CORRECTIONS: At 5:15, we somehow got the Guyanan and Ghanaian flags mixed up. At 2:58, we claimed that Australia had a referendum in 2005 on whether to become a republic. The actual date is in fact 1999. Apologies for both these errors, and thanks again to the audience for pointing them out. We've noticed a fair few comments on this video suggesting that the quality of our videos has gone downhill, and we have to admit, we've made more mistakes than we'd like in recent videos. We hope this is down to the fact that 2 of the full-time team are currently on holiday, so we expect the quality of the videos to pick back up in due time. A fair few of you have also suggested that we should slow down our output, focus on quality over quantity. We know that the most important thing for any news channel is credibility, and we agree: in trying to maintain output with reduced manpower, we've apparently sacrificed quality, and we'll recalibrate output accordingly. Anyway, thanks again, and apologies for any quality-related disappointment.
TLDR is getting a reputation for not fact checking enough. Almost every video has an error of some kind, not a complaint, the effort is clearly there you just need to employ a QA to look over the videos before release.
THIS. This has been going on for so many fucking months despite many comments, and some of the QA failures are amateurish (one of the recent videos had a typo spelling Migrants as "Migrats", lol) It's clear that they're prioritizing speed of video uploads, vs. accuracy & quality of it.
They made that error too? As well as using incorrect flagship? Who is doing the fact checking at TLDR? I just wanna talk.. 😅 I like them but consistently making such basic errors while calling yourselves news is a fast way to lose your audience.
I’m from Ghana 🇬🇭 and I would get SO IRRITATED when white people kept saying I was from Guyana 🇬🇾 It’s a completely different country on a completely different continent! 😅 I’ve been watching this channel for years, but respectfully, who is doing “quality control”? Who is doing the fact-checking? They often make blunders like this and it used to be cute when it was a very small grass roots RUclips channel but this is a business now..with staff…and you’re also in the business of disseminating information. Respectfully, get it together, or stop calling yourselves ‘News’ because you’re consistently making basic schoolboy editorial errors, and it’s embarrassing to recommend your channel to others when you keep doing this. 🙈
In Canada it's not a referendum. The change would require approval by the Houses of Parliament and all provincial legislatures. And nobody thinks that's ever going to happen.
It will once public opinion changes. And imagine a president as head of state who can actual USE his powers properly unlike the pretend head of state we currently have in Canada.
@@user-kc1tf7zm3b it's a double edged sword. Sure you have a great queen now, but if you had an Edward the second.. you couldn't just vote the guy out of office, you'd need to live an entire generation or have a revolution lol. I get the idea of ceremonial monarchs for sure.. and maybe even if they serve as an advisor, but the problem with complete monarch rule is how bipolar your options can become, and how long they would last compared to an election every half a decade.
@@Camelotsmoon Everything is relative to the travesty of American political life, as proved to the world with the attempted insurrection of 6 January 2021. 🇨🇦 🇬🇧
The Australian republic referendum was 1999 not 2005. Don't know where you got 2005 from since the republic referendum was also the most recent referendum held in Australia
@@briumphbimbles literally didn't. That can't be done without a referendum and the most recent referendum was 1999. The only push even close to that time was Kevin Rudd promising a summit on the issue in 2008. Source: am Australian
@@octavianpopescu4776 Sarcasm often doesn't translate well on YT, especially because there are countless gammons that genuinely think what you just wrote lol
Barbados has always had a national holiday on November 30 - at least since 1966. It is Independence Day. Disturbing as a “news channel” that you don’t do much research.
Canadian here. I Strongly support retaining the constitutional monarchy in Canada for two reason: 1) Culturally and politically we need to maintain as many differences we have with America just to maintain the status quo; and 2) Despite what you may first assume, First Nations strongly support the Queen because their pre-Confederation treaties and traditional rights are seen as recognised and defended by the (UK) Crown against the (Canadian) Crown.
@@JM-oi9pk Why you are saying who cares? Clearly, it's a topic worth the discussion. Anyway, The matter for me is about a basic principle. The Head of the State should be a proud citizen of the country. When Queen Elizabeth vista foreign nations, the British anthem is played and the Union Jack is flown as she's introduced as the Queen of UK. Canada, Barbados and Australia's PMs and even Governor-Generals are deprived from the official ceremonial welcomes reserved for Head of States, because Q. Elizabeth is the Head of the state, and she doesn't visit nations under the title Queen of Barbados/ Canada/Australia and to advance their interests. That's all.
Another small correction- Canada’s doesn’t actually require a referendum to amend the Constitution Act. It only specifies that the amendment would require the support of the Canadian Parliament and pre-determined number of the Provincial legislatures; the number being determined by what exactly is being amended. In a hypothetical scenario of an attempt to remove the Monarch as our Head of State, this constitutional amendment would require the consent of Parliament and ALL legislatures (which would be quite a Herculean effort). Another avenue for amending the Constitution Act is the so-called “7/50 rule” whereby any proposed amendment would require the support of Parliament and seven provincial legislatures that combined make-up 50% of Canada’s population. This formula would, for example, be used for a constitutional amendment to create a new province or on changing the method of selection of Senators. In 1992, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did attempt to pass a package of constitutional amendments (known as the “Charlottetown Accord”) by way of referendum (despite it not being legally required) but this was defeated 55% to 45%. Since Charlottetown, some provinces have enacted legislation that requires constitutional amendments to be approved by referendum (*cough *cough Alberta- who recently had a referendum on a self-proposed constitutional amendment) but on the whole, there’s no official requirement for one and national referendums are exceptionally rare in Canada; only three have been held since confederation; 1898 on prohibition, 1942 on conscription, and 1992 on Charlottetown. Quebec has also held two referendums on the province’s relationship with Canada; 1980 on “Sovereignty Association” and 1995 on Sovereignty. Constitutional amendments are also much rarer in Canada than in other countries; the last being passed in 2011.
Why do some Commonwealth countries still retain a Constitutional monarchy after independence? Pragmatism - it provides some interim institutional continuity and stability. Other Commonwealth countries have been becoming republics for decades, though not always in the evolutionary way of Barbados and sometimes at the cost of post-colonial constitutional chaos.
One small advantage to being in the Commonwealth is that it makes voting easier while travelling. I lived in Malaysia when there was a state election in New South Wales, and there wasn't an Australian Consulate near me. So I did a postal vote, but I needed either an Australian citizen, or a public servant from a Commonwealth country to sign my ballot envelope as a witness. Malaysia had a nationalised phone system, so I rang them to say my phone wasn't working, so they sent around a guy, and I asked him to sign my ballot. I told him I'd credit him for fixing my phone really quickly. 😁
Others have mentioned this, but this channel was supposedly founded on bringing good quality, honest and independent news. More recently it feels like the quality is dropping and videos are being pumped out as fast as possible. Be careful you don’t dilute your brand! It would be a shame to have to find a new news source
Every episode there's some inaccuracy and I've noticed part of that is using biased sources without disclosing their biases - for example, using the result of public opinion polls from politically motivated think tanks.
Honestly, the queen and the English crown in general have lost a lot of respect internationally in the last couple of years and if they really do nothing for a country, then make sense to take them out of any symbol of importance
@@graveperil2169 Let's be honest, most of that comes down to Harry and Charles. No-one really cares about William either way, but the Queen is actually well respected even by those who aren't necessarily pro-monarchy as one of the world's most experienced and capable diplomats.
@@jamtea573 the closing of parliament, the court cases, Did the PM lie to the queen?. thats was all the news at the time but Boris did not lie he just ignored as the Queen is a just a rubber stump that the PM uses. Parliment, the Lords, The queen all have a role in keeping each other in check but some of them are not doing their job
@@graveperil2169 would you rather a figure that we can’t hold accountable or vote to replace have more power? In the 21st century having the position of head of state passed on through generations of a single family is just insane
The time for Kings and Queens, for Princes and Princesses, for Knights on gallant steeds, bunting and flags a fluttering in the gentle breeze is quickly coming to an end. Nothing is for ever.
You see I kind of disagree with this. A properly instituted monarchy, where the monarch isn't just a figure head and instead is there dictate terms when parliamentary procedures grind to a halt sounds quite efficient. The British monarchy however isn't this and is therefore functionally irrelevant.
@@schemage2210 It actually sounds totally undemocratic and insane. Why should someone who’s born into power with no election and with the term limit being for their entire life be allowed to make decisions in government. It sounds pretty tyrannical when I say how it really is.
You used the wrong flag for Guyana!! You used Ghana’s flag which is = 🇬🇭 and Guyana’s flag is = 🇬🇾 - Come on guys, I really like your channel as well, but this is such a dumb mistake
I don't understand why tldr keeps doing minor errors and brushing it as if it's not a big deal, but if this is your way for people to comment and therefore boosting video in the eyes of the yt algorithm gods, i'm unsubscribing. This has gone on long enough, it's not even funny anymore. Please, quality over quantity. Most of us, if not all, will wait for you.
No collapse whatsoever…. Barbados became a Republic just like some other commonwealth countries did before. The British Monarchy unlike many other existing royal families around the world, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Bhutan, Japan, Kuwait, Qatar and Belgium have a very very different impact, effect and leverage. The fact that Australian, Canadians and New Zealanders armed forces take their oath of allegiance to the British Monarch is already a clear indication of how important it is. I had the privilege to serve (train including law enforcement) with them ….. This video is barking up the wrong tree 🌲
Somewhat? This is social media we're talking about. If the video isn't clickbait and strewn with elementary mistakes, it's not often found on social media.
It's wierd AND it's a good old-fashioned tradition: the two are not exclusionary. Since the role of monarch is 99% symbolic and ceremonial, it does no harm, and potentially a little good, to maintain the connection, as long as it's popular with the people. That last point is the only fly in the ointment with the Barbados decision: it would have felt better and more 'settled' if they'd had a referendum. As it is, it _could_ come to be perceived in future as the hobby-horse of one political party (I don't know enough about Barbadian politics to judge that though).
but when that symbolic and ceremonial is thousands of miles away it must make the ribbon cutting hard, in truth it was the Governor that did most of the ribbon cutting and now she is president
@@graveperil2169 I don’t live in a Commonwealth country, but ditching the monarchy probably makes nations feel more like they actually have ownership over themselves instead being linked to a nation that never really gave a damn about them
You say the weird thing is it be a constitutional monarchy, but the really weird thing is to change it. The systems are functionally the same, except any concern the royal would actually interfere, which is nonsense, if you've fucked up badly enough to motivate such a colossal political statement, then their intervention is clearly a good thing.
An investigation by the Guardian back in February found that the Queen had used the power of Queen's Consent to get her finances exempted a transparency law that would have exposed them to public scrutiny. This power can be and indeed has been used for the royals' self interest
Here in Sweden, older Swedes have grown up to adore Victoria, the Crown Princess of Sweden, since the day she was born. Now when her dad the King gets older, monarchists would like her to take over as soon as possible. Monarchy is exalted despite it being seen as a relic of the past. In its representative function, institution is regarded as a non-political and thus non-divisive, and is considered great for Sweden as a trademark - bringing a lot of tourism. What would become of Sweden without its monarchy, people would ask.
Some believe that without the monarchy Sweden would essentially cease to exist. As our National Anthem goes: "You are enthroned on memories of great olden days, When honoured your name flew across the Earth"
Contrary to what a lot of people say, monarchs are efficient. They are trained for their representative role since infancy and they represent the whole country.
How *did* Sweden evolve into a constitutional monarchy? I assume it wasn't like Britain were they had a decades-long brutal civil war, and at the end of it invited the monarchy back anyway :).
