Is this a lie? "Liberal defence policy forecasts that by 2025, annual defence spending will rise to $32.7 billion"

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Queen doesn't own an iota of Crown land.  It's a term to describe nationally held land.  The Queen cannot use it for private purposes nor for the  UK.  Your knowledge is extremely superficial.

lol,   Crown land is the Queen, the Crown is at Buckingham Palace, what an indictment of the Canadian public school system, you are functionally illiterate when it comes to civics.

Here's another part you don't know, it's not just Crown land, the Crown owns all the land and legally can take any part of it back as they need to, as you don't actually have property rights in Canada.  The Crown ultimately owns everything in a legal sense, and the Crown is the Queen, who is a constitutional and legal entity,  with real force. 

That is how monarchy works.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Norway is much more successful pound for pound than Canada is, to include a per capita GPD of $75,000 USD to Canada's $45,000 USD, so 50% richer than Canadians.

But that is because Norway is unified ethno-state not a failed state Confederation which does not work, never did work, and isn't going to work, resulting in the crippling of the Canadian economy and democracy,

Has nothing to do with ideology, it's all about failed state Confederation, if you got out you can run things like Norway does if you can get the votes, but you'll never get it done in dysfunctional zombie Confederation.

The GDP per capita is $49,000.00.  The main reason Norway is so wealthy is oil, period.  That's why Canada should nationalize the oil sands.  How about violent dysfunctional deadlock American republic?  Give it up and worry about your own country instead of attacking ours.  It just fuels anti-Americanism.

[Dougie93]

Zeitgeist,  didn't you say you were a post grad?  That's pathetic, you're not even operating a high school level here.

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

lol,   Crown land is the Queen, the Crown is at Buckingham Palace, what an indictment of the Canadian public school system, you are functionally illiterate when it comes to civics.

Here's another part you don't know, it's not just Crown land, the Crown owns all the land and legally can take any part of it back as they need to, you don't actually property rights in Canada, the Crown everything in a legal sense. That is how monarchy works.

Ha ha you're so wrong here it's ridiculous. "Crown land is the term used to describe land owned by the federal or provincial governments. Authority for control of these public lands rests with the Crown, hence their name. Less than 11% of Canada's land is in private hands; 41% is federal crown land and 48% is provincial crown land."

Edited January 14, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

The federal and provincial governments are the Crown and the Crown is the Queen, that is what Crown means, now you are operating at below junior high school level, you're like a grade six student here.

[Dougie93]

That's another thing, folks, these Liberal Party of Canada royalists who spend their whole lives in school and never get a job, don't actually ever get an education, it's an accreditation scam.

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

That's another thing, folks, these Liberal Party of Canada royalists who spend their whole lives in school and never get a job, don't actually ever get an education, it's an accreditation scam.

I have a lot of responsibilities in my job, but feel free to insult me.  I don't feel at all threatened by you or anything you have said.  Knock yourself out.  The Queen and her family don't own any Crown land, the provinces and federal governments of Canada do, period.  Don't lie.

[Dougie93]

I've already addressed how you think you live in a republic, see my previous post on that.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I've already addressed how you think you live in a republic, see my previous post on that.

I'm very aware that I live in a parliamentary democracy modeled after the British parliament.

[Dougie93]

I'm very aware that I live in a monarchy and so only have fealty to my Queen, the Canadian "countrypersons" ain't the boss o' me. lol

Edited January 14, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

Anyways, just for people who think they live in a republic;

If there is no clear majority in Parliament then yes the GG is the first option, but she's not the final option, if as the leader of a party you think you got screwed by the GG, like Harper thought he might get screwed by a Liberal Party of Canada Viceroy, you can go over the head of the GG, straight to Buckingham Palace; and get a second opinion from the actual Sovereign, Head of State & Commander-in-Chief. 

So in fact the Viceroy is the ceremonial position, and HM is the actual constitutional monarch.

Second, you have no property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the Americans and for example the Australians do.  Canada is still under the old system where the Queen is actually the property holder of the entire country, and no, when you buy land in Canada you do not take unassailable ownership of it, and if they need to, they can take it back, in the name of QE II, so long as they have Parliamentary Supremacy.

Everything you do in government in Canada, has to have the Queen's signature on it, and the whole government and all the territory is de jure owned by the Queen in extremis, the only democratic part is that you are the Queen's Executive and represent her will when you have Parliamentary Supremacy.

Oh, and the government, to include the armed forces,  do not swear allegiance to you the "Canadian People", that's America, in Canada the troops are bound to the Queen not the people, whether said troops realize it or not, most of them don't think about it, but if push comes to shove, tanks in the streets, they may not say "I'm not going to shoot at my people", that's not treason, but it is unlawful insubordination worthy of confinement, because they are ultimately there to defend their Queen from the "Canadian People", at the threshold of apprehended insurrection.

And since "treason" seems to get thrown around a lot on this forum; the only way you can be charged with treason in Canada is if you violate your oath to the Queen, on behalf of a foreign power, in wartime. 

Ever since the SCC ruled that Canadians owe no particular allegiance to the Crown, and so do not have to swear a citizenship oath anymore, it would be impossible to charge a private citizen with treason now, because you can only be charged with treason for violating oaths which you have sworn, since you don't have to swear fealty to Canada unless you are serving in government, only government employees could be charged with treason.

And while this system is archaic, dating to 1688, it is not ceremonial, it has real constitutional and legal force in the person sitting on that throne, and if you ever go to court and try to sue the Crown, you'll find out what a monarchy it really is, and how it vastly differs from American jurisprudence. In America you are arguing with the constitution, but in Canada the constitution is ultimately a person, but since she's a Queen, she has prerogatives no American person could ever invoke at you.

So it's a real monarchy and she's a real Queen, it's just like most monarchies in history, where the monarch did not get involved in the day to day running of their governments, but rather let their ministers deal with that, unless and until there was a constitutional crisis, and then the monarch has to step up and make the final call, hence constitutional monarch.

So at the end of the day, if  there is a hung parliament, and a Stephen Harper say, doesn't want to take Michaelle Jean's decision, he could go to Buckingham Palace, and try to have the Viceroy overruled, and the Queen has to make the call, at which point your votes are negated, and the Queen will pick your government for you.

And yes,  the Harper Cons were preparing to do exactly that, but Michaelle Jean went with Harper, so they didn't have to.

That is what Constitutional Monarchy is, it's not ceremonial, if it was a Ceremonial Monarchy they would have called it that, and it's not, because at the ultimate level of decision making, the Queen is the final executive, who has to make a binary choice, for one government over another, and in that context, her rule is at that moment absolute.

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Anyways, just for people who think they live in a republic;

If there is no clear majority in Parliament then yes the GG is the first option, but she's not the final option, if as the leader of a party you think you got screwed by the GG, like Harper thought he might get screwed by a Liberal Party of Canada Viceroy, you can go over the head of the GG, straight to Buckingham Palace; and get a second opinion from the actual Sovereign, Head of State & Commander-in-Chief. 

So in fact the Viceroy is the ceremonial position, and HM is the actual constitutional monarch.

Second, you have no property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the Americans and for example the Australians do.  Canada is still under the old system where the Queen is actually the property holder of the entire country, and no, when you buy land in Canada you do not take unassailable ownership of it, and if they need to, they can take it back, in the name of QE II, so long as they have Parliamentary Supremacy.

Everything you do in government in Canada, has to have the Queen's signature on it, and the whole government and all the territory is de jure owned by the Queen in extremis, the only democratic part is that you are the Queen's Executive and represent her will when you have Parliamentary Supremacy.

Oh, and the government, to include the armed forces,  do not swear allegiance to you the "Canadian People", that's America, in Canada the troops are bound to the Queen not the people, whether said troops realize it or not, most of them don't think about it, but if push comes to shove, tanks in the streets, they may not say "I'm not going to shoot at my people", that's not treason, but it is unlawful insubordination worthy of confinement, because they are ultimately there to defend their Queen from the "Canadian People", at the threshold of apprehended insurrection.

And since "treason" seems to get thrown around a lot on this forum; the only way you can be charged with treason in Canada is if you violate your oath to the Queen, on behalf of a foreign power, in wartime. 

Ever since the SCC ruled that Canadians owe no particular allegiance to the Crown, and so do not have to swear a citizenship oath anymore, it would be impossible to charge a private citizen with treason now, because you can only be charged with treason for violating oaths which you have sworn, since you don't have to swear fealty to Canada unless you are serving in government, only government employees could be charged with treason.

