Canadians say ties to monarchy should be cut when Queen dies


tay
+1
#1
A majority of Canadians now believe that when Queen Elizabeth II dies and Prince Charles ascends to the throne, Canada should cut ties with the monarchy.

A new poll, conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Global News, has revealed that 53 per cent of us think it may soon be time to bid farewell to the monarch as our head of state.

Thatís the highest number recorded since 2010.

globalnews.ca/news/3145545/ma...een-dies-poll/ (external - login to view)
 
Cannuck
+2
#2  Top Rated Post
Why wait?
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
+2
#3
It won't happen and quite frankly the poll does not represent the majority of Canadians, it represents a small majority (53%) of Canadians polled. And we all know that polls can be very untrustworthy.
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#4
It will be an incredibly complicated business to re-make our whole system of law and governance from that of a constitutional monarchy to that of a republic. It is a total re-vamp of everything we do and if will require the unanimous co-operation and consent of all of the provinces. Rotsa ruck getting that .. ever ... for anything.
 
taxslave
#5
Why wait for spring. Do it now.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

It will be an incredibly complicated business to re-make our whole system of law and governance from that of a constitutional monarchy to that of a republic. It is a total re-vamp of everything we do and if will require the unanimous co-operation and consent of all of the provinces. Rotsa ruck getting that .. ever ... for anything.

Not really. All we have to do is fire the GG. WE already have an elected PM. Don't really need anything more.
 
Machjo
#6
Why not an elective monarchy?
 
taxslave
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Why not an elective monarchy?

WHy elect parasites? Smaller government is better.
 
Curious Cdn
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Why not an elective monarchy?

That is more-or-less what the Presidential system is in the United States. It was designed to be that, back in the beginning.
 
Machjo
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

That is more-or-less what the Presidential system is in the United States. It was designed to be that, back in the beginning.


I would say that the German system probably comes closer to an elective monarchy than the US system does. The president of Germany, though elected, plays a mostly non-partisan role mostly as an arbiter akin to that of the British monarch. In the US system, the office of president is very much a partisan one and the president holds much more real power than the German President or British monarch do. In some respects, the British monarch and German president hold more power in law than the US president does, but custom makes it such that they do not use it except as a last resort.
 
Murphy
#10
The US form of government is called a republic. Ours is a constitutional monarchy. A side by side comparison will show the differences.

In the modern world, especially in Canada, the monarchy is an old fashioned, ineffective waste of time and money. The GG's office (budget) and staff could be eliminated, along with the buildings and other costs associated with that position. For the monarchists, you could keep the parliamentary system, but look to India for inspiration.
 
Machjo
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

The US form of government is called a republic. Ours is a constitutional monarchy. A side by side comparison will show the differences.

In the modern world, especially in Canada, the monarchy is an old fashioned, ineffective waste of time and money. The GG's office (budget) and staff could be eliminated, along with the buildings and other costs associated with that position. For the monarchists, you could keep the parliamentary system, but look to India for inspiration.

Or Germany.
 
Curious Cdn
#12
look to India for inspiration

... regime change by assassination ...
 
Murphy
#13
That's not always a bad thing. It's humanity in action. History shakes the tree every twice in a while. The French Revolution. The American Revolution. Mao's Chinese Revolution.

They call it revolution because it is usually an armed or forced change to government. The people get fed up with the present regime and make the changes happen.

Change can also come non-violently. Bloodless coup d'etats.
 
Machjo
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

That's not always a bad thing. It's humanity in action. History shakes the tree every twice in a while. The French Revolution. The American Revolution. Mao's Chinese Revolution.

They call it revolution because it is usually an armed or forced change to government. The people get fed up with the present regime and make the changes happen.


And you do realise how bloody these revolutions were and how many innocents died at the hands of thugs, right?
 
Curious Cdn
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

That's not always a bad thing. It's humanity in action. History shakes the tree every twice in a while. The French Revolution. The American Revolution. Mao's Chinese Revolution.

They call it revolution because it is usually an armed or forced change to government. The people get fed up with the present regime and make the changes happen.

Every one of those examples was a fukced up mess for many decades, after ... the Napoleonic Wars, ... States Rights leading to a viscious and yet unresolved civil war, ... the Cultural Revolution and the death of twenty or thirty million Chinese peasants ...

Thanks. I'll settle for boring, old Peace, Order and Good Government (or hold out hope for it, anyway). Canadians keep forgetting how incredibly goddam lucky they are.
Last edited by Curious Cdn; Dec 27th, 2016 at 10:44 AM..
 
Murphy
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

And you do realise how bloody these revolutions were and how many innocents died at the hands of thugs, right?

