Support for monarchy

[Dougie93]

now, in terms of overruling the GG and going to Buckingham Palace for a second opinion

only the acting Prime Minister can do that, defensively

the Leader of HM Loyal Opposition cannot do that

the Leader of HM Loyal Opposition can simply invoke that the acting Prime Minister does not have Supremacy

first, that Prime Minster can go his own GG to back him up

but if he cannot gain the confidence of Parliament by those means

and/or the GG rules against him

then he has one last resort,

to go to the King at Buckingham Palace to back him up

 

[-TSS-]

Judging by the past week I can't help noticing that if I were a Brit and I wanted to know what else is going on in the world I would have to turn to foreign news. 

The British media is all about one topic only at this time. 

[I am Groot]

16 hours ago, myata said:

Seriously? Going on three centuries of quasi-independent existence we have nothing to speak for us other than foreign, different continent monarchy? That should say something important.. about us. If only we bothered to care and listen.

Well, according to Trudeau we aren't a nation and have no central vision or identity. How are we to bring about a new type of country out of that?

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, eyeball said:

How about a 1st Nation's Monarch for Canada?  That would sure convince me we've learned something about the past.

How about we don't appoint people to important positions based on race?

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How about we don't appoint people to important positions based on race?

Okay, base it on seniority.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Technically, they probably do but all hell would break loose if they ever did. Like when the Australian GG fired a Prime Minister.

And yet the voters agreed with the GG and voted in the opposition.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

How about we don't appoint people to important positions based on race?

Is Eyeball totally out to lunch?  We have an Indigenous GG. 

[eyeball]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Is Eyeball totally out to lunch?  We have an Indigenous GG. 

A GG is not a monarch.

Strangely enough I'm eating a sandwich right now.

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

How would that happen, exactly/ It would require opening the constitution. Our governments are not that crazy. Remmember Meech.

I do not know how it happened "exactly", bu tit did. You would have to ask them.

Are you saying all the other countries are or were crazy? Clearly they are doing just fine without GG's, LG's and an oath to the monarchy.

What about Meech? Do you think the other countries did not have charters or constitutions?

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

  We have an Indigenous GG. 

not a bad choice neither

tho she worked for the CBC

that was back in 1973,

long before the CBC became an American Woke Bolshevist lunatic asylum

[Dougie93]

24 minutes ago, eyeball said:

A GG is not a monarch.

monarchy is hereditary

so if you chose an Indian monarch

that family would rule by hereditary sucession

frankly, the other Indian nations would rebel against that

unless that family was Mohawk, the Mohawks in particular would go to war against that

even if that family was Mohawk, the Mohawks would probably go to war against it

do not underestimate the veto power of the Mohawks

de facto military hegemon of the First Nations

Edited September 17, 2022 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

16 hours ago, myata said:

Seriously? Going on three centuries of quasi-independent existence we have nothing to speak for us other than foreign, different continent monarchy? That should say something important.. about us. If only we bothered to care and listen.

For me the issue is that there’s always forces in Canada that literally seek to undermine what many Canadians value about Canada.  Trudeau Jr for example is all about pleasing international ideologues and special interests like the Quebec ethno-nationalists and the anti-development left wing factions of the Indigenous (not representing all Indigenous).   So if he picks our GG then essentially the GG is partisan.  The monarch is a higher authority but the opposition has no recourse.  I think the GG should be chosen from among the Senate by the Senate, OR, have the Senate put forward a candidate from among their ranks representing each political party with official status, then let the electorate vote in the GG from among these Senate candidates.  It would mean that we could have a political party in government with a PM from one party and a GG from another party.  It would mean that the head of state is the truly popular choice, as currently we have a situation where the party that doesn’t get the most votes can still win the most seats and form the government, as in the last federal election.  It would likely ensure that western Canadian and business interests are represented no matter which Liberal-NDP-Red Tory communists run our government.  ?

[Iceni warrior]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

the assertion that Canada could become a republic is also not the case

Canada is unique amongst British realms

as Canada is the only Confederation of the British Empire

unlike every other realm

Canada is not a unitary state

if you try to make Canada into a republic, you will destroy Canada in the process

starting with Quebec becoming its own republic by default, breaking the Confederation on the spot

the monarchy is the only thing which binds the Condeferation together, make no mistake

Quebec is coincidentally the most British part of Canada

because it is the authority of British Crown

which empowers Quebec to keep Ottawa at arms length

without having to declare independence therein

Quebec has not even ratified the Canada Act 1982

Quebec is still governed by the British North America Act

that could not be so in a unitary republic

only monarchy allows for such asymmetry

je me souviens

What would happen if the UK decided to become a republic?

