SpankyMcFarland

Australia has gone a step further, requiring all parliamentarians to have renounced foreign citizenship. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Australian_parliamentary_eligibility_crisis I think that’s a bit too far but I would like to see such a law applying here to the head of government, Cabinet ministers and the GG. There would then be a clear line for parliamentarians to follow.

So classy. Of course, before any silly accusations of bias occur, my modest suggestion would apply to politicians of all parties. Australia has gone a lot farther down this road already.

Of course it has something to do with it. Who cares about the loyalties of random internet loons like ourselves? The head of government is a different matter entirely. There should be a law ensuring that the head of government is a citizen of one country, Canada. That is so obvious I’m surprised I even have to say it.

Try and be a LITTLE classier. You’d be happy for people with any citizenship as PMs of Canada?

There is no law, you mean. What I am saying is that there SHOULD obviously be a law to prevent this potential conflict of interest.

Dear God. It doesn’t need to be specifically spelled out ‘in the constitution’. Any fool can see that it is necessary for ANY country. Go serve your foreign masters.

And they are all party leaders vying to lead Canada, yes?

What are you talking about? This rule should apply in any country worthy of the name. If you want to serve America, go there and do so.

If you’re running for PM or want to be the GG, then your loyalty to Canada alone should be beyond question. No party leader should be a dual citizen. Scheer was filing US tax returns so he was fully aware of the potential problem here. To say nobody asked him about it adds to the embarrassment Conservatives should feel over this.

Any leader of a federal political party should only have Canadian citizenship for obvious reasons. I’m surprised by Andrew Scheer still having US citizenship and giving such a lame excuse for being in this embarrassing position: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/conservative-leader-andrew-scheer-is-a-dual-canadian-u-s-citizen

Johnson’s ridiculous last minute offer is no way to conduct such serious negotiations. It very much looks as if he wants the EU to turn these proposals down which it may have to do given the time constraints.

Despite all the noise about the backstop, the new Northern Ireland secretary knows little about Northern Ireland and is not included in a key Brexit committee. https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ni-secretary-lacks-clout-in-brexit-debate-38536836.html While NI voted Remain by a clear margin, the Tories continue to listen to the dinosaurs of the DUP who are in a state of denial regarding the consequences of No Deal for the province.

That’s it in a nutshell. Do what you like, guys, but don’t tell others whom they can and cannot boycott.

Johnson says he wants a deal but he hasn’t yet submitted a formal proposal to the EU for consideration, nor has he made any effort to reach out to the other parties at Westminster. No deal looks more likely by the day.

Britain has been complacent about its political system and has failed to keep up with advances made in other countries. A written constitution would be a start:

Canada’s current prorogation process is a joke. The person who can stop the process is usually an appointee of the PM.

Well now, the supreme court has just ruled that BoJo’s prorogation was unlawful: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/sep/24/boris-johnsons-suspension-of-parliament-unlawful-supreme-court-rules-prorogue

Bear in mind we are only discussing the beginning of the Brexit process when we talk of the Withdrawal Agreement. The Northern Irish DUP is under considerable pressure from some of its own better informed supporters, particularly farmers and businessmen, to look for a compromise with the RoI over the Backstop.

The Republic of Ireland is not totally dependent on any other single country. A no-deal Brexit would be serious for Ireland but so would a return to the old border on the island. Brexiteers just did not think about their land border with the EU before the vote and Boris is still expressing surprise about the complexities involved.

Democracy is a popularity contest. Electing the GG would be a good compromise; the diminishing fraction of hardcore monarchists would keep the old framework and the rest of us could vote for a de facto head of state who would have the credibility to say no to the PM when he or she overstepped themselves.

In practice, constitutional monarchies function very much as parliamentary republics, the major difference being an unelected head of state. The GG is not really appointed by the Queen. She does what she is told. The GG is appointed by the PM, somebody he or she may have to oppose. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. An election for the GG could be held, the result of which could inform the PM and his minions on whom to ‘advise’ the Queen to appoint. Boris promised Angela he’d have a written proposal to the EU within a month. That month is almost up and the EU sources claim they have received nothing in writing yet. If you don’t like the backstop, at least come up with a detailed alternative.

In practice, constitutional monarchies function very much as parliamentary republics, the major difference being an unelected head of state. The GG is not really appointed by the Queen. She does what she is told. The GG is appointed by the PM, somebody he or she may have to oppose. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. An election for the GG could be held, the result of which could inform the PM and his minions on whom to ‘advise’ the Queen to appoint.

BTW in the HoC there are votes of no confidence rather than non-confidence votes. Our prorogation crisis with Harper showed yet again why the GG should be an elected position rather than being effectively chosen by the PM.

Given that the Brexit vote was 52-48, that’s a vote for Brexit but not a no-deal Brexit. The vast majority of that Remain vote would want at most a soft Brexit and presumably some of Leave too, putting soft Brexit easily over the 50 mark.

I can’t agree that Brexit would be a return to either the EEC or Thatcher’s vision for the future. The customs union was an essential EEC feature and the single market was pioneered by Thatcher herself. Brexiteers want to leave both. BTW for the eurosceptic crowd, UKIP has been eclipsed by the Brexit Party.