wyly Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) yeah, guess what: she did exactly what an army of legal scholars and constitutional experts told her was the proper thing to do.what army, from what know it was 2 or 3 people made at the time the PM came to ask to prorogue parliament, the decision was made then, not before The decision was made by law and precedent, not by the Governor General.what precedent?I know of no precedent please show us where this has been done before in our history?...now we have a precedent where a government can prorogue parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote... Edited October 9, 2009 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 This one comes quickly to mind.Australian Constiutional Crisis Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Maybe, but it's important to not forget who we are and where we came from. "where we came from"? ..who is this we?... certainly not me and 22 million other Canadians who are not of English or Scottish descent... I want to be Canadian not a british subject, if I want to be a brit I'll move to the UK... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Oh goodness, not again. We aren't british, we're Canadian, and the Crown is a part of who we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I want to be Canadian not a british subject.. You can start here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) We aren't british, we're Canadian, and the Crown is a part of who we are. Coincidentally, I recently came across this copy of some external relations documents from 1952, in which are discussed changes to the Queen's title in order to communicate exactly what you mention above: Neither of the Australian preferences would satisfy completely our desire that the Royal Style should emphasize the fact that the Queen is Queen of Canada, regardless of her sovereignty over other Commonwealth countries. Our view is in strict accord with the present constitutional position, which is based on the concept of equality of status of all Commonwealth members.1 How is it that in 60 years, we've actually regressed to thinking the Queen is British again? [+ link] Edited October 9, 2009 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I really don't know. Somewhere along the way it became unimportant to so many people. So many media sources that make mistaken references don't help either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 So many media sources that make mistaken references don't help either. Very, very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 You must be either joking, completely clueless, or insane! People complain that the PMO has too much power now; just imagine your scenario: the Prime Minister Supreme Chancellor - no longer a minister to anyone but himself - lording over the country like some absolute monarch from pre-revolutionary France. The Queen and her viceroy are the last barriers between the Prime Minsiter and full, uncheked power; and you think they can merely be flicked away like a piece of snot. Too funny! Man you really need to slow down and actually understand what is being said. Do you really think the Queen would ever tell Canada that a certain law is unacceptable? IT wouldn't happen. Just what power is the queen wielding to keep the PMO in check? What does the GG do that has any real effect on day to day operations of the country? There are a few instances, where the GG might actually DO something, like when the three parties tried to form a coalition. Why the hell should they even have to ask to do something like that? It is embarassing. Having to go and ask permission to do things that are already allowed. The point is the PMO wouldn't gain any power by losing the GG and the Queen as the figureheads to our country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who's Doing What? Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) The theory is excellent. The head of state is above the usual mudslinging and disreputable manoeuvring of politics. Some people respect one party, some hate it. The Head of State, being above politics, can be the Head of State to all, without rancor. And when we have a decent GG - and Jean is one - then it works quite well in practice, as well. Really though is there anything that the GG does that an independant body, like the Speaker of the House or the SCC, couldn't do? ( I know these are appointed positions but the positions come with a certain level of integrity and respect, that it should be expected that they can set aside political leanings and do what is best for the country) More often than not it seems that with the GG it is a just bunch of photo ops and trips across the globe that we foot the bill for. Edited October 9, 2009 by Who's Doing What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I think you should reread his comment, you either completely misread it, or are completely clueless, or insane! The GG and the Queen have no real power so not having them wouldn't change a thing other than to offend those that appreciate the historical background of those long outdated roles. Just ask Gough Whitlam how little power AU's GG had in 1975. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) title is minor detail, it's the effect/power she has that is important...I doubt the Queen herself would even consider overturning a GG's decision, the position has evolved from the Queens representative in Canada to our own appointed head of last and final arbitration (unofficially) Of course Jean sought advice from constitutional experts, as is right; but the point is that it is she - and not the PM, or some partisan president, or a cabal of lawyers - who has the authority to make the call. Admittedly I have no backup for this but I'd be shocked if Buckingham Palace and maybe 10 Downing Street weren't in on Harper's decision to recommend proroguing Parliament last December. Edited October 9, 2009 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 What confederation doesn't have "multiple versions" of history. That's sort of unavoidable by its very