One big reason why Canada's Constitutional Monarchy is better than a Republican system

[blackbird]

If we look at what is going on in Venezuela with an alleged stolen election by Socialist Maduro, we should realize it would be very difficult for this kind of thing to happen in Canada.  The reason is we have a Constitutional Monarchy whereby the Armed Forces, RCMP, and members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Monarch or King, as head of State represented by the Governor General in Canada.  This loyalty to our Monarch King Charles is what would make it nearly impossible for a would be dictator to ignore election results and establish his own dictatorship.  A country like Venezuela, where the President controls the whole government, armed forces, and judges means they are all subservient to the President.  So he is in a position whereby he can just dictate everything including the election results and deny the public any transparency.  Such a thing would be impossible in Canada with our system.

Jon Hartley: Nicolás Maduro's stolen election is what socialist dictatorship looks like (msn.com)

Edited July 31, 2024 by blackbird

[Five of swords]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

If we look at what is going on in Venezuela with an alleged stolen election by Socialist Maduro, we should realize it would be very difficult for this kind of thing to happen in Canada.  The reason is we have a Constitutional Monarchy whereby the Armed Forces, RCMP, and members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Monarch or King, as head of State represented by the Governor General in Canada.  This loyalty to our Monarch King Charles is what would make it nearly impossible for a would be dictator to ignore election results and establish his own dictatorship.  A country like Venezuela, where the President controls the whole government, armed forces, and judges means they are all subservient to the President.  So he is in a position whereby he can just dictate everything including the election results and deny the public any transparency.  Such a thing would be impossible in Canada with our system.

Jon Hartley: Nicolás Maduro's stolen election is what socialist dictatorship looks like (msn.com)

This suggestion is so wrong and so stupid that I cannot believe it wad made in good faith.

Any student of history with a functioning brain ought the recognize that...as a brief list....the Russian revolution, the French revolution, and the English Civil War were quite possible despite the presence of monarchy. Indeed not only were they possible, they also won.

 

But to add even more to that observation and show how ridiculous this whole theory is, king Charles I, czar Nikolas, and king Louis were monarchs who actually mattered and who weilded actual power...in contrast with the current king who simply does not matter and nobody cares about him.

 

At least the white army in Russia was large enough to pose a real threat to the revolutionaries...and they were supporting a king in exile who they genuinely cared about. If the same revolution happened in canada? How many soldiers would disobey orders out of loyalty to the ceremonial and irrelevant King of England? None. Maybe 3, I guess...and those 3 guys will be people who suffer from serious psychological ailments requiring massive doses of psychotropic drugs to manage. Perhaps they would set a car on fire, but that would be the full extent of any counter revolution. 

Edited August 1, 2024 by Five of swords

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

in contrast with the current king who simply does not matter and nobody cares about him.

I don't think that is true.  People do care about the Royal family.  Some members of the Royal family are very popular, such as Princess Anne, Prince William and Princess Katherine.  King Charles III is trusted and popular.  I don't see any problem with that.  The Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP are not divided on the Monarchy and would support them.  It is silly to say the King does not matter.  Of course many Canadians understand the monarchy is an essential part of our Parliamentary democracy.  It would be very difficult in our system for a would be dictator to take over and cancel elections.  

In Venezuela, the whole structure is geared to supporting the President and it is very difficult at the present time for the opposition party to stop him.  That is not how things work in Canada.  

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

Any student of history with a functioning brain ought the recognize that...as a brief list....the Russian revolution, the French revolution, and the English Civil War were quite possible despite the presence of monarchy. Indeed not only were they possible, they also won.

Those were different than what I was thinking about.  I was talking about a dictator type of PM who just decided on his own to cancel elections or change the system.  I doubt he could do it in Canada

It would be a different situation if there were a massive number of people in Canada including in the Armed Forces and RCMP and government who wanted to abolish the monarchy and set up a different system.  Then they may be able to do it.  But that is not the situation in Canada.  There is no massive Communist group of revolutionaries as there were in Russia with the Bolshevik revolution.  The French Revolution was a special case also where there were many people who revolted against the monarchy.  Remember there was no Parliamentary democratic system in Russia or France at the time of their revolutions, but we have a Parliamentary democracy in Canada which is protected by the Constitutional Monarchy.  So our system is geared to protect it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Five of swords said:

This suggestion is so wrong and so stupid that I cannot believe it wad made in good faith.

Any student of history with a functioning brain ought the recognize that...as a brief list....the Russian revolution, the French revolution, and the English Civil War were quite possible despite the presence of monarchy. Indeed not only were they possible, they also won.