@@0w784g The monarch lost his last real powers in 1974 when the current form of government was established on democratic grounds - during the reign of the Social democrats. Prior to that the king did stuff like appointed the prime minister. The king was involved in everything according to the constitution. The speaker of the parliament took on a lot of the tasks that the king previously had pertaining to the parliament.
A country's ties to a bigger, stronger richer nation isn't a bad idea, maybe even a requisite. There's nothing bad about borrowed light. The British monarchy still has a positive reputation throughout the world. Go visit Buckingham Palace, they still garner tons of interest.
Most people outside of the commonwealth aren't even aware of the commonwealth as a concept. And having the queen on the currency doesn't solve any problems or even inspire tourism to those nations. It's not exactly productive in any meaningful way.
@@gentlemandemon Hell the Commonwealth isn't all that visible to people living inside it anyway, it's kind of a recurring thing I hear here in NZ that nobody really knows what it even does, if it does anything at all.
Come on, Canada, we could be a real democracy too. 🇨🇦 Or at least stop celebrating monarchy so much. No queen on the money, no swearing allegiance to her for citizenship or military or elected officials. Those changes require no immediate constitutional changes.
@@0w784g what else would it mean to the descendents of the people that had their homelands pillaged by the British empire over the years? You can glorify the days of Empire all you like but you don't conquer half of the globe by being decent human beings.
I think the importance of symbols is being vastly underestimated not just by this channel, but by my generation in general. Yes, the queen technically does nothing so you might as well get rid of her. But at the same time, all of those countries share great economic and diplomatic ties and I'd say it has a lot to do with the queen being the head of state in all of these countries. Every country that removed the queen as the head of state saw a drift between them and the UK. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, if what you want is more independence then by all means go for it but the fact that the connection of all of those countries through the queen is mostly symbolic doesn't change the fact that it does form a connection between them.
The line 'Australia voted to keep the queen' is also quite misleading. A dwindling minority of Australians want to keep a foreign head of state. The real reason the referendum failed is because more Australians want a directly elected president than one appointed by Parliament.
Canada may be the last country to abolish the monarchy since doing so requires unanimous consent of all 10 provinces plus the federal parliament. That is next to impossible to achieve since other interest groups would also demand their own constitutional amendments and the whole idea of opening up the constitution would collapse almost immediately
The matter for me is about a basic principle. The Head of the State should be a proud citizen of the country. Malcolm Turnbull changed my mind when he said "When Queen Elizabeth vista foreign nations, the British anthem is played and the Union Jack is flown as she's introduced as the Queen of UK". Canada, Barbados and Australia's PMs and even Governor-Generals are deprived from the official ceremonial welcomes reserved for Head of States, because QE2 is the Head of the state, and she doesn't visit nations under the title Queen of Barbados and to advance Barabados' interests. That's all. Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
I highly doubt that any of the 4 x Maritime provinces would agree to abolish the monarchy. They have strong loyalist roots & history. Also if we choose a replublic, who gets to be president? How round they be selected? By appointment of parliament as in Barbados? Or popularly elected like in France or USA? The devil is in the details, and the details matter. This is why the referendum failed in both Australia & St. Vincent. Ppl in Barbados were never given the choice by referendum and there is a lot of grumbling there about how this was done.
@@MichaelSmith-ub3ek Wtf are you on about? The queen is a figurhead, she never chose the Prime Minister. You can amend a constitution, it's been done many times. Canada's elections wouldn't change, it's political system would remain.
Honestly, I'd imagine one of the reasons so many countries still have the queen is the reason I'm not a Republican here in the UK: I'd rather some nice old lady was the nominal head of state than there be another position for rich corrupt politicians to fight over or sell.
I always thought of the Queen as a single unifying factor that holds a hugely culturally diverse UK population together. I'm Irish and live in the Republic with no direct affinity to the Crown 😉🤗 but fro the outside looking in she does seem to be the glue that unites Conservative, Labour and the parties in Wales and Scotland. I agree with you wanting a monarch as your country is so big and diverse you need a common unifying non political figure head to row in behind. (Unless you are Irish of course 😉 🤗🤗)
I was born and live in Canada. I don't really care about the queen. I only care what the government does and how much they tax us, jobs, environment,economy, health care etc Those are the most important to me.
I know some UK friends they told me they care and some don't care and one of them complain about them. They said keeping them is waste of money or something like that. Now none of them want to return. There family phone them telling them to stay and not return for a long time. There is no future for them any more either.
It is not true to say that the crown does not interfere in local politics, by the way. All Australians know of the disgraceful case of the 1973 dismissal by the Governor-General of the Whitlam government. Correspondence recently released shows that Prince Charles was deeply implicated in the plot to sack the democratically elected government and acted as a conduit between Buckingham Palace and the opposition party that stood to gain from the change of administration. Equally, Her Maj. was once scammed by a telephone hoaxer to show her hand in Canada's referendum to become a republic and surprise, surprise, she was all for interfering in local politics.
I can completely understand them. A friend who is from Barbados said " How is it Europeans from the Eu can walk into the UK but Bajans have to have a visa, and where the Queen is head of state." ???
Constitutional monarchies tend to be stable wealthy countries. Who doesnt want that ? Here in Denmark we have a queen and I cannot imagine how we would be able to get some elected head of state with an approval rating even close to hers. If she had some real political power I could see an issue,but she doesnt - thats not the function of the monarch. I think the most political thing a European monarch did in my lifetime was when the Spanish king opposed the Faschists - was that a bad thing ?
You must ignorant or stupid. Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. That's all. Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
5:15. Rwanda was never part of the British Empire and thus not on topic. They did indeed have an indigenous Tutsi led monarchy under the umbrella of the Belgium’s League of Nations mandate, then UN trust territory status of Ruanda-Urundi. The territory was split into the independent countries of The Republic of Rwanda and the Kingdom of Burundi in 1962. It is true that somehow Rwanda joined the Commonwealth of Nations in 2008 after adopting English as an official language. This was due to the government having a fall-out with France (not Belgium), which likes to consider itself the police of French speaking Africa and many of the Tutsi speaking English after years in anglophone Uganda as refugees. I, like others, have largely given up on TLDR, but I was looking at news on the Barbados republic story.
5:15, why on earth are you mentioning Rwanda? Rwanda has never been a Commonwealth realm. The Rwandan monarchy, which was a native monarchy under its own native kings, was overthrown in a violent revolution in 1959
As a Canadian/Former Englishman, it never ceases to amaze me that the UK continues to stubbornly and pompously endow themselves with greater global importance than it actually has. Frankly, it's embarrassing. In short, the world's moved on and the English play at keeping up. Who cares? Honestly answer that question and you may get a modicum of respect that isn't drowned out by the derisive snickering at you. Cheers.
Not sure it's all from Britain's end, note that many of the remaining commonwealth nations have poor economies etc.. There are financial incentives among others.
....err, I hate to do this to you mate, but... - World's fifth largest economy. - Home to two of the planet's five greatest universities. - Birthplace of the train, the internet and penicilin. - 10th most popular tourist destination on the planet. - Originator of the world's lingua franca. - One of only eight nuclear weapon owners on the globe. That's just what a quick google popped up.
A lot of the jingoistic British imperialism / British exceptionalism attitudes just make me laugh now. Britain’s days as a global superpower are OVER. That’s not being negative, that’s not being mean, that’s not downplaying the country’s past industrial and economic achievements or institutions, it’s not discounting the legacy of its cultural exports, it is simply fact. I get second hand embarrassment watching the government’s attempt at playing the geopolitical chessboard as if to say “we’re still here, we’re still important, pay attention to us! We want attention!!!”
@@andrewtully3622 Hate to do this to you buddy, but California's the 5th largest world economy and that's just one state. Don't get me started on the tiny land mass that's New York. Swallow your hurt pride and indignation. Your embarrassment counts for naught at the moment. Have a good day.
The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The UK monarchy is German, not exactly the truth Ukippers and Numpties want to hear.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 isn’t it off to call them all German because there was one marriage with a German family which changed the name? Like they are still related to previous monarchs, it’s not like this is a new family. I never understood how it’s really German.
@@maxdavis7722 well they are direct descendants of one of germanys families from high nobility that married into the UK royal family, practically taking them over. The royal family name changed to the House Sachsen-Coburg & Gotha, wich was again changed to Winsor to appease the british public in WW1 (nobody wanted a german descendand King in the UK). This lineage was reinforced with Philipp, who is of german descent (House Battenberg & House Oldenburg, both from Germany). Prior to the house of Sachsen-Coburg & Gotha the House of the hannoveranian Welfen ruled the UK (again a german family)
@@byblispersephone2.094 Well, she's not my head of state. But for purposes of this discussion, it's probably more accurate to refer to her as an old Canadian woman.
The queen's the most popular person in Britain because her majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say. But the heir has been expressing himself for the past 50 years. Likely to be more republics in the next reign.
Well, there's certain advantages with a constitutional monarchy which is if there's a lot of political divide there can still be a figure too stand behind.
The president can also fill this role, as they do in many countries. It doesn't really work if the president also wields a lot power in domestic policy, but that's probably a bad idea anyway.
@@ozzyp97 A lot of republics try to replicate the unifying role of a monarch with a ceremonial president, but it almost always fails. The very nature of a president as an elected office makes it political, and means it’s almost always filled by either an active or retired politician, usually of significant prominence. Not exactly very conductive to neutrality and unity.
@@LordDim1 Some presidents are better and others worse at this, but that's equally true for some monarchs. I don't think King Charles is particularly popular, for instance. Where I'm from (Finland), it's customary for the president to formally surrender their party membership, and that in combination with no direct say in domestic policy has been reasonably succesful. I mean, our current president has recently enjoyed 90% approval by some measures, that's pretty solid even if I don't think it's quite the whole story.
@@ozzyp97 Those sorts of presidents tend to be in an extreme minority and far between however. And King Charles is actually pretty popular, has around a 75% approval rating I believe
Do you believe that all people should be treated equally under the law? If so, how do you justify keeping the monarchy. If you do not believe in legal equality, what criteria for discrimination are acceptable? If you support monarchy, you believe that certain people should have more or less legal rights based on hereditary class. Is legal discrimination based on race or gender acceptable as well? Why or why not?
I support the monarchy in Canada and New Zealand simply because there's no value in wasting time and money concocting a replacement. What powers would any President have? How would they be selected? Never mind. Not necessary. Further, I've never heard an argument for a republic that wasn't an appeal to ego / emotion. There are no practical reasons to change.
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod Seriously. What are you expecting? Then look around the world and see how Presidents are actually selected. You may find it interesting.
The fact that the people didn't have final say should be extremely worrying. Yes, mp are elected by the people, but for some things so important like this, the people should have final say. It sets a worrying precedent for the future. "Why have a referendum on voting reform? We didn't do that when removing the royal, so we're not going to do that with this"
It's good news and more should do it. it practically financialy and militarily it suits these countries to do so and when it doesn't suit them anymore they will kick her out like the rest have.
They say Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't collapse in a day either. Empires collapse slowly and this is what we are seeing, the collapse of an empire.
@@maesterchris2120 there isnt really empires anymore tho, no country is the remotely close to the power, control, and size that britain and spain possesed at their peak
There's a big error in your video with respect to Canada's Constitution. There is no formal requirement for referenda for anything. There is a formula that has a representative minimum that needs to achieved for constitutional amendments.. But at no point is a referendum required.
