[Errigal]

My argument against the British monarchy is that it does not do its job. Like the president of a republic, a monarch is supposed to act as the final arbiter in serious national disputes and to act as a force of continuity and stability for the state. Ideally, parliamentarians and prime ministers may be petty and corrupted politicians but the monarch or president has the character and dignity to inspire loyalty in the military, judiciary and police. Clearly the British monarch does not perform that basic task.

There is an atheist joke that says "a religion is just a group of people with the same imaginary friend". Well, that may not be fair of the religious but it is fair to say about modern British monarchists. There may as well be any empty chair in Buckingham Palace for all the good she does.

When I saw in the news Lord Goldsmith had a proposal to promote "Britishness" I thought of my own suggestions. If Queen Elizabeth II had done her job and stopped the Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith himself) from aiding Tony Blair's illegal Iraq war then there would have been an enormous boost in "Britishness". Having the monarch actually do the job she is paid for - rather than act like a postal clerk who just rubber stamps anything left on her desk - would have restored some confidence in the 70% of the UK population who did not want war.

Not giving out peerages to "Goldsmiths" would help too.