The British Royalty: How come this never seems to come up in Federal e

[Tyciol]

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.

I understand legal tradition and all that, but surely we could get rid of these things if we wanted to. Do most people just not feel it is wrong or important enough to mess with?

For me it's like, the question is how come we don't change that? I don't see the point in it at all.

[WWWTT]

I also believe it would be an extremely expensive thing to do.

I would take an educated guess of around 10 billion to finalize,if not more.

And I am not sure but I believe it would need the approval of other countries in the commonwealth.

But Canadians are not very independant thinkers anyways and "The Republic of Canada" won't go very far,not in the near future anyways.

WWWTT

[jbg]

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.

Because Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is the glue that holds the English-speaking world together. Why experiment with demolishing a symbol that works exremely well, for some untested system which, in many countries, works horribly.

Is Pakistan any better off by having jettisoned the Governor-General system about two years after "independence"?

[Smallc]

For me it's like, the question is how come we don't change that? I don't see the point in it at all.

Why would we change it? What would be the point?

[Guest American Woman]

For me it's like, the question is how come we don't change that? I don't see the point in it at all.

I don't see the point in it either. When a country's government consists of a legislature, prime minister/president, and court system, where is the need for a monarchy? Seems to me it's just an archaic left-over from days past.

The BBC estimated the annual cost to the British Public of keeping the Royal Family to be £41.5M though this figure does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army.

Does anyone know what the cost is to Canadians?

[TimG]

Does anyone know what the cost is to Canadians?

Zero. If you assume that the GG expenses would be spent on a president if the Queen was replaced.

[Guest American Woman]

Zero. If you assume that the GG expenses would be spent on a president if the Queen was replaced.

Why would you have a president and a prime minister? Why would you need both?

Edited May 14, 2011 by American Woman

[Smallc]

Parliamentary democracy pretty much requires both. Germany, Israel, Italy, etc, etc. A parliamentary republic is very different from a presidential republic. The cabinet in a parliamentary system is accountable to the lower house of parliament. The job of a president (or a monarch) is to ensure that there is always a government that can command the confidence of that house. There has to be someone who can make independent, non partisan decisions in a time of crisis.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Smallc

[TimG]

Why would you have a president and a prime minister? Why would you need both?

Every democratic government in the world either has a monarch or a president who is head of state and seperate from the leadership of the government. The role of the president is often the same as the GG in Canada (i.e. ceremonial but with reserve powers intended to settle disputes and resolve crises).

[Guest American Woman]

Every democratic government in the world either has a monarch or a president who is head of state and seperate from the leadership of the government. The role of the president is often the same as the GG in Canada (i.e. ceremonial but with reserve powers intended to settle disputes and resolve crises).

That doesn't answer my question; why would you need both a prime minister and a president? - The role of our president is far from that of your GG. There is no need for both.

[Smallc]

The role of our president is far from that of your GG. There is no need for both.

You don't have a parliamentary system. A presidential system is something completely different.

[August1991]

That doesn't answer my question; why would you need both a prime minister and a president? - The role of our president is far from that of your GG. There is no need for both.

If Canada were to become a federal republic, it would still need a Head of State to perform the duties of the GG (ceremonial duties, appoint PMs and provincial representatives and ultimately sign off on federal laws). The ideal model would be Germany where the president is chosen by a Federal Convention created specifically for this.

Does anyone know what the cost is to Canadians?

I agree with TimG. The savings would be minimal. At most, we could save several million since the British Royals would likely travel less frequently to Canada. If they did, we would cover their costs as we would any other foreign dignitary on official business here.

The primary gain would be in how Canadians view themselves. I started a thread with a poll on this question. I strongly favour becoming a federal republic.

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.

Trudeau at least got her off the other bills. She's only on the 20 now.

[g_bambino]

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.

I understand legal tradition and all that, but surely we could get rid of these things if we wanted to. Do most people just not feel it is wrong or important enough to mess with?

For me it's like, the question is how come we don't change that? I don't see the point in it at all.

No, there is no point in changing it, you're right. Canada's a constitutional monarchy, has been since before Canada was even a country, and is now a kingdom in its own right (meaning your "British royalty" label is completely misplaced). A good number of countries are also constitutional monarchies; like Canada, they're regularly rated as some of the best places in the world to live. We have a head of state above politics - which makes not only for a good, neutral referee in times when politicians cause conflict, and a way to ensure our military isn't swearing to uphold a particular politician's ideology, but also a symbol of the nation that doesn't divide the populace along political lines - and one that's trained from birth to do the job that will be his or her duty to do. And, most importantly, perhaps for the aforementioned reasons and more, nobody's interested in fixing what ain't broken.

There are some things about the Canadian monarchy that one could argue need fixing, and the subject can come up in federal elections; there was a question in this past one about altering the line of succession to our throne to change from cognatic to lineal primogeniture. However, I suspect that what you mean to say without saying it is: Why doesn't any federal election campaign include a promise to abolish the monarchy. The answer to that is: Because there's absolutely zero push from the population to have such a thing done. No one wants to open up the constitution for a nasty, divisive debate that could last a decade or more, all for no other reason than to replace something that doesn't need replacing with, well, nobody knows quite what. Plus, consider that the royals themselves remain popular; 100,000 people at Canada Day when the Queen was there last year, the biggest crowd ever, and wait 'till we see how many show up this year, with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge present. The monarchy just isn't an issue for the vast majority of Canadians.

[sp]

Edited May 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[CPCFTW]

I also believe it would be an extremely expensive thing to do.

I would take an educated guess of around 10 billion to finalize,if not more.

And I am not sure but I believe it would need the approval of other countries in the commonwealth.

But Canadians are not very independant thinkers anyways and "The Republic of Canada" won't go very far,not in the near future anyways.

