Don't Appoint A New GG After Jean's Term, Andrew Coyne

[dumpthemonarchy]

Andrew Coyne, a columnist for Macleans magazine, had a good suggestion on CBC the other night when discussing the relevancy of the monarchy. When the current GG's term expires next Sept 2010, just don't appoint a new GG. Many companies do this, let the position go empty for a while and see what happens. If the job is not missed, then it is eliminated and money is saved.

But not just money, needless bureaucracy is shed and a new way of doing things can emerge. Which is the whole idea of us in the New World and getting a new take on the world. The fake British traditions in Parliament and our legislatures needs a few tests. I like this one. Shake it up.

 

[Spade]

Not quite.
Royals vs. Republic - At Issue - The National

But, the idea's a good one. Let the non-democratic institution wither.

 

[Kreskin]

You can't delete the constitution as a cost saving measure. Perhaps we could stop having elections too.

 

[gerryh]

you CAN't just not appoint a replacement. Under our present form of government and constitution, if there was no GG then all laws passed by Parliment and the Senate would then have to be sent off to Buckingham for the Queens consent. Parlimentary sessions could NOT be opened, nor could they be closed. Elections could not be called, and that's just the begining.

 

[Spade]

you CAN't just not appoint a replacement. Under our present form of government and constitution, if there was no GG then all laws passed by Parliment and the Senate would then have to be sent off to Buckingham for the Queens consent. Parlimentary sessions could NOT be opened, nor could they be closed. Elections could not be called, and that's just the begining.

Now you're talking!

 

[Spade]

Andrew is Establishment and Old Money - His father (James Coyne) used to sign all the paper currency.

 

[Kreskin]

Andrew drank too much scotch and thought he was outsmarting the country. Little details like constitutional law and elections were overlooked.

 

[Spade]

Andrew drank too much scotch and thought he was outsmarting the country. Little details like constitutional law and elections were overlooked.

His proposition that Canada have our own resident king, albeit cadged from the Brits, was a howler!

 

[#juan]

Let's get rid of the Governor General and the prime minister....Hell let's make Canada a republic. Then we could have a president and everything. I think I'm going to :sad5:throw up.

 

[aman12]

How about the PM appoint himself? Should make a lot of people on here happy.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You have to forgive Gerry. He has a habit of putting the mouth in gear....you know...

Andrew made a lot of sense.

So did gerryh, far more than Andrew Coyne did if the comments here on his article are accurate (I don't subscribe to the magazine, so I haven't read the piece). The GG has some vital constitutional functions, and if there's nobody holding that office, they won't get done. Can't just leave the office vacant and hope for the best, no act of Parliament can become law without the GG's signature, elections cannot be called, Parliament cannot be constituted or dissolved, a government cannot be formed, it'd all have to go to the Queen or we'd have to abandon the core principle of the rule of law, and having it all go to the Queen is exactly what anti-monarchists want to avoid. Not appointing a GG is a totally stupid and ignorant idea in isolation, the position's constitutional functions would have to be assigned to some other office. We'd either have to assign them to the PM as head of state, and I really don't think I want that much power concentrated in one person, or create a new Head of State position, like the French president perhaps, to do the same things the GG does. It's a zero sum game, the only difference might be that the position could be elected rather than appointed, but then we'd have a Head of State who by definition was politically partisan, and that creates a whole new set of issues. Simply abolishing our constitutional monarchy is staggeringly short sighted, an issue like this requires a lot of careful thought. This is a very major constitutional change.

 

[s_lone]

Simply abolishing our constitutional monarchy is staggeringly short sighted, an issue like this requires a lot of careful thought. This is a very major constitutional change.

A major constitutional change indeed which isn't to be taken lightly. But we'll have to face that change one day or another. It's just a question of time before silver spoon monarchy gets the boot and we find something better and more worthy of Canada.

 

[#juan]

A major constitutional change indeed which isn't to be taken lightly. But we'll have to face that change one day or another. It's just a question of time before silver spoon monarchy gets the boot and we find something better and more worthy of Canada.

Whether the monarchy survives in Britain is irrelevant. We need an apolitical head of state to work in conjunction with the elected government.

 

[Cliffy]

We need a whole new constitution and form of government. Our present one is full of flaws and only serves the interests of the ruling class and corporations. But politically, Canadians are pansies. If we should suddenly stop getting screwed, we would think the sky is falling.

 

[Mowich]

We need a whole new constitution and form of government. Our present one is full of flaws and only serves the interests of the ruling class and corporations. But politically, Canadians are pansies. If we should suddenly stop getting screwed, we would think the sky is falling.

I have many relatives in the U.S. and it's rather funny that when political discussions come up many of them also think that there form of government doesn't work either. Maybe it is a generational thing.

 

[Mowich]

Andrew Coyne, a columnist for Macleans magazine, had a good suggestion on CBC the other night when discussing the relevancy of the monarchy. When the current GG's term expires next Sept 2010, just don't appoint a new GG. Many companies do this, let the position go empty for a while and see what happens. If the job is not missed, then it is eliminated and money is saved.

But not just money, needless bureaucracy is shed and a new way of doing things can emerge. Which is the whole idea of us in the New World and getting a new take on the world. The fake British traditions in Parliament and our legislatures needs a few tests. I like this one. Shake it up.

Politics and the expense to taxpayers aside, I happen to like and admire our current GG. She has way more class than the former one - who shall remain nameless. I was really happy to see her turn up in full military regalia for the Rememberance Day ceremonies in Ottawa.

As has been posted elsewhere here, we can't simply get rid of the GG so my vote would be to keep her on. She is doing a far better job than that former CBC hack did. And, she isn't spending our money as if she was the Queen and not simply a GG.

But then, that's just my opinion. ;-)

 

[Spade]

There is no requirement for wholesale change. These are many parliamentary democracies around the world without hereditary heads of state. The cry, "O we can't change lest we become like America" is frankly nonsense.

 

[Kreskin]

Why is the grass greener in a different system? The only time we bitch about the GG is when we have nothing else to bitch about, and it's generally for no particular reason (like this).

 

[Spade]

Why is the grass greener in a different system? The only time we bitch about the GG is when we have nothing else to bitch about, and it's generally for no particular reason (like this).

O, I agree! The monarchy and its trappings are way down on everyone's list of what is important.

 

[AnnaG]

O, I agree! The monarchy and its trappings are way down on everyone's list of what is important.

lol Yup. It's right up there in importance like the Gliberals idea of art.

They only spent $1.8 million on this:
Voice of Fire by Barnett Newman, 1967