 

But to add even more to that observation and show how ridiculous this whole theory is, king Charles I, czar Nikolas, and king Louis were monarchs who actually mattered and who weilded actual power...in contrast with the current king who simply does not matter and nobody cares about him.

 

At least the white army in Russia was large enough to pose a real threat to the revolutionaries...and they were supporting a king in exile who they genuinely cared about. If the same revolution happened in canada? How many soldiers would disobey orders out of loyalty to the ceremonial and irrelevant King of England? None. Maybe 3, I guess...and those 3 guys will be people who suffer from serious psychological ailments requiring massive doses of psychotropic drugs to manage. Perhaps they would set a car on fire, but that would be the full extent of any counter revolution. 

Sigh. 

He didn't say monarchy.  He said constitutional monarchy. 

And while i usually disagree with him, @blackbird is quite right although what he means is the Westminster system of gov't. And he didn't say revolution wasn't impossible he said that what was happening in venezuela wouldn't be. 

And that is because the GG acts like a democracy circuit breaker.  If for example trudeau illegally tried to stay in power the GG would say 'nope' and  that gov't would no longer be legitimate. 

 

So.  On top of everything else you don't understand the difference between a monarchy and a constitutional monarchy modeled on the westminster system.Fak kid - is there anything you DO know?

Edited August 1, 2024 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

 

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Those were different than what I was thinking about.  I was talking about a dictator type of PM who just decided on his own to cancel elections or change the system.  I doubt he could do it in Canada

It would be a different situation if there were a massive number of people in Canada including in the Armed Forces and RCMP and government who wanted to abolish the monarchy and set up a different system.  Then they may be able to do it.  But that is not the situation in Canada.  There is no massive Communist group of revolutionaries as there were in Russia with the Bolshevik revolution.  The French Revolution was a special case also where there were many people who revolted against the monarchy.  Remember there was no Parliamentary democratic system in Russia or France at the time of their revolutions, but we have a Parliamentary democracy in Canada which is protected by the Constitutional Monarchy.  So our system is geared to protect it.

 

Yeah that was obvious. He doesn't understand what you're talking about, he's very clearly not educated on political systems. 

As we both know it's not common for me to agree but yes, you're correct and that is the benefit of the westminster model, or at least of having a GG (the monarchy really isn't important per se) 

the GG is the circuit breaker for democracy - doesn't have much to do most of the time but when they do it's critical.  And it's come up several times in our history. 

[Five of swords]

52 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't think that is true.  People do care about the Royal family.  Some members of the Royal family are very popular, such as Princess Anne, Prince William and Princess Katherine.  King Charles III is trusted and popular.  I don't see any problem with that.  The Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP are not divided on the Monarchy and would support them.  It is silly to say the King does not matter.  Of course many Canadians understand the monarchy is an essential part of our Parliamentary democracy.  It would be very difficult in our system for a would be dictator to take over and cancel elections.  

In Venezuela, the whole structure is geared to supporting the President and it is very difficult at the present time for the opposition party to stop him.  That is not how things work in Canada.  

People have fun with royal family soap opera. I guess you could say the king of England is slightly less important than the average Instagram influencer. But the idea he could have any influence on any actual power is just delusional. The king of England is objectively far weaker than the average high ranking member of a Mexican drug cartel.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

People have fun with royal family soap opera. I guess you could say the king of England is slightly less important than the average Instagram influencer. But the idea he could have any influence on any actual power is just delusional. The king of England is objectively far weaker than the average high ranking member of a Mexican drug cartel.

You don't know what the Governor General is, do you.

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Five of swords said:

People have fun with royal family soap opera. I guess you could say the king of England is slightly less important than the average Instagram influencer. But the idea he could have any influence on any actual power is just delusional. The king of England is objectively far weaker than the average high ranking member of a Mexican drug cartel.

You don't know how our Constitutional Monarchy works.  The Governor General represents the Monarchy (at present King Charles III) in Canada and has the power to dissolve the government and call an election any time.  The GG is also the head of the Canadian Armed Forces.   This is the most powerful position in Canada.  It has nothing to do with the popularity of the present King Charles IIII.  

"The Governor General of Canada also serves, ex officio, as the Commander-in-Chief of Canada and exercises the duties of the Head of State as the representative of Her Majesty The Queen." 

Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada - Canada.ca

 She is the head of the Canadian Armed Forces.

At present the GG is the representative of the King in Canada.

The RCMP has the responsibility to protect the Governor General, the King when he is in Canada, the PM and Members of Parliament.

 

[Five of swords]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

You don't know how our Constitutional Monarchy works.  The Governor General represents the Monarchy (at present King Charles III) in Canada and has the power to dissolve the government and call an election any time.  The GG is also the head of the Canadian Armed Forces.   This is the most powerful position in Canada.  It has nothing to do with the popularity of the present King Charles IIII.  

