cybercoma Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 I am steadfastly convinced that the solution to Canada's so-called democratic deficit lies in, not even reforming parliament, but regressing, in a sense, back to when the institution had more influence over Cabinet. Responsible government is dying; eliminating the monarchy or other drastic changes won't solve that. This! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Sounds right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Okay, let's look at it this way: the prime minister "has" it, but does not own it. It is "lent" to him, so long as he or she follows the rules. When the prime minister doesn't, power can be, depending on the circumstances, taken away from that figure by the person who actually owns it: the monarch (either via the viceroy or not). The power of government is always the sovereign's; so long as S.III.9 of the Constitution Act 1867 remains in force, that is. The problem still remains though, what doesn't go away is the increase in power that's become enclosed in the PMO. What is there to protect us from it if we end up with a sociopathic PM and monarch at the same time, a whipped parliament? I don't know about you but hoping for a benevolent dictator hasn't really panned out for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I don't think you're disputing the tautology! I just wanted to clarify. As did I. Look at it this way: we have two definitions of what a Canadian government "does." One is a statement of principle, the other an assessment of objective, occurring reality. And yet, though we should hope they don't, there do come times when the principle is seen operating in reality. [ed.: +] Edited June 13, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 What is there to protect us from it if we end up with a sociopathic PM and monarch at the same time, a whipped parliament?What's to protect us from a PM and President that are paid off by the same interest groups? This same argument could be made for any system you propose in its place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 I am steadfastly convinced that the solution to Canada's so-called democratic deficit lies in, not even reforming parliament, but regressing, in a sense, back to when the institution had more influence over Cabinet. Responsible government is dying; eliminating the monarchy or other drastic changes won't solve that. I think the one thing that might save the government in one fell swoop is the monarchy, which according to you the Queen could do discreetly and quietly behind the scenes. As for drastic changes, it seems any change at all is drastic by default when it comes to tinkering with our governance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 What's to protect us from a PM and President that are paid off by the same interest groups? This same argument could be made for any system you propose in its place. I'd use cameras, microphones, and a Secrecy Commissioner's Office myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 The problem still remains though, what doesn't go away is the increase in power that's become enclosed in the PMO. What problem remains? The prime minister still today can't act unconstitutionally, despite how much power has been sucked into the PMO. If that increase of PMO power is what you mean by "the problem" (which I'd agree it is), then the solution lies in parliament being strengthened again, which could be partly achieved by changing how party leaders are chosen. But, since there are no laws spelling out just how accountable to the House of Commons the prime minister should be, there isn't much the Queen can do to make it so that he is more so. Eliminate whipped votes, the way party leaders are chosen, repercussions for "rebellious" backbenchers; these things are both political matters and internal to the functioning of the House of Commons, none of which the Queen can touch, not without facing repercussions herself, up to losing her job. (Look into the history behind the tradition of the Usher of the Black Rod having the door to the Commons slammed in his face when he goes to summon that chamber to the Throne Speech.) Since this country is a democracy, those kinds of changes, related to parliament and politics, as they are, need to be prompted by the electorate. What is there to protect us from it if we end up with a sociopathic PM and monarch at the same time, a whipped parliament? I doubt any system is designed to protect itself against such an implausible situation. What would happen would depend entirely on the exact circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 The problem is that the people of the republican-movement only agree on that the British monarchy should be done away with as head of state. That's where their unanimity ends. They disagree fundamentally on what kind of a republic should be put in place. When the issue went to a referendum in Australia 13 years ago, the then PM Howard played on the division of the republicans as he himself supported monarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 The problem is that the people of the republican-movement only agree on that the British monarchy should be done away with as head of state. That's where their unanimity ends. They disagree fundamentally on what kind of a republic should be put in place. When the issue went to a referendum in Australia 13 years ago, the then PM Howard played on the division of the republicans as he himself supported monarchy. The republican movement should be happy to know that the British monarchy hasn't been the head of state in nearly 100 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 The republican movement should be happy to know that the British monarchy hasn't been the head of state in nearly 100 years. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Queen of England is as much the head of state of Canada as Barack Obama is that of the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Queen of England is as much the head of state of Canada as Barack Obama is that of the USA. No. The Queen of England is the head of state for England, not Canada. The Queen of Canada is the head of state for Canada. Edited June 22, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 You may want to at least read the Wiki article on the Monarchy of Canada for more information on the Queen of Canada and the Canadian Royal Family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) You may want to at least read the Wiki article on the Monarchy of Canada for more information on the Queen of Canada and the Canadian Royal Family. And you may want to read the Wiki article on the Commonwealth realms, of which there are currently sixteen, including: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith There has been no Queen of England since 1707. Edited June 23, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted July 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 (edited) None the less the perversion of Canada into a republic by antimonarchists is just further proceeded by your guys following comments.Why is a Canadian federal republic a "perversion of Canada"? Edited July 12, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienB Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The Queen of England is as much the head of state of Canada as Barack Obama is that of the USA. She wears a hat in Canada not a crown. Also you will notice that she doesn't look the same on the more recent coins as on british money. Clearly not the Queen of England. but canada doesn't have identical laws to britain, nor does it have the same ettiquettes. Edited July 14, 2013 