It's worth remembering that in Australia they didn't vote to keep the monarchy they voted against the pseudo republic that Barbados just installed. Every country should have a president that is elected by the people rather than parliament otherwise there's no point
Can you describe what is _pseudo_ about the republic Barbados just voted for? Or, alternatively, what was _pseudo_ about the republic that was proposed for Australia? As far as I can tell, it was a parliamental democracy with a strong parliament (so kinda like Germany or Austria) as opposed to republics with strong presidents (like France or the US), but neither qualifies as "pseudo republic" in my books. But I don't know enough about the 1999 referendum in Australia, so I'm willing to learn...
@@Mike-kn9ge Australia operates a Parliamentary system with a majoritarian lower house and a proportional upper house. Forces the government to compromise to get legislation passed, without forcing formal coalitions to be created.
The Republican referendum here in Australia fell apart because the pre-republicans split over if Australia should have a nominated President similar to what Barbados now has or an elected President similar to the USA
It was a clever strategy set up by the monarchist Prime Minister - he deliberately set up the "Eminent Persons Committee" to fail. They had televised debates from the floor showing chaos as various models were put forward and "debated" by very large egos, with no one in real control. That meant that when it came time for _the actual referendum,_ the Republican movement had just had a very public knock down drag out fight, where they criticised each other's favourite model. If instead the Republic referendum had just gone ahead on the basic question of _"Should Australia become a Republic?"_ it most likely would have passed. And if David Cameron had used the same trick for the Brexit referendum - having all the high profile brexiteers have a public debate where they have to put up _what sort of Brexit they want,_ and the Hard brexiteers and the soft Brexit crowd throw shoes at each other … Well, then Britian would still be part of the EU and Cameron may have even still been PM, and the Tories Eurosceptic wing would be far less powerful.
There is other forms of Republics you know. Germany, France, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Argentina, Guatemala, South Korea, India, Russia, Poland, Italy etc are app Republics and Republics aren't all the same the USA is only the first modern day Republic
@@Steve-zc9ht What do you mean by other forms of republics?? The examples of countries you gave doesn't have similar systems. Germany & Italy have Parliamentary systems, while South Korea and Mexico have systems similar to US. Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. That's all. Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
@@casbot71 (1) That trick wouldn't have worked on Brexit. The failures of the EU was driving the debate and the EU refusal to give David Cameron any crumbs or concession is what sealed the deal. Meanwhile, in the Aussie Republic debate, there were nothing marginally different from switching the system. It's not like it will change trade or Immigration policy or fiscal policy...etc. It was a matter of principle. Should the head of state of the country be a proud citizen of it, or a foreigner?? (2) Australia is influenced immensely by US more than UK. This is why for a weird reason, they couldn't made the easy solution of making the Governor-General the "President" or just adopting Governor General as the title for the Head of State. ♠️♠️ Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. That's all. Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
@@hus390 Rather then the "British National Anthem" it's more of "An Anthem for the Monarch" so it makes every bit of sense for God Save The Queen to be played in a commonwealth country since she's the Queen of all of them. For us (British), the thing closest to a national anthem is Rule Britannia but formally adopting that would create a huge hassle because for some reason a lot of snowflakes decided that the song was about slavery and not freedom. (Also the fact that we don't really rule the waves anymore but that is a minor issue)
It's highly disingenuous to keep saying "the Queen doesn't use her powers". Not directly, sure, but it's her Governer-General that decided to cause a constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975, and we have the letters that prove her office had been aware of this plan for months. She didn't legally admonish him or even replace him. Saying that *she* didn't do anything as a reason to maintain a monarchical sword of damocles is misleading.
@@danielwebb8402 Er, yes. That's what the governer is. The queen gave him the power when he was appointed, he showed the queen what he wanted to do, then he did it. She didn't tell him not to and he received no reprimand for it. Her power was exercised with her full knowledge and she didn't disagree with its usage. His job is to do her bidding.
I think they deliberately make errors in their videos since they know multiple people will correct them in the comments section, and more comments means more interaction with the video which pushes it up in youtubes algorithm
@@jammiedodger7040 an unelected woman whose wealth is in large part made up from the spoils of colonialism, including many stolen artifacts, is not dodgy to you?
@@dark_messiah8183 All the artefacts in Britain and all the Royal buildings are own by the British people and they get there money from tourists the only problem with her is she is not British
This is the first time I'm really disappointed in you guys. The Guardian insta post was more insightful than this video. You didn't mention at all that former colonies like Barbados are trying to get reparations for the atrocities Britain committed and reconnect with their African heritage. It's not some meaningless move. Coming from young Brits that's concerning.
I've been disappointed by TLDR implicitly favouring First Past the Post voting in several videos about elections in other countries. I've voted in FPTP and proportional representation elections and BY FAR, as a voter, some form of PR is the better system. The UK itself suffers endlessly from government after government the majority did not vote for. No thanks.
@@tarateom probably alot better than you'd think, considering that I'm British. Granted the monarchy would likely have to dissolve itself, but that's unlikely with our current queen who is very popular.
IMO monarchy is less about imperialism and more of a relic from a bygone era. Europe and the rest of the world were dominated by monarchies for most of history, some just lasted longer than others. Coincidentally Britain is one of the few countries that didn’t suffer from revolution during the 1800’s and 1900’s in large part because of the unique circumstance of parliament’s power rivaling the monarch’s. I believe the reason why the the British monarchy is still around is merely a result of tradition, culture, and a degree of luck
The unique situation you speak of was created by multiple wars. They physically wrested power from the monarchy. And gave it to themselves. Once they had a bit of power they increased their gains over the years until we have what we have now. Here is the first definition of Revolution : 1. a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.
I feel like having your own monarch as a long term stable figure helps with international image, and national unity. especially if you have a monarch who has no real powers to abuse, but is active in charity work and public image building.
but the british King/Queen has formal powers but only chose not to act upon them. Another King/Queen might just do so and involve himself/herself more actively in politics. There is no proper safeguard against the King/Queen making politics again
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 you are correct, however the last time totality tried hard to get involved with politics regularly was probably over 200 years ago.
@@freetime5803 That's definitely valid, but just because they have no active roles or powers doesn't mean they don't have passive benefits. They give people something more tangible than a flag and more stable than an elective leader to rally around when times are tough. Then there is the cost argument, where math shows that countries tend to roughly break even on the cost of maintaining them vs the tourism and merch.
Nicely said. Although I do think there are issues I personally view the Royal family as more of a safety valve, hopefully stopping a individual from gaining too much power and authority
By british no but by international all monarchies again no and by barbados then yes sorry bud but there's ain't gonna be another french style revolution happening plus my country georgia is more into becoming constitutional monarchy than something else plus removing monarchy on a country which its culture depends on is worst plus even if colonials stop being monarchy i doubt britain will do so
Barbados has many structural issues poised to jeopardize its future. The amount of money that country owes three Canadian commercial banks alone is staggering. The skeptic in me can’t help but think that plotting to ditch the Monarchy was a convenient distraction for the public discourse in Barbados to distract from the substantive issues facing the country. I’ve been there many times, there is crime, garbage everywhere , many people unemployed, the rest living paycheque to paycheque. The only good news for the people is this issue is over and there is no hiding from the hard work to make people’s futures brighter now. When this government can’t deliver watch them lose a future election, that’s my prediction!
Which country or island do you know that doesn’t have crime. So all streets are littered with garbage. People are walking through garbage then. Rhianna was standing in garbage when she received her honors.
@@benbezuidenhout626 The SNP don’t have any plans to get rid of the Monarchy but hopefully we will have a referendum on whether to keep it or not a few years after Independence.
Fact checking: in Canada there is no legal obligation to hold a referendum on constitutionnal change. It may, depending on the kind of constitutionnal change, require one, many or all of provincial legislatures.
I worked with a woman from Barbados years ago. She told me they don't say "Barbadian" they say "Bayjian" (not sure of the spelling). Rolls off the tongue a bit easier - two sillybubbles instead of four!
I have never cared for the monarchy (an Australian speaking) and wasn't old enough to vote in that 2005 referendum. I mean, what is the actual benefit of it at this point? If it has no functional purpose and only serves as a gatekeeper for potential change, then be gone with it.
It does serve a purpose, it provides a nonpartisan head of state and constitutional guarantor. This video really overlooks the actual constitutional power of the monarchy in the realms, and the role of the Governor-General. The King/GG holds pretty vast, very important constitutional reserve powers which can be utilised in emergencies. For instance the veto of legislation, dissolution or parliament for a new election, dismissal of a government, command of the armed forces, and appointment of certain important nonpartisan officials. It is vital for these powers to remain in the hands of someone not connected to any political party, especially not the government, because they’re there to keep the government in check. In Australia this became readily apparent in 1975. The Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had his budget voted down by parliament repeatedly. In the Westminster system in such circumstances the PM is supposed to either resign or ask the Queen/GG for an election. Whitlam did either, trying to stay in power in contravention of constitutional norms, and making Australia hurtle towards a devastating government shutdown. The Governor-General responded by dismissing Whitlam as PM and dissolving parliament for a new election, which resulted in a landslide Liberal victory. Likewise in Tuvalu in 2013 the PM tried to stay in power after losing his parliamentary majority, and went so far as to try to block parliament from sitting, to avoid a formal no confidence vote. The Governor-General responded by dismissing the PM and appointing the opposition leader, who now had a parliament majority.
Having a Constitutional Monarch has no affect on the day to day running of the country. However, having a Constitutional Monarch provides a protection against a rogue President or rogue Prime Minister in that the Monarch can call an election when the rogue PM / President doesn't want it to happen and thus they can be ousted. Without the Monarchy the rogue PM / President can turn the country into a dictatorship, as has happened in a number of republics in the last 100 years.
Hogwash!!! The Monarch can't call any elections without direct order from the PM/Parliament. Queen Elizabeth wouldn't dare to do so. Other wise it's a mediaeval dictatorship again, by monarchs who nobody elected. So your entire assumptions are based on false information. ⚠️ Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. The matter for me is about a basic principle. The Head of the State should be a proud citizen of the country. Canada, Barbados and Australia's PMs and even Governor-Generals are deprived from the official ceremonial welcomes reserved for Head of States, because QE2 is the Head of the state, and she doesn't visit nations under the title Queen of Barbados and to advance Barabados' interests. That's all.
@@hus390 Under the Australian Constitution the Monarch does have the RIGHT to call an election against the advice of the Parliament in many situations. Back in the 1970s we had a Prime Minister who was looking to violate the Constitution, and if we'd NOT had the Monarch as the final Head of State to send the Parliament back to the people for a vote the PM of the day would not only have violated the Constitution but would've completed the deals that would have been an act of treason. Since then we've had a Republic movement grow and push for a republic where the President under the proposed system would be in a position to make themselves a dictator if they wished to, due to the nearly impossible method of forcing them back to the people. The fear of a Republic set up like Germany had in the 1930s is what had a lot of people voting against it each time we've had a vote on the issue. A benign foreign Head of State is much better than a dictatorial local President.
@@ernestbywater411 In practice, this is wrong. For instance, a head of state whose position is inherited is less likely to intervene, for fear of losing the inheritance not only personally, but on behalf of their future family and the institution they belong to. After all they are just a custodian to a tradition. An elected HoS has no such baggage and owes their position only to the voters and would be less fearful of exercising their responsibilities. So if your worry is parliamentary democracy ending up with a run-away dictatorial parliament/PM which might start to tear the constitution apart, a separately elected HoS would provide better checks and balances than an inherited monarch. And all this is assuming that the monarch is locally sourced, and part of the people. A monarch who is remote and not part of the people is convenient only for the political class: they get to run political systems with an HoS with constitutional defined theoretical and significant powers who nevertheless would never even think of using those powers. If these are parliamentary democracies, you end up with set-period rolling or alternating dictatorships punctuated by elections, or elected dictatorships. In these nations, the political systems themselves lack a set of checks and balances (nominally invested in an HoS who is as good as a piece of furniture). How is this problem solved in practice? Well the role tends to be quite awkwardly taken up by out-of-system forces such as the press, which itself is unelected and therefore non-democratic. A system that is openly designed to require out of system checks and balances cannot be regarded as an optimal system.
