NDP leader Jagmeet Singh says the Constitutional Monarchy does not benefit Canadians

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

So why would the PM hold any more elections then?  If there were no head-of-state above him, he would be supreme ruler; he could refuse to hold elections and could just dissolve Parliament and that would be the end of it.  Anybody who opposed him, he could just have them arrested and thrown in prison.

I could never figure out the logic of these people who would make a PM the head of state.

How did Donald trump make out, he is supreme leader and he got voted out in perhaps the most contested election in American history and he stepped down. Why is it Canadians put so much effort into thinking about the extreme happening, like your example or can't have a huge military, because they take over the country, or we will be tempted to use it....

This is Canada and if Justin suddenly decided to become supreme leader until death, the liberals would just shrug their shoulders shouting go Justin go...  Besides i really doubt anyone would notice, a few conservatives would the rest of the conservatives would seek political refugee status in the US and the liberals could burn it to the ground...

Justin has yet to answer for anything he has done wrong to date, so what would be different if he was elected or took control by force. What would he hold this power with, The military that would be funny really, first the liberals and conservatives have gone to great effort to defang our military because they are to cheap...., next out of the 65,000 members in the military not many are liberal or support anything the left has to offer...So not much support to hold power, or even take power. 

[Moonlight Graham]

I think if you're a leader of a federal party like Jagmeet is you need to tread lightly around this issue because you're talking about an institutional that underpins the very foundations of the state and the position he holds.  It seems like he may not know much about our institutions like most Canadians.  I blame our education system for that.

He claims to be a republican rather than a monarchist.  That is a very bold position for a federal leader.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Moonlight Graham

[Nefarious Banana]

51 minutes ago, Army Guy said: Why is it Canadians put so much effort into thinking about the extreme happening, like your example or can't have a huge military, because they take over the country, or we will be tempted to use it....

54 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 Why is it Canadians put so much effort into thinking about the extreme happening, like your example or can't have a huge military, because they take over the country, or we will be tempted to use it....

Justin has yet to answer for anything he has done wrong to date, so what would be different if he was elected or took control by force. What would he hold this power with, The military that would be funny really, first the Liberals and Conservatives have gone to great effort to defang our military because they are to cheap...., next out of the 65,000 members in the military not many are Liberal or support anything the left has to offer...So not much support to hold power, or even take power. 

De-fanged military and an unarmed populace . . . . .truly a nation of stupids.

 

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Why do you need a replacement just dissolve the position and redistribute the GG task most of which are ceremonial anyways, the PM becomes commander and chief, the checks and balances required to go to war etc. would have to have a majority vote in the house 

Donald Trump is a poster boy for the campaign not to go that way. Over the past five years the US has given us a perfect lesson in why the head of state and head of government should not be the same person and that is in a system that supposedly has more checks and balances than we do. 

[herbie]

Singh doesn't need to tread lightly about the Monarchy. It's less relevant than he is.

The Queen herself should recognize it's a long dead institution and declare herself the Last Monarch.

[Moonlight Graham]

14 minutes ago, herbie said:

Singh doesn't need to tread lightly about the Monarchy. It's less relevant than he is.

The Queen herself should recognize it's a long dead institution and declare herself the Last Monarch.

The US build its republic from scratch.  Our system has been slowly built over many centuries and came out of an absolute monarchy, and still retains some elements of the monarchy, so it's complex to remove it from a system build on its foundations.

The monarchy is large ceremonial anyways, as head of state.

[taxme]

22 hours ago, AntiConservative said:

I think what it comes down to is, people see Meghan as an imposter. I just don't see Meghan as a trashy girl from the hood. Unlike some of the snobs in the Royal family, Meghan seems organic. They could of used her to help connect with the global community, and instead blew it, by allowing the press to throw her under bus. With Meghan's acting experience, they should of had her traveling the world. She could have made powerful speechs, and that would have improved public relations for the Monarchy.

But then she could end up being killed in a car crash underneath some bridge in Paris one day. It's probably best for her to be out and away from the royal eye. ?

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

How did Donald trump make out, he is supreme leader and he got voted out in perhaps the most contested election in American history and he stepped down. Why is it Canadians put so much effort into thinking about the extreme happening, like your example or can't have a huge military, because they take over the country, or we will be tempted to use it....

This is Canada and if Justin suddenly decided to become supreme leader until death, the liberals would just shrug their shoulders shouting go Justin go...  Besides i really doubt anyone would notice, a few conservatives would the rest of the conservatives would seek political refugee status in the US and the liberals could burn it to the ground...

Justin has yet to answer for anything he has done wrong to date, so what would be different if he was elected or took control by force. What would he hold this power with, The military that would be funny really, first the liberals and conservatives have gone to great effort to defang our military because they are to cheap...., next out of the 65,000 members in the military not many are liberal or support anything the left has to offer...So not much support to hold power, or even take power. 

Another thing;  it would be very difficult and practically impossible to abolish or change the Constitutional Monarchy because it would require a major Constitutional change which would mean probably a referendum and it would require all ten provinces to agree which is unlikely to ever happen.  Any change to a republic would have to show what the new system would look like and likely would be rejected by provinces.  It would also require long negotiations with aboriginals which have a special relationship with the Queen through their treaties.  They would likely not agree to a change.

Edited March 11, 2021 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

9 hours ago, Aristides said:

Excellent movie on Haakon VII. Foreign language but well worth watching. When it came to the crunch, the monarch did matter.

The King's Choice.

It's available on Prime.

What a story. I must look out for it. Monarchs can make a difference as Juan Carlos did in Spain during the attempted coup, although he blotted his copy-book in later life. If we must have one after QEII, let’s go for a suitably low-key Canadian version à la Benelux and Scandinavia. 

[marcus]

On 3/9/2021 at 6:50 PM, blackbird said:

Typical of Marxists to dislike royalty and the monarchy and want to get rid of them.  Canada's Constitutional Monarchy is not oppressive and long ago gave up it's power to Parliamentary democracy.  It's only function now is to protect the parliamentary system from being taken over by a dictator, such as Marxists and therefore it provides a valuable purpose.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

The monarchy is useless and only for show. It's time to cut it out of our budget.

 

Source

Why do we need to spend over $60,000,000 a year on this useless b.s.?

Spend the money on something that matters: R&D, self sufficiency, and our veterans. 

 

[myata]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Another thing;  it would be very difficult and practically impossible to abolish or change the Constitutional Monarchy because it would require a major Constitutional change ...

That should be translated into Latin and go in the official motto on the coat of arms. Forget ad mare. Whenever any, even a minor and trivial change is discussed here you go, gotcha!

Change is not possible, here. Leave your hopes outside.

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, marcus said:

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

The monarchy is useless and only for show. It's time to cut it out of our budget.

 

Source

Why do we need to spend over $60,000,000 a year on this useless b.s.?

Spend the money on something that matters: R&D, self sufficiency, and our veterans. 

 

You would still need a bureaucracy to replace the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors in each Province.  They all have a staff and buildings.  The GG has a staff of about 100 people and the Lietenant Governors have small numbers of staff.  They all perform certain functions.  You are obviously unaware of what the Queen's representatives do in Canada.  You may be far worse off with dictators running Canada and no Constitutional Monarchy to prevent it.  A cup of coffee once a year is a small price to pay for democracy.  We all waste far more money than that.

There is a reason why we sang "God Save the Queen".

Edited March 11, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, myata said:

That should be translated into Latin and go in the official motto on the coat of arms. Forget ad mare. Whenever any, even a minor and trivial change is discussed here you go, gotcha!

Change is not possible, here. Leave your hopes outside.

It's a good thing it is not easy to change because some changes could be disastrous for Canada, such as getting rid of the foundation of our democratic system.  Ease of change sometimes is not a good thing.  It creates instability and possibly anarchy.   I suspect if such a change ever got legs, there would be some provinces opting out of Canada.

It should be noted that Pakistan was created out of India on August 14th, 1947 one day before India became totally independent from Britain and discontinued the Monarchy on August 15th, 1947.  Such a move can split a country apart.

Edited March 11, 2021 by blackbird

[blackbird]

Getting rid of the Constitutional Monarchy could easily result in splitting Canada up into different countries.  This is exactly what happened to India.  Pakistan was formed on August 14th, 1947 and India got rid of the Monarchy on August 15th, 1947, one day later.  The threat is becoming a republic could result in centralizing power in Ottawa far more than it already is and provinces losing what jurisdiction they have now.  This would guarantee separation.

The very country Jagmeet Singh or his parents came from split apart when they got rid of the Monarchy.  Do you see the irony of this?

Edited March 11, 2021 by blackbird

[Aristides]

11 hours ago, marcus said:

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

The monarchy is useless and only for show. It's time to cut it out of our budget.

 

Source

Why do we need to spend over $60,000,000 a year on this useless b.s.?

Spend the money on something that matters: R&D, self sufficiency, and our veterans. 

 

That cost is somewhat inflated because she didn't serve a full term. A large part of that cost is the life time pensions and expense accounts that are given to these people after only five years of service. How many former GG's are still collecting those? Something could be done about that.

Any replacement head of state will also have a cost, unless you want to give prime ministers even more power.

[myata]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

It's a good thing it is not easy to change because some changes could be disastrous for Canada, such as getting rid of the foundation of our democratic system.  Ease of change sometimes is not a good thing.  It creates instability and possibly anarchy.   I suspect if such a change ever got legs, there would be some provinces opting out of Canada.

Monarchy as a foundation of democracy. Interesting paradox for philosophy discussion but how would it work in practice? Can citizens change their democratic system if they wished or they could not? There's only two options and only one means a democracy.

[marcus]

42 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That cost is somewhat inflated because she didn't serve a full term. A large part of that cost is the life time pensions and expense accounts that are given to these people after only five years of service. How many former GG's are still collecting those? Something could be done about that.

Any replacement head of state will also have a cost, unless you want to give prime ministers even more power.

I still don't see how they are a benefit for us to spend any money at all. They are just a symbol.

I don't accept the scary dictator argument. I don't see that happening.

I prefer not to have some expensive, unelected symbol at the top. It makes no sense to me. There are dozens of well functioning democracies around the world, without the need of some archaeic b.s. symbol, that brings no benefit to today's society.

[marcus]

54 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Getting rid of the Constitutional Monarchy could easily result in splitting Canada up into different countries.  This is exactly what happened to India.  Pakistan was formed on August 14th, 1947 and India got rid of the Monarchy on August 15th, 1947, one day later.  The threat is becoming a republic could result in centralizing power in Ottawa far more than it already is and provinces losing what jurisdiction they have now.  This would guarantee separation.

The very country Jagmeet Singh or his parents came from split apart when they got rid of the Monarchy.  Do you see the irony of this?

You can't possibly use India/Pakistan as a comparison. India and Pakistan were occupied by the UK. That area of the world is thousands of years old and there are millions of different ethnicities. Countries and borders have been redrawn hundreds of times, especially after WW2.

With all due respect, that is a bad comparison.

Why can't we just rely on our constitution and remove b.s. symbols? 

Personally, I don't want a non-elected official as the head of our country. It goes against the rules of a real functioning democracy. It also costs too much money. Why is my tax money going to some archaeic symbol?

[Nefarious Banana]

Jagmeet Singh  for Governor General . . . . or, because our boy PM has a penchant for kissing China's ass, Meng Wanzhou for GG.  Endless opportunities for our 'leader' . . . make us proud Justin.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Nefarious Banana

[Army Guy]

7 hours ago, myata said:

That should be translated into Latin and go in the official motto on the coat of arms. Forget ad mare. Whenever any, even a minor and trivial change is discussed here you go, gotcha!

Change is not possible, here. Leave your hopes outside.

Everything is possible, but Canada does not have a good track record when it comes to constitutional change, and i'm not sure there is even a will to make any real changes. That being said there is much more talk about the GG position , will it lead to anything else not sure.

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

Donald Trump is a poster boy for the campaign not to go that way. Over the past five years the US has given us a perfect lesson in why the head of state and head of government should not be the same person and that is in a system that supposedly has more checks and balances than we do. 

I think you could also use it as an example that the system is sound, and if Trump could not screw with it , nobody can with out getting a response from the people. After all there was a hand over of power, regardless of trumps antics.

[Nefarious Banana]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I think you could also use it as an example that the system is sound, and if Trump could not screw with it , nobody can with out getting a response from the people. 

Maybe not the best comparison . . . . Americans would respond, that's a given.  Canada as it is now, would accept anything from Ottawa.  We've proved that beyond a doubt with this fool of a PM. Corruption/crime  gets a shrug of the shoulders and a yawn.  

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Maybe not the best comparison . . . . Americans would respond, that's a given.  Canada as it is now, would accept anything from Ottawa.  We've proved that beyond a doubt with this fool of a PM. Corruption/crime  gets a shrug of the shoulders and a yawn.  

No, but it does rank up there with the worse example.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, myata said:

Monarchy as a foundation of democracy. Interesting paradox for philosophy discussion but how would it work in practice? Can citizens change their democratic system if they wished or they could not? There's only two options and only one means a democracy.

Russia assassinated their Tsar and his family and replaced it with a Communist-Leninist system.  Then proceeded to kill millions of people and deny the rest their freedom.  The will of the people I guess.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, marcus said:

You can't possibly use India/Pakistan as a comparison. India and Pakistan were occupied by the UK. That area of the world is thousands of years old and there are millions of different ethnicities. Countries and borders have been redrawn hundreds of times, especially after WW2.

With all due respect, that is a bad comparison.

Why can't we just rely on our constitution and remove b.s. symbols? 

Personally, I don't want a non-elected official as the head of our country. It goes against the rules of a real functioning democracy. It also costs too much money. Why is my tax money going to some archaeic symbol?

You don't want a Constitutional Monarchy which protects us from being taken over by a would-be dictator.  If you abolish the system we have, what would there be to stop a crocked PM from just abolishing our Parliamentary system and elections and setting himself up as dictator for life?  You still haven't explained how abolishing the Monarchy would work in practice.  Just something you want to do because you don't like privilege or authority.  That's what Communists said and how did that work for them?   

Just a coincidence that both Russia and China have absolute dictators, Putin and Xi, that set themselves up to rule for life.  Just happens there is no authority over them to stop them.  A Constitutional Monarch provides that safeguard.

Edited March 11, 2021 by blackbird