"The Governor General of Canada also serves, ex officio, as the Commander-in-Chief of Canada and exercises the duties of the Head of State as the representative of Her Majesty The Queen." 

Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada - Canada.ca

 She is the head of the Canadian Armed Forces.

At present the GG is the representative of the King in Canada.

The RCMP has the responsibility to protect the Governor General, the King when he is in Canada, the PM and Members of Parliament.

 

So you don't understand how the world works.

I can assure you, even if it were true that it is written down somewhere that the king can dissolve the government, he can't. If he demanded it, everyone would just ignore him. Because there is a lot of money in the government...and nobody feels loyalty to the king.

Edited August 1, 2024 by Five of swords

[PIK]

No system is perfect, and we are lucky to have what we have. Same with FPTP elections. Unfortunately this time Trudeau/ Singh showd us the bad that can happen.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

So you don't understand how the world works.

I can assure you, even if it were true that it is written down somewhere that the king can dissolve the government, he can't. If he demanded it, everyone would just ignore him. Because there is a lot of money in the government...and nobody feels loyalty to the king.

You don't understand how the Constitutional Monarchy works in Canada.  I already explained it in detail.  The Governor General already has the authority to act on behalf of the King in Canada and does.  That is just how it is.

"

The power to dissolve Parliament is a royal prerogative exercised by the governor general. The governor general retains certain constitutional discretion whether to accept the advice of the prime minister to dissolve Parliament.

General elections are to be held on the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year following the last general election (in accordance with the Canada Elections Act S.C. 2007, c. 10, s. 1), unless the governor general dissolves Parliament prior to that date. "

Procedures for the Dissolution of Parliament and the Calling of an Election | The Governor General of Canada (gg.ca)

 

[Five of swords]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You don't understand how the Constitutional Monarchy works in Canada.  I already explained it in detail.  The Governor General already has the authority to act on behalf of the King in Canada and does.  That is just how it is.

"

The power to dissolve Parliament is a royal prerogative exercised by the governor general. The governor general retains certain constitutional discretion whether to accept the advice of the prime minister to dissolve Parliament.

General elections are to be held on the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year following the last general election (in accordance with the Canada Elections Act S.C. 2007, c. 10, s. 1), unless the governor general dissolves Parliament prior to that date. "

Procedures for the Dissolution of Parliament and the Calling of an Election | The Governor General of Canada (gg.ca)

 

It's like you just don't understand how power works lol. Technically Charlemagne was not the king of the Franks. He was lord protector. But the merovingian kings became irrelevant and obscure because there was nothing which connected them to the power infrastructure.

 

It doesn't matter one bit what is written on paper. That has never mattered. In the entire history of the word, what is written on paper has never mattered. So you can waste your time all day thinking about law, but the people actually getting anything done are busy bribing the judges. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

It's like you just don't understand how power works lol. Technically Charlemagne was not the king of the Franks. He was lord protector. But the merovingian kings became irrelevant and obscure because there was nothing which connected them to the power infrastructure.

 

It doesn't matter one bit what is written on paper. That has never mattered. In the entire history of the word, what is written on paper has never mattered. So you can waste your time all day thinking about law, but the people actually getting anything done are busy bribing the judges. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 You just can't accept facts.

[Five of swords]

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 You just can't accept facts.

I'm telling you the facts lol. You are the one who cannot accept them. What somebody wrote down somewhere has zero impact on power. Power is a function of money and narratives and belief which inspires loyalty...wither loyalty from love or from fear. Nobody is inspired by what somebody wrote down as technically a law somewhere lol.. give me a break.

 

The king of England is irrelevant. And English royalty has been irrelevant since Edward viii...who I am sure you heard abdicated for some marriage issue...but that is a fake story. In reality he was forced to abdicate because he was fond of Adolf Hitler. And indeed Hitler and Edward viii were in communication during the war and if Hitler had ever gotten around to invading and taking over England (which, however, was not a priority of his)...he was going to install Edward viii as dictator.

 

But as you may know, Hitler lost ww2 and with that the English royal family and indeed the British empire itself became irrelevant. The uk today is just a vassal state of the usa and is poor and powerless, and that is a direct consequence of their 'victory' in ww2.

 

Put that in your law books lol.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Five of swords said:

So you don't understand how the world works.

I can assure you, even if it were true that it is written down somewhere that the king can dissolve the government, he can't.

His representative, the Governer General,  can.  And does. And has for every single election we've ever had. 

They've also forced elections or denied elections on occasions where political parties were playing games with democracy. 

you're completely uneducated. 