@@tt-ew7rx The actual intervention and level of intervention would depend a lot on the situation and the people involved. However, having the legal mechanism in place to allow for the intervention makes a heck of a difference to a situation where there is no such legal intervention capable. Having a head of state that isn't elected means they do NOT have to worry about being popular and being re-elected. While an elected head of state is likely to not rock the boat if it means they get to stay in power. Too often people get elected into power by offering the people free beer and circuses, then they don't deliver. However, once in office it's very hard to get them out again. As to an elected parliament or PM or both that went rogue after getting into power; that has happened to a number of countries during the 20th century, and we went through that in Australian in the 1970s. However, having the safety valve of the Monarch via the GG with the legal power to send the parliament and PM back to the electorate saved Australia at that time by sending them both back to the electorate. There are problem with whatever system is put in place, but any system that doesn't have a good safety valve option that's easily activated is just asking for the kind of trouble Germany had in the 1930s, and Russia had in the 1920s, etc.
@@ernestbywater411 You are right and I was not disputing this point, i.e. the safety valve. However, a safety valve is of value only if it is / can be activated. An inherited monarch in principle is only responsible for maintaining their inheritance, without legal obligations to "the people", and a foreign one is even more remote. Legally speaking, an elected safety valve is an in-system device designed specifically to act as such. You cannot argue that since some systems did not work you should then have systems that are not correctly designed in the first place instead.
I don't usually comment, but in so far as you've done a video about my country, I think I will. I think they are a few misperceptions in this video that could be potentially misleading, outside of the error pointed out by others on Guyana's flag, there is the perception offered that Barbados began Republic discussions recently. The desire for a Republic has been embraced by both major political parties. The DLP's founding father and father of independence Errol Walton Barrow was known to be extremely sceptical of the Queen. Her family perpetuated the enslavement of a majority of the islands population after all. It is therefore not strictly accurate to suggest that there isnt wide support for the Republic, the more nuanced discussion in Barbados since the British insisted on including the Head of State provision in Caribbean constitutions has been when is the right time. There is no legal requirement for there to be referendum on constitutional amendments in Barbados. This is a slight variation on the Caribbean Constitutions drafted by Whitehall for all of the then colonies, many of which require such referendum. The Government has chosen to focus National energies not on whether we should be a Republic, but on what type we wish to be. The next few years will be filled with discourses on how we will reshape the Whitehall constitution more broadly. I would also add that this has created discussions across the entire Commonwealth Caribbean, as we have deep rooted connections with all of our English speaking neighbours especially collaborating in many way like a Confederate, with regional education, security and hurricane response systems not dissimilar from the US system, which was how we were first intended to leave the British as independent nations. In fact, the founder of the BLP was the only West Indian Federation Prime Minister. I think this context is important when trying to understand the impact and motivations of how the region works.
Half of my fellow Canadians would like their government to refuse to accept Charles as their head of state when the time comes, and protests against the continuance of the monarchy in Canada will be massive. Let Elizabeth finish off her reign as the monarch who was the best, the longest, and the LAST!
Well, Canada is very woke too, your countryman will never accept Charles I mean he'd have to compete with Trudeau, I'm not sure Canadians have it in them to follow two wet drips lol.
Why does having the UK monarch as head of state trigger you so much? She has no meaningful power in Canada. As a Brit, the queen is a matter of total unimportance to me, I'm far more concerned with what the elected government does.
In a scenario in which Confederation dissolved, provinces east of the Appalachians would not be covered by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and would therefore have no legal reason to carry on with the monarchy.
No one is discussing the cost to change the actual crown. If it was another queen, then no issue but this is not the case. Take a military cap badge as an example. Canada needs to dump that shit now.
@@EASYTIGER10 We need a Canadian Head of State with a popular mandate to protect the constitution. The current limits of the G-G prerogative does not provide the monarch's stand-in to resist an abusive PMO, and we have seen many recent incidents in which our democracy has been trampled on by Harper and Trudeau! A popularly elected 'Chancellor of Confederation' could have a much more relevant impact on Canadian politics than a distant british monarch and her/his rep in Rideau Hall.
I'm English and not really a monarchist. But in some ways countries like Canada and Australia are getting a good deal. They get an incorruptible head of state who will never embarrass them, and not interfere in their affairs for free. The alternative is a political appointee who receives a salary. On the other hand; if I was a colonial, I would be saying WTF?
uhh no. Since they have a governor general anyway, there already is a political appointee who receives a salary. There isn't really any upside to keeping the monarchy. It's just more work than it's worth to get rid of it.
Incorruptible? I don't think so. Remember that annus horribilus a few years ago, and her phony,illegal court appearance? Wishfull thinking,sir. The whole family is an embarrassment to me and many others.
CORRECTIONS:
At 5:15, we somehow got the Guyanan and Ghanaian flags mixed up.
At 2:58, we claimed that Australia had a referendum in 2005 on whether to become a republic. The actual date is in fact 1999.
Apologies for both these errors, and thanks again to the audience for pointing them out. We've noticed a fair few comments on this video suggesting that the quality of our videos has gone downhill, and we have to admit, we've made more mistakes than we'd like in recent videos. We hope this is down to the fact that 2 of the full-time team are currently on holiday, so we expect the quality of the videos to pick back up in due time.
A fair few of you have also suggested that we should slow down our output, focus on quality over quantity. We know that the most important thing for any news channel is credibility, and we agree: in trying to maintain output with reduced manpower, we've apparently sacrificed quality, and we'll recalibrate output accordingly.
Anyway, thanks again, and apologies for any quality-related disappointment.
You’re doing fantastic work for the community, free of charge. Thank you for your work guys/ladies!
Keep up the good work, only outlet that's worth watching in my opinion, unbias and factual.
6:03 has a short loop/duplication, and at 4:05 the Royalty is missing an L..
@Aaron Snow Says the guy whose own comment is riddled with malaprops and grammatical errors.
November 30th was already Independence Day, so it's not a new holiday 😬
TLDR is getting a reputation for not fact checking enough. Almost every video has an error of some kind, not a complaint, the effort is clearly there you just need to employ a QA to look over the videos before release.
THIS.
This has been going on for so many fucking months despite many comments, and some of the QA failures are amateurish (one of the recent videos had a typo spelling Migrants as "Migrats", lol)
It's clear that they're prioritizing speed of video uploads, vs. accuracy & quality of it.
Tl;dr... They've picked their name well.
Cope.
nothing is 100% in politics. _"all the people all the time"_
@@spacecraftcarrier4135 I miss when they used to do quality content. 😭
That's why I mostly stopped watching.
YOOOO that aint Guyana XD that's the Ghana flag!
Oooof
Awkward
YOOO CANCELLED
L'apparenza in-ghana!
It wouldn't be TLDR if the video hadn't at least one subtle mistake in it.
I like the way almost all the comments aren't on about country ditching the queen but instead about the mistakes in the video.
I don't like it. I came here to discuss the future of the monarchy, not discuss how some referendum in Australia was in 1999 and not in 2005 smh
Hypocrites keep being a colonial check
You used the flag of Ghana instead of Guyana...
he said ghana though
@@Aerostarm: No, he said Guyana. Three syllables.
@@Aerostarm Ghana became independent in 1957 and Guyana in 1966. he said "The 70s" so may hint as well that they meant Guyana
I thought that was a fruit. But is Guava
Blame Brexit!!!!!!
Australia's referendum was 1999, not 2005.
They made that error too? As well as using incorrect flagship? Who is doing the fact checking at TLDR? I just wanna talk.. 😅
I like them but consistently making such basic errors while calling yourselves news is a fast way to lose your audience.
Cak news 🤣
Pretty much guaranteed that our next attempt will be not long after Lizzy carks it
@@priceprice_baby that's the policy of Labor and the Libs and has been for a while
@@nameisamine It's just a bunch of kids making RUclips videos
I’m from Ghana 🇬🇭 and I would get SO IRRITATED when white people kept saying I was from Guyana 🇬🇾 It’s a completely different country on a completely different continent! 😅
I’ve been watching this channel for years, but respectfully, who is doing “quality control”? Who is doing the fact-checking? They often make blunders like this and it used to be cute when it was a very small grass roots RUclips channel but this is a business now..with staff…and you’re also in the business of disseminating information. Respectfully, get it together, or stop calling yourselves ‘News’ because you’re consistently making basic schoolboy editorial errors, and it’s embarrassing to recommend your channel to others when you keep doing this. 🙈
also known as "a regular day for your average Austrian"
@@calimerohnir3311 how does Australians relate to this conversation at all? We’re talking about Guyana here.
@@maxdavis7722 I think you made his point for him lmao
but he said ghana and not guyana?
@@maxdavis7722 😂
"when the queen is replaced"
Queen: (scoffs in immortality).
She’s literary rotting before our eyes
lol
In Canada it's not a referendum. The change would require approval by the Houses of Parliament and all provincial legislatures. And nobody thinks that's ever going to happen.
It will once public opinion changes. And imagine a president as head of state who can actual USE his powers properly unlike the pretend head of state we currently have in Canada.
Why would Canada care to become a banana republic like the United States? God Save The Queen! 🇨🇦 🇬🇧
@@user-kc1tf7zm3b it's a double edged sword. Sure you have a great queen now, but if you had an Edward the second.. you couldn't just vote the guy out of office, you'd need to live an entire generation or have a revolution lol.
I get the idea of ceremonial monarchs for sure.. and maybe even if they serve as an advisor, but the problem with complete monarch rule is how bipolar your options can become, and how long they would last compared to an election every half a decade.
It is historical necessity that Canada and other former colonies become republics. There will be time even the British ditch the monarchy.
@@Camelotsmoon Everything is relative to the travesty of American political life, as proved to the world with the attempted insurrection of 6 January 2021. 🇨🇦 🇬🇧
This video's prediction is dumb since Queen Elizabeth won't ever die.
Reptilepeople are the worst, cut off their head and they just grow another one. And they love sunny islands.
Hope this post is still around in a few years
I give her 3-10 Years, but lets see.
@@Janoip More like 5 to 7 years at most. That is if she lives as long as her mother did.
@@Janoip they clone her..
"Your account 'QUEEN420' has been permanently banned from the server 'Barbados'. "
The Australian republic referendum was 1999 not 2005. Don't know where you got 2005 from since the republic referendum was also the most recent referendum held in Australia
... and they had another vote to keep the queen as head of state in 2005. Keep up old chap.
@@briumphbimbles literally didn't. That can't be done without a referendum and the most recent referendum was 1999. The only push even close to that time was Kevin Rudd promising a summit on the issue in 2008. Source: am Australian
@@TheDirtydogdisco02 I was sure it came up again more recently that 1999. Time really does fly.
Blame Brexit.......
Australia is a penal colony. again.
covid mandates is tyrannical rule
2:50 You forgot a big one: Ireland in 1948.
Also Jamaica is probably the most likely country where this will happen next.
They don't talk about that... Boris is still hoping Ireland will return to the UK 😀
@@octavianpopescu4776 Because Boris runs TLDR? What?
@@Red1Green2Blue3 I was referring to England in general... it was a joke... hence the smiley... not to be taken too seriously...
