This House would abolish the British monarchy

In this first speech I shall do two things: first I will define the motion, and then I will move on to substantives. The exact title of this motion is 'This House would abolish the British monarchy'. By this, we intend to abolish the current system of one person being styled as 'King' or 'Queen' and retaining supreme power to overrule the British Parliament should she choose to do so. Following the proposals of the pressure group Republic, the monarch would be replaced by a democratically elected President. The President would principally serve as an ambassador for the country and would be entirely separate from the legislative process, and would not be allowed an official party affiliation. The President would be elected to serve up to two five-year terms. His main responsibilities would be to appoint the PM in the aftermath of a General Election (or to oversee the construction of a new government should the election not deliver a majority, as in 2010). However, unlike the monarch, the President's luxurious lifestyle would not be state-subsidised (there would be a President's House similar to 10 Downing Street and the President would have a salary but nothing close to the c£30m earned by the Queen in 2012), and they would not retain any constitutional power to refuse to sign a bill into law (a power currently held by the monarch). Now that we have established the definition of this motion we would like to provide our first two substantive arguments in favour of this proposed abolition, which are the flaws in the present system and current factors which we believe necessitate this ditching of the royal family. Substantive I: This System Is SillyLet's face it: if we were shipwrecked on a desert island and had to decide a system of hierarchy, we would not simply nominate one of our number as Supreme Overlord and decree that this title shall be passed down to their children. It is utter madness and monarchies, both in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the world, exist purely by virtue of historic antiquity. With the exception of some dictatorships, in the last 400 years no developed nation has adopted a monarchy - indeed many have overthrown them, such as France and to a lesser extent in the United States. So monarchy is inherently an inconvenient system of government which we retain purely because it is the status quo, not because there is some compelling reason behind its maintenance. Now I shall talk about the long-standing issues with the British monarchy in particular, which we believe are amongst the key arguments why we should risk a few years of constitutional upheaval in order to create a better tomorrow. One key problem with the British monarchy as it stands is that the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, serves as Head of the Church of England. We see this as a problem because it leads to a mixture between the Church and the State which we deem to be unhealthy for a multicultural democracy. As it stands there is a ban on the monarch marrying or becoming a Roman Catholic. This ban is not in place because the British people are fundamentally racist: it exists as a practicality because the Head of the Church of England cannot be a Catholic. We believe this is a seed of racism sown right in the heart of British society. This is wrong for two reasons. The first of these is that it establishes the Church of England as the state religion of the United Kingdom. However, as of 2009, the British Social Attitudes Survey shows that there are now more atheists in the UK than religious people, therefore it is wrong for there to be a 'state religion' of the UK. The presence of the monarch establishes this inequality. Our second reason for objecting to this is that the Queen's position as Head of the Church is no longer representative of the religious position of the British people, and as such the monarchy has become misrepresentative of the British people, especially in the increasingly multicultural society of the 21st century. The monarch creates a conflict of interest. Likewise, she is supposed to act both with a legislative function, granting Royal Assent to bills passed by Parliament, while equally leading the Church. How can the Queen be expected to perform both of these functions when she has to deal with issues such as abortion? We believe that replacing the monarch with a more neutral figure who is accountable to the electorate will eliminate these conflicts and create a more democratic and representative society. Substantive II: Why Now? In five days' time it will be Elizabeth II's 87th birthday: it is unlikely that she will live to see her 70th anniversary on the throne (although we are not wishing her dead, we are sure she is probably a lovely lady). When she dies, we believe that will be the right time to evaluate the monarchy. The next in line to the British throne is Prince Charles, and the public's affection for Charles and Camilla is nowhere near their affection for the Queen and Prince Phillip. The monarchy is meant to remain neutral, not speak out too much, and go around the world looking pretty and selling the UK brand - Prince William and Princess Catherine being a case in point. Prince Charles, however, has become a hugely controversial figure for attempting to use his royal influence to impact on other bodies. Leading architects have complained of his 'private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying', due to his fanatical obsession with Georgian architecture. He has also made comments about the importance of organic food (he set up his own food company, Duchy Originals, which would have been relatively uncontroversial had it not been for the fact that he set up a competitive profit enterprise under the brand of the Duchy of Cornwall) and - more controversially - alternative medicine. The fact is that the man who is supposed to be the next King of Great Britain and other Commonwealth nations is fundamentally unsuited to the role. He is not as neutral as someone occupying his position should be. The monarch already has an unconstitutional level of power - being able to shoot down a single bill by refusing to sign it into law - but the next monarch is a man who will use his own personal influence to try and extend the already ridiculous powers of the monarchy even further. The question British people are asking themselves is "do we really want HIM running the country? ". This is why we believe that when the Queen dies there should be a graceful transition into a republic. THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is why now - the perfect opportunity is soon to present itself and we should legislate for that time now. In summary of our opening case, we have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that monarchy is not inherently the most desirable system of government to live in. We have shown why the monarchy of Britain creates paradoxes and conflicts of interest, and we have demonstrated why - and apologies for the cliché - the time for action is now. I now welcome the Opposition: open your case!