By Ben Kerrigan-
The Conservative party’s deputy chair, Lee Anderson, has called for anti-monarchist campaigners should emigrate rather than use their right to free speech to protest against the coronation of Charles III.
Tory Anderson, a British political commentator and columnist, made waves in 2021 when he wrote an op-ed calling for anti-monarchists to leave the United Kingdom. His argument was that those who oppose the monarchy and want to see the country become a republic should go live in a republic, rather than trying to change the country they live in.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Anderson’s main argument is that anti-monarchists are not a significant enough constituency in the UK to warrant a change in the country’s constitutional system. He claims that the majority of the British people support the monarchy and do not want to see it abolished.
He argues that anti-monarchists are attempting to impose their views on the majority, which is undemocratic. Anderson believes that anti-monarchists should either accept that the monarchy is here to stay or leave the country and move to a republic.
The comments followed the arrest of a number of demonstrators at the king’s coronation, including Graham Smith, the chief executive of the country’s largest republican pressure group, Republic, which was formed in 1983.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
Polls consistently show that a majority of Britons support the monarchy and believe that it has an important role to play in the country’s political and cultural life. Secondly, Anderson’s argument is rooted in democratic principles. He believes that the will of the majority should be respected and that minorities should not be allowed to impose their views on the majority.
However, Anderson’s argument also has weaknesses.
His call for anti-monarchists to leave the UK ignores the fact that many people who oppose the monarchy still feel a strong sense of attachment to their country. They believe that they have a right to participate in shaping the country’s future, regardless of their views on the monarchy. Secondly, Anderson’s argument assumes that the constitutional status quo is sacrosanct.
But the UK’s constitutional system is not set in stone and has evolved over time. The fact that the monarchy has existed for centuries does not mean that it should continue to exist indefinitely.
Furthermore, Anderson’s argument overlooks the fact that many people who oppose the monarchy do so for various reasons. They believe that the institution is undemocratic and undermines the principles of equality and fairness.
Some opponents of the monarchy also believe that the monarchy is an outdated institution that has no place in a modern, democratic society. For these people, leaving the UK is not a viable option, as they feel a deep sense of attachment to their country and believe that they have a right to work towards changing it for the better.
Anderson’s argument is fails to consider the wider implications of his call for anti-monarchists to leave the UK, sine many of those people are born in the Uk, and have a right to reside in Britain.
Yet, he has a valid point in that if they don’t like it, they can leave. Especially as their argument will not stop Prince Charles being king.
Yet, it is also important to engage with their arguments and try to find a way to accommodate their views within the wider political system.
Furthermore, Anderson’s argument could be used to justify a range of exclusionary and discriminatory policies. Adopting such views are problematic.
If we accept the principle that minorities should leave the country if they disagree with the majority, it poses valid questions on where we draw the line. Should Muslims leave the UK if the majority of Britons are Christian?
Lee Anderson’s view is well intended and premised on an objection of the level of protests against the monarchy.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar