Regarding the graph at 4:10, I would say that the primary factor here is not monarchy/republic, but on internal and external political situation. In case of Latvia they might want stronger EU due to defence, in Romania, Italy, due to internal problems and possibly external pressure.
@@themonarchistchannel Problem is, campaigns can only get you to some 50%. We better just keep talking, louder and louder, until it becomes normal. Once it's normal, the mass will come on it's own, because just about everyone is sick of the current regime.
@@themonarchistchannelAnd you need money if I had it had it I’d back monarchist causes….well in Portugal at least Not trying to bankrupt myself by funding em across Europe
Lack of money is something that kills many organizations when they start. Money should not be something you think about and the max investment you should have is the shared cost of the registration of your grassroots with the government (split with other founders). Money is something you need when you want to promote something. In terms of grassroots or even any campaign, you need it to cover things like rent, materials, various expenses etc. From my experience, you don't need money. It matters who you are: what you stand for, why you stand for it and what will be the benefit for wider society. When I speak with monarchists and want to see if their organizations will stand a chance, I ask them about this: how will monarchy benefit society? What do you want to do. Once we pass the usual lines of "continuity, national identity, stability" and I ask the next "how" the discussions stop. Once you figure out the benefits to society in depth (and this needs to be tailored to each society differently), then you can start thinking about how to get to them. what actions to take. And this is where we come to next big problem. Where money talk kicks in. We all experienced various campaigns and they cost millions. Presidential races for example. As alternative, (just an idea, there can be other): - once you figure out what you stand for - Create organization that is not so vertical in nature, but horizontal. and get them to know their neighbourhoods. - make small wins. - once you have small wins you can start thinking about a little bit larger ones and think of fundraising for those. -Step by step, and growing support for the idea in your community will open up many new doors for you.
The issue I see with the EU is that it can't continue in it's current form in current world, as it has only very limited capabilities regarding defence and foreign policy. I have seen several people comparing the current situation to USA during era fo articles of confederation (not to be confused with with CSA of 1860's) during their early years. In my opinion we need to find some way how to transfer certain responsibilities from members to some central authority. Those areas in my opinion should be defence, foreign policy, possibly fiscal policy, other areas should then have some authorities that would facilitate coordination in other sectors like transportation and so on. As well it should have some mechanism that would protect free single market as it seems like countries are finding various ways how to create non-tariff barriers in the single market. EDIT: typo
I would be strongly opposed to a monarchist party. In the immortal words of King Henri V: "I am not a party". A king is not a party, supporting monarchy is not partisan. Unless you believe you can get over 80% support, don't do it. Much better spend your time building NGOs promoting our heritage and educating about monarchy.
Many think that is the way. In my opinion and experience we need both. NGOs for general grassroots and royalists in all political parties.Royalists that make cross-party caucus who are not ashamed to step up and advocate for what they believe in.
Should we be really following a quote from a time where political parties as we know em today weren’t even a thing and from a pre enlightenment era where monarchism was the norm . It’s wise to remember nowadays it’s the republicans today who invented the game and to win we must play it if you’re serious about getting anything done , we must adapt with the times much like how the republicans when the norm was Monarchy adapted and turned our system against us , we must do the same .
I think with single, constitutional matters like this it is generally more effective to form pressure group rather than a party. As you say, a political party brings along with it all sorts of other baggage; you can't run only on restoring the monarchy, you have to have an economic policy, an environmental policy, etc, and whatever that is will inevitably end up alienating somebody who would otherwise agree with you. Monarchism isn't a huge movement, even if it has fairly solid public sympathy, so one would need all the allies they can get.
While individual EU states might have monarchy or endorse it's restoration. The EU itself is founded on republican values, their ultimate aim is to create a European version of the USA and as such, I personally endorse BREXIT and all other efforts to exit and dismantle the EU.
I think arguable overreaches of subsidiarity are best explained by applying some of Edmund Burke's defences of monarchy. Burke argued that a strong monarch, far from being a threat to liberty, was in fact the best guardian of it. A monarch whose power was without question, whose position was entirely secure, would have no need to intervene in day to day affairs of politics. The European Union can well be argued to be the opposite of this. The question of monarchy aside, the central government of the European Union is extremely weak. It cannot raise taxes or take credit, it has no armed forces, and its legislative power is considerably constrained by the treaties. Adding to this, nationalism has a strong hold over Europe to this day. The European Union as an institution thus has a constant need to prove its relevance and ensure its continued legitimacy. This is entirely different from the legitimacy of a particular government. A party may gain or lose popularity and win or lose elections, but the state of Germany or the state of Sweden will never be called into question as a worthless institution to be dismantled. The question for the Union is thus not merely political, but existential. Exacerbated by national politicians, the public generally expects solutions to their problems from the European Union, even when the European Union is legally incapable of providing solutions, while at the same time being unwilling to change the system such that the Union would have the tools to resolve said problems. Worse yet, subsidiarity is entirely a one-way street. In principle, subsidiarity also implies that issues which should be taken care of at a higher level are taken care of at that higher level, yet defence and foreign policy remain stubbornly national. At the same time, member states have no issue consolidating power in their capitals, so subsidiarity is a hypocritical excuse used to concentrate power from both above and below to the nation states. In practice this often means that even when necessary, power is not granted to the Union, or it is done too late, and even then it is too little. The Union is thus inherently, pardon my French, half-assed. The problem with this is that it makes it also inherently unstable and the Union must skirt the rules not only to prove relevance, but merely to function. It is an open secret that the favourite hobby of the ECB to justify why their monetary policies are in fact completely necessary for the upholding of price stability as per their mandate, and that the favourite hobby of the court of justice is to see what the ECB pull out of their asses before accepting their reasoning. The thing is though, if they wouldn't we might see economic collapse, so there really isn't another choice. For the Union to function in a truly legalistic manner, it must first have a functioning, soveriegn legal basis. Even a feudal state has more security than Europe, because while every landed noble may claim a degree of sovereignty in their own right, may tax their lands and raise armies from them, potentially plot to overthrow the king, at the end of the day the king himself also has lands and properties, also collects taxes and finances armies, and is sovereign in his own right. At the end of the day a king also has legal rights over his subjects and treason is a punishable offense. The Union has no real way to bring rebel princes to justice. To come back to Burke, I would dare suggest that if the Union had a constitution which made it an indisputably sovereign entity and if supreme legislative authority rested with the European Parliament, there would be considerable delegation to member states on all sorts of matters as a matter of sheer practicality. Especially because the central government would know that it could always take it back and that its role was completely secure, thus it would have to go to no special lengths to prove itself, and could also gain appreciation for autonomy. For another feudal comparison, the pride of European states today comes to a great extent from an idea that they are sovereign by right and owe nothing to anyone. By contrast the landed nobility of old didn't so much have rights as they had privileges. They had privileges, in return for responsibilities. They had been granted land, and they owed fealty to their liege for that. Often we say that sovereignty derives from the masses, that it has to do with democracy, but it really doesn't. If it did, as per liberal ideology, then there would be no problem with a European Federation, after all it would make up a polity of democratically represented citizens. In reality sovereignty is understood to derive from a nationalist premise instead. It is a convoluted and inherently hypocritical approach and I will be the first to say that the nation state experiment should have died in the 19th century, but for now it survives. If the liberal premise survived, uncorrupted by nationalism, I would not complain, but the nationalist premise I have little respect for. At that point it seems much better even to go for a monarchist premise, where sovereignty derives from the sovereign, and is delegated downwards to ministers, to parliaments, to states which thus as a matter of principle owe their existence and service to the sovereign. Nationalism seems simply to be the worst of all worlds, the pettiest, most tribalistic and barbaric basis of a society, lacking either the nobility of a citizens' republic or the order of an enlightened monarchy.
@@themonarchistchannel I think many of us are remaining somewhat silent as we aren't sure what would happen if we started protesting our Republics. I mean, I've received my fair share of insults for being a monarchist and there are still many people who haven't totally warmed to the idea of a Monarchistic Revolution. I think a big reason as to why that is is because people conflate monarchy with Feudalism and Absolutism. I personally support either a semi elective monarchy like the HRE, or a traditional semi constitutional monarchy. I think this very well could lead to civil war in some countries, though I believe a return to the monarchy is necessary if Europe is to survive or maintain its identity. That or just become a corporation like America. All of this aside, I've noticed a large amount of popularity rising within the monarchists and that gives me a lot of hope. I think if we continue to grow and rise in popularity, we'll be able to form a proper representative party within the EU. We Monarchistics all need to be united in working towards this goal. If we can get even one country to revive its monarchy, I'll say we've proven to the world that the age of kings is not over
If there were to be a monarchist EU party/group that advicated for a federal, United european kingdome/empire, it would be interesting to see who they'd champion as king/emperor. Or maybe it'd go back to the old HRE election of one curent sitting monarch who'd rule for a term or life
I think the EU makes sense as an economic and geopolitical alliance that fosters cooperation between states, but not as a state in itself, cause for this the individual states would have to give up their souverenity something they will likely never do.
After everyone leaves the EU except Germany and eastern europen nation states, Habsburg Empire should be revieved. Balkan orthodox states can split and revieve Byzantium. Putin brings back Russian Empire. Boys are back in town!
National monarchism is popular in group young people that came across it it's ideology composed of ethnic nationalism, monarchism, national conservatism and elements of socialism
I’m a monarchist but my position is simple my focus isn’t one of a nay of yay to a federal Europe I’m a against the EU itself existing And I see the whole “ Europe of nations “ concept at best silly and at worse a cope because I don’t see you can call yourself a nation when 70% of your laws aren’t made within the borders of your country are made by people who don’t speak your language or have anything in common with you or even set foot in my country, or when you don’t have borders or even a currency.
Being the monarchist, we are not so alienated by foreigners at the top. For many reasons, some of them being divine right. For example, House of Braganza traces their roots in Capetian dynasty long time ago. But true, monarchies (unlike centralized republics) tend to have subsidiarity principle, and when they did not, their monarchs soon realized they should (as seen in history of Hungary and Habsbourgs) The question I left out from this video is: "Would you support the transformation of the EU into a confederation of sovereign states under a monarchical system, similar to the Holy Roman Empire (9th - 19th century)?" I wanted to probe what people want. - Do they want federal EU? - Do they want the organization that we have today? - What about monarchy uniting sovereign states? - How do they evaluate effectiveness of the office of the President of EU (commission) - How happy are they with effectiveness of the system they have in their own country (did the dream / myth of Republic work after 100 years of implementation?) Also to see this per country, per age group. We need data to understand what people want, how they feel etc.
We are all Europeans. Why should a Catalan accept Spanish Authority if almost every single law is made in Madrid? That type of argument is absolutely retarded Not to mention... if 70% of laws are made in the EU... than why do you even need national governments? What do they do for you that the EU doesn't do. Who implemented regulations against Apple and big corporations for example? Who implemented measures aimed at protecting European industry and commerce? It definitely weren't national governments. All Europeans share the Romano-Greek legacy, from Lisbon to Ankara and to far away Iceland. Our laws, our institutions, our culture and even our mentality derives from that legacy. The EU has been the one carrying the continent forward, and if Europe was to be a nation, we would be the worlds biggest superpower, unmatched by anyone, even America and China combined. Any say otherwise is absolutely ignorant and retarded
I don't really like the idea of countries vying for independence just for the sake of being independent. If that were the case then there would be no nation states in this world as every nation state started by smaller tribes and city states formed through conquest to become a nation state. But it does not make sense especially today to have so many small countries each with small economies and living on the bare minimum. We need something like an empire for order and to drive us forward. People have this wrong idea that empires always form through subjugation and conquest when that is not the case. It can form through a mutual consensus.
One of the poll questions was alternative to federal EU basically: Would you support the transformation of the EU into a confederation of sovereign states under a monarchical system, similar to the Holy Roman Empire. results will be in one of the upcoming videos
@@themonarchistchannel Perhaps an HREesque state of affairs, where each country would have it's own king, but would recognise the Austrian emperor as first among equals. He could have a special court for arbitration between states, unlike the corrupt ECJ, and strive for consensus. If EU was actually founded on values, real consensus would be far easier to achieve.
@@sempersuffragium9951 No, that would not work, the EU must remain suitable for both republics and monarchies, thus we must rule out any hereditary head of the EU and as well we must not tie the head of the EU to any imperial crown, as the EU would not be just heir to HRE, but to all empires that had existed on territory of the EU. As well the final form would depend on how the EU would be transformed, as, as I have pointed out in different comment, It can't continue in it's current form. If the head fo the EU would be just or mostly ceremonial, then it can be rotated every year or two or chosen by other heads of states for few years (and as well impeached if they would decide that the current head fo the EU is failing in it's duties). Regarding some court of arbitration, It could consist either of heads of states or their appointed representatives, with different rules for monarchies and for republics. E.g. while appointed representative of monarch could serve indefinitely, representative of elected head of state would serve just for duration of it's mandate.
Eu having less power? Eu have no power at all at the moment, look at Orban LMAO, at this point if people want a weaker EU just disband it. Make it stronger, we need each other. Hungary is already a monarchy we have a king that does what he wants and has his friends in high places.
Do you consider that EU power is only seen when they make you do things you don’t like, and not as part of agreements? Hungary seems to like subsidiarity and that is part of EU principles. Having centralized decision making would go against subsidiarity principle. In Hungary, like in rest of EU, EU legislative power is broadly implemented through the harmonization of national laws with EU regulations and directives, impacting sectors from environmental policy to consumer protection and trade. And even trivial things such as connected caps when you buy soda.
@@themonarchistchannel yes I do consider that , I love the Schengen area and I taken part of Erasmus and multiple EU projects so far, I like what the EU is doing, our food is much better quality than in the USA etc etc. I just want the EU to be more heavy handed. My country sadly actively goes against the EU making voting (with in the EU) almost impossible and representing the needs of Putin and the CCP. Even tho Im a centrist a heavy handed EU with a EU military would be much better. I see the good things that the EU is doing I just think they should do even more. If Hungary would like to join the EU today they would not let us join. There is no freedom of press, there are billboards with the face of Ursula von Der Leyen saying we need to stop Brussels.
If I understand, you would like centralized EU with decisions made at higher instances, with state only implementing them? Are you sure that solutions that are better fit for Madrid would work in Budapest? Or the ones good fit for Pecs but not for Bordeaux. Is it going to make lots of resentment and dissatisfaction across the board? Sounds like Union of sadness. PS all things Hungarians advertise happening in Hungary, also happen in other countries. Norway as example, being least corrupt. Google bomringen and how suddenly spouses of politicians are owners of those companies. Or Stoltenberg and how his properties are setup.
@@themonarchistchannel I think he is just using heavy handed in bit strange, way, but perhaps he wants EU that is able to better enforce compliance with it's own rules and that is able to act more readily to external threats as current system is quite ineffective in this regard.
As a Belgian, I have to say that the idea that our monarchy is somehow better than a democracy and therefore we don't want more power to the EU is laughable. Our monarchy is largely symbolic and only really has power when the country is in a state of war as commander and chief of the military. Even then I doubt that this is even a lot of power, since he will still have to listen to the parliament and constitution. We're a parliamentary monarchy, so the difference with a traditional republic is quite small. If there's any desire for less power to the EU it will largely because of frustration with endless bureaucracy and red tape. For which our politicians always point to EU guidelines forcing them to do it, when they notice the rules are unpopular. Belgium has enough issues and is very divided on linguistic grounds that makes the Dutch-speaking North and French-speaking south and capital to dislike eachother quite a lot. Belgium is far from a paradise and it's always facing legitimacy crises with a big portion of its own population. Please stop using my country to prove a point that's not applicable to it or learn more about its history and current affairs.
Result for support of constitutional monarchy in Belgium is interesting, and one of the upcoming videos will be on it. And is more-less aligned with what you wrote here.
4:32 - cherry picked af, from what i see poland, a republic is most or second most anti EU powergrab. While country that you claim are the most against are pretty much in the middle. Cooking the data to fit narrative is cringe. Even if narrative is nice.
Not cherry-picked. All countries included. Will publish individual countries at later stage. Your personal feelings and observations from your point of view (and/or your circle of friends) is not statistically relevant
Anti-Eu powergrab? Poland eats up a good chunk of EU subsidies and despite the rhetoric, if you mention leaving the EU to polish politician they will quickly shut up. Poland is one of the strongest pro eu countries to ever exist.
