The British monarchy should be abolished.

"The Queen's replacement would likely be a citizen elected by the people, accountable to the people, serving for a fixed term (the arrangements would be debated in Parliament)." That would require a lot of planning though. A lot of laws would have to be altered in order to get this done, and many new laws would have to be set in place. There would be a lot of controversy over how long terms would be and how the voting would work. Would it be by popular vote? Probably not. I say this because the people in England would have much more influence than the people of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland [14]. It simply would not be fair. An Electoral College system like the one that exists in the USA is a pretty bad idea too. "The King of Sweden may have abolished slavery, but has Queen Elizabeth II?"Haha I don't think she was ever given the chance to. She could re-instate slavery, and then abolish it. But she'd get a lot of bad press for it. "You shall find a link to an article on European Separatist Movements at http://en.wikipedia.org...;When I went to the page it stated that "This article has multiple issues.-This article needs additional citations for verification.-This article is incomplete."I'm not sure how reliable it is due to that message. "The Monarchy makes the British Prime Minister much more powerful than he should be."Just because the monarch is gone does not mean the PM will lose this power. David Cameron is not going to want his power limited. Neither will any other PM in power. To go along with this, the party in power will not want their power of acting on behalf of the Queen to disappear. This means that they'll find some way to keep the power in the hands of the government, possibly by a vote in parliament. "How do you propose that the Monarch is held to account?"The monarch could be held accountable by abolishing crown immunity. In the USA, the President is impeached by the House of Representatives, and convicted/found innocent by the Senate [15].According to Google, impeach means something completely different in the UK. I will clarify which definition I'm using.Impeach: charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.A system like this where the House of Lords impeaches while the House of Commons can find the monarch guilty or innocent is something to consider. It wouldn't even have to involve the House of Lords, as to my understanding they are not elected by the people. A new monarch would be put in place, but it would make each one think twice before doing something that could get them out of office. "Mandela got to be South Africa's Head of State. Why shouldn't Hawking be Britain's"I'd be in total support of that. Hawking for King 2014!In all seriousness though, while it is unfair, life isn't fair. Everyone should be able to have the ability to be whatever they want to be, but that's just not the case. "She holds this position based on who her parents were, and I believe that deciding who holds the highest office in a country based on that is unacceptable."I can understand why one would feel that way, but is it really worth changing a large part of the culture of the UK just to appease some people who don't think it's fair? The UK has always had monarchs, why change that now? Why would people have felt it acceptable 200 years ago, but not now? The Queen is an identity for the country. People look at her and think "that's the Queen of the UK!" I doubt many foreigners recognize David Cameron, or even an elected Chancellor/President of most foreign nations. People would definitely recognize the first elected head of state of the UK, but after that, not so much. In conclusion, the British Monarchy should not be abolished because of the amount of time and effort necessary to complete a restructuring of thr government. Also, there is a long-lasting culture associated with monarchial system. Next, getting rid of the monarchy would not get rid of the monarchial powers. Somebody in the government would find a way to keep them in the government. Fourth, it would be much simpler to impose new restrictions on the monarch, such as eliminating crown immunity. I understand that members of parliament have to pledge their allegiance to the Queen, but an asterisk could be added to that. Finally, just because some people are born with special rights does not mean they should be taken away. If Pro was born into the royal family, he wouldn't be so eager to end the monarchial system. Thanks for a thought provoking debate. I wish my opponent luck during voting, and all future debates. [14] http://www.independent.co.uk...[15] http://www.congressforkids.net...