bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 GH, you're one step ahead of me. I haven't a clue what type of Royal family I want representing me. Goes to show I haven't given any thought to it whatsoever and I suspect many Canadians are in the same boat. That's it. Exactly. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
GostHacked Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 What a load of faux outrage. A young man was photographed having a good time in what was (and should have remained) the privacy of his own hotel suite. Nobody was harmed in the making of these photographs. Even sadder is trying use priggish hyperbole as a base on which to build a case against our system of government. Harry is a military officer and soldier. He represents nobody except, on occasion, his grandmother. Of course, there can come a point where things become too controversial and embarrassing to tolerate. But, elections aren't the only way for the majority to impose consequences on public servants for any inexcusable behaviour. Regard Edward VIII. I don't get any sense that we're anywhere near the point of intolerable conduct with Harry. Playing strip pool with friends and acquaintances at a party in the privacy of one's own hotel room, on one's down time, barely even brings a blush to most people's faces; hence, so many are (likely to the consternation of the tabloids) looking and simply shrugging their shoulders. What he did in no way negates or even undermines the service he willingly gives to the armed forces, to charity, and to his mother's countries; he's an able soldier and officer, raises millions for charities (his own and others'), and represented the Queen well on his Diamond Jubilee tours of Jamaica and Belize. Nothing wrong here, move along. So we can ditch the monarch now since they do not represent us? Sounds good to me. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 So we can ditch the monarch now since they do not represent us? Sounds good to me. Good luck with that; convincing people and governments to descend into a constitutional quagmire based on a nonsense assertion. Quote
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 So we can ditch the monarch now since they do not represent us? Sounds good to me. I'm not opposed to the idea on any fundamental level; But it would be a major undertaking, and would require a lot of restructuring and revamping. And between people who support the Monarchy, and those who aren't bothered by it and so don't wish to expend the time, energy, debates, discussions, and rejigging of the system...there's no real political capital for the idea. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
wyly Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 I'm not opposed to the idea on any fundamental level; But it would be a major undertaking, and would require a lot of restructuring and revamping. And between people who support the Monarchy, and those who aren't bothered by it and so don't wish to expend the time, energy, debates, discussions, and rejigging of the system...there's no real political capital for the idea. cut through BS with a simple referendum...once the direction has been set it becomes much simpler leaving it in the hands of various levels of government each with it's own agenda is what slows progress to a crawl...IMO people are making this more complex than it is, replace crown with the GG as the head of state, rename it anything you want, make it an appointed or elected position it doesn't matter, nothing else need change it all operates as before... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) cut through BS with a simple referendum...once the direction has been set it becomes much simpler leaving it in the hands of various levels of government each with it's own agenda is what slows progress to a crawl... The constitution does not allow for the Office of the Queen to be altered without the approval of a majority in all ten provincial legislatures and the federal parliament. You are proposing an unconstitutional change to the constitution. IMO people are making this more complex than it is, replace crown with the GG as the head of state, rename it anything you want, make it an appointed or elected position it doesn't matter, nothing else need change it all operates as before... You oversimplify. Replacing a non-political monarch with a political president will have consequences; an elected president brings one set of consequences (narrowed, politically-aligned representation; partisanship; bias towards or against the governing party; potential conflict with the prime minister; etc.); an appointed president another set (well, just general uselessness). Either way, the sovereignty of the provinces will cease to be drawn from the one Canadian Crown over all eleven jurisdictions of Confederation (currently, the headship of state isn't a part solely of either the federal or any provincial spheres; it is shared by all equally, giving the provinces level footing with Ottawa) and will instead be transferred to the Office of the President, which will be entirely a part of the federal jurisdiction. Good luck selling provincial governments on that deal; and all because Prince Harry was photographed playing strip pool! You may not like the monarchy, but you're going to have to deal with what the alternatives will bring and the fact that it may (likely will not) be better than what we have now. [ed.: +] Edited August 30, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
