Britain is in trouble

[kılıç_mehmet]

Gobbeldygook. Nothing to of substance to respond to. What was true yesterday of popular opinion may not be true tomorrow. Which I thought I made pretty clear.

Could be, but the popular opinion is not shifted by wishful thinking.

Era's where monarchies were the sovereign ruler and comprised the sole authority in the legislature.

That is no longer the case, obviously and evidently. What would I replace it with? I am not in a position to replace it with anything, I am part of the people that mandates changes through popular vote.

A republic still has a head of state, but an elected one. So I'd go with that.

I'm asking you for your opinion. You are advocating something, so at least present your argument with a basis.
Besides, I don't think that you can abolish a monarchy through popular vote, as it would be ruled out unconstitutional, since your regime is termed "constitutional monarchy".

The independence of Rome was garnered from the treaty of westphalia in 1648 proceeding the 30 years war. Anglican episcopalianism was a convenient get out clause for an illegitimate monarch in order to bypass inconvenient decisions from the papacy.

That's what I said, I think. I said that it symbolizes your independence from Rome. Its not just a sign of your political, but also spiritual independence.The Act of Supremacy explicitely means that the Monarch is the head of the church, meaning, not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

It had nothing to do with wanting independence of the pope (which was obviously a good thing), and everything to do with ego.

And that is a good reason to abolish it?

To the laity, the transition from Catholicism to Anglicanism meant nothing unless you disagreed. Then, you were more than likely summarily executed. In hindsight, the CofE et al were no better than the pope.

Better or not, it severed your ties with Rome. Its a part of your National Heritage.

Regardless of what nonsense diatribe you want out retort with, the Anglican Church is no completely irrelevant to all but a minority of the population. No point in having an established, irrelevant institution that does nothing.

As I said, how do you define relevancy? Church attendance?
From how I see it, the Church is indeed very relevant. Just ask the Ulster Loyalists whether they think the Anglican Church is relevant or not.

To be clear, the CofE et so represent Jack shit to me and the majority of the UK's population. It is irrelevant.

And what exactly is relevat to your population? Outside of football, of course.

No evidence of that. Merely assertion based on little fact. The troubles have certainly not gone away, but reconciliation amongst political and religious communities in NI has certainly become much more entrenched by all but a minority of fringe republican and unionist groups.

I merely state what I predict will happen.
The abolishment of the Anglican Church means that Britain will not have any legitimate claims on Northern Ireland. The fact that you still hold on to Ulster is merely due to the fact that you have a large number of Anglicans there, that constitute the parliamentary areas.

Oh, and also, where on earth have you got the idea in your head that it's the Anglican Church(es) ensuring that NI remains apart of the UK? Political, social and economic machinations play as big, if not a bigger, role in deciding the fate of NI than any silly, long forgotten religious dispute do.

And Political, Social machinatons are shaped by the presence of the Anglicans, and therefore, the Anglican Church.

Laughable! The biggest catholic presence in the UK are the catholic faith schools, almost entirely funded by the UK government! Abolish that funding, and watch those schools go bye bye. Long overdue.

The demographics of catholic belief in the UK are almost as small as Anglicanism.

Tell me please, what kind of a belief actually runs strong in the UK?
Anglicanism, the State church is weak.
Catholicism is weak. So, to which Church do your people belong to? Are they not baptized? Don't they get married in a Church relating to their faith? Or did the Muslims already gain enough power to actually take over religious matters in the UK?

but where do you get the evidence form that people will want a new 'spiritual patriarch'(??? No idea what that means).

Christianity is based on patriarchy, and needs a "head figure" for the believers to look up to. The Eastern Christians have their respective patriarchs, with the Patriarch in Istanbul being the Ecumanical patriarch that is the head figure of all Eastern Churches.
The Catholics on the other hand have the pope as a figurehead. You have the Monarch that is the head of your religious affairs.

There are only a few religions that are seeing growth in the UK; black minority Christian sects, Islam, and the odd sect of Hinduism and Sikhism.

You mean like people are de-converting from the Anglican Church to other religions?

All other forms of Christianity are becomming irrelevant.

What do you mean by "irrelevant"? The decrease of church attendance?

As to your question, what would I replace it with? Nothing. That's kind of the point. No need for any religious head to be anywhere near the commons or the lords.

Well, it doesn't need to be near anyone. It only needs to be there.

EVIDENCE

The UK is built on the Monarchy, and the abolishment of the monarchy means that there needs to be a new regime, the creation of a new country, just as it happened here in my country after we abolished the Sultanate.
You need a complete overhaul, divide the UK, or whatever you're gonna call it after abolishing the Monarchy, as it won't be a Kingdom anymore, into new provinces, and there is still the matter of Scotland and Northern Ireland to discuss. What if they suddenly decide to declare independence? What will be your course of action?
Ukraine experienced only riots, and Crimea began to stake out claims of independence.
I don't think that you can prove me otherwise, I stand by my words that abolishing the crown would be to abolish Britain as a whole.

Why are you hung up on bloody revolutions? It's utter nonsense to perpetuate that as an inevitability following what it relatively minor reforms given the desire for the UKs population to disestablish the irrelevant church and remove its peerages.

Show me evidence that there is a general consensus within the British population to disestablish the Anglican Church and remove the Monarchy and peerages.

I know you're hung up on nationalism and all that horseshit, but really, not everyone in the world is so backwards thinking as you are.

Well, in fact, they are. The Scots are nationalistic, and so are the Irish.
They will proclaim their independence once you are done with your peaceful removal of the British Crown.
Perhaps Wales too will get in on the fun, as they are not bound to the State to which they were bound to(by that I mean the United Kingdom, as abolishing the crown would mean that you'd need a new state, a new constitution a new set of laws and a new name and flag for your country).

So, when you say the only way to abolish peerages and hereditary titles is to seize their lands and topple the government? You could have done a simple google search that in fact pointed out what peerages have already been removed and that both the government and the people favour a wholly elected HOL and are (slowly) moving in that direction.

Just wanted to show you why your entire point is actually wrong:

I do know that act. I guess that you don't know that the act does not remove peerages, it only removes their hereditary place in the house of lords. Their hereditary peerage is still there, and so are the property that they own due to that title.

Our nation is not governed by the monarchy nor by hereditary ennobled gentry, but by common consensus.

Without the monarch, your nation is merely a bunch of people living on an Island. Your forefathers realized this, and left the Monarch in place.