And while this system is archaic, dating to 1688, it is not ceremonial, it has real constitutional and legal force in the person sitting on that throne, and if you ever go to court and try to sue the Crown, you'll find out what a monarchy it really is, and how it vastly differs from American jurisprudence. In America you are arguing with the constitution, but in Canada the constitution is ultimately a person, but since she's a Queen, she has prerogatives no American person could ever invoke at you.

So it's a real monarchy and she's a real Queen, it's just like most monarchies in history, where the monarch did not get involved in the day to day running of their governments, but rather let their ministers deal with that, unless and until there was a constitutional crisis, and then the monarch has to step up and make the final call, hence constitutional monarch.

So at the end of the day, if  there is a hung parliament, and a Stephen Harper say, doesn't want to take Michaelle Jean's decision, he could go to Buckingham Palace, and try to have the Viceroy overruled, and the Queen has to make the call, at which point your votes are negated, and the Queen will pick your government for you.

And yes,  the Harper Cons were preparing to do exactly that, but Michaelle Jean went with Harper, so they didn't have to.

That is what Constitutional Monarchy is, it's not ceremonial, if it was a Ceremonial Monarchy they would have called it that, and it's not, because at the ultimate level of decision making, the Queen is the final executive, who has to make a binary choice, for one government over another, and in that context, her rule is at that moment absolute.

 

No, the Queen is not the one who could or would intervene if parliament no longer represented the interests of the people.  It's the GG's role, full stop.  No the Queen doesn't  own any Crown land in Canada.  The federal and provincial governments.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You need to study the Canadian AND UK parliamentary histories.  The Queen does not and cannot appoint the GG and the Queen cannot select the government, either in Canada or the UK.  Read the Magna Carta.  Yeesh.

Edited January 14, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

The Magna Carta?   lol. 

  The Magna Carta has nothing to do with Parliamentary Supremacy,  the Magna Carta is still around, but as it doesn't apply to constitutional monarchy in the modern sense, the Magna Carta is rather moot.

But whatever, keep on with your willful ignorance, yes, Canadians are ignorant, but the trick is to just hedge for the collapse of their silly fake country, and then you don't have to worry about them anymore. /shrugs.

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The Magna Carta?   lol. 

  The Magna Carta has nothing to do with Parliamentary Supremacy,  the Magna Carta is still around, but as it doesn't apply to constitutional monarchy in the modern sense, the Magna Carta is rather moot.

But whatever, keep on with your willful ignorance, yes, Canadians are ignorant, but the trick is to just hedge for the collapse of their silly fake country, and then you don't have to worry about them anymore. /shrugs.

The future is Canada

[Dougie93]

The future is post modern virtual states in the global ether and I already live there.

[GostHacked]

6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

The Magna Carta?   lol. 

  The Magna Carta has nothing to do with Parliamentary Supremacy,  the Magna Carta is still around, but as it doesn't apply to constitutional monarchy in the modern sense, the Magna Carta is rather moot.

But whatever, keep on with your willful ignorance, yes, Canadians are ignorant, but the trick is to just hedge for the collapse of their silly fake country, and then you don't have to worry about them anymore. /shrugs.

If we no longer go by the Magna Carta, then what the hell are we as a nation?

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

If we no longer go by the Magna Carta, then what the hell are we as a nation?

Well you clearly haven't read the Magna Carta, because while it still remains with the construction of British constitutional law, it was rather mostly rendered moot by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 wherein William of Orange founded the first modern liberal state at Westminster, and Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy which created a Constitutional Monarchy wherein the monarch simply performs one role; break glass in case of constitutional crises.   Magna Carta is a speeding ticket in comparison, it's still there, it just doesn't serve much practical purpose anymore, because the Queen is exponentially more constrained by Westminster than she is by Magna Carta.

[Dougie93]

Again, central narrative of your history, you're not living in 1066 world, you're not living in 1215 world, but you are still living in 1688 world, and that is the nation which is your nation, British Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy.

[Dougie93]

And once you grasp that, then you will realize that your nation is not a race and your nation is not a place, but rather no different than America, your nation is an idea.

The Americans just took the idea one step further to solve their constitutional crises by democratic hurly burly forced confrontation and in the end negotiation, see; government shutdown

Edited January 15, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

To wit, the Americans operate by market forces sans the Royal Referee.   In that, once they get to gridlock between the separation of powers, the market will start to assign a price to that and which side to impose the price on, and then whichever side is paying that market price, will be forced to back down; problem solved.

[Queenmandy85]

I hate to say it, but Doug is correct on two points.  (Even a broken clock is right twice a day. )

1. The Queen does have the constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss GG's, PM's, judges, etc. She also has the authority to declare war. However, she does not have the authority to vote taxes. That resides with Parliament. Though the Queen has the authority (the right to make a decision, she does not have the power to carry it out. She retains the Royal Perogatives, to advise and receive advice, the right of clemency etc. but I haven't had my coffee yet.

2. All land in Canada is owned by the Crown. When you buy a piece of land in Canada, you are actually buying a freehold lease. Actual ownership is retained by the Crown.

The Monarch is in effect a ceremonial post equivalent to the President of Germany, Israel, or most other republics. There are contingencies in which the Queen may act, but by convention, the GG would act on her behalf. When Clark lost the budget vote, he went to the GG and asked for an election and the GG agreed on condition that if the election did not resolve things, he would call on the Leader of the opposition.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I hate to say it, but Doug is correct on two points. 

1. The Queen does have the constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss GG's, PM's, judges, etc. She also has the authority to declare war. However, she does not have the authority to vote taxes. That resides with Parliament. Though the Queen has the authority (the right to make a decision, she does not have the power to carry it out. She retains the Royal Perogatives, to advise and receive advice, the right of clemency etc. but I haven't had my coffee yet.

2. All land in Canada is owned by the Crown. When you buy a piece of land in Canada, you are actually buying a freehold lease. Actual ownership is retained by the Crown.

The Monarch is in effect a ceremonial post equivalent to the President of Germany, Israel, or most other republics. There are contingencies in which the Queen may act, but by convention, the GG would act on her behalf. When Clark lost the budget vote, he went to the GG and asked for an election and the GG agreed on condition that if the election did not resolve things, he would call on the Leader of the opposition.

Again, Crown land is owned exclusively by the provinces and federal government.  Absolute clarity on that.  The GG cannot appoint any Ministers, judges etc. except under the advice of the PM.  The GG must ensure there is a PM but does not select the PM, which is determined by party vote.  Also, since the Statute of Westminster of 1931, the GG acts as the monarch of the country and the Commander in Chief of the militia.  The Royal Prerogative in Canada IS this system of the GG signing in a largely ceremonial way and only under the advice of the PM, unless in some extremely rare instance the parliament turned on the people.  The Royal Prerogative, which is this system, can only be changed with the unanimous permission of the provinces and the parliament.  Nothing to do with the Queen/King.  The GG is effectively the monarch of Canada.  The Queen is retained as a symbol of Canada’s close connection to Britain’s cultural and political institutions.  Interestingly, Quebec has a National Assembly modeled on France’s institutions.  It functions as a provincial government within Confederation quite well. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Queenmandy85]

While you are correct in the practical political sense, the PM has no authority under the constitution. It comes down to convention vs constitution, power vs authority. It is basically the same as the German system where the political power rests with the Chancellor and the constitutional authority rests with the President.  One cannot act without the other.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[Zeitgeist]

52 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

While you are correct in the practical political sense, the PM has no authority under the constitution. It comes down to convention vs constitution, power vs authority. It is basically the same as the German system where the political power rests with the Chancellor and the constitutional authority rests with the President.  One cannot act without the other.

Yes, and I think there's value in separating the head of state from the PM in terms of leaving the ceremonial business to the GG and the policy business to the PM (and the rest of parliament).  The GG makes sure the PM is doing the PM job and the PM gets the GG to sign off on his/her work. The GG is always a well known and respected public figure by all parties, so it makes the ceremonial business (GG awards, military medals and inspections, etc.) really positive.  It's rare to have a controversial GG.  Not rare to have a controversial PM!

Edited January 15, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

The GG doesn't make sure the PM is doing his job, the GG is actually ceremonial, the Queen makes sure the PM is doing his job, through Her Parliamentary Supremacy for which HM defends the right.