geoffrey Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen? In Austrailia, two opinions are widespread, and have been highlighted by the Queen's visit to open the Commonwealth games: "While the queen is held in great affection by the Australian people, many Australians recognise that it is no longer sensible for us to have a citizen of another country, who visits Australia only occasionally, as our head of state," said Allison Henry, national director of the Australian Republican Movement. So those that see it as kind of a waste to keep the monarch around, a relic of a century ago. And... "She is the queen of Australia, I mean there's not just the English connection," said Goodwin, wearing socks in the red, white and blue of the British flag. "There's just an intrinsic respect for her as a person and it's also a whole lot of fun to come out and wave flags as well." Those, who in my opinion, have a dogmatic respect for a useless figurehead. What are your opinions of having the Queen remain head of state, and maintaining Canada's position in the Commonwealth? Quotes Source: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&cl...42153103104R131 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen?In Canada? Absolutely. Long overdue.I suppose that if the UK wants to have this sort of royal nonsense, then that is their business. But we have no need for it here. We should call ourselves the Federal Republic of Canada, and have a symbolic head of state whose sole and express purpose would be to uphold the Constitution. ---- We should remain a member of the Commonwealth. India is a republic, but also a Commonwealth member. We are also a member of Francophonie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1important Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 No I think we should keep it. It is a part of our heritage. Not to mention it is al but impossible to get rid of the monarch here compared to Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uOttawaMan Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen?In Canada? Absolutely. Long overdue.I suppose that if the UK wants to have this sort of royal nonsense, then that is their business. But we have no need for it here. We should call ourselves the Federal Republic of Canada, and have a symbolic head of state whose sole and express purpose would be to uphold the Constitution. ---- We should remain a member of the Commonwealth. India is a republic, but also a Commonwealth member. We are also a member of Francophonie. Wayne Gretzky as our symbolic head of state? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymf Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well, to me it makes more sense to go with a political system much more like the Americans, which is a truly unique model. With such a sprawling country such as ours, I'd like to see more regional power such as the states have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well, to me it makes more sense to go with a political system much more like the Americans, which is a truly unique model. With such a sprawling country such as ours, I'd like to see more regional power such as the states have.You don't know what you are talking about. Canadian provinces have more power in many ways than US states so if you are saying that Canada should be more like the US they you are saying the federal gov't should have more powers. For example, in the US the states do not collect royalties on natural resources which means all Albertas oil money would be going to Ottawa - not Edmonton if Canada was like the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymf Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 It's my understanding that individual state governments have much more control over their regional laws than provinces do. I travelled throught the south both last fall and a couple weeks ago and it's always a surprise for instance whether you can buy a beer in a county or even a town. The next state down the road will have completely different laws regarding booze, motorcycle helmets, guns, etc. The death penalty is by state as well. I didn't think our provincial governments have that power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 The next state down the road will have completely different laws regarding booze, motorcycle helmets, guns, etc.Provinces have the power to regulate all of the things you listed (i.e. Quebec allows beer to be sold in corner stores).The death penalty is by state as well.There are some differences in the powers that states and provinces have but some differences in powers do not mean that US states have more powers in all cases. In the US, the states have more control over criminal offenses (and punishments). However, I do not believe that power is absolute since it may be possible for the federal govt to outlaw the death penalty even if some state would like to have it. This is an issue with marijuana: many states have tried to liberalize drug laws but run into problems because they can't stop the federal US gov't from passing laws make liberalization at the state level meaningless.I didn't think our provincial governments have that power.As I mentioned earlier, states don't have as much control over resources. Given a choice, I am sure the government of Alberta would rather keep the Canadian model where it has exclusive rights to oil revenues even if that means it has to live with federal rules regarding things like the death penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 For example, in the US the states do not collect royalties on natural resources which means all Albertas oil money would be going to Ottawa - not Edmonton if Canada was like the US.I think that's wrong. The US Constitution is silent about 'natural resources' even if it is imbued with the notion of 'property'. Well, it was written in the 18th century. At the the time, a tract about cosmology, or evolution, would have been just as inchoate.Sparhawk, I think the State of Alaska sends out resource cheques to residents, since the State collects revenues from oil. The first Rockefeller, OTOH, became wealthy because he owned the oil wells. IOW, the US defines "ownership" differently than we in Canada do. Nigeria, Saudia Arabia, Russia also take a different 'view' of oil ownership. Be careful about comparisons of 'power' in federal states. The notion of 'power' and 'state' were too often developed in countries with a single government. Fundamentally: What is Canada? What are governments in Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 geoffrey You wrote- " Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen" Absolutely not! This country is so divided that retaining the Queen is the only way to keep the country intact due to divided loyalities. Regardless, dumping the Queen would be no easy feat and besides she gives heritage, history and character to this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 This country is so divided that retaining the Queen is the only way to keep the country intact due to divided loyalities.Wrong!Let us stand up for ourselves and say who we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nocrap Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 This country is so divided that retaining the Queen is the only way to keep the country intact due to divided loyalities.Wrong!Let us stand up for ourselves and say who we are. I agree with Geoffrey. The British royal family has outlived their usefulness. Their scandals over the last few decades have revealed that they are no better than any other