Monarchy Yes or No...
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
The sooner they are gone the better. It is a pure waste of money. We are a mature country and do not need them.
We can still be a part of the commonwealth like India, Pakistan, South Africa and most of the other commonwealth countries.
I also think we should take "old lizzie" off our 20$ bill and our coins. We have other distinguished Canadians that deserve to be on our money.
If we need a "monarch" it should be a Canadian not a person from Britain.
We can still be a part of the commonwealth like India, Pakistan, South Africa and most of the other commonwealth countries.
I also think we should take "old lizzie" off our 20$ bill and our coins. We have other distinguished Canadians that deserve to be on our money.
If we need a "monarch" it should be a Canadian not a person from Britain.
Chuck will have exactly as much control over us as Liz has, Andem...none.
I guess somebody better explain to me how we're going to save any money by becoming a Republic. We'll just need to replace the people and positions we have now. Just changing the stationary will cost millions. A Republic come with an elected Senate that would cost millions in elections every few years and, judging by the shape of other republics, would only serve to make our government less efficient and more open to corruption.
Why would we go that route? Why not rework the system we already have in place to make it better and cut unneccessary costs?
I guess somebody better explain to me how we're going to save any money by becoming a Republic. We'll just need to replace the people and positions we have now. Just changing the stationary will cost millions. A Republic come with an elected Senate that would cost millions in elections every few years and, judging by the shape of other republics, would only serve to make our government less efficient and more open to corruption.
Why would we go that route? Why not rework the system we already have in place to make it better and cut unneccessary costs?
The Monarchy has all the problems that people complain about, and more. But, for now, I think we should keep it. My reasoning has to do with the very nasty republic south of our border. Anything, anything at all which distinguishes Canada from the US is something to be treasured.
Re: RE: Monarchy Yes or No...
Infact, Rev, that is a common misconception. The Queen ultimately holds the absolute power to do whatever she "pleasures" here in Canada. Just like the Australian system falls under ultimately jurisdiction to the queen, Aussie PM Gough Whitlam was dismissed in the 70s by the Queen. So we know she has the power.
It's the Queen's current policy not to meddle in our or Australia's affairs, but she has the right to do so at anytime. Things could change, who knows, Charles could exercise more power.
Either way, I don't want to give anybody else the power to control our country but an election official. Additionally, there's no way I want Charles on our money :roll: :?
:x
Reverend Blair said:
Infact, Rev, that is a common misconception. The Queen ultimately holds the absolute power to do whatever she "pleasures" here in Canada. Just like the Australian system falls under ultimately jurisdiction to the queen, Aussie PM Gough Whitlam was dismissed in the 70s by the Queen. So we know she has the power.
It's the Queen's current policy not to meddle in our or Australia's affairs, but she has the right to do so at anytime. Things could change, who knows, Charles could exercise more power.
Either way, I don't want to give anybody else the power to control our country but an election official. Additionally, there's no way I want Charles on our money :roll: :?
:xRev
Andem is absolutely correct.
It happened in the 1920s here in Canada too and I find it unacceptable that we call ourselves a "democracy" when in fact we are only allowed to have influence on legislation when it is not inconsistent with the goals of an antiquated hierarchy from another country.
The Governor General's duties include:
Canada pays 41 million dollars a year for the privilege of having our country be dominated by the whims of a foreigner because of that person's heredity.
One should consider that any institutionalized privilege that gives absolute authority based on birth goes against the very premises of a well thought out democracy.
I oppose the monarchy having ultimate authority over our laws and who is Prime MInister.
Andem is absolutely correct.
It happened in the 1920s here in Canada too and I find it unacceptable that we call ourselves a "democracy" when in fact we are only allowed to have influence on legislation when it is not inconsistent with the goals of an antiquated hierarchy from another country.
The Governor General's duties include:
Canada pays 41 million dollars a year for the privilege of having our country be dominated by the whims of a foreigner because of that person's heredity.
One should consider that any institutionalized privilege that gives absolute authority based on birth goes against the very premises of a well thought out democracy.
I oppose the monarchy having ultimate authority over our laws and who is Prime MInister.
It isn't the 1920's anymore though. It isn't even the 1970's. The Queen would no more go against the will of the Canadian people than she'd hike up her skirt and do the can-can. She knows she wouldn't be the Queen anymore if she did. Not here.
She may have ultimate authority over our Prime Minister, but if she was to use it for reasons that went against the will of Canadians she would lose that authority almost immediately.
If you all want to get rid of her, then go ahead. It looks an awful lot like a waste of time, effort, and money to me though. That $41 million a year would just go to support the system that replaces what we have now.
If you're really afraid that she's going to drink a bottle of tequila one day and appoint Conrad Black as PM or something...well, that's just not going to happen.
There are much more pressing things to worry about regarding democracy in Canada. Having a representative of the queen rubber stamp things is not real high on the list.
She may have ultimate authority over our Prime Minister, but if she was to use it for reasons that went against the will of Canadians she would lose that authority almost immediately.
If you all want to get rid of her, then go ahead. It looks an awful lot like a waste of time, effort, and money to me though. That $41 million a year would just go to support the system that replaces what we have now.
If you're really afraid that she's going to drink a bottle of tequila one day and appoint Conrad Black as PM or something...well, that's just not going to happen.
There are much more pressing things to worry about regarding democracy in Canada. Having a representative of the queen rubber stamp things is not real high on the list.
I hear this about Bush and the Patriot Act too. Just because he has the power to be dictator under the Patriot Act does not mean he will use it against Americans, or so they say. He just needs the option.
I'm glad you trust the current Queen and "all the future generations". That is faith.
Though the Governor General considered not appointing Stephen Harper and intended to give Paul Martin the opportunity to form the Government even if the Conservatives won more seats.
So I really don't have to look to the 20's or 70's but to 2004 and say that is unacceptable.
Though the Governor General considered not appointing Stephen Harper and intended to give Paul Martin the opportunity to form the Government even if the Conservatives won more seats.
I still see she hasn't lost the authority even though she was preparing to go against the "will of Canadians".
Good systems do not place arbitrary authority on the faith it will never be used. If it won't be used then why do we keep that loaded gun under the bed?
If it is the case that she never has use for such authority then she should be responsible with her authority and say that she cannot guarantee that future generations of the monarchy will be as benevolent as she and to protect the interests of the citizens of Canada and all commonwealth nations she hereby relinquishes all rights and authorities over the people's of that commonwealth.
But she is not doing that is she. She too is gambling that all future generations will be benevolent.
That is not a responsible use of that power in the best interests of Canada.
Monarchy is nothing more than the remnants of some archaic and outdated form of head of state and should have been abolished decades ago.
Having the Queen around (or her representatives in Canada) only position Canada as a submissive country to the eyes of the world and do absolutely nothing else for Canadians.
Having the Queen around (or her representatives in Canada) only position Canada as a submissive country to the eyes of the world and do absolutely nothing else for Canadians.
I trust the Queen because of her track record, and I trust Check because of his. I don't trust "all future generations" because they don't have a track record. I don;t trust George Bush because of his track record.
The majority of Canadians voted for policies far to the left of Stephen Harper though. If the vote is an expression of the will of Canadians, and I believe it is, then most Canadians wanted policies that were quite different than Harper's.
That the possibility of putting somebody besides Harper in charge in the event he should win is argument for proportional representation (or direct democracy for that matter) and shows the Queen to acting as a check and balance in the current system to reflect the will of Canadians.
Like I said, it's not that our system doesn't need to be fixed, just that whether we keep the Queen or not (or simply limit her powers...a choice that nobody has mentioned) is pretty low down the list of things that we need to fix.
Liz has a record of not using her powers. By all indications, Chuck believes the same. His kids are unknown quantities to me, so I won't guess what they would do.
and shows the Queen to acting as a check and balance in the current system to reflect the will of Canadians.
Well there you said it.
I do not believe we need this "check and balance" and if a party wins the most seats in the house then it is up to them to try to form the government rather than having it awarded to someone else because you or somebody's kid in England does not agree with the policies of that party.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html
Well there you said it.
I do not believe we need this "check and balance" and if a party wins the most seats in the house then it is up to them to try to form the government rather than having it awarded to someone else because you or somebody's kid in England does not agree with the policies of that party.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/index.html
It isn't whether I or the monarchy or Stephen Harper or even the ghosts of John A. and Pierre agree, it is the fact that in our multi-party system the party that forms the government never gets a majority of the popular vote. If most Canadians voted for parties who have very different (often the opposite) policies then that party cannot form a government that represents Canadians.
