whims of the political cycle and the major parties. I think we probably should move to some kind of indirectly elected president eventually, but I think we need to address the issue of checks and balances more urgently.
And we can do it, using an institution that predates parliament itself, but is badly in need of reform.
The Privy Council
- The Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition and leaders of any other party with at least 5% of the seats in the House of Commons
- Any previous PMs still alive and of sound mind
- First Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
- Mayors of England's major metropolitan areas and a small number of leaders of local councils, selected at random. Once English devolution happens, these should be replaced by the First Ministers of the regions
- The Lord Chief Justice
- The heads of the CBI and TUC
- The Governor of the Bank of England