The Queen kicks the bucket

[SpankyMcFarland]

18 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But it doesn’t matter because all they do is hand out medals, cut ribbons, give the ol’ “dare to dream” speech,  and the “thoughts and prayers”  speech etc. It’s ’s not an important job.  In USA the presidents wife pretty much does it. 

They can be involved in more serious matters like whether or not to prorogue parliament. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–2009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

Edited September 10, 2022 by SpankyMcFarland

[BeaverFever]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

They can be involved in more serious matters like the prorogation of parliament. 

They just go along with the PM in those situations. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

They just go along with the PM in those situations. 

Not always, neither here nor in other jurisdictions that have a GG. The point is that they should be seen to be as impartial as possible in such situations. 

[BeaverFever]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Not always, neither here nor in other jurisdictions that have a GG. The point is that they should be seen to be as impartial as possible in such situations. 

Can you point to an example?  Chretien appointed GG went along with Harper on proroguing parliament. In practice they defer to parliament and never dare weird power precisely  because they are unelected 

[SpankyMcFarland]

We’ve also been lucky that the UK and Canada haven’t a serious falling out on some issue. If that were to happen we’d look rather silly with a Briton as our very part-time head of state. Another weird aspect: until 2013 our head of state or anyone in line for that job couldn’t marry a Catholic. Imagine any other job in the country where that was allowed. When the Brits brought in new legislation back then we were forced to hurriedly follow suit. 

https://www.cbc.ca/m/text/story_news-canada.html?/ept/html/story/2013/01/25/pol-royal-baby-bill-advancer.html

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Can you point to an example?  Chretien appointed GG went along with Harper on proroguing parliament. In practice they defer to parliament and never dare weird power precisely  because they are unelected 

That prorogation was debated extensively by academics. It should not have been a foregone conclusion. 

Here are examples not of prorogation rejection exactly but of similar situations where the GG (and an LG) exerted their so-called reserve powers. In 1975, the Australian GG actually dismissed the PM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

 

Two old examples at federal level in Canada:

Quote

The reserve power of dismissal has never been used in Canada, although other reserve powers have been employed to force the prime minister to resign on two occasions: The first took place in 1896, when the Prime Minister, Sir Charles Tupper, refused to step down after his party did not win a majority in the House of Commons during that year's election, leading Governor General the Earl of Aberdeen to no longer recognize Tupper as prime minister and disapprove of several appointments Tupper had recommended. On the second occasion, which took place in 1925 and came to be known as the King–Byng affair, Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, facing a non-confidence motion in the House of Commons, advised the Governor General, the Viscount Byng of Vimy, to dissolve the new parliament, but Byng refused.

 

And one more recent and relevant example at provincial level involving a refusal to dissolve the legislature. 

Quote

At the provincial level, on 29 June 2017 Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia Judith Guichon used her reserve powers to deny the request of Premier Christy Clark to dissolve the legislature and call a new election only 51 days after the recent provincial election. Clark had advised Guichon to dissolve the legislature as, in her view, the appointment of a Speaker would have resulted in frequent tie votes and an untenable position. Guichon refused this advice and instead asked John Horgan to form a government, becoming the new premier.^[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada

 

The point is that the GG (or provincial LGs) should not be a rubber stamp agreeing to anything the PM wants. 
 

Quote

Peter Hogg, a constitutional scholar, has opined that "a system of responsible government cannot work without a formal head of state who is possessed of certain reserve powers."^[10] Further, Eugene Forsey stated "the reserve power is indeed, under our Constitution, an absolutely essential safeguard of democracy. It takes the place of the legal and judicial safeguards provided in the United States by written Constitutions, enforceable in the courts."^[11]

Following the failure of the Crown to stop a recent attempted prorogation by Boris Johnson’s government, the decision was appealed by parliamentarians to the Supreme Court in the UK and was found to be unlawful. I would expect to see similar litigation here in future. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy#Prorogation

Edited September 10, 2022 by SpankyMcFarland

[cougar]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Complicit in something that was considered a social good at the time by the vast majority of people?  Grow up.

The "good" now commonly referred to as "genocide"??

You need to grow up!

[August1991]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The Monarch is a ceremonial figurehead that doesn’t interfere in government business. In Canada or the UK. Period. 

Ceremonial? Doesn't interfere? "The Monarch"?

Then why have this person?

====

What if someone like Donald Trump becomes Head of State?

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by August1991

[August1991]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Can you point to an example?  Chretien appointed GG went along with Harper on proroguing parliament. In practice they defer to parliament and never dare weird power precisely  because they are unelected 

This is part of the example.

----

Trudeau Snr famously realised that to change Canada's constitution, all he needed was the approval of two women: Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth II.

 

[August1991]

Margaret Thatcher apparently said to Trudeau Snr: Never again.

We don't know what Elizabeth II said to Trudeau Snr.

(Trudeau Jnr was about 12 years old at the time. He now says that he admires her.)

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by August1991

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, cougar said:

The "good" now commonly referred to as "genocide"??

You need to grow up!

So why don’t you pay reparations if you think it was so bad and feel such responsibility for it?   Many things happened that weren’t “good” by today’s standards, including the wars and abuses of Indigenous groups towards one another before European contact.

[Dougie93]

17 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

So why don’t you pay reparations if you think it was so bad and feel such responsibility for it? 

since the government is simply taking printed dollars from the central bank and flooding them into the economy

handing out more money to the Indians would simply make them poorer

the Canadian solution to everything, throw more government spending at it

has now become a fire which Canadians are going to burn in

[Zeitgeist]

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

since the government is simply taking printed dollars from the central bank and flooding them into the economy

handing out more money to the Indians would simply make them poorer

the Canadian solution to everything, throw more government spending at it

has now become a fire which Canadians are going to burn in

Of course.  The moral hazard is resulting in the hardship of lower living standards, but the Biden administration continues its overspending and calls it countering inflation.  Trudeau is now talking about giving out more money so people can handle the higher inflation.  That’s called a vicious circle.  I’m not suggesting we move to austerity, but reducing the dependence on government would be an important shift.  Shrinking government would allow taxes to eventually be reduced.

The biggest problem for western countries now, and particularly smaller ones like Canada, is maintaining national interests against the onslaught of global agreements and pressure.  We’ve entered a global competition to nullify humanity to reach climate action goals.  Too many Canadians don’t see how much the noose is tightening.

So we have two terrible forces eroding Canadian freedom, prosperity, and sovereignty:  inflation caused by overspending and high cost, highly restrictive globally-directed climate action policies.  Our current government is deeply committed to both of these destructive approaches.  

Edited September 10, 2022 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Of course.  The moral hazard is resulting in the hardship of lower living standards,

I've encountered the first casualty face to face

we've hired on a Mlllennial

31 years old, wife & kid

they are $10,000 in debt

their rent just went to $3,000/month

he works 7 days a week

18 hours a day, Mon to Fri

then 10 hours a day on weekends

and still he's not getting anywhere, they continue to sink deeper into debt

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I've encountered the first casualty face to face

we've hired on a Mlllennial

31 years old, wife & kid

they are $10,000 in debt

their rent just went to $3,000/month

he works 7 days a week

18 hours a day, Mon to Fri

then 10 hours a day on weekends

and still he's not getting anywhere, they continue to sink deeper into debt

People don’t understand that adding to the cost of living through inflationary overspending and climate action carbon taxes and energy restrictions is regressing us to 19th century living standards.  

[Iceni warrior]

[BeaverFever]

7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

That prorogation was debated extensively by academics. It should not have been a foregone conclusion. 

Here are examples not of prorogation rejection exactly but of similar situations where the GG (and an LG) exerted their so-called reserve powers. In 1975, the Australian GG actually dismissed the PM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

 

Two old examples at federal level in Canada:

 

And one more recent and relevant example at provincial level involving a refusal to dissolve the legislature. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada

 

The point is that the GG (or provincial LGs) should not be a rubber stamp agreeing to anything the PM wants. 
 

Following the failure of the Crown to stop a recent attempted prorogation by Boris Johnson’s government, the decision was appealed by parliamentarians to the Supreme Court in the UK and was found to be unlawful. I would expect to see similar litigation here in future. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy#Prorogation

Well in none of those VERY RARE (and also mostly old) cases did the Canadian LG or GG call Buckingham palace for direction.  Which proves that even if an office of GG/LG is required we don’t need to it to be associated with the British monarchy 

[ExFlyer]

14 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

my allegiance was to Elizabeth Windsor, personally

now that she is dead, all my allegiances to ridiculous pathetic Canada are absolved

I'm just another immigrant here now, as if I was from Pakistan, or China, or Mexico

i pay my taxes, I obey the laws, I owe no more allegiance than that, to your Post National State

 

You have never said you have any allegiance to Canada, only to the Queen.

Post National State? Huh??

[Dougie93]

there is no requirement to have any allegiance to Canadian Confederation

Canada is not a republic

Canada is simply an agreement

which by the terms of its own constitution

can be lawfully dissolved at any time, by majority vote

Edited September 10, 2022 by Dougie93

[ExFlyer]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

there is no requirement to have any allegiance to Canadian Confederation

Canada is not a republic

Canada is simply an agreement

which by the terms of its own constitution

can be lawfully dissolved at any time, by majority vote

You said,

"my allegiance was to Elizabeth Windsor, personally

now that she is dead, all my allegiances to ridiculous pathetic Canada are absolved"

I called you out on that. You never said or pledged any allegiance to Canada at any time.

And the constitution cannot be dissolved by majority vote. If even considered, it would require a lot including the Monarchy.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, ExFlyer said:

You said,

"my allegiance was to Elizabeth Windsor, personally

now that she is dead, all my allegiances to ridiculous pathetic Canada are absolved"

I called you out on that.

called me out for what ?

it's no crime to be a republican in Canada

vive le Quebec libre

[Dougie93]

in terms of the King

I am only bound to pay his taxes & obey his laws

done & done

I am not bound to have personal fealty

to a lying, cheating divorcee King who consorts with nefarious foreign influence

Edward VIII was forced to abdicate for far less

Edited September 10, 2022 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

bear in mind, the British Crown is not an absolute monarchy and never was

Charles I was overthrown and beheaded

Charles II was replaced by the Dutch Regent, in a military invasion of Great Britain

Charles is an ignominious name for a British monarch

[ironstone]

On 9/8/2022 at 4:18 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

As grief wanes, we should understand the unprecedented situation. We now have a King who has been preparing for this role for 70 years. He is a compassionate and highly intelligent man. To my knowledge, this has never happened before and we need to celebrate his ascension.

I have little interest in the royal family other than feeling very annoyed when they are lecturing people like me about fighting climate change. Queen Elizabeth was a class act in that respect. It's the pinnacle of hypocrisy for any other member of the royal family to mention climate change given their own massive carbon footprint.

We are going to be inundated with this stuff now that Charles is king.

They do pay a price for being in the spotlight but the flip side is that all of them are enormously wealthy and have their every whim catered to. 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

I have little interest in the royal family other than feeling very annoyed when they are lecturing people like me about fighting climate change. Queen Elizabeth was a class act in that respect. It's the pinnacle of hypocrisy for any other member of the royal family to mention climate change given their own massive carbon footprint.

We are going to be inundated with this stuff now that Charles is king.

hear, hear