The Liberals get a free ride here because they run from the centre/left and govern from the right...basically cheating. It can be argued that their proposed policies are generally representative of what the Canadian people prefer though, especially if they are dependent on the left-leaning NDP and Bloc for support.
The majority of votes by the Canadian people are against what Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservatives stand for though. That is borne out by the election numbers and polls on issues and attitudes. They do not represent the Canadian people so they should not form a government. If they were to form a minority government it would be ineffectual and would most likely fall very quickly. If they were to form a majority (fat chance) it would not represent us at all. In the present system we do need checks and balances against that.
What we really need is a systemic change where this all becomes a moot point, but that isn't what we've got to work with at this point.
The Liberals get a free ride here because they run from the centre/left and govern from the right...basically cheating. It can be argued that their proposed policies are generally representative of what the Canadian people prefer though, especially if they are dependent on the left-leaning NDP and Bloc for support.
The majority of votes by the Canadian people are against what Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservatives stand for though. That is borne out by the election numbers and polls on issues and attitudes. They do not represent the Canadian people so they should not form a government. If they were to form a minority government it would be ineffectual and would most likely fall very quickly. If they were to form a majority (fat chance) it would not represent us at all. In the present system we do need checks and balances against that.
What we really need is a systemic change where this all becomes a moot point, but that isn't what we've got to work with at this point.
By the same token the majority could be considered(and more rightfrully so) the Liberals in the center and the Conservatives on the right together as a block.
Liberal/NDP = 52.40% of the population.
Liberal/Conservative = 66.32 % of the population.
So I would say that the majority of Canadians are against what the NDP stand for given they only got 15.69%.
But that is not the issue. The issue is that the Governor General considered not giving the the right to form the government to the party that won the most seats.
P.S. You suggest this is not an important issue but it is at the heart of DD. Brake Referendum is the item that will relace the Royal assent to our Laws. Which of course are not valid laws until the Queen allows them to be.
I would like to see the people give the thumbs up to legislation rather than a Queen.
Ah, but the Liberals run from the left, so you have to look at their proposed policies, not the way they govern from the right. Like I said, they cheat. We do operate our elections on the fallacy that people are voting for election platforms, after all.
The Liberal's proposed policies, when taken as a whole, are far closer to those of the NDP than the Conservatives. There are also a lot more people voting for the Greens and the CAP than the Christian Coalition or whatever they are called.
No, I suggest that this far from the most important issue. I do not suggest that it is not important. In the context of overall reform, my arguments would be quite different (quite close to yours, actually).
The context of this thread and the one about the Governor General (the same threads, really) is basically tinkering. "This bitch is costing us too much money and it's been a long time since she was pretty so we oughtta toss her out," is the general tone. My argument is that it solves nothing. We still need the mechanisms these institutions represent (officially and not) and just dumping the old and tossing something else in there does nothing.
I'm all for revolution, I've just never seen the point of the Gunfight at the OK Corral.
The Liberal's proposed policies, when taken as a whole, are far closer to those of the NDP than the Conservatives. There are also a lot more people voting for the Greens and the CAP than the Christian Coalition or whatever they are called.
No, I suggest that this far from the most important issue. I do not suggest that it is not important. In the context of overall reform, my arguments would be quite different (quite close to yours, actually).
The context of this thread and the one about the Governor General (the same threads, really) is basically tinkering. "This bitch is costing us too much money and it's been a long time since she was pretty so we oughtta toss her out," is the general tone. My argument is that it solves nothing. We still need the mechanisms these institutions represent (officially and not) and just dumping the old and tossing something else in there does nothing.
I'm all for revolution, I've just never seen the point of the Gunfight at the OK Corral.
i am for the removal of the monarchy.
as has been mentioned the Queen has a great track record, and it could be easily expected of Chuck to maintain that record.
but Chuck will never see the throne. this thought scares me.
as has been mentioned the Queen has a great track record, and it could be easily expected of Chuck to maintain that record.
but Chuck will never see the throne. this thought scares me.