definition.There was a whole confederacy in the U.S. that has a very different history from the yanks up north. And the First Nations that weren't exterminated also have their own stories to tell. Hardly. I wouldn't expect you to know this but the lion's share of the Founding Father's came from the eventual Confederate state, Virginia. In fact, 5 of the first 7 Presidents came from states that eventually seceded. The Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and yes, even the Civil War gave the country vital common, bonding experiences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The point is the PMO wouldn't gain any power by losing the GG and the Queen as the figureheads to our country. Uh huh. I won't hold my breath waiting for your explanation of how that would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 And no, Kimmy, a chimp couldn't do it, not could a Hooters girl. I agree that a chimp most likely couldn't do it. However, I for one am willing to give the Hooters girl a chance. (as long as I get to be on the selection committee) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Admittedly I have no backup for this but I'd be shocked if Buckingham Palace and maybe 10 Downing Street weren't in on Harper's decision to recommend proroguing Parliament last December. 10 Downing Street!? Jbg, don't make me spit pepsi all over my keyboard! Buckingham Palace isn't a political office - it's merely the London residence of Canada's head of state. But, 10 Downing Street is an organ of the British government, and it's involvement in Canadian affairs would be tantamount to an invasive breach of sovereignty; it's as likely to happen as the PMO getting involved in the Queen's appointment of her British prime minister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 However, I for one am willing to give the Hooters girl a chance. (as long as I get to be on the selection committee) I don't think Hooters would turn Michaelle Jean down if she applied after her stint in Her Majesty's service was up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't think Hooters would turn Michaelle Jean down if she applied after her stint in Her Majesty's service was up. Apparently she went to Hooters to ask for an application but they gave her an application for Hangers instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hydraboss Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't think Hooters would turn Michaelle Jean down if she applied after her stint in Her Majesty's service was up. Hmmm... Maybe as ...an alcohol transfer engineer but not as an alcohol transfer logistics planner. No doubt, she's not nearly as talented as Kimmy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Well, Harper has corrected the matter. Seems he learned something last December after all! "Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. "The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada." Harper reminds GG just who is head of state Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Wow, I'm impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 10 Downing Street!? Jbg, don't make me spit pepsi all over my keyboard! Buckingham Palace isn't a political office - it's merely the London residence of Canada's head of state. But, 10 Downing Street is an organ of the British government, and it's involvement in Canadian affairs would be tantamount to an invasive breach of sovereignty; it's as likely to happen as the PMO getting involved in the Queen's appointment of her British prime minister. I've heard the theory bandied around, and I have no idea why. While it's true that up until 1982 changes to the constitution required the approval of Westminster, the British government has not been involved in governing Canada since 1931 (Statue of Westminster). The British PM is coeval with the Canadian PM, so what role would the British PM even play? Britain has never had, so far as I am aware, an event like the forced proroguing of Parliament to stave off a coalition taking over government (weird things used to happen in the old days, in particular before the Glorious Revolution, but I'm talking about the modern Westminster system). I suppose it's possible that the GG could have consulted with the Queen, but we have our own constitutional experts here to advise the GG, so why would she need to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 10 Downing Street!? Jbg, don't make me spit pepsi all over my keyboard! Buckingham Palace isn't a political office - it's merely the London residence of Canada's head of state. But, 10 Downing Street is an organ of the British government, and it's involvement in Canadian affairs would be tantamount to an invasive breach of sovereignty; it's as likely to happen as the PMO getting involved in the Queen's appointment of her British prime minister. I hear you. I still doubt that Queen Elizabeth II acted without guidance, at least on an informal level, from Harold Wilson in the November 10, 1975 Australian crisis. I think the same applies here. A PM is after all a parliamentary expert; a Queen is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriel Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I'm unsure why she wouldn't simply refer to her title: Governor General. Although this story is a non-issue an completely unimportant, I speculate that he intentionally refers to herself as the head of state in order to stroke her own ego... so that she may feel important. Enough of this, though... let's get back to government scandals and real politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 More often than not it seems that with the GG it is a just bunch of photo ops and trips across the globe that we foot the bill for. But whether you like it or not, photo ops and trips across the globe representing Canada are necessary. When Jean meets the coffins of soldiers coming home from Afghanistan she represents Canada in a neutral way which the presence of say, Harper - who some hold as responsible for them going there, or at least, staying there - cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.