@@octavianpopescu4776 Sarcasm often doesn't translate well on YT, especially because there are countless gammons that genuinely think what you just wrote lol
@@Red1Green2Blue3 True, and it's true for written communication in general, it's hard to tell the tone... I was hoping the smiley would compensate.
Barbados has always had a national holiday on November 30 - at least since 1966. It is Independence Day. Disturbing as a “news channel” that you don’t do much research.
Hi, yeah they all like that now. Best checking your own facts, BTW congrats on getting rid of them. Well jealous Scot here. : ))
Canadian here. I Strongly support retaining the constitutional monarchy in Canada for two reason: 1) Culturally and politically we need to maintain as many differences we have with America just to maintain the status quo; and 2) Despite what you may first assume, First Nations strongly support the Queen because their pre-Confederation treaties and traditional rights are seen as recognised and defended by the (UK) Crown against the (Canadian) Crown.
Canada, Australia, New Zealand UK can have the same head of state and work together for prosperity!
Note: Australian republic referendum was in 1999 not 2005 (don't know where 2005 came from)
It came from Barbados originally planning to have a referendum on becoming a republic in 2005.
Jamaica isn't the only Caribbean country mostly all Caricom countries (that are part of the commonwealth realms) are discussing it.
Cool.
I bet at least some of these countries are waiting for Queen Elizabeth to pass before they decide to leave or not.
Not really-it only creates a buzz for a couple weeks then it’s forgotten again wmdf or a while
@@JM-oi9pk yeah, stuck your head in the sand, then get surprised later. Typical english exceptionalism apathy!
@@JM-oi9pk Why you are saying who cares? Clearly, it's a topic worth the discussion. Anyway, The matter for me is about a basic principle. The Head of the State should be a proud citizen of the country. When Queen Elizabeth vista foreign nations, the British anthem is played and the Union Jack is flown as she's introduced as the Queen of UK. Canada, Barbados and Australia's PMs and even Governor-Generals are deprived from the official ceremonial welcomes reserved for Head of States, because Q. Elizabeth is the Head of the state, and she doesn't visit nations under the title Queen of Barbados/ Canada/Australia and to advance their interests. That's all.
Sir, Barbados has had a national holiday on November 30, since 1966. It's called Independence Day 🥴
Another small correction- Canada’s doesn’t actually require a referendum to amend the Constitution Act. It only specifies that the amendment would require the support of the Canadian Parliament and pre-determined number of the Provincial legislatures; the number being determined by what exactly is being amended. In a hypothetical scenario of an attempt to remove the Monarch as our Head of State, this constitutional amendment would require the consent of Parliament and ALL legislatures (which would be quite a Herculean effort). Another avenue for amending the Constitution Act is the so-called “7/50 rule” whereby any proposed amendment would require the support of Parliament and seven provincial legislatures that combined make-up 50% of Canada’s population. This formula would, for example, be used for a constitutional amendment to create a new province or on changing the method of selection of Senators. In 1992, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did attempt to pass a package of constitutional amendments (known as the “Charlottetown Accord”) by way of referendum (despite it not being legally required) but this was defeated 55% to 45%. Since Charlottetown, some provinces have enacted legislation that requires constitutional amendments to be approved by referendum (*cough *cough Alberta- who recently had a referendum on a self-proposed constitutional amendment) but on the whole, there’s no official requirement for one and national referendums are exceptionally rare in Canada; only three have been held since confederation; 1898 on prohibition, 1942 on conscription, and 1992 on Charlottetown. Quebec has also held two referendums on the province’s relationship with Canada; 1980 on “Sovereignty Association” and 1995 on Sovereignty. Constitutional amendments are also much rarer in Canada than in other countries; the last being passed in 2011.
Splendid timing.
*RIP Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022)*
Why do some Commonwealth countries still retain a Constitutional monarchy after independence? Pragmatism - it provides some interim institutional continuity and stability. Other Commonwealth countries have been becoming republics for decades, though not always in the evolutionary way of Barbados and sometimes at the cost of post-colonial constitutional chaos.
Being part of the commonwealth, do they also have it easier flying to UK?
@@jouss955 Nope.
@@jouss955 Not really no, the commonwealth is fairly invisible to the people who live in it.
One small advantage to being in the Commonwealth is that it makes voting easier while travelling. I lived in Malaysia when there was a state election in New South Wales, and there wasn't an Australian Consulate near me. So I did a postal vote, but I needed either an Australian citizen, or a public servant from a Commonwealth country to sign my ballot envelope as a witness. Malaysia had a nationalised phone system, so I rang them to say my phone wasn't working, so they sent around a guy, and I asked him to sign my ballot. I told him I'd credit him for fixing my phone really quickly. 😁
In Canada it's to much work to remove. If we were to remove it we would need to open the constitution which is a really bad idea. So we just have it
Others have mentioned this, but this channel was supposedly founded on bringing good quality, honest and independent news.
More recently it feels like the quality is dropping and videos are being pumped out as fast as possible. Be careful you don’t dilute your brand! It would be a shame to have to find a new news source
Its the anti British, anti brexit channel. Not actual news.
Every episode there's some inaccuracy and I've noticed part of that is using biased sources without disclosing their biases - for example, using the result of public opinion polls from politically motivated think tanks.
@@theMoporter well done. This isn't impartial. It's left wing extremism. Bottom end of the political, brainwashed barrel.
@@theMoporter They make the BBC look good !!!!!
@@willmoore505 extremism? Would you care to ellaborate?
Honestly, the queen and the English crown in general have lost a lot of respect internationally in the last couple of years and if they really do nothing for a country, then make sense to take them out of any symbol of importance
they lost alot of respect in the UK as well too much of the crowns power has been used by the PM
@@graveperil2169 Let's be honest, most of that comes down to Harry and Charles. No-one really cares about William either way, but the Queen is actually well respected even by those who aren't necessarily pro-monarchy as one of the world's most experienced and capable diplomats.
@@jamtea573 the closing of parliament, the court cases, Did the PM lie to the queen?.
thats was all the news at the time but Boris did not lie he just ignored as the Queen is a just a rubber stump that the PM uses. Parliment, the Lords, The queen all have a role in keeping each other in check but some of them are not doing their job
@@graveperil2169 would you rather a figure that we can’t hold accountable or vote to replace have more power? In the 21st century having the position of head of state passed on through generations of a single family is just insane
@@jamtea573 you dont think randy andy has had an impact either?
The time for Kings and Queens, for Princes and Princesses, for Knights on gallant steeds, bunting and flags a fluttering in the gentle breeze is quickly coming to an end. Nothing is for ever.
You see I kind of disagree with this. A properly instituted monarchy, where the monarch isn't just a figure head and instead is there dictate terms when parliamentary procedures grind to a halt sounds quite efficient. The British monarchy however isn't this and is therefore functionally irrelevant.
@@schemage2210 It actually sounds totally undemocratic and insane.
Why should someone who’s born into power with no election and with the term limit being for their entire life be allowed to make decisions in government. It sounds pretty tyrannical when I say how it really is.
You used the wrong flag for Guyana!! You used Ghana’s flag which is = 🇬🇭 and Guyana’s flag is = 🇬🇾 - Come on guys, I really like your channel as well, but this is such a dumb mistake
1999 was the Australian referendum on a republic :/
I don't understand why tldr keeps doing minor errors and brushing it as if it's not a big deal, but if this is your way for people to comment and therefore boosting video in the eyes of the yt algorithm gods, i'm unsubscribing. This has gone on long enough, it's not even funny anymore. Please, quality over quantity. Most of us, if not all, will wait for you.
LOL what are you crying about?
No collapse whatsoever…. Barbados became a Republic just like some other commonwealth countries did before. The British Monarchy unlike many other existing royal families around the world, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Bhutan, Japan, Kuwait, Qatar and Belgium
have a very very different impact, effect and leverage. The fact that Australian, Canadians and New Zealanders armed forces take their oath of allegiance to the British Monarch is already a clear indication of how important it is. I had the privilege to serve (train including law enforcement) with them ….. This video is barking up the wrong tree 🌲
@CanuckOnAir - Point duly noted. As you mentioned the Sovereign is the same person, but yes Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada too.
This is somewhat of a clickbaity title; I'm not sure anyone thinks the collapse of the monarchy begins with Barbados
Somewhat? This is social media we're talking about. If the video isn't clickbait and strewn with elementary mistakes, it's not often found on social media.
It's wierd AND it's a good old-fashioned tradition: the two are not exclusionary. Since the role of monarch is 99% symbolic and ceremonial, it does no harm, and potentially a little good, to maintain the connection, as long as it's popular with the people. That last point is the only fly in the ointment with the Barbados decision: it would have felt better and more 'settled' if they'd had a referendum. As it is, it _could_ come to be perceived in future as the hobby-horse of one political party (I don't know enough about Barbadian politics to judge that though).
but when that symbolic and ceremonial is thousands of miles away it must make the ribbon cutting hard,
in truth it was the Governor that did most of the ribbon cutting and now she is president
Agreed
@@graveperil2169 I don’t live in a Commonwealth country, but ditching the monarchy probably makes nations feel more like they actually have ownership over themselves instead being linked to a nation that never really gave a damn about them
You say the weird thing is it be a constitutional monarchy, but the really weird thing is to change it.
The systems are functionally the same, except any concern the royal would actually interfere, which is nonsense, if you've fucked up badly enough to motivate such a colossal political statement, then their intervention is clearly a good thing.
An investigation by the Guardian back in February found that the Queen had used the power of Queen's Consent to get her finances exempted a transparency law that would have exposed them to public scrutiny. This power can be and indeed has been used for the royals' self interest
"but arguably the most interesting part of this..."
You can say that again.
Barbados got rid of the Queen and declared Rihanna as a National Hero. I see that as an absolute win.
Here in Sweden, older Swedes have grown up to adore Victoria, the Crown Princess of Sweden, since the day she was born. Now when her dad the King gets older, monarchists would like her to take over as soon as possible.
Monarchy is exalted despite it being seen as a relic of the past. In its representative function, institution is regarded as a non-political and thus non-divisive, and is considered great for Sweden as a trademark - bringing a lot of tourism. What would become of Sweden without its monarchy, people would ask.
Some believe that without the monarchy Sweden would essentially cease to exist.
As our National Anthem goes: "You are enthroned on memories of great olden days,
When honoured your name flew across the Earth"
Contrary to what a lot of people say, monarchs are efficient.
They are trained for their representative role since infancy and they represent the whole country.
How *did* Sweden evolve into a constitutional monarchy? I assume it wasn't like Britain were they had a decades-long brutal civil war, and at the end of it invited the monarchy back anyway :).
@@0w784g The monarch lost his last real powers in 1974 when the current form of government was established on democratic grounds - during the reign of the Social democrats. Prior to that the king did stuff like appointed the prime minister. The king was involved in everything according to the constitution. The speaker of the parliament took on a lot of the tasks that the king previously had pertaining to the parliament.
A country's ties to a bigger, stronger richer nation isn't a bad idea, maybe even a requisite. There's nothing bad about borrowed light. The British monarchy still has a positive reputation throughout the world. Go visit Buckingham Palace, they still garner tons of interest.
Most people outside of the commonwealth aren't even aware of the commonwealth as a concept. And having the queen on the currency doesn't solve any problems or even inspire tourism to those nations. It's not exactly productive in any meaningful way.
@@gentlemandemon Hell the Commonwealth isn't all that visible to people living inside it anyway, it's kind of a recurring thing I hear here in NZ that nobody really knows what it even does, if it does anything at all.
@@S3Cs4uN8 it primarily provides aid and financial services to the non dominion colonies if I’m not mistaken.