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Five of swords said:

I'm telling you the facts lol.

 

 

No, you're not.  You're denying basic simple verifyable facts. 

The GG (the kings rep) is the ONLY person with power to call an election in Canada.  And also the ONLY person who can ALLOW A GOV"T TO BE FORMED. 

Every single time there's an election the GG decides who will be the gov't.  IF it's a clear majority then it's easy but there have been times when a number of parties have suggested they would form a coalition gov't instead and the GG is the one who decides if that will be allowed - or if when a gov't loses the confidence of the house if another party will be given a chance or if there will be an election. 

THat prevents things like what we're seeing in venezuela. 

That is a simple fact, but your complete lack of knowledge of how gov't works is preventing you from understanding that.  

He's right, you're wrong, you're stupid. Thanks for playing 

[blackbird]

What a waste of time.

[SpankyMcFarland]

If we had the economic problems of Venezuela niceties like oaths of allegiance wouldn’t bind us the way people seem to think, and if we have to keep a monarchy we should have our own rather than someone else’s - our head of state hasn’t been here in over a decade, an absurd situation. Also, the GG should be appointed at arm’s length from the PM so that they have the appearance of being properly independent from them. We have the trappings of a constitutional monarchy but it is really rather threadbare. 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I can think of three arguments in favour of accepting the monarchy apart from stability.

1. Distinctiveness. It distinguishes us from the US. For anglophones this is a serious problem. We look and sound like Americans and are often mistaken for them. Had it not been for their Civil War I suspect they would have completed their conquest of North America. An eccentric arrangement with a European country gives us some reassurance we are not them yet. 

2. Authenticity. A related issue. We are a young country, from all over the world, with shallow roots in our land. Our nationalism is decidedly civic rather than ethnic, the opposite of China or Iran. Monarchy connects us to a solid, tribal past. 

3. Inevitability. We’re stuck with it. Barring a foreign invasion or the arrival of a decently sized asteroid, our constitutional arrangements are frozen for the foreseeable future. 
 

So what to do to freshen things up a bit? On the British side, I’d like to see some (probably obscure) relative of the monarch, preferably a young person, given ‘Prince of Canada’ duties, unofficially at first. The prime requirement would be a willingness to visit here frequently for extended periods of time to do lots of openings and general royal malarkey. 

Over here, we should make the GG more independent, a de facto head of state. Make it an elected post. The committee choosing the GG could ask the opinion of parliament on a candidate. After all the vetting etc. ten candidates are voted on in secret ballot by both chambers until a candidate is selected. We know what we are looking for - a safe pair of hands, a more independent version of David Johnston, willing to stand up to the PM if absolutely necessary and yet not looking for a constitutional crisis at the same time. 
 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Over here, we should make the GG more independent, a de facto head of state. Make it an elected post

The GG is supposed to be independent.  But if you make it an elected post, then right there you make it a partisan post.  It would quickly become an major political post with the various parties putting their nominations forward and debating the nominations.  I think that is something they want to avoid. 

Edited August 9, 2024 by blackbird

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

The GG is supposed to be independent.  But if you make it an elected post, then right there you make it a partisan post.  It would quickly become a major political post with the various parties putting their nominations forward and debating the nominations.  I think that is something they want to avoid. 

One way to reduce that possibility would be a secret ballot. I’d say there would be some surprising votes cast there across party lines. There wouldn’t be a campaign in the country because the votes would be confined to parliament and ordinary citizens unaffiliated with any party would be invited to apply as well. 

The GG must be seen to be completely independent of the PM. There are other ways of doing it but it has to be done somehow. Our head of state’s representative should not feel beholden to the head of government. 

On the Duke of Canada idea, I think that would have been a good role for Harry. He certainly seems to enjoy being in North America far more than the rest of them. Who knows, he might have ended up being our monarch if things had been different. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I’d be thinking along the lines of the German presidency for our GG. Since the Basic Law of 1949, they’ve managed to comport themselves well and have generally avoided partisan controversy. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Given that our monarch visits so rarely but some of us really like that arrangement and its previous incumbent, why not declare QEII as the eternal head of state? This would be the ultimate lean system and she could never do anything to embarrass us in the future, not that she did anything like that while with us either. The Queen was as close to perfect as you could get in that position and I say that as a committed republican. Sudden changes in British law, as in our little succession legislation drama, or crimes/scandals by the Royal Family - imagine somebody like Randy Andy in the top job now - would never have to worry us again. If the monarchy is just a symbol, why does the actual monarch have to be alive? It’s not like numerous claimants will start raising armies across the GTA on news that the King is dead.

Edited August 11, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland