Ever since the notorious Whig party, and her revolutionary platform, liberals have always embraced the very notion of constitutional reform and the democratic defence of Britain. The modern paladin of liberalism, Nick Clegg and his colleagues, must now take up the challenge and argue the formation of a British Republic.
The Monarchy is old-fashioned, undemocratic, unrepresentative of society, and lumpen. Prince Charles’ ambition to be a “political Monarch” not only violates the constitutional monarchy, but undermines the sovereignty of Parliament. Labour’s administration remains silent, as Prince Charle damages construction projects, and contradicts government health and environmental policy. Monarchists need to understand the concept that no member of the Royal household can give a public political opinion. It’s against the constitution.
To declaim the monarchy, and advocate its removal, is still a political taboo. But the threat of King Charles III should be challenged, especially if this individual is proclaiming the introduction of a political king. Britain cannot afford to turn back 400 years of reform by refusing to question the accountability of the monarchy.
Ask to see Her Majesty’s accounts or even the financial status of the Duchy of Cornwall? Notice the wall of silence and the refusal to announce basic, fundamental details. The public expressed deep anguish and antipathy towards Members of Parliament and their expenses, but what about the royal family?
As the world descends and travels into the catastrophic circles of economic chaos, globalisation seems vulnerable and suffering from nationalist rhetoric. With a growing centralised global economy, with major intuitions – such as the World Bank and IMF – is it time for the United Nations to overseas global economic and financial responsibility?
This is not a winsome notion, we are reaching the next geopolitical evolutionary steps for our civilisation and global federalism will eventually creep its way on to the international stage. Of course, the general public of the United States will be hostile to any bureaucratic institution that is …
Ever since the formation of a political union in Europe, the Continent has battled between liberalism and socialism (or left vs right) – the argument was mainly based around economic reform. This problem still persists today, with France resisting the free market approach and Germany unwilling to restrict trade union power.
France and Germany, at first, rejected any Anglophile influence within the European Union and rejected the economic liberal stance of Britain. It is difficult to understand or justify the positions Europe once took, especially over the Chinese arms embargo, which the EU wanted to end. But Europe is now starting to adopt liberalisation of markets, and is building an ethical foreign policy, stronger military partnership, and abandoning plans to maintain the Chinese arms embargo.
This experiment is now 27 members strong, and recently expanded to create a Mediterranean Union within the current system. However, the Mediterranean states do have access to the European market, and vice versa, because a minority of the Mediterranean members wanted to join the European Union but were denied access on the grounds of not being “European”. So the EU created a union within a union.
It is difficult to predict if the Mediterranean Union will work; Turkey, after all, still wants to join the EU. The misfit and unorthodox transition has put Europe in an uncomfortable position within the world and the new Union is located in uncharted waters; the Middle East process has been inadvertently placed into the hands of a nervous, yet powerful cabal.
Those former left-wing pioneers who founded the neoconservative movement in Washington should not be treated like war criminals or fathers of the ‘new imperialism’. In fact the doctrine should be welcomed and supported by us liberals.
We liberals believe in a society based on liberty, justice and a constitutional government, whether it is in are own country or abroad. But we have struggled since Iraq to maintain the common principles following the Liberal Democrats’ vote against the war. And to hear Nick Clegg at the last conference shun “neo-con wars” was almost unbearable to listen to. Why criticise foreign intervention or …