Come on, Canada, we could be a real democracy too. 🇨🇦
Or at least stop celebrating monarchy so much. No queen on the money, no swearing allegiance to her for citizenship or military or elected officials. Those changes require no immediate constitutional changes.
As am Australian aboriginal man I know me and my people find the union jack on our flag and the monarchy still being head of state to be offensive
Why?
@@0w784g I would imagine they see it as a symbol of the subjugation and mistreatment of their people.
"Offensive" is quite the understatement.
@@adamcrow1483 That's a vivid imagination you have then.
@@0w784g what else would it mean to the descendents of the people that had their homelands pillaged by the British empire over the years? You can glorify the days of Empire all you like but you don't conquer half of the globe by being decent human beings.
It's treason, then
You used the flag of Ghana instead of Guyana. What kind of news network is this? Poor quality. Double check your work!
Apparently using Google Image and typing in "Guyana flag" is too much work.
I don't know why South Africa wasn't mentioned. The country became self-governing in 1910, and a republic in 1961.
Never mentioned Ireland either.
@@dave3gan True!
Watching from Canada I was at my local legion drinking beer earlier and Her Majesty was on the wall strong as ever, bold as brass. Long may she reign.
I think the importance of symbols is being vastly underestimated not just by this channel, but by my generation in general. Yes, the queen technically does nothing so you might as well get rid of her. But at the same time, all of those countries share great economic and diplomatic ties and I'd say it has a lot to do with the queen being the head of state in all of these countries. Every country that removed the queen as the head of state saw a drift between them and the UK. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing, if what you want is more independence then by all means go for it but the fact that the connection of all of those countries through the queen is mostly symbolic doesn't change the fact that it does form a connection between them.
The Australian republic referendum was in 1999, not 2005. Sounds like to you got details mixed up with Barbados' attempts.
The line 'Australia voted to keep the queen' is also quite misleading. A dwindling minority of Australians want to keep a foreign head of state. The real reason the referendum failed is because more Australians want a directly elected president than one appointed by Parliament.
Canada may be the last country to abolish the monarchy since doing so requires unanimous consent of all 10 provinces plus the federal parliament. That is next to impossible to achieve since other interest groups would also demand their own constitutional amendments and the whole idea of opening up the constitution would collapse almost immediately
The matter for me is about a basic principle. The Head of the State should be a proud citizen of the country. Malcolm Turnbull changed my mind when he said "When Queen Elizabeth vista foreign nations, the British anthem is played and the Union Jack is flown as she's introduced as the Queen of UK". Canada, Barbados and Australia's PMs and even Governor-Generals are deprived from the official ceremonial welcomes reserved for Head of States, because QE2 is the Head of the state, and she doesn't visit nations under the title Queen of Barbados and to advance Barabados' interests. That's all.
Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality.
Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
Yeah, but there is already 9 of them that want her gone, only Ontario actually likes her.
I highly doubt that any of the 4 x Maritime provinces would agree to abolish the monarchy. They have strong loyalist roots & history. Also if we choose a replublic, who gets to be president? How round they be selected? By appointment of parliament as in Barbados? Or popularly elected like in France or USA? The devil is in the details, and the details matter. This is why the referendum failed in both Australia & St. Vincent. Ppl in Barbados were never given the choice by referendum and there is a lot of grumbling there about how this was done.
@@MichaelSmith-ub3ek Wtf are you on about? The queen is a figurhead, she never chose the Prime Minister. You can amend a constitution, it's been done many times. Canada's elections wouldn't change, it's political system would remain.
Honestly, I'd imagine one of the reasons so many countries still have the queen is the reason I'm not a Republican here in the UK: I'd rather some nice old lady was the nominal head of state than there be another position for rich corrupt politicians to fight over or sell.
What make you think she isn't corrupt 🤔. She is the establishment.
@@stevebartley8902 what are you referring to?
'Nice old lady'?
Such fantastic reasoning for supporting an institution that has no place in modern society.
I always thought of the Queen as a single unifying factor that holds a hugely culturally diverse UK population together. I'm Irish and live in the Republic with no direct affinity to the Crown 😉🤗 but fro the outside looking in she does seem to be the glue that unites Conservative, Labour and the parties in Wales and Scotland. I agree with you wanting a monarch as your country is so big and diverse you need a common unifying non political figure head to row in behind. (Unless you are Irish of course 😉 🤗🤗)
I was born and live in Canada. I don't really care about the queen. I only care what the government does and how much they tax us, jobs, environment,economy, health care etc Those are the most important to me.
From the UK but still don't really care about them either.
I know some UK friends they told me they care and some don't care and one of them complain about them. They said keeping them is waste of money or something like that. Now none of them want to return. There family phone them telling them to stay and not return for a long time. There is no future for them any more either.
Ironically the Queen is probably the biggest democratic protection that the UK has at this moment in time.
Hahahahahaha sure mate, you Brits are fucking hilarious.
It is not true to say that the crown does not interfere in local politics, by the way. All Australians know of the disgraceful case of the 1973 dismissal by the Governor-General of the Whitlam government. Correspondence recently released shows that Prince Charles was deeply implicated in the plot to sack the democratically elected government and acted as a conduit between Buckingham Palace and the opposition party that stood to gain from the change of administration.
Equally, Her Maj. was once scammed by a telephone hoaxer to show her hand in Canada's referendum to become a republic and surprise, surprise, she was all for interfering in local politics.
Down with monarchy.
Finally freedom for Barbados.
Good. Now, the rest of the commonwealth and the UK.
Monarchies are medieval. It's weird to keep this bizarre show going.
Republics are just BBC as old bad argument.
Sorry pal but you won't see it happen anytime soon
I can completely understand them. A friend who is from Barbados said " How is it Europeans from the Eu can walk into the UK but Bajans have to have a visa, and where the Queen is head of state." ???
Constitutional monarchies tend to be stable wealthy countries. Who doesnt want that ? Here in Denmark we have a queen and I cannot imagine how we would be able to get some elected head of state with an approval rating even close to hers. If she had some real political power I could see an issue,but she doesnt - thats not the function of the monarch.
I think the most political thing a European monarch did in my lifetime was when the Spanish king opposed the Faschists - was that a bad thing ?
You must ignorant or stupid. Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. That's all.
Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
Do you not think that places like Ireland, Iceland, and Finland have done just as well?
what type of clown would think a constitutional monarchy means a wealthy country? oh nvm found the clown.
The important factor there being, that the queen of Denmark is Danish. The ex-queen of Barbados was a regent from a foreign land far, far away.
Barbados: We're a republic now!
Queen Elizabeth: Surprised Pikachu face.
TLDR "The Queen doesn't interfere in politics", me ROFL!
Betty W appoints the Privy Coucil-the real govt of this island.
-Is it wierd the Queen still formally head of state in so many countries around the globe?
-It's called Stockholm syndrome...
5:15. Rwanda was never part of the British Empire and thus not on topic. They did indeed have an indigenous Tutsi led monarchy under the umbrella of the Belgium’s League of Nations mandate, then UN trust territory status of Ruanda-Urundi. The territory was split into the independent countries of The Republic of Rwanda and the Kingdom of Burundi in 1962.
It is true that somehow Rwanda joined the Commonwealth of Nations in 2008 after adopting English as an official language. This was due to the government having a fall-out with France (not Belgium), which likes to consider itself the police of French speaking Africa and many of the Tutsi speaking English after years in anglophone Uganda as refugees.
I, like others, have largely given up on TLDR, but I was looking at news on the Barbados republic story.
5:15, why on earth are you mentioning Rwanda? Rwanda has never been a Commonwealth realm. The Rwandan monarchy, which was a native monarchy under its own native kings, was overthrown in a violent revolution in 1959
As a Canadian/Former Englishman, it never ceases to amaze me that the UK continues to stubbornly and pompously endow themselves with greater global importance than it actually has. Frankly, it's embarrassing. In short, the world's moved on and the English play at keeping up.
Who cares? Honestly answer that question and you may get a modicum of respect that isn't drowned out by the derisive snickering at you. Cheers.
They had the power to do this for the last 55 years
Not sure it's all from Britain's end, note that many of the remaining commonwealth nations have poor economies etc.. There are financial incentives among others.
....err, I hate to do this to you mate, but...
- World's fifth largest economy.
- Home to two of the planet's five greatest universities.
- Birthplace of the train, the internet and penicilin.
- 10th most popular tourist destination on the planet.
- Originator of the world's lingua franca.
- One of only eight nuclear weapon owners on the globe.
That's just what a quick google popped up.
A lot of the jingoistic British imperialism / British exceptionalism attitudes just make me laugh now. Britain’s days as a global superpower are OVER. That’s not being negative, that’s not being mean, that’s not downplaying the country’s past industrial and economic achievements or institutions, it’s not discounting the legacy of its cultural exports, it is simply fact. I get second hand embarrassment watching the government’s attempt at playing the geopolitical chessboard as if to say “we’re still here, we’re still important, pay attention to us! We want attention!!!”
@@andrewtully3622 Hate to do this to you buddy, but California's the 5th largest world economy and that's just one state. Don't get me started on the tiny land mass that's New York. Swallow your hurt pride and indignation. Your embarrassment counts for naught at the moment. Have a good day.
The House of Windsor came into being in 1917, when the name was adopted as the British Royal Family's official name by a proclamation of King George V, replacing the historic name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The UK monarchy is German, not exactly the truth Ukippers and Numpties want to hear.
As are the residents, descendants of Angles and Saxons.
@@Meowth666 yeah but Philipps too was german nobility^^.
inbreeding was and is a trend in european nobility
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 isn’t it off to call them all German because there was one marriage with a German family which changed the name? Like they are still related to previous monarchs, it’s not like this is a new family. I never understood how it’s really German.
@@Meowth666 Oh no! Looks like xenophobia and jingoism are a rich mans trick. lol
@@maxdavis7722 well they are direct descendants of one of germanys families from high nobility that married into the UK royal family, practically taking them over.
The royal family name changed to the House Sachsen-Coburg & Gotha, wich was again changed to Winsor to appease the british public in WW1 (nobody wanted a german descendand King in the UK). This lineage was reinforced with Philipp, who is of german descent (House Battenberg & House Oldenburg, both from Germany).
Prior to the house of Sachsen-Coburg & Gotha the House of the hannoveranian Welfen ruled the UK (again a german family)
I think that holding onto Canada's royalist past is one way of emphasizing our unique heritage. 🍁
@PatchesRips Huh? Canada has their own head of state. It just happens to be the same one as some other realms. Big deal.
@@monkberrymoon4042 an old British woman is your head of state. Embarrassing.
@@byblispersephone2.094 Well, she's not my head of state. But for purposes of this discussion, it's probably more accurate to refer to her as an old Canadian woman.
The queen's the most popular person in Britain because her majesty's a pretty nice girl but she doesn't have a lot to say. But the heir has been expressing himself for the past 50 years. Likely to be more republics in the next reign.
Well, there's certain advantages with a constitutional monarchy which is if there's a lot of political divide there can still be a figure too stand behind.
The president can also fill this role, as they do in many countries. It doesn't really work if the president also wields a lot power in domestic policy, but that's probably a bad idea anyway.
@@ozzyp97 A lot of republics try to replicate the unifying role of a monarch with a ceremonial president, but it almost always fails. The very nature of a president as an elected office makes it political, and means it’s almost always filled by either an active or retired politician, usually of significant prominence. Not exactly very conductive to neutrality and unity.
@@LordDim1 Some presidents are better and others worse at this, but that's equally true for some monarchs. I don't think King Charles is particularly popular, for instance.