by AlienB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 4, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2017 (edited) Poster Tyciol said: Quote I am curious how come we keep printing the Queen on our money and our soldiers have to swear loyalty to her, how she must approve the Governor General. .... Time to bump this thread/poll to the top. Edited June 4, 2017 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyCanuck Posted May 20, 2020 Report Share Posted May 20, 2020 (edited) Wow- I have just come across this thread … I admit I have not read all of the 50 pages of serious comment interspersed with one-liner bs, but I have made a fair sampling of a random dozen postings. I find the majority opinion seems to be that the Queen herself is irrelevant, and a whole lost of posters thoughts are simply - get rid of the Queen and we become a 'free people' ( err.. no we don't) ! However the title of the thread is The Federal Republic of Canada, which deserves a lot more attention than just Queen bashing. Here's my take. The end of Canada as a constitutional monarchy is ok by me IF the replacement is a Republic in which all Canadians are equal citizens, with equal political representation. The discussion needs to be about creating a Republic in which there are 300 members of parliament each representing 123,000 citizens in equal ridings, regardless of province, and a elected senate of 80 each representing 460,000 citizens in equal ridings, regardless of province.. No longer will a resident of PEI have four times the voting power of a citizen of Victoria, No longer will New Brunswick, whose population is the same as Vancouver Island have three to four times the political weight of the Vancouver Island representatives. There are WAY too many opinion pieces swamping radio and newspapers pandering to simpletons who want no more than the change of title of the Governor General to President, and have the rest of the rotten iniquitous Ottawa closed shop remain as is. Let the discussion be about Canada being re-defined as a fair and equal Republic. If this re-definition does not occur then Elizabeth Windsor can remain in place. This is too important a chance to finally sweep the politically privileged out. We cannot waste this chance to just get a simple-simon renaming of the GG to President, after which a certain uninformed mass will prance around shouting 'we're a free people' , while in the background the elite puppetmasters, who benefit from things the way they are now, silently snigger. I believe the vote in Australia to change to a republic was lost, not because of a surfeit of royalty lovers, but because there were 35% for, 35% against, and 30% in the middle who would have voted for a republic IF the redefinition of Australia as an equal and fair republic was included. The vote there envisioned the GG changing title to president and everything remaining the same, so a majority of those in the middle voted NO, hoping that somewhere further down the road a vote on a defined republic will take place. We should learn from their example. Thoughts anyone? Edited May 20, 2020 by JohnnyCanuck spelling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 2, 2020 Report Share Posted June 2, 2020 Could you not also ask, Do you want to live in Canada or America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Banana Posted June 3, 2020 Report Share Posted June 3, 2020 On 5/20/2020 at 8:14 AM, JohnnyCanuck said: The end of Canada as a constitutional monarchy is ok by me IF the replacement is a Republic in which all Canadians are equal citizens, with equal political representation. Let the discussion be about Canada being re-defined as a fair and equal Republic. If this re-definition does not occur then Elizabeth Windsor can remain in place. This is too important a chance to finally sweep the politically privileged out. We cannot waste this chance to just get a simple-simon renaming of the GG to President, after which a certain uninformed mass will prance around shouting 'we're a free people' , while in the background the elite puppetmasters, who benefit from things the way they are now, silently snigger. Thoughts anyone? This country will never be united as long as Quebec is involved. Quebec is only at the picnic to eat other provinces sandwiches. They didn't sign the 1982 Constitution, and don't want to be a part of Canada. Manitoba west would make a great stand-alone country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted June 4, 2020 Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 (edited) On 6/2/2020 at 11:51 PM, Nefarious Banana said: This country will never be united as long as Quebec is involved. Quebec is only at the picnic to eat other provinces sandwiches. They didn't sign the 1982 Constitution, and don't want to be a part of Canada. Manitoba west would make a great stand-alone country. Manitoba is full of mosquitoes. They are nasty, evil, and carriers of disease. We need too invade and exterminate them or put them in schools and teach them not to be butterflies. Edited June 4, 2020 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefarious Banana Posted June 4, 2020 Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Rue said: Manitoba is full of mosquitoes. They are nasty, evil, and carriers of disease. We need to invade and exterminate them or put them in schools and teach them not to be butterflies. Manitoba has an eastern seaport at Churchill . . . . ship western grain to European markets. The port is open months longer with 'global warming' . . . For western separation to work, Manitoba has to be included. Mosquitoes are preferable to the 'blow flies' that buzz around the sh!tpile Federal Govt. Remember, Quebec & Ontario need the west more than we need them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted June 4, 2020 Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Nefarious Banana said: Manitoba has an eastern seaport at Churchill . . . . ship western grain to European markets. The port is open months longer with 'global warming' . . . For western separation to work, Manitoba has to be included. Mosquitoes are preferable to the 'blow flies' that buzz around the sh!tpile Federal Govt. Remember, Quebec & Ontario need the west more than we need them. Every region of Canada needs every other region. If we fail to stand together, we ALL lose a beautiful country. Politics is a fun sport, but not worth wrecking the country over. With apologies to our dear friend Bush-Cheney, we love you dearly but we do not want to join you and that would be the end result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 4, 2020 Report Share Posted June 4, 2020 Just now, Queenmandy85 said: Every region of Canada needs every other region. If we fail to stand together, we ALL lose a beautiful country. Politics is a fun sport, but not worth wrecking the country over. With apologies to our dear friend Bush-Cheney, we love you dearly but we do not want to join you and that would be the end result. No need to apologize for Canada's history of fragmented politics and separatism, or constant threat of being "Americanized". Because the "end result" would not be up to Canada anyway. Americans don't really care much about your Clarity Act. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeitgeist Posted June 5, 2020 Report Share Posted June 5, 2020 The case for Canada continues to strengthen, especially given the tensions we see south of the border and in parts of Europe, as long as our governments don’t get steamrolled by special interests and budgetary frivolity, both of which are hallmarks of Trudeau’s spendthrift identity politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.