The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland- A British Political Timeline

[Orchard]

The Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Since the death of Diana and the notable lack of reaction from the royal family, republicanism had been on a rapid rise in the UK. In October 1998, a BBC poll suggested that more than a third of the british people wanted the abolition of the monarchy. The following March, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he “Would let the people decide the future of the monarchy” with a referendum set for that November. Whilst most pre-referendum polls were showing a moderately close race between the monarchist and republican sides, the republican camp already noticed a drastic shift in public opinion when the first results started to come in. With Scotland and Wales having already been expected to have voted in favour of abolishing the monarchy, various rural areas in England and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly by almost more than 15% to abolish the monarchy. Monarchists began to realise their side had lost, but the republican majority celebrated all throughout the night until Prime Minister Tony Blair officially announced the beginning of a new nation. Whilst Blair had lukewarmly campaigned for a republic, the monarchist side suffered from a lack of a proper figure head other than the Queen, who did’t campaign at all. Now the Queen is reportedly preparing to leave Windsor Castle to board a flight to Canada, and Mr Blair has already signed all constitutional documents establishing a Republic within the British isles.

Blair would announce that the positions of Sovereign and Prime Minister were to cease to exist and were to be replaced by the President of the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Prime Minister of the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

What causes such a huge change in British public opinion?

 

[Duke of Hamilton]

I just don't see how public opinion could change that cardinally within a year.

 

[stodge]

I doubt any British Prime Minister would campaign for a republic - at best, Blair would be neutral. The Conservatives would be overwhelmingly pro-monarchy and Labour split which would cause Blair political issues.

Such a referendum would be a huge boost to the revival of the Conservatives after their election thrashing in 1997. I could imagine parts of Scotland and one or two areas of urban England voting for a republic but not the country as a whole.

Even if they did, I doubt the Queen would fly off to Canada immediately - what's more likely is an agreement she would abdicate at a defined point and the country would then become a Republic (January 1st 2001 perhaps).

I'm also sceptical of Britain using the title "Chancellor" - it's more likely we would follow the Irish model of having a non-political ceremonial Head of State elected perhaps every five to seven years. The parties would agree not to run political candidates but they could support one or more Independent candidates.

 

[Enigmajones]

I have a hard time believing that the Unionists in Northern Ireland would support republicanism.

 

[Lalli]

I can't see how Diana's death could cause such drop over favor of monarchy. And Blair hardly is going to do that. There would be much of opposition for that. And things went quiet rapidly anyway. You would need much more events to damage monarchy enough that people would want abolish that. And probably some earlier POD too.

 

[Sarthak]

Even in the worst times of the monarchy in 1990s, their support never dipped below 65%. You will need something very radical to get the public to swing.

 

[BetterCallPaulson]

What about the Commonwealth countries?

 

[Sarthak]

Also, the Ulstermen in Northern Ireland are going to be going nuts.

Mann, Channel Islands and the Shetlands are going to be seriously thinking about their future, and the Crown Territories are going to be seeking foreign aid immediately. Yeah......monarchical situation in GB is more than just simple unlike how many people believe it is

 

[nezza]

Its an interesting idea but flawed in practice. The Queen isn't just the head of state she's part of something intangible and intractable from the country. The uproar over their reaction following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997 was considerable but I don't think the state was in danger of collapsing.

 

[Orchard]

What causes such a huge change in British public opinion?

The Queen doesn’t respond to the death of Diana at all, leading to a Republican sentiment being established. With more Republican campaigning and feelings running a bit too high they are just able to squeak the 66% mark.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The Queen doesn’t respond to the death of Diana at all, leading to a Republican sentiment being established. With more Republican campaigning and feelings running a bit too high they are just able to squeak the 66% mark.

The Queen does less than OTL but that produces a bigger reaction? Diana just wasn’t that popular. I mean, she was popular, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t think she was able all on her own to turn public opinion so comprehensively. After all, as recently as 1997 there was a TV debate about the Monarchy. Although it pre-dated Diana’s death by seven months, the figures in support of the Monarchy are strong.

Going from wiki:
In January 1997, ITV broadcast a live television debate Monarchy: The Nation Decides, in which 2.5 million viewers voted on the question "Do you want a monarch?" by telephone. Speaking for the republican view were Professor Stephen Haseler, (chairman of Republic), agony aunt Claire Rayner, Paul Flynn, Labour MP for Newport West and Andrew Neil, then the former editor of The Sunday Times. Those in favour of the monarchy included author Frederick Forsyth, Bernie Grant, Labour MP for Tottenham, and Jeffrey Archer, former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party. Conservative MP Steven Norris was scheduled to appear in a discussion towards the end of the programme, but officials from Carlton Television said he had left without explanation. The debate was conducted in front of an audience of 3,000 at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, with the telephone poll result being that 66% of voters wanted a monarch, and 34% did not.