Where I'm from (Finland), it's customary for the president to formally surrender their party membership, and that in combination with no direct say in domestic policy has been reasonably succesful. I mean, our current president has recently enjoyed 90% approval by some measures, that's pretty solid even if I don't think it's quite the whole story.
@@ozzyp97 Those sorts of presidents tend to be in an extreme minority and far between however. And King Charles is actually pretty popular, has around a 75% approval rating I believe
I’m Aussie and I hope that Australia stays part of the Commonwealth and the monarchy.
I’m very proud of my British heritage.
Oh my, so southern gammon is a thing
@@eleSDSU what do u mean
@@Make_Australia_British_Again look up "Brexit gammon" mate. You surely are well in tune with your Brit heritage as a most gammon are lol.
@@eleSDSU my grand father is English, so 🤷♂️
@@Make_Australia_British_Again So? There's no need to be proud of fucked up shit.
I'm Canadian and I like the Queen, she reminds us of our UK roots. And makes us more distinct from the US.
Do you believe that all people should be treated equally under the law? If so, how do you justify keeping the monarchy. If you do not believe in legal equality, what criteria for discrimination are acceptable? If you support monarchy, you believe that certain people should have more or less legal rights based on hereditary class. Is legal discrimination based on race or gender acceptable as well? Why or why not?
Canada is the Hong Kong of The US, sooner or later it will be handed to it's rightful owners just like Hong Kong return to China in 1999
I support the monarchy in Canada and New Zealand simply because there's no value in wasting time and money concocting a replacement. What powers would any President have? How would they be selected? Never mind. Not necessary. Further, I've never heard an argument for a republic that wasn't an appeal to ego / emotion. There are no practical reasons to change.
You are joking, right? How would they be selected? Seriously?
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod Seriously. What are you expecting? Then look around the world and see how Presidents are actually selected. You may find it interesting.
The fact that the people didn't have final say should be extremely worrying. Yes, mp are elected by the people, but for some things so important like this, the people should have final say. It sets a worrying precedent for the future. "Why have a referendum on voting reform? We didn't do that when removing the royal, so we're not going to do that with this"
They didn't get to vote for the new president either!
It's good news and more should do it.
it practically financialy and militarily it suits these countries to do so and when it doesn't suit them anymore they will kick her out like the rest have.
They can still remain in the commonwealth park without the monarch as head of state
🇦🇺 Because ERII is far less hassle than another politician
They say Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't collapse in a day either. Empires collapse slowly and this is what we are seeing, the collapse of an empire.
This is really the very tail end of the collapse of the British Empire. It's just getting rid of one of the last vestiges of it.
Britain hasn't been an empire anymore for over 50 years now.
@@MrMighty147 Certainly wish the British would realize that too
@@maesterchris2120 there isnt really empires anymore tho, no country is the remotely close to the power, control, and size that britain and spain possesed at their peak
@@aaroncousins4750 the power and control of the little man hasn't changed though eh....
There's a big error in your video with respect to Canada's Constitution. There is no formal requirement for referenda for anything. There is a formula that has a representative minimum that needs to achieved for constitutional amendments.. But at no point is a referendum required.
It's worth remembering that in Australia they didn't vote to keep the monarchy they voted against the pseudo republic that Barbados just installed. Every country should have a president that is elected by the people rather than parliament otherwise there's no point
Doesnt this create a conflict? When the head of the government has a different party from the lower and upper house?
Can you describe what is _pseudo_ about the republic Barbados just voted for? Or, alternatively, what was _pseudo_ about the republic that was proposed for Australia?
As far as I can tell, it was a parliamental democracy with a strong parliament (so kinda like Germany or Austria) as opposed to republics with strong presidents (like France or the US), but neither qualifies as "pseudo republic" in my books. But I don't know enough about the 1999 referendum in Australia, so I'm willing to learn...
If the president has any real power, you are right. If its just ceremonial, it doesnt really matter.
I disagree. What you are debating is parliamentary system vs presidential system. A completely different debate from republic vs monarchy.
@@Mike-kn9ge Australia operates a Parliamentary system with a majoritarian lower house and a proportional upper house. Forces the government to compromise to get legislation passed, without forcing formal coalitions to be created.
The Republican referendum here in Australia fell apart because the pre-republicans split over if Australia should have a nominated President similar to what Barbados now has or an elected President similar to the USA
It was a clever strategy set up by the monarchist Prime Minister - he deliberately set up the "Eminent Persons Committee" to fail. They had televised debates from the floor showing chaos as various models were put forward and "debated" by very large egos, with no one in real control.
That meant that when it came time for _the actual referendum,_ the Republican movement had just had a very public knock down drag out fight, where they criticised each other's favourite model.
If instead the Republic referendum had just gone ahead on the basic question of _"Should Australia become a Republic?"_ it most likely would have passed.
And if David Cameron had used the same trick for the Brexit referendum - having all the high profile brexiteers have a public debate where they have to put up _what sort of Brexit they want,_ and the Hard brexiteers and the soft Brexit crowd throw shoes at each other …
Well, then Britian would still be part of the EU and Cameron may have even still been PM, and the Tories Eurosceptic wing would be far less powerful.
There is other forms of Republics you know. Germany, France, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Argentina, Guatemala, South Korea, India, Russia, Poland, Italy etc are app Republics and Republics aren't all the same the USA is only the first modern day Republic
@@Steve-zc9ht What do you mean by other forms of republics?? The examples of countries you gave doesn't have similar systems. Germany & Italy have Parliamentary systems, while South Korea and Mexico have systems similar to US.
Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. That's all.
Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
@@casbot71 (1) That trick wouldn't have worked on Brexit. The failures of the EU was driving the debate and the EU refusal to give David Cameron any crumbs or concession is what sealed the deal. Meanwhile, in the Aussie Republic debate, there were nothing marginally different from switching the system. It's not like it will change trade or Immigration policy or fiscal policy...etc. It was a matter of principle. Should the head of state of the country be a proud citizen of it, or a foreigner??
(2) Australia is influenced immensely by US more than UK. This is why for a weird reason, they couldn't made the easy solution of making the Governor-General the "President" or just adopting Governor General as the title for the Head of State. ♠️♠️ Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom. That's all.
Hence, for countries other than Britain, I do support their moves to have one of their own as a head of state.
@@hus390 Rather then the "British National Anthem" it's more of "An Anthem for the Monarch" so it makes every bit of sense for God Save The Queen to be played in a commonwealth country since she's the Queen of all of them. For us (British), the thing closest to a national anthem is Rule Britannia but formally adopting that would create a huge hassle because for some reason a lot of snowflakes decided that the song was about slavery and not freedom. (Also the fact that we don't really rule the waves anymore but that is a minor issue)
Who does the fact checking before the videos because you got a flag wrong and a date wrong.
It's highly disingenuous to keep saying "the Queen doesn't use her powers". Not directly, sure, but it's her Governer-General that decided to cause a constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975, and we have the letters that prove her office had been aware of this plan for months. She didn't legally admonish him or even replace him. Saying that *she* didn't do anything as a reason to maintain a monarchical sword of damocles is misleading.
So your argument for why she does have power and interferes is...
She knew about something. But didn't interfere.
Genius.
@@danielwebb8402 Er, yes. That's what the governer is. The queen gave him the power when he was appointed, he showed the queen what he wanted to do, then he did it. She didn't tell him not to and he received no reprimand for it. Her power was exercised with her full knowledge and she didn't disagree with its usage. His job is to do her bidding.
I think they deliberately make errors in their videos since they know multiple people will correct them in the comments section, and more comments means more interaction with the video which pushes it up in youtubes algorithm
That was a big school boy error using the Ghanaian flag 🇬🇭 for Guyana 🇬🇾 🤦🏿🤦🏿
I don't think TLDR will care; they've been doing more and more gaffes recently.
The Queen being head of state is a good safety measure if you end up with a dodgy Prime Minister
Not really, because you’ve still got a dodgy Queen. Better to give that power directly to the people, not a pedophile colonialist.
@@dark_messiah8183 Queen Elizabeth is not dodgy in the slightest
@@dark_messiah8183 they will still be in the Commonwealth and the Head of the Commonwealth is Queen Elizabeth
@@jammiedodger7040 an unelected woman whose wealth is in large part made up from the spoils of colonialism, including many stolen artifacts, is not dodgy to you?
@@dark_messiah8183 All the artefacts in Britain and all the Royal buildings are own by the British people and they get there money from tourists the only problem with her is she is not British
This is the first time I'm really disappointed in you guys. The Guardian insta post was more insightful than this video. You didn't mention at all that former colonies like Barbados are trying to get reparations for the atrocities Britain committed and reconnect with their African heritage. It's not some meaningless move. Coming from young Brits that's concerning.
I've been disappointed by TLDR implicitly favouring First Past the Post voting in several videos about elections in other countries. I've voted in FPTP and proportional representation elections and BY FAR, as a voter, some form of PR is the better system. The UK itself suffers endlessly from government after government the majority did not vote for. No thanks.
@@SteveWithers Thats not at all relievent to the comment you are replying to :/
but yeah fair enough
Fun fact. Trinidad & Tobago is a republic but uses the London Privy council as it's highest court.
Good job, hopefully the UK can throw off the monarchy as well!
You really don’t understand how the uk works 🤣🤣🤣
@@tarateom probably alot better than you'd think, considering that I'm British.
Granted the monarchy would likely have to dissolve itself, but that's unlikely with our current queen who is very popular.
@@samthompson7568 do you agree that jacobites are true successors of britain and not windsors?
IMO monarchy is less about imperialism and more of a relic from a bygone era. Europe and the rest of the world were dominated by monarchies for most of history, some just lasted longer than others. Coincidentally Britain is one of the few countries that didn’t suffer from revolution during the 1800’s and 1900’s in large part because of the unique circumstance of parliament’s power rivaling the monarch’s. I believe the reason why the the British monarchy is still around is merely a result of tradition, culture, and a degree of luck
The unique situation you speak of was created by multiple wars. They physically wrested power from the monarchy. And gave it to themselves. Once they had a bit of power they increased their gains over the years until we have what we have now.
Here is the first definition of Revolution :
1.
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.
Long live the Queen of Barbados: HRM Rihanna
I feel like having your own monarch as a long term stable figure helps with international image, and national unity. especially if you have a monarch who has no real powers to abuse, but is active in charity work and public image building.
In my opinion if you're gonna have a completely powerless leader then might as well not have one at all
but the british King/Queen has formal powers but only chose not to act upon them.
Another King/Queen might just do so and involve himself/herself more actively in politics.
There is no proper safeguard against the King/Queen making politics again
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 you are correct, however the last time totality tried hard to get involved with politics regularly was probably over 200 years ago.
@@freetime5803 That's definitely valid, but just because they have no active roles or powers doesn't mean they don't have passive benefits. They give people something more tangible than a flag and more stable than an elective leader to rally around when times are tough. Then there is the cost argument, where math shows that countries tend to roughly break even on the cost of maintaining them vs the tourism and merch.
Nicely said. Although I do think there are issues I personally view the Royal family as more of a safety valve, hopefully stopping a individual from gaining too much power and authority
Is the monarchy collapsing? I SURE HOPE SO!
By british no but by international all monarchies again no and by barbados then yes sorry bud but there's ain't gonna be another french style revolution happening plus my country georgia is more into becoming constitutional monarchy than something else plus removing monarchy on a country which its culture depends on is worst plus even if colonials stop being monarchy i doubt britain will do so
The reason why they still have the queen is that they enjoy watching her dress up like a skittle
Barbados has many structural issues poised to jeopardize its future. The amount of money that country owes three Canadian commercial banks alone is staggering. The skeptic in me can’t help but think that plotting to ditch the Monarchy was a convenient distraction for the public discourse in Barbados to distract from the substantive issues facing the country.