Could the Monarch carry on as the head of the Commonwealth?

Perhaps reign from one of the dozen or so nations where they are still head of state?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Iceni warrior said:

What would happen if the UK decided to become a republic?

the United Kingdom would simply cease to exist

if you remove the monarchy, you are starting from scratch, like the Americans

[Iceni warrior]

We write a new constitution and become a republic.

I'm more interested in what happens to the Commonwealth and the monarch.

[Iceni warrior]

Does the Commonwealth need Britain or just the monarch to exist?

Edited September 17, 2022 by Iceni warrior

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

 

Could the Monarch carry on as the head of the Commonwealth?

Perhaps reign from one of the dozen or so nations where they are still head of state?

that is not what a British transition to republic looks like, old bean

you already know what it looks like

the Troubles

 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

We write a new constitution and become a republic.

and the Loyalists go to war against you on the spot

hello. hello. we are the Billy Boys

buckle up

 

 

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Does the Commonwealth need Britain or just the monarch to exist.

only Canada needs the monarch

the rest of the Commonwealth can walk, including Australia

but Canada is only bound together by the monarchy

otherwise Quebec is gone right away, negating the entire purpose of Canada therein

see those Household Infantry at the Citadel

the most British place in Canada

as it is the Crown which grants them their autonomy

without that, they will break the Confederation without further ado

 

[-TSS-]

Jamaica and the Bahamas are considering to become republics. Perhaps it is the right choice for them. You can still be in the Commonwealth despite being republic.

Not sure though whether the Commonwealth means anything these days any more.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Jamaica and the Bahamas are considering to become republics. Perhaps it is the right choice for them. You can still be in the Commonwealth despite being republic.

Not sure though whether the Commonwealth means anything these days any more.

people keep invoking these realms as proxy for Canada

but Canada is not like the Bahamas, at all

Canada cannot exist without the British Crown

again, because Canada is not a unitary state

Canada is rather a shotgun marriage between two sworn enemies

of the House of Hanover & the House of Bourbon, Treaty of Paris 1763

remove the monarchy, and that arrangement collapses on the spot

[Iceni warrior]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

and the Loyalists go to war against you on the spot

hello. hello. we are the Billy Boys

buckle up

 

 

Not me dear boy, I'm a constitutional monarchist, I'm just posing the question.

Charles has a few options.

Quote

 Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

Maybe not Australia. They'd never put up with it but NZ might just to piss off the Aussies.

Canada's too cold obviously, but look at all those lovely Caribbean gigs.

Jamaica's a bit shooty but the Bahamas or St Lucia would be acceptable.

 

Just grab as much of his personal wealth as he can, maybe nick a crown and bugger off to reign from a place where he gets to see the Sun more than a handful of days a year.

[myata]

3 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Canada, Australia, NZ etc are de facto republics anyway.

Not really. Not sure about NZ but Canada and likely Australia are more like autocracy-bureaucracy with some allusions to independence, while dragging monarchy tradition to retain the status quo. In this system there are no real independent institutions, checks and balances all is managed by some vague political elite cloud nominally divided in two default "parties" (they aren't like genuine parliamentary parties for the reasons explained) with some rules and protocols supposedly, but nothing that can be seen, verified and tested by the citizens. For example, there's a host of obscure "prerogatives" that governments blankly, just gave to themselves often to avoid transparency and answering questions without any checks or controls. There will be a trial of participants of the freedom convoy, but no judge ever looked at the need and proportionality of government actions, many other examples. To summarise, the bureaucracy running this system uses "independence" or "monarchy" agendas as and when it suits its needs.

Edited September 17, 2022 by myata

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Not me dear boy, I'm a constitutional monarchist, I'm just posing the question.

and I'm just answering the question

in that, it doesn't come apart peacefully

never mind the English,

more than half the Scots would go to war against Nicola Sturgeon

 

[myata]

21 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Does the Commonwealth need Britain or just the monarch to exist?

Somebody here already answered that, for Canada. It needs the institute of a foreign (and from a different continent) monarchy as expression of its sole raison d'etre because in what? close to three centuries of being here in a set form it never though of thinking and inventing, and implementing and establishing, another, real not imaginary identity.