Bring Back the Queen


Cobalt_Kid
#1
Seeing as how our PM keeps running to the Queens representative whenever he gets in over his head perhaps we should return to a more stable and less complex form of government. Instead of all the huge expense of elections and paying for several hundred MP who've basically been sidelined by a leader who has little concept of what democracy really means we'll just send a few mill across the pond and Liz can take over.

If we're going to ruled by someone with delusions of grandeur I say bring in a real pro...
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#2
Perhaps there’s some confusion over our constitutional arrangements.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada does not ‘rule’—rather, Her Majesty ‘reigns’. As much as many here would like to describe the prime minister’s request for prorogation as ‘undemocratic’, or any other number of delicious soundbites, the real fact of the matter is that prorogation is an administrative necessity for our system of Government to function appropriately. Yes, the prime minister’s motives for prorogation were questionable, but nonetheless it is the right (and properly so) of Her Majesty’s Government for Canada to lead Government business in both Houses of the Parliament of Canada . The Government’s actions are legitimate by the very fact that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition , and the other opposition parties, have confirmed the democratic confidence of Canadians in this Government dozens of times during the previous session through the votes of the House of Commons .
 
EagleSmack
#3
Well I think the Cobalt Kid wants a return of when the King/Queen ruled as well as reigned. Perhaps you can invite the House of Windsor to conquer Canada bloodlessly as the Brits did.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox View Post

Perhaps there’s some confusion over our constitutional arrangements.

Her Majesty the Queen of Canada does not ‘rule’—rather, Her Majesty ‘reigns’. As much as many here would like to describe the prime minister’s request for prorogation as ‘undemocratic’, or any other number of delicious soundbites, the real fact of the matter is that prorogation is an administrative necessity for our system of Government to function appropriately. Yes, the prime minister’s motives for prorogation were questionable, but nonetheless it is the right (and properly so) of Her Majesty’s Government for Canada to lead Government business in both Houses of the Parliament of Canada . The Government’s actions are legitimate by the very fact that Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition , and the other opposition parties, have confirmed the democratic confidence of Canadians in this Government dozens of times during the previous session through the votes of the House of Commons .

I was being facetious not techical. And prorogation is there to serve the needs of the nation not the political needs of one party or even one man. It's the role of the opposition to provide effective criticism of the government, even during WW II there was intense debate in the House over the policies of the King government, this at a time when thousands of Canadians were serving(and dying) overseas and U-Boats were coming as close to Ottawa as the St.Lawrence river. Dissolving Parliment because he can't handle the fallout of his own incompetence is abrogating the spirit if not the letter of the Parlimentary system, something Harper has shown less than clear respect for from the very start(evidenced by things like bringing on board a Liberal MP before the ballots had even cooled in 2006).

Playing around with the details while chipping away at the foundations of our Parlimentary system is disingenuous if not outright dishonest. We got rid of the Liberals for playing silly buggers with our government, it's more than time to do the same with the conservatives, especially since they claimed to be the remedy of this nonsense when they ran for Parliment in 2006. Let's not forget that we don't elect a Prime Minister, we elect a Parliment whose membership determines who will form the government. with no Parliment we have no government, a concept that Harper seems to have a very difficult time understanding.

He's now talking about major reforms like abolishing the senate and other withspread changes to our system, considering the black hole that the PMO has become under the current administration I find it problematic that such important changes are being contemplated in this political environment.
Last edited by Cobalt_Kid; Jan 15th, 2010 at 04:43 PM..
 
Cobalt_Kid
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Well I think the Cobalt Kid wants a return of when the King/Queen ruled as well as reigned. Perhaps you can invite the House of Windsor to conquer Canada bloodlessly as the Brits did.

I was simply making the point that in a sense the PM was falling back on the Monarchy for support in dealing with problems he and his party created, perhaps we should take this nonsense to it's ultimate conclusion... consistently circumventing and neutralizing the Parliment may serve Harpers immediate needs but it establishes a destabilizing and corrosive environment... we already have one party who's goals are the dismemberment of the nation, we don't need a PM who seems incapable of seeing beyond the next crisis.
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post


He's now talking about major reforms like abolishing the senate and other withspread changes to our system, considering the black hole that the PMO has become under the current administration I find it problematic that such important changes are being contemplated in this political environment.

Abolishing the Senate? I thought the talk was about reforming the Senate (to an elected body, ultimately). I might have that wrong though...

Based on what I read, some changes and improvements to "the system" might be welcomed by those who find fault with the way the current setup operates. I'm curious about your statement "I find it problematic that such important changes are being contemplated in this political environment." Is there another type of environment that would be better?
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

I was simply making the point that in a sense the PM was falling back on the Monarchy for support in dealing with problems....

Isn't that part of the point of a constitutional monarchy?
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_Kid View Post

If we're going to ruled by someone with delusions of grandeur I say bring in a real pro...

I'm sure we could find many with far greater delusions of grandeur than the Queen.
 
AnnaG
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Well I think the Cobalt Kid wants a return of when the King/Queen ruled as well as reigned. Perhaps you can invite the House of Windsor to conquer Canada bloodlessly as the Brits did.

Bloodlessly? *snorts*
 
AnnaG
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy View Post

Abolishing the Senate? I thought the talk was about reforming the Senate (to an elected body, ultimately). I might have that wrong though...

Based on what I read, some changes and improvements to "the system" might be welcomed by those who find fault with the way the current setup operates. I'm curious about your statement "I find it problematic that such important changes are being contemplated in this political environment." Is there another type of environment that would be better?

A few fathoms subsurface would do. lol
 
AnnaG
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

I'm sure we could find many with far greater delusions of grandeur than the Queen.

lol There's a couple around here that'd fit the bill.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#12
Some people appear to have missed a few classes in high school, or they do not
understand how a constitutional Monarchy works. The Prime Minister is in fact required to consult with the Governor General and by law she does not have to rubber
stamp his request.
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Some people appear to have missed a few classes in high school, or they do not understand how a constitutional Monarchy works. The Prime Minister is in fact required to consult with the Governor General and by law she does not have to rubber stamp his request.

By convention she does have to rubber stamp, by law, I would agree, no.

If you have no substantial job, then you rubber stamp. The GG could have offered some sound constitutional reason to deny Harper from proroguing Parliament, but got rolled with a phone call. In hockey terms, the GG is a pylon, not a player.

Great job, great pay, awesome house, no responsibility. I want the job.
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

By convention she does have to rubber stamp, by law, I would agree, no.

If you have no substantial job, then you rubber stamp. The GG could have offered some sound constitutional reason to deny Harper from proroguing Parliament, but got rolled with a phone call. In hockey terms, the GG is a pylon, not a player.

Great job, great pay, awesome house, no responsibility. I want the job.

You might want to consider changing the avatar title before applying for the job!
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy View Post

You might want to consider changing the avatar title before applying for the job!

But I would do a whale of a job! As long as I got free fish.
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

But I would do a whale of a job! As long as I got free fish.

Ha, ha...I think there are quite a few freebies in that particular job. At least the one we have in there now isn't quite as loose with the cash as