“The debate point is not whether “Commonwealths” are undemocratic but that Puerto Rican independence advocates actually claim that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is “undemocratic” while conveniently ignoring the fact the voters of Puerto Rico could vote themselves independent whenever they so please.”
That is such a stupid arguement. Just because something has evolved, i.e as in a monarchy, or on occasions even a dictatorship, it does not mean it has a democratic mandate or credentials.
You don’t like in the UK, and you don’t live under a monarchy. If you think sending your tax money to unelected leaders/heads of state is democratic then you oppose the very principle of democracy and of in your own country conservatism of the fiscal variety which strongly opposes that sort of thing.
“Can the voters of Great Britain, through their democratically elected representatives, vote themselves a Republic of Great Britain if they so choose?
Yes or no?”
Yes they can - they could also choose to vote in a dictator who kills jews and starts wars with our neighbours.
It would have a democratic mandate - but in reality, would what we ‘elected’ be democracy? No.
Did British voters elect this in the first place? No.
“The entire Anglo-Saxon tradition of common law, where the law is refined by judges and a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases was never voted on democratically for each individual ruling. The system is there by tradition.”
Our system depends on tens of thousands of laws, passed through our democratically elected parliament. I don’t quite see what point you are making here.
“If any ruling violates the collective will of the people in a democracy, the people are free to elect representatives that will specifically legislate the point and will appoint Judges who support that particular point of view.”
The judges have a duty to follow the law, even when it perhaps even disagrees with them. A good example of this conflict currently here is over setencing - judges are passing tougher sentences - they don’t seem to like it.
“Although the British monarchy, as our American common law, has come down through tradition, as I pointed out in Post 55,the British people, through their democratically elected representatives had an opportunity to choose between the Queen and your position.
Your position did not muster the required democratic support.
Your position lost, democratically.”
Wrong.
That was never put to a vote in the first place, so no it didn’t ‘lose’, because it was never given the chance to.
Once again, I have never claimed a majority wouldm oppose the monarchy, I accept the majority do according to every poll, HOWEVER if you have actually bothered to read my posts and pay a poster that single courtesy you would have gathered enough information to know that has never been my point which is strictly confined to ‘monarchy’ which is basically an UN ELECTED head of state - something every real democratic would oppose.
That is such a stupid arguement. Just because something has evolved, i.e as in a monarchy, or on occasions even a dictatorship, it does not mean it has a democratic mandate or credentials.
Non sequitur.
Your thinking is so concrete that it is obvious that trying to debate with you is a waste of time.
So, let me simplify things for you:
You want a Republic of Great Britain?
Get the majority of the British electorate to agree with you. After the next democratic election and after the time necessary to pass the required legislation, it will then be so.
Simple as that. Good luck.