Australia to dump British monarchy - we should do the same!

[PoliticalCitizen]

A country is either free or it isn't. You've admitted Canada is, so, again: if we're not a colony and don't bow to foreign masters, why are you slobbering on about the monarchy being foreign and us living in servitude?

I know and I know. So what? You still seem to have counselled yourself and decided you're the granter of Canadian designation. And I still find that interesting.

[+]

United States of America is completely free of British rule. No tokens there.

Logic may seem confusing to someone not fully used to employ it in an argument.

Edited August 17, 2010 by PoliticalCitizen

[g_bambino]

Logic may seem confusing to someone not fully used to employ it in an argument.

Ah, so that's your problem. Well, don't worry, I'll have patience with you. So, try one more time, okay? If we're not a colony and don't bow to foreign masters, why are you slobbering on about the monarchy being foreign and us living in servitude?

[Smallc]

United States of America is completely free of British rule.

So is Canada.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Ah, so that's your problem. Well, don't worry, I'll have patience with you. So, try one more time, okay? If we're not a colony and don't bow to foreign masters, why are you slobbering on about the monarchy being foreign and us living in servitude?

OK - but last time, only because I believe there's at least a small percentage of genuine interest in another point of view and not just a blind desire to argue

I never said we're living in servitude but if we're no longer a colony why do we need to have a monarch born and living in another country as our head of state?

[PoliticalCitizen]

So is Canada.

So Canada is NOT. Our head of state is British.

[DogOnPorch]

As we know, the British had ZERO to do with building Canada.

[PoliticalCitizen]

As we know, the British had ZERO to do with building Canada.

... or building USA.

[DogOnPorch]

... or building USA.

That explains New England...New York...Boston...etc. Rumor has it that Spain, Holland, Portugal and France had a part in the dastardly affair as well.

[g_bambino]

I never said we're living in servitude

Yes, you did:

Finally - a commonwealth country realizes they're not a colony anymore and don't have to bow to foreign masters!... I was hoping Canada would be the first...

Monarchy stands for... SERVITUDE.

but if we're no longer a colony why do we need to have a monarch born and living in another country as our head of state?

We don't need to. But, that's not under question. What is needing an answer is: why must we not?

[ToadBrother]

We'll see about that. Who are they going to bow to? King Charles? Queen Camilla? What about us? Are we going to bow to any of the above?

The lack of knowledge of history didn't prevent anyone from making history. The Canadian allegiance to British Monarchy should be history.

And again, other than for its value as a polemic, can you suggest how exactly removing the Queen of Canada (that is what the Monarch has been since the Statute of Westminster) would improve our situation in the least. In particular, keep in mind that the last two times we tried even moderate amendments to the constitution the whole thing nearly blew up in our face.

Surely there are infinitely more important things to worry about than how exactly our head of state is chosen.

[ToadBrother]

National unity???

You've never even spoken to a Quebequois, have you?

Try to remove the Crown from the Constitution and it will all likely fall apart. If we can't even agree to moderate reforms without ending up with a sovereignty referendum in Quebec, are you seriously under the delusion that altering fundamental constitutional bedrock of our nation wouldn't be like a screwdriver in a flywheel?

I'll say it again, I'm a Monarchist of Convenience. I'm not that all bound to the Monarchy, but I don't exactly see any meaningful benefits to giving it the boot, but I see such extraordinary dangers in trying it isn't worth it. I can well imagine a number of the provinces refusing this, and then what?

A Canadian President should be the head of state. Power should be shared between the President and the PM.

I see, so a semi-presidential system. Can you name three benefits over a Westminster system that this would provide?

[ToadBrother]

I never said we're living in servitude but if we're no longer a colony why do we need to have a monarch born and living in another country as our head of state?

Because it works, and has worked very successfully for nearly 150 years. Seeing as the Head of State in a Westminster government has only limited powers, there's no particular benefit to moving to an elected head of state, and in fact, some solid arguments against it, as the head of state would become immediately politicized.

[g_bambino]

So Canada is NOT. Our head of state is British.

Hmm.. It seems I was wrong; our little friend here does appear to have missed the last 140 years of constitutional evolution and thinks Canada is still a colony. I wonder if he wears a powdered wig and buckled shoes while typing on his futuristic telegraph.

[DogOnPorch]

Is that the foreign queen peering out from the vaults of the Bank of Canada?