WWWTT

Please explain where your "educated guess" of 10 billion comes from. Seems like you just pulled a number out of your ass.

If I had to take an educated guess, I would say 1000 trillion... And it's all Harper's fault!

[Scotty]

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.

I understand legal tradition and all that, but surely we could get rid of these things if we wanted to. Do most people just not feel it is wrong or important enough to mess with?

For me it's like, the question is how come we don't change that? I don't see the point in it at all.

It doesn't cost us anything, and it works. So why mess with it?

As to political will. You might get millions of people agreeing with you to change it, but their enthusiasm is so thin as to be barely measurable. Very, very, very few Canadians are going to be willing to put up a fight to get rid of the monarchy, and there's no political reward, ie votes, waiting for the politician who does so. On the other side of the ledger, you'll have millions willing to go to the wall to defend the monarchy, and that includes lifelong enmity directed at the politician and party which accomplishes this.

So you make millions of people furious at you for the rest of their lives, and voting against you and your party forever, and your reward is what exactly?

As an example, John Manley is a great guy, and would probably make a great PM, but I'll never vote for him because he's dedicated to getting rid of the monarchy. And I'm not even a REAL monarchist. I have a kind of sentimental attachment, and that's it. The REAL monarchists would go ballistic at any attempt.

Edited May 14, 2011 by Scotty

[Smallc]

100,000 people at Canada Day when the Queen was there last year, the biggest crowd ever, and wait 'till we see how many show up this year, with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge present.

I' guess there will be a bigger crowd...except I'm not sure where they'd stand. I'll be there again though .

[g_bambino]

The ideal model would be Germany where the president is chosen by a Federal Convention created specifically for this.

Except that nobody knows who the President of Germany is; typically, he's just one more low-level politician chosen from banal candidates put forward by Germany's political parties in the hopes that they may have more influence over the executive without seeing a personality in the presidential office that outshines the Chancellor. That is, unless it's a president who starts making public calls for more power for his office, vetoing laws he doesn't agree with, publicly criticising the cabinet, and then has to resign.

[c/e]

Edited May 14, 2011 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

If Canada were to become a federal republic, it would still need a Head of State to perform the duties of the GG (ceremonial duties, appoint PMs and provincial representatives and ultimately sign off on federal laws). The ideal model would be Germany where the president is chosen by a Federal Convention created specifically for this.

Why would a system where the people elect the head of state not be possible? Why shouldn't the citizen's of Canada choose who does those things?

I agree with TimG. The savings would be minimal. At most, we could save several million since the British Royals would likely travel less frequently to Canada. If they did, we would cover their costs as we would any other foreign dignitary on official business here.

Several million savings would still be some money in the taxpayers' pockets, to put towards their lifestyle rather than royalty's.

The primary gain would be in how Canadians view themselves. I started a thread with a poll on this question. I strongly favour becoming a federal republic.

I realize from previous posts that you would like to do away with royalty regarding Canada, and I understand. Obviously I would feel the same way.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure that most people understand the magnitude of what would have to be changed to eliminate the monarchy. Even if it would save a few million every couple years (not even pennies on a $280B budget), it would cost billions. The cost of the treaty negotiations alone would be unimaginable. More importantly, what exactly would we gain?

[g_bambino]

I'm not sure that most people understand the magnitude of what would have to be changed to eliminate the monarchy. Even if it would save a few million every couple years (not even pennies on a $280B budget), it would cost billions. The cost of the treaty negotiations alone would be unimaginable. More importantly, what exactly would we gain?

True; the treaties are something Canadian republicans often forget about. Just like the provincial dimension of the Crown. (Though, the republican "movement"'s leader did once let it slip that he feels the provincial executives are redundant, which, in essence, says the provinces should either be eliminated or become jurisdictions of the federal president.) Anyway, I digress.

Australia spent more than a decade on the idea of becoming a republic. I've seen no estimate of the amount of tax dollars spent, in both the federal and state spheres, but it can't have been cheap. And more money kept being put towards the fight even after the referendum failed. (Would that have been the case had the republic side won in 1999?) Only now are politicians starting to back away from the debate; taken over the long-term, polls are showing the Australian public is gradually losing interest.

[Smallc]

Now, don't get me wrong, I understand the knee jerk idea of wanting to become a republic, but, I'm just not sure of what benefit there would be, and I'm not really sure what exactly it is we're supposed to be missing by having a monarchy rather than being a republic.

[PIK]

We would gain nothing but lose our histort which this country and fared quite well because of it. The queen at her age did 440 events last year with only 365 days in a year, is remarkable, she is a great lady and hope she lives forever.

[WWWTT]

Please explain where your "educated guess" of 10 billion comes from. Seems like you just pulled a number out of your ass.

If I had to take an educated guess, I would say 1000 trillion... And it's all Harper's fault!

Yep I pulled the number out of my ass!

Enjoy!

I came with this number after thinking about all the legal cost and fees charged for changes at all levels of government,government bodies,courts,crown land,currency etc etc.

Then there are the legal fees that Canada would be responsible for making sure that we are recognized internationally and among other commonwealth countries.

Actually the more I think about it the more it would cost.

20 billion would be a more realistic starting point actually.

But I am only guessing.

I am also safe in saying that we are all in agreement that it would be a heavy burden on the tax payer!

WWWTT

[Shwa]

I don't see the point in it either. When a country's government consists of a legislature, prime minister/president, and court system, where is the need for a monarchy? Seems to me it's just an archaic left-over from days past.

Does anyone know what the cost is to Canadians?

And, of course, Columbus "discovered" America in 1492. Do they still teach that in US history class?

The cost of national myth is rather immaterial wouldn't you say?

[scouterjim]

Vive le republique!! A bas le reigne!