dysfunctional familyand Canada no longer owes them anything, least of all, our respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Nothing to see here. Move along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen?What are your opinions of having the Queen remain head of state, and maintaining Canada's position in the Commonwealth? I like the notion of a titular head of state above the fray. I also like the tie-in to our heritage. God knows we have few enough ties left to our past, and after several decades of Quebec-based governments in Ottawa determined to obliterate all traces of a non-French past, we need what we've got left. Remember that we changed the flag largely because Quebecers didn't like the old one. We changed our national anthem to one written by a Quebecer, we peeled off royal crests from national institutions (remember the Royal Canadian Air Force?) and started calling federal ministries "departments" all to please Quebecers. Hell, our current royal representative is a half French, half Haitian immigrant Quebecer - all to try and move as far away from any remotely symbolic tie with our English heritage as the last government could possibly get. I say keep the Queen and get rid of Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen?In Canada? Absolutely. Long overdue.I suppose that if the UK wants to have this sort of royal nonsense, then that is their business. But we have no need for it here. We should call ourselves the Federal Republic of Canada, and have a symbolic head of state whose sole and express purpose would be to uphold the Constitution. Ah yes, the Constitution, "repatriated" for the sole purpose of breaking another symbolic tie with our past and pleasing Quebec. Which of course, didn't work. Nothing pleases Quebec. A Constitution which has thus far accomplished absolutely NOTHING of value. At a cost of untold billions and billions and tens of billions of dollars. And this is to be the centre of our existence? The centrepoint of what a head of state's duties revolve around? My first act as head of state would be to invite the cameras in to watch me use the original copy of the Canadian Constitution as toilet paper, then flush it down my royal john. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I voted "no". Nothing wrong with our roots. Its cute - and traditional. And in terms of the Governor General, the cost is a drop in the bucket of our national finances. It's strange that we as Canadians outwardly celebrate the heritage and traditions of other cultures but choose to extinguish our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I like the notion of a titular head of state... Like Pamela Anderson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I want to move to a completely republican system. The governer-general should be elected and have real power. I understand this would have to change the party discipline in the HOC but I think that'd be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazymf Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Argus, I think you're on to something there, only I think we should get rid of both the queen, quebec and all ties to our cultural past so we may forge ahead onto a new future unencumbered by old ways and standards. I'm still a believer in a united single North American country. That would be the ultimate free trade deal. Seal up North America, quit importing people and to hell with the rest of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo19 Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I want to move to a completely republican system. The governer-general should be elected and have real power. I understand this would have to change the party discipline in the HOC but I think that'd be a good thing. The problem with that is that the head of state would then become political, thereby making every public appearance or decision dependant on what polls and supporters want. At least with the Queen and family, we have a head of state that everybody, regardless of political affiliation, can support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 I want to move to a completely republican system. The governer-general should be elected and have real power. I understand this would have to change the party discipline in the HOC but I think that'd be a good thing. The problem with that is that the head of state would then become political, thereby making every public appearance or decision dependant on what polls and supporters want. At least with the Queen and family, we have a head of state that everybody, regardless of political affiliation, can support. Except for Quebec and the rest of us that think Monarches should have died off about 150 years ago. If the French have one thing figured out, it was getting rid of the royals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 All countries in America, from Argentina to the arctic circle, were once colonies of European monarchies. All of them dumped the Monarchical system. Except for one, Canada, still stuck sowhere in the 18th century. Methinks I see a trend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Do we pay anything for the Queen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcqueen625 Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Well folks, is it time to be done with the Queen?In Austrailia, two opinions are widespread, and have been highlighted by the Queen's visit to open the Commonwealth games: "While the queen is held in great affection by the Australian people, many Australians recognise that it is no longer sensible for us to have a citizen of another country, who visits Australia only occasionally, as our head of state," said Allison Henry, national director of the Australian Republican Movement. So those that see it as kind of a waste to keep the monarch around, a relic of a century ago. And... "She is the queen of Australia, I mean there's not just the English connection," said Goodwin, wearing socks in the red, white and blue of the British flag. "There's just an intrinsic respect for her as a person and it's also a whole lot of fun to come out and wave flags as well." Those, who in my opinion, have a dogmatic respect for a useless figurehead. What are your opinions of having the Queen remain head of state, and maintaining Canada's position in the Commonwealth? Quotes Source: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&cl...42153103104R131 Never mind dogmatic, just think dog when you think of Camilla Parker. Sorry I meant to say horse-face. Now she is certainly not my idea of a queen unless we are referring to one from the nearest female impersonator bar, as she look more male than female. What a poor excuse for a woman, and shame on Charles for tossing over Diana for someone who would make a good husband for someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Well, to me it makes more sense to go with a political system much more like the Americans, which is a truly unique model. With such a sprawling country such as ours, I'd like to see more regional power such as the states have.You don't know what you are talking about. Canadian provinces have more power in many ways than US states so if you are saying that Canada should be more like the US they you are saying the federal gov't should have more powers. For example, in the US the states do not collect royalties on natural resources which means all Albertas oil money would be going to Ottawa - not Edmonton if Canada was like the US. Really? Alaskan Permanent Fund Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.