wyly Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 The constitution does not allow for the Office of the Queen to be altered without the approval of a majority in all ten provincial legislatures and the federal parliament. You are proposing an unconstitutional change to the constitution.democratic will of the people trumps all...just the people of tunisa, libya and eygpt stood together and demanded change so it would be if canadians voted for removal of the monarchy(just without all the violence)the constitution would give way to popular consent...You oversimplify. Replacing a non-political monarch with a political president will have consequences; an elected president brings one set of consequences (narrowed, politically-aligned representation; partisanship; bias towards or against the governing party; potential conflict with the prime minister; etc.); an appointed president another set (well, just general uselessness).it is simple...elected or appointed nothing changes the role is the same the powers are the same, the biases/partisanship are the same...nothing changes other than "we" choose our head of state and not someone who inherits it... Either way, the sovereignty of the provinces will cease to be drawn from the one Canadian Crown over all eleven jurisdictions of Confederation (currently, the headship of state isn't a part solely of either the federal or any provincial spheres; it is shared by all equally, giving the provinces level footing with Ottawa) and will instead be transferred to the Office of the President, which will be entirely a part of the federal jurisdiction. Good luck selling provincial governments on that deal; and all because Prince Harry was photographed playing strip pool!you're looking for and inventing obstacles and roadblocks where none exist, nothing need change other than who is head of state and how they are chosen...You may not like the monarchy, but you're going to have to deal with what the alternatives will bring and the fact that it may (likely will not) be better than what we have now.the head of state will be a canadian chosen by the people through direct election or by appointment by the government...that's a 110% better than what we have now... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) democratic will of the people trumps all...just the people of tunisa, libya and eygpt stood together and demanded change so it would be if canadians voted for removal of the monarchy Ah, right. Viva la revolución! it is simple...elected or appointed nothing changes the role is the same the powers are the same I direct you back to what I said above. [ed: + link] Edited August 30, 2012 by g_bambino Quote
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) You oversimplify. Replacing a non-political monarch with a political president will have consequences; an elected president brings one set of consequences (narrowed, politically-aligned representation; partisanship; bias towards or against the governing party; potential conflict with the prime minister; etc.); an appointed president another set (well, just general uselessness). I agree with your first point, and consider it one of the stronger arguments in favour of the status quo. But what of the second, the "appointed president" and his or her "uselessness." Is that so very far from what we have currently? (Not the useless part; the appointed part.) Edited August 30, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
g_bambino Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 I agree with your first point, and consider it one of the stronger arguments in favour of the status quo.But what of the second, the "appointed president" and his or her "uselessness." Is that so very far from what we have currently? (Not the useless part; the appointed part.) I'd say it's quite different, since an appointed figure's tenure depends entirely on another person's decision, whereas the selection of our head of state is set to happen automatically, beyond the control of any person or small group of persons. If by "what we have now" you mean the governor general, then it would still be different, since the governor general is currently not the head of state; he or she is appointed by the head of state as a representative. That is generally done on the advice of the prime minister, but that advice does not have to be taken, if it is constitutionally improper in some way. If the Queen were removed and the governor general - now president - became head of state and the selection process didn't change, the president could be installed and dismissed entirely at the whim of the prime minister, making the president a useless figure as a check against any unconstitutional action by the Cabinet. I suppose he or she would be useful merely as a puppet to the PM. Quote
bleeding heart Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 I'd say it's quite different, since an appointed figure's tenure depends entirely on another person's decision, whereas the selection of our head of state is set to happen automatically, beyond the control of any person or small group of persons. If by "what we have now" you mean the governor general, then it would still be different, since the governor general is currently not the head of state; he or she is appointed by the head of state as a representative. That is generally done on the advice of the prime minister, but that advice does not have to be taken, if it is constitutionally improper in some way. If the Queen were removed and the governor general - now president - became head of state and the selection process didn't change, the president could be installed and dismissed entirely at the whim of the prime minister, making the president a useless figure as a check against any unconstitutional action by the Cabinet. I suppose he or she would be useful merely as a puppet to the PM. Well, I got to say that's a good answer, g. And by "appointed," yes, I meant the GG, but I get your distinction. And I also agree that the potential politicization of a President would be a very serious issue. If anything, I'd quibble with your "useless" designation, and counter that it could be much worse than useless...but that's maybe pedantic, as I take your point. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