Really? I thought that the world's ambassadors carried suitcases full of rainbows and unicorns. I might have to amend a master's paper.

Violence has been man's way for all of our time on the planet. And it continues. Humans are not civilized. We are violent by our very nature. Revolution is in our genes, waiting to come out.

We are no different than lions, sea bass or bears. Males are the aggressors. Females bare the young and are nurturers. We were designed that way in order to survive and flourish on this rock. Changing our essence will take more than just a group hug or lighting a few candles. Evolution could change humanity, but it will take a long, long time.

Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

Every one of those examples was a fukced up mess for many decades, after ... the Napoleonic Wars, ... States Rights leading to a visciuos and yet unresolved civil war, ... the Cultural Revolution and the death of twenty or thirty million Chinese peasants ...

Thank. I'll settle for boring, old Peace, Order and Good Government (or hold out hope for it, anyway). Canadiahs keep forgetting how incredibly goddam lucky they are.

Not all coups are bloody. Power up your Google Foo, and you will find examples with short explanations. But, as I wrote in the previous paragraph, humans are violent, so change of this nature tends to be bloody.
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

That's not always a bad thing. It's humanity in action. History shakes the tree every twice in a while. The French Revolution. The American Revolution. Mao's Chinese Revolution.

They call it revolution because it is usually an armed or forced change to government. The people get fed up with the present regime and make the changes happen.

Change can also come non-violently. Bloodless coup d'etats.

Revolutions make people dizzy.
 
Murphy
+1
#18
This country's going to war!

wwwyoutubecomwatchvyyeKYQdYISg

 
Curious Cdn
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Revolutions make people dizzy.

Revolutions make people dead in really large numbers.
 
Murphy
#20
Sometimes. But that reduces the amount of carbon generated.

And another thing: We often talk about the negative effects of cow farts, but there are more humans farting than bovines. People generate a lot of environmentally damaging gases. Maybe everyone with an a$$ should be taxed.

Just sayin'.
 
petros
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious CdnView Post

Revolutions make people dead in really large numbers.

I can see why. Dizziness can really f-ck you up.
 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

Sometimes. But that reduces the amount of carbon generated.

And another thing: We often talk about the negative effects of cow farts, but there are more humans farting than bovines. People generate a lot of environmentally damaging gases. Maybe everyone with an a$$ should be taxed.

Just sayin'.

According to that logic, total nuclear war would be the best thing that could ever happen to the environment. Go go Trump!
 
petros
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

According to that logic, total nuclear war would be the best thing that could ever happen to the environment. Go go Trump!

Indeed. It would be the best thing since the asteroid impact 65 million years ago.

We need a new environment and nothing beats a push of the global reset button.
 
Murphy
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

According to that logic, total nuclear war would be the best thing that could ever happen to the environment. Go go Trump!

No, I'd go with an asteroid strike. Nuclear weapons might cause other problems. Having a giant rock hit the planet knocks bio-material into space and kills a bunch without possible 'glow in the dark' issues.

Now, limited nuclear strikes are an option I'd examine, if I had some say. I suspect they might be easier to manage.
 
Mokkajava
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

Sometimes. But that reduces the amount of carbon generated.

And another thing: We often talk about the negative effects of cow farts, but there are more humans farting than bovines. People generate a lot of environmentally damaging gases. Maybe everyone with an a$$ should be taxed.

Just sayin'.

Sure, but if we stopped eating foods devoid of natural enzymes... ie) cow meat... maybe we could be a fartless species and save the planet that way
 
Murphy
#26
That's what we need. Some thinking outside the box. But vegetarians tend to be more gaseous. That said, we might be able to farm them. Lock up all the vegetarians in a glass covered complex that can collect their emissions, and we can use it to burn and power things.

Because, honestly, how many times has someone said, "If we could only bottle that!" when a person near them lets one go.

 
Mokkajava
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MurphyView Post

That's what we need. Some thinking outside the box. But vegetarians tend to be more gaseous. That said, we might be able to farm them. Lock up all the vegetarians in a glass covered complex that can collect their emissions, and we can use it to burn and power things.

Because, honestly, how many times has someone said, "If we could only bottle that!" when a person near them lets one go.

I can assure you... I am not more gaseous than a meat eater. Proper diet will do that for you
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by MokkajavaView Post

Sure, but if we stopped eating foods devoid of natural enzymes... ie) cow meat... maybe we could be a fartless species and save the planet that way

I'm not too sure about that. I became more flatulent after going vegan. That said, I'm sure a vegan society would still produce less gas than all of the bovines we eat.
 
Kreskin
#29
Canexit
 
Ludlow
#30
Yeah you all don't want rat face as king .
 
no new posts