[Smallc]

So Canada is NOT. Our head of state is British.

Didn't you already say she has no citizenship? How could she be British?

[ToadBrother]

Hmm.. It seems I was wrong; our little friend here does appear to have missed the last 140 years of constitutional evolution and thinks Canada is still a colony. I wonder if he wears a powdered wig and buckled shoes while typing on his futuristic telegraph.

Our friend needs to go read the Statute of Westminster.

And the Queen doesn't need Canadian citizenship anymore than she needs British, Jamaican or New Zealand citizenship.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Hmm.. It seems I was wrong; our little friend here does appear to have missed the last 140 years of constitutional evolution and thinks Canada is still a colony. I wonder if he wears a powdered wig and buckled shoes while typing on his futuristic telegraph.

Little? I could be your father for all you know.

Powdered wig, buckled shoes... sounds like a nice monarchist picture. That's where monarchy belongs - middle ages, dark ages... 19th century at best.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Because it works, and has worked very successfully for nearly 150 years. Seeing as the Head of State in a Westminster government has only limited powers, there's no particular benefit to moving to an elected head of state, and in fact, some solid arguments against it, as the head of state would become immediately politicized.

So you actually see no benefit in electing someone who represents you? Why do I bother...

[ToadBrother]

Little? I could be your father for all you know.

Powdered wig, buckled shoes... sounds like a nice monarchist picture. That's where monarchy belongs - middle ages, dark ages... 19th century at best.

I get the feeling that you're not really all that interested in a rational political debate, but in bashing around strawmen of your own creation.

At any rate, I'm still waiting for a meaningful structural reason to change our system, a reason that would justify the substantial risks to national unity that became so evident from the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown attempts, which didn't even go near bedrock notions like the Crown.

I suspect you're like most Republicans in Canada, just sort of antagonistic with little idea of the sheer effort that would be required, the incredible dangers of the attempt, and the lack of meaningful change that would in fact occur at the end of it.

[ToadBrother]

So you actually see no benefit in electing someone who represents you? Why do I bother...

If you wish to debate in a reasonable and honest manner, the first thing to do is not misrepresent your interlocutor's views.

Now, let's start this again. I asked from structural improvements that would come from removing the monarchy and replacing the monarch with an elected head of state.

Edited August 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

At any rate, I'm still waiting for a meaningful structural reason to change our system...

The problem is, he'll give you reasons (though not good ones) to change a system that no longer exists. Renders the whole exercise kind of pointless.

[ToadBrother]

The problem is, he'll give you reasons (though not good ones) to change a system that no longer exists. Renders the whole exercise kind of pointless.

Possibly, but correcting his ignorance might offer us a few moments of amusement. He seemed to suggest a semi-presidential system. Not one I'm particularly fond of, but certainly workable, but I'm not seeing any vast improvement over a Westminster system.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Didn't you already say she has no citizenship? How could she be British?

First we must all agree that she's human with no supernatural powers. Once this is established we can say she had to have a place of bitrh (unless you believe she transcended from another plane of existence without having to go through the trouble of being pushed out of or extracted from another human female's womb), which is most likely Britain and may have a place of residence (which I believe is Buckingham palace); both of which make her British.

But don't let me tell that to you, I'm by no means a monarchy scholar. Why don't you take a look for yourself on the queen's official website, which is unequivocally named "The Official Website of The British Monarchy":

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/HMTheQueen.aspx

Oh yeah, it does mention that she's also the head of state of 15 "other Commonwealth realms". I guess one of those unnamed "realms" would be us. We should be really proud she's our god-given queen - we even got somehow mentioned on her British website...

Yuck...

Edited August 18, 2010 by PoliticalCitizen

[PoliticalCitizen]

Our friend needs to go read the Statute of Westminster.

And the Queen doesn't need Canadian citizenship anymore than she needs British, Jamaican or New Zealand citizenship.

... because she was annointed by god himself and no mortal laws apply to her. Oh, how blessed must we be...

[PoliticalCitizen]

Possibly, but correcting his ignorance might offer us a few moments of amusement. He seemed to suggest a semi-presidential system. Not one I'm particularly fond of, but certainly workable, but I'm not seeing any vast improvement over a Westminster system.

Feudalism was a good system too, wasn't it? It worked really well for many centuries... Why did anybody bother changing it? Incomprehensible...