 

[pjmidd]

Federal Chancellor fails on two grounds , first Federal needs the country to have been turned into a federation of states as well as a republic which you have not stated happened and second, Republics can have Prime Ministers ( Portugal , France etc ) so picking a German term is just strange ( total vote loser as it would be spun that he is under Foreign Influence ) .
As others have said going from 65% minimum pro Monarchy to 66% pro Republic needs a heck of a bigger POD than the death of Princess Di. Getting Charles to step down from the line of succession might be plausible but nothing really more.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

I just don't see how public opinion could change that cardinally within a year.

I am a British Republican , andfor a short time thought Dians's death would be the first step on the road to a republic. That lasted about a week when the first keeing cries wre heard at the funeral. I doubt there will even be a vote on removing the monarch in my lifetime, although hold out hope the youngest royals, especially Wills & Meghan, will do their best to bring the whole thing crashing down (Uncle Andrew already hard at work).

 

[Orchard]

The Tories were in a less than enviable position in 2000. The chaos of the election in 1997 wasn’t too long ago and the Republic Referendum was a disaster for the natural party of government. Blair had high approval ratings and, according to polls, Hague was failing to win over the electorate. With elections set for the first Thursday of May to decide the first President and the next Prime Minister, Hague had initially intended to run for President, but was convinced to remain as parliamentary leader to allow a more popular figure to challenge Blair. However when Michael Portillo he instantly became the front runner in front of previously declared candidates Ken Clarke and Michael Ancram.

Conservative Chairman Micheal Ancram was formerly a one nation tory, but had shifted to the right since the referendum and had heavily aligned to Hague afterwards. Despite his warm nature, Ancram failed to pander to working and middle class families and heavily would rely on upper class, traditional voters to claim the nomination.

Ken Clarke ran on a heavily pro-EU platform, alienating the euro-sceptic wing of the party. Having served as Chancellor of the Exchequer under John Major, Clarke had returned to the back-benches after failing to become party leader. Despite his low profile in the last 3 years, Clarke was unable to stand out of the shadow of his failed leadership bid in ’97, yet many saw him as able to win back voters off of Labour and the Liberal Democrats and had a loyal following.

Clarke was notable as the most centrist candidate in the field

Michael Portillo had initially been on the right of his party but by the time of the 2000 Presidential Primaries, had a softer brand of Conservatism. His policies were divisive, but remained comfortably ahead of both Clarke and Ancram. However, a 1999 interview of Portillo admitting to bisexual tendencies in university “Damaged his chances” according to Clarke. When it resurfaced, Portillo never regained the enormous lead he once had and found himself on the defensive.

Portillo was always the front runner

When the results came in, Portillo had won a decent and undisputed victory with 54% to Clarke’s 37% and Ancram’s 8%. In his victory speech he thanked his supporters for the support they had shown throughout the campaign and promised a vague brighter future for Britain. The victory was expected and he had won on the first ballot, but it was an underwhelming experience for Portillo.

Speculation as to who Portillo’s running mate would be began almost immediately afterwards. Whilst initially Ken Clarke was offered in an attempt to balance the ticket, Clarke refused, again wanting to lie low over the next five years. Ancram was considered but was dismissed as too traditional and attackable. Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Howard, Tim Yeo and John Redwood were all shortlisted. Redwood had fallen out with Portillo over his challenge of Major’s leadership in 1995 so was unlikely and Yeo was relatively unknown at the time so was glossed over. In the end Portillo invited Howard on to the ticket. Whilst the party didn’t feel like it was too much of a unifying ticket, Portillo defended him as the best man for the job.

Howard Campaigning for Portillo​

 

[Catsmate]

I have a hard time believing that the Unionists in Northern Ireland would support republicanism.

There are perhaps a half-million of them at this time.

Also, the Ulstermen in Northern Ireland are going to be going nuts.

Except the ones who don't support the monarchy. About half the population in '98.

 

[Orchard]

The Liberal Democrats had been led by Paddy Ashdown since their foundation in 1988. However Ashdown, who had intended to resign in August 1999 but decided to hold off until politics was stable again, declared he would not run in either the Presidential or Parliamentary elections.

The parliamentary leadership election was rather unpopular with many wanting to become the first Presidential candidate instead, with the feeling that the new institution would favour them. Regardless only two faces opted to run. Charles Kennedy and Malcom Bruce were only really divided on whether or not they should form a parliamentary pact with Labour if a hung parliament was produced, with Kennedy more eager and Bruce slightly more sceptical. With a surprisingly low turnout of Lib Dem voters, Kennedy comfortably became the next Liberal Democratic Leader.

The race to become the Presidential nominee was more crowded with Simon Hughes, Steve Webb, David Randall and Jackie Ballard all throwing there hats in the ring. The first round saw Hughes fall short of the 50% mark, with Randall beating Webb for second place. With Ballard eliminated whilst backing Hughes, and Webb pulling out to endorse Randall, the second round saw Randall underwhelmingly losing to Hughes.

In his victory speech, Hughes thanked all of his supporters and congratulated Randall, who by coming second became the Vice Presidential nominee as per party rules. There was much hope within the Liberal Democrats that Hughes‘ left wing position would capture Labour members dissatisfied with Blair, who had no opposition in claiming his party’s nomination.

Hughes and Kennedy were polar opposites within their party​