Jump to content

Is Mary Simon really the right person for the Governor General job?


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

She merely spoke the truth.  When did conservatives become so politically correct??

Her “appointment” is a traditional honorary one. It’s not a star gazing platform fir her opinion on anything. STFU, smile and wave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

An elected GG would take care of such malarkey about foreign princes or the whims of PMs. Her authority would then derive from a truly legitimate source - the people of Canada. 

why even call it Canada anymore ?

change the name of your new country to reflect its nature

the Socialist Republic of North America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

An elected GG would take care of such malarkey about foreign princes or the whims of PMs. Her authority would then derive from a truly legitimate source - the people of Canada. 

Yes but it's not possible. The system is approaching the state of a bored, stale and unfunny parody and nothing can be done about it, except endless and boring, useless talking heads talking to a useless, bored infinity. That's it. Do you call it paralysis? Random gurgles but nothing can be done in the reality anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

So, any debate should stop, and we all should have Pepsi? Regular Pepsi or Diet Pepsi?

No, you can have a debate why not? To a boring insane infinity with no result, guaranteed. Talking heads talking incessantly, infinitely instead of practical result, any. Country's favorite sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

An elected GG would take care of such malarkey about foreign princes or the whims of PMs. Her authority would then derive from a truly legitimate source - the people of Canada. 

Electing a GG would make it a political position then which is exactly what it is not supposed to be.  The GG position is supposed to be above or outside of politics.  We already have elected politicians and elected PMs.  The GG is supposed to be an impartial office. and not enter into the political discussions and  decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

The GG is supposed to be an impartial office. and not enter into the political discussions and  decisions.

Is there anything a GG could do that the Supreme Court could not?  
 

Also, why do you think the Crown is outside of politics?  What if a king comes along who decides he should take political stances?  What is to stop him?

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

  What if a king comes along who decides he should take political stances?  What is to stop him?

nothing actually

the  monarch used to be involved in politics

but it all came down to the Russian Revolution

the Bolsheviks murdered the Romanov cousin to the British Crown

so George V and Queen Mary decided it was too dangerous to get involved

this was passed on as the doctrine of the House of Windsor to include QEII

but there is nothing in the constitution which states that the monarch cannot involve themselves

it's only a tradition dating back to 1917, it's not the law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Is there anything a GG could do that the Supreme Court could not?

Different functions entirely.  

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Also, why do you think the Crown is outside of politics?  

That is just the way democracy and the Parliamentary system evolved.  Countries were once ruled by absolute monarchies.  But over the centuries they evolved into democratic systems such as what we have now.  The role of the Crown or monarchy or GG is limited to things that cannot be done by the elected government or Parliament.

"The Magna Carta or 'Great Charter' was an agreement imposed on King John of England (r. 1199-1216) on 15 June 1215 by rebellious barons in order to limit his power and prevent arbitrary royal acts like land confiscation and unreasonable taxes. Henceforward, the king would have to consult a defined body of laws and customs before making such declarations.

The Magna Carta ensured that all freemen were protected from royal officers and had the right to a fair trial. Consequently, the charter became a symbol of the rule of law as the ultimate sovereign. Although not entirely successful in its aims, the charter did permit further constitutional developments in England in subsequent centuries and it provided inspiration for similar models of limited monarchy in other European states."

Magna Carta - World History Encyclopedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

But over the centuries they evolved into democratic systems such as what we have now.  The role of the Crown or monarchy or GG is limited to things that cannot be done by the elected government or Parliament.

Why can’t they evolve some more into even more democracy?

 

You missed the point of my question about the Supreme Court… why can’t the court take on the Monarch’s role in our democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why can’t they evolve some more into even more democracy?

 

You missed the point of my question about the Supreme Court… why can’t the court take on the Monarch’s role in our democracy?

No, I didn't miss it.  I understand what you're saying but it doesn't make much sense.  The Supreme Court has a certain purpose which is to hear cases that are appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.  They have a full time job.

The GG is an entirely different job and does not require the legal skills or knowledge of Supreme Court judges.  The GG is appointed to act in place of the King in Canada.  She attends many functions as a representative of the Crown.  She approves new laws that are passed to bring them into effect.  She dissolves Parliament when necessary and under only certain conditions.  That is the GG's role.  It has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

More democracy = no monarch

That would not mean more democracy.  We already live in a Constitutional Monarchy.  All laws are made by our elected Parliament.  The monarch does not decrease democracy.  The function of the Monarchy is actually to ensure democracy continues and prevent a dictator from taking over and abolishing Parliament.  Many countries have no Monarchy and are totalitarian dictatorships.  So having no monarch does not ensure you will end up with democracy.  What ensures democracy continues is the Constitutional Monarch in Canada's case and allegiance to the Monarchy by the nation in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What if a king comes along who decides he should take political stances?  What is to stop him?

The king can have opinions about things and he does, but if he wants to remain popular he knows he has to keep it low key.  His opinions don't make the government or Parliament change or make new laws.  They are just his opinion.  Parliament is the authority for changing or making laws.  The King cannot make laws.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The king can have opinions about things and he does, but if he wants to remain popular he knows he has to keep it low key.  His opinions don't make the government or Parliament change or make new laws.  They are just his opinion.  Parliament is the authority for changing or making laws.  The King cannot make laws.

Doesn’t sound very useful.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Doesn’t sound very useful.  
 

You have to understand how it works.  If there was no Constitutional Monarchy, what would there be to stop a PM from just abolishing Parliament and setting himself up as dictator?  It happens all the time in other countries.  The existence of the Monarchy is kind of a safeguard to prevent a would-be dictator from taking over.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You have to understand how it works.  If there was no Constitutional Monarchy, what would there be to stop a PM from just abolishing Parliament and setting himself up as dictator? 

Parliament.  Courts.   In that order.  What a silly question. 

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TreeBeard said:

Parliament.  Courts.   In that order.  What a silly statement. 

No, it's not a silly statement.  If the monarchy was abolished, all a Prime Minister has to do is declare a state of emergency or use the emergency act to dissolve Parliament and set himself up as dictator.  What is Parliament going to do if it is dissolved?  Courts can't stop him.  They don't have the power.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, it's not a silly statement.  If the monarchy was abolished, all a Prime Minister has to do is declare a state of emergency or use the emergency act to dissolve Parliament and set himself up as dictator.  What is Parliament going to do if it is dissolved?  Courts can't stop him.  They don't have the power.  

Parliament can vote him out.  The courts can throw him out.  No dictatorship.  The PM doesn’t control the military in Canada, and doesn’t even control the police.  Court order would send in the RCMP to arrest his ass.  
 

Your dystopian future is a fantasy.  
 

Tell me….  What could the monarch do if he declared himself a dictator?  Send in British troops?  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Parliament can vote him out.  The courts can throw him out.  No dictatorship.  The PM doesn’t control the military in Canada, and doesn’t even control the police.  Court order would send in the RCMP to arrest his ass.  
 

That's not true.  The PM already has the extraordinary power to prorogue Parliament.  That means if a PM wants he can prorogue Parliament and they cannot even meet.  That was done a number of times by PMs in Canada.  If the Monarchy was abolished, the only person left in charge of the armed forces and RCMP would be the PM and his cabinet.  The RCMP would have to obey the PM if he declared a state of emergency.  The courts would have to obey him as well. That's all there is to it.  Anybody who tries to stop him would be arrested and thrown in jail.  Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...