I’ve been there many times, there is crime, garbage everywhere , many people unemployed, the rest living paycheque to paycheque. The only good news for the people is this issue is over and there is no hiding from the hard work to make people’s futures brighter now. When this government can’t deliver watch them lose a future election, that’s my prediction!
Which country or island do you know that doesn’t have crime. So all streets are littered with garbage. People are walking through garbage then. Rhianna was standing in garbage when she received her honors.
Can you name a country that is not in debt?
Yes l live there and yes you 100% right but almost every counrty has those issues.
Thank God. The rest of our countries should follow.
Non Commonwealth Nations: Are you sure about that?
Let’s hope Scotland is next.
even the SNP still want the Queen as head of state so I don't think a Scottish Republic is happening any time soon
@@benbezuidenhout626 The SNP don’t have any plans to get rid of the Monarchy but hopefully we will have a referendum on whether to keep it or not a few years after Independence.
@@gordonewan144 the monarchy is a non-issue, it matters incredibly little in every day life. there are more important things to have referendums about
Wouldn't SNP choose the Jacobites since they where scottish decent?
Fact checking: in Canada there is no legal obligation to hold a referendum on constitutionnal change. It may, depending on the kind of constitutionnal change, require one, many or all of provincial legislatures.
Welcome to the club, Barbados! 🇧🇧👏
Love from Ireland! 🇮🇪
I worked with a woman from Barbados years ago. She told me they don't say "Barbadian" they say "Bayjian" (not sure of the spelling). Rolls off the tongue a bit easier - two sillybubbles instead of four!
Bajan.
I have never cared for the monarchy (an Australian speaking) and wasn't old enough to vote in that 2005 referendum. I mean, what is the actual benefit of it at this point? If it has no functional purpose and only serves as a gatekeeper for potential change, then be gone with it.
It does serve a purpose, it provides a nonpartisan head of state and constitutional guarantor. This video really overlooks the actual constitutional power of the monarchy in the realms, and the role of the Governor-General. The King/GG holds pretty vast, very important constitutional reserve powers which can be utilised in emergencies. For instance the veto of legislation, dissolution or parliament for a new election, dismissal of a government, command of the armed forces, and appointment of certain important nonpartisan officials. It is vital for these powers to remain in the hands of someone not connected to any political party, especially not the government, because they’re there to keep the government in check.
In Australia this became readily apparent in 1975. The Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, had his budget voted down by parliament repeatedly. In the Westminster system in such circumstances the PM is supposed to either resign or ask the Queen/GG for an election. Whitlam did either, trying to stay in power in contravention of constitutional norms, and making Australia hurtle towards a devastating government shutdown. The Governor-General responded by dismissing Whitlam as PM and dissolving parliament for a new election, which resulted in a landslide Liberal victory.
Likewise in Tuvalu in 2013 the PM tried to stay in power after losing his parliamentary majority, and went so far as to try to block parliament from sitting, to avoid a formal no confidence vote. The Governor-General responded by dismissing the PM and appointing the opposition leader, who now had a parliament majority.
Having a Constitutional Monarch has no affect on the day to day running of the country. However, having a Constitutional Monarch provides a protection against a rogue President or rogue Prime Minister in that the Monarch can call an election when the rogue PM / President doesn't want it to happen and thus they can be ousted. Without the Monarchy the rogue PM / President can turn the country into a dictatorship, as has happened in a number of republics in the last 100 years.
Hogwash!!! The Monarch can't call any elections without direct order from the PM/Parliament. Queen Elizabeth wouldn't dare to do so. Other wise it's a mediaeval dictatorship again, by monarchs who nobody elected. So your entire assumptions are based on false information. ⚠️ Who told you the head of the state has to be a politically active figure? Look at Germany Italy, Israel, India..etc. They are Parliamentary democracies. I don't have a problem with constitutional monarchies. But for countries that have a foreign head of state (like Australia, Canada, Barbados...etc), it's perfectly normal to want to have a Head of State of their own nationality. When Queen Elizabeth visit foreign countries including Canada and Australia, the British anthem is played, British flag is flown, and she's introduced as the Queen of United kingdom.
The matter for me is about a basic principle. The Head of the State should be a proud citizen of the country. Canada, Barbados and Australia's PMs and even Governor-Generals are deprived from the official ceremonial welcomes reserved for Head of States, because QE2 is the Head of the state, and she doesn't visit nations under the title Queen of Barbados and to advance Barabados' interests. That's all.
@@hus390 Under the Australian Constitution the Monarch does have the RIGHT to call an election against the advice of the Parliament in many situations. Back in the 1970s we had a Prime Minister who was looking to violate the Constitution, and if we'd NOT had the Monarch as the final Head of State to send the Parliament back to the people for a vote the PM of the day would not only have violated the Constitution but would've completed the deals that would have been an act of treason. Since then we've had a Republic movement grow and push for a republic where the President under the proposed system would be in a position to make themselves a dictator if they wished to, due to the nearly impossible method of forcing them back to the people. The fear of a Republic set up like Germany had in the 1930s is what had a lot of people voting against it each time we've had a vote on the issue.
A benign foreign Head of State is much better than a dictatorial local President.
@@ernestbywater411 In practice, this is wrong. For instance, a head of state whose position is inherited is less likely to intervene, for fear of losing the inheritance not only personally, but on behalf of their future family and the institution they belong to. After all they are just a custodian to a tradition. An elected HoS has no such baggage and owes their position only to the voters and would be less fearful of exercising their responsibilities. So if your worry is parliamentary democracy ending up with a run-away dictatorial parliament/PM which might start to tear the constitution apart, a separately elected HoS would provide better checks and balances than an inherited monarch.
And all this is assuming that the monarch is locally sourced, and part of the people. A monarch who is remote and not part of the people is convenient only for the political class: they get to run political systems with an HoS with constitutional defined theoretical and significant powers who nevertheless would never even think of using those powers. If these are parliamentary democracies, you end up with set-period rolling or alternating dictatorships punctuated by elections, or elected dictatorships. In these nations, the political systems themselves lack a set of checks and balances (nominally invested in an HoS who is as good as a piece of furniture). How is this problem solved in practice? Well the role tends to be quite awkwardly taken up by out-of-system forces such as the press, which itself is unelected and therefore non-democratic. A system that is openly designed to require out of system checks and balances cannot be regarded as an optimal system.
@@tt-ew7rx The actual intervention and level of intervention would depend a lot on the situation and the people involved. However, having the legal mechanism in place to allow for the intervention makes a heck of a difference to a situation where there is no such legal intervention capable.
Having a head of state that isn't elected means they do NOT have to worry about being popular and being re-elected. While an elected head of state is likely to not rock the boat if it means they get to stay in power. Too often people get elected into power by offering the people free beer and circuses, then they don't deliver. However, once in office it's very hard to get them out again.
As to an elected parliament or PM or both that went rogue after getting into power; that has happened to a number of countries during the 20th century, and we went through that in Australian in the 1970s. However, having the safety valve of the Monarch via the GG with the legal power to send the parliament and PM back to the electorate saved Australia at that time by sending them both back to the electorate.
There are problem with whatever system is put in place, but any system that doesn't have a good safety valve option that's easily activated is just asking for the kind of trouble Germany had in the 1930s, and Russia had in the 1920s, etc.
@@ernestbywater411 You are right and I was not disputing this point, i.e. the safety valve. However, a safety valve is of value only if it is / can be activated. An inherited monarch in principle is only responsible for maintaining their inheritance, without legal obligations to "the people", and a foreign one is even more remote. Legally speaking, an elected safety valve is an in-system device designed specifically to act as such. You cannot argue that since some systems did not work you should then have systems that are not correctly designed in the first place instead.
I don't usually comment, but in so far as you've done a video about my country, I think I will. I think they are a few misperceptions in this video that could be potentially misleading, outside of the error pointed out by others on Guyana's flag, there is the perception offered that Barbados began Republic discussions recently. The desire for a Republic has been embraced by both major political parties. The DLP's founding father and father of independence Errol Walton Barrow was known to be extremely sceptical of the Queen. Her family perpetuated the enslavement of a majority of the islands population after all. It is therefore not strictly accurate to suggest that there isnt wide support for the Republic, the more nuanced discussion in Barbados since the British insisted on including the Head of State provision in Caribbean constitutions has been when is the right time. There is no legal requirement for there to be referendum on constitutional amendments in Barbados. This is a slight variation on the Caribbean Constitutions drafted by Whitehall for all of the then colonies, many of which require such referendum. The Government has chosen to focus National energies not on whether we should be a Republic, but on what type we wish to be. The next few years will be filled with discourses on how we will reshape the Whitehall constitution more broadly. I would also add that this has created discussions across the entire Commonwealth Caribbean, as we have deep rooted connections with all of our English speaking neighbours especially collaborating in many way like a Confederate, with regional education, security and hurricane response systems not dissimilar from the US system, which was how we were first intended to leave the British as independent nations. In fact, the founder of the BLP was the only West Indian Federation Prime Minister. I think this context is important when trying to understand the impact and motivations of how the region works.
Half of my fellow Canadians would like their government to refuse to accept Charles as their head of state when the time comes, and protests against the continuance of the monarchy in Canada will be massive. Let Elizabeth finish off her reign as the monarch who was the best, the longest, and the LAST!
Well, Canada is very woke too, your countryman will never accept Charles I mean he'd have to compete with Trudeau, I'm not sure Canadians have it in them to follow two wet drips lol.
Why does having the UK monarch as head of state trigger you so much? She has no meaningful power in Canada. As a Brit, the queen is a matter of total unimportance to me, I'm far more concerned with what the elected government does.
In a scenario in which Confederation dissolved, provinces east of the Appalachians would not be covered by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, and would therefore have no legal reason to carry on with the monarchy.
No one is discussing the cost to change the actual crown. If it was another queen, then no issue but this is not the case. Take a military cap badge as an example. Canada needs to dump that shit now.
@@EASYTIGER10 We need a Canadian Head of State with a popular mandate to protect the constitution. The current limits of the G-G prerogative does not provide the monarch's stand-in to resist an abusive PMO, and we have seen many recent incidents in which our democracy has been trampled on by Harper and Trudeau! A popularly elected 'Chancellor of Confederation' could have a much more relevant impact on Canadian politics than a distant british monarch and her/his rep in Rideau Hall.
I'm English and not really a monarchist. But in some ways countries like Canada and Australia are getting a good deal. They get an incorruptible head of state who will never embarrass them, and not interfere in their affairs for free. The alternative is a political appointee who receives a salary. On the other hand; if I was a colonial, I would be saying WTF?
You think Governors-General are free and not corruptable?
uhh no. Since they have a governor general anyway, there already is a political appointee who receives a salary. There isn't really any upside to keeping the monarchy. It's just more work than it's worth to get rid of it.
Incorruptible? I don't think so. Remember that annus horribilus a few years ago, and her phony,illegal court appearance? Wishfull thinking,sir. The whole family is an embarrassment to me and many others.
@@borisgalos6967 Yeah so what makes a President more qualified.
@@natenae8635 Appointed or elected by the people of the country and responsible to them without mixed loyalty,
I don't think that the British Empire existing symbolically is quite as weird as France's still having an empire de facto but not acknowledging it
Uk and Barbados will still remain allies, it’s just the queen won’t be head of state anymore. UK x B!!!
Sorry on what basis should you make such an assessment?
Probably the first monarchy to become a republic since Nepal, which made the change in 2008.