wyly Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 I'd say it's quite different, since an appointed figure's tenure depends entirely on another person's decision, whereas the selection of our head of state is set to happen automatically, beyond the control of any person or small group of persons. If by "what we have now" you mean the governor general, then it would still be different, since the governor general is currently not the head of state; he or she is appointed by the head of state as a representative. That is generally done on the advice of the prime minister, but that advice does not have to be taken, if it is constitutionally improper in some way. If the Queen were removed and the governor general - now president - became head of state and the selection process didn't change, the president could be installed and dismissed entirely at the whim of the prime minister, making the president a useless figure as a check against any unconstitutional action by the Cabinet. I suppose he or she would be useful merely as a puppet to the PM. how pedantic, nit picking bs..."appointed on the advice of the PM" BS!...the PM picks the GG, the queen does as she is told(oh sorry I forgot, "advised")the day the queen refuses to do as "advised" would mark the beginning of the end of the monarchy...absolutely nothing would change the government would function as it always has, humpty dumpty would be safe on his wall and the sky won't fall and kill chicken little... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
g_bambino Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 how pedantic, nit picking bs..."appointed on the advice of the PM" BS!...the PM picks the GG, the queen does as she is told(oh sorry I forgot, "advised")the day the queen refuses to do as "advised" would mark the beginning of the end of the monarchy...absolutely nothing would change the government would function as it always has, humpty dumpty would be safe on his wall and the sky won't fall and kill chicken little... Wrong. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 success has nothing to do with being a monarchy or not... Say it with me: CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 [quote name='g_bambino' date='30 August 2012 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1346349484' post='824234Either way, the sovereignty of the provinces will cease to be drawn from the one Canadian Crown over all eleven jurisdictions of Confederation (currently, the headship of state isn't a part solely of either the federal or any provincial spheres; it is shared by all equally, giving the provinces level footing with Ottawa) and will instead be transferred to the Office of the President, which will be entirely a part of the federal jurisdiction. Good luck selling provincial governments on that deal; and all because Prince Harry was photographed playing strip pool! I understand this now because of the numerous debates we've had and looking into it further by doing my own research. However, you might want to expand upon this idea and explain in more depth the relationship between the provinces and Ottawa vis-à-vis the Crown. Someone that knows absolutely nothing about this whatsoever probably would not have any more of an understanding after reading just your post. So, it might be helpful for those who "just don't get it" if you explained a little further. Quote
cybercoma Posted August 30, 2012 Report Posted August 30, 2012 you're looking for and inventing obstacles and roadblocks where none exist, nothing need change other than who is head of state and how they are chosen... No. It's a very real roadblock that you just don't understand. Quote
wyly Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 Say it with me: CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY. say it slowly ...IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER!...if we want it, it will change...if the people say "we want it to change, get it done" it will be done...all the gloom and doom foot dragging comes from monarchists claiming it's impossible so they can kowtow endlessly to a foreign anachronism...it's no different than those who used claim quebec can't separate without permission, more bullshitte, if they vote to separate 50% +1 it's done, screw the constitution they're gone, waving little bits of constitutional paper is meaningless in the face of democratic will... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 No. It's a very real roadblock that you just don't understand. no I understand very clearly, it's like drawing a line in the sand and telling me I can't step over it because you have a piece a paper saying I can't...I'll step over and write a new rule, done... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 no I understand very clearly, it's like drawing a line in the sand and telling me I can't step over it because you have a piece a paper saying I can't...I'll step over and write a new rule, done... And what if someone is there to keep you from stepping over the line? Quote
eyeball Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 And what if someone is there to keep you from stepping over the line? Push will come to shove. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 Push will come to shove. For what, exactly? To change something for a questionable benefit? Good luck lining up support for that. Quote
eyeball Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) For what, exactly? To change something for a questionable benefit? No, to take over it's job and protect our democracy. Personally, I think installing souveillance equipment in a few of the highest offices in the land is all we'd have to do to achieve that but strangely enough, I've discovered that die hard monarchists are as appalled at the idea of forcing our betters to govern in a state of total transparency as they are losing their...Nanny. Go figure. Good luck lining up support for that. I suppose someone could find themselves getting lined up at some point. Edited August 31, 2012 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 No, to take over it's job and protect our democracy. yawn. You're like a broken record. We don't all see things as being so broken. Now when you compare Canada to pretty much every other country on the planet, and consider the fact that the system is being run by human beings. Quote
eyeball Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 yawn. You're like a broken record. thhppbbt. You're like a broken CD. We don't all see things as being so broken. Now when you compare Canada to pretty much every other country on the planet, and consider the fact that the system is being run by human beings. It becomes obvious why everyone's circling the same drain. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Smallc Posted August 31, 2012 Report Posted August 31, 2012 It becomes obvious why everyone's circling the same drain. Except that we're not circling any drain. That's the problem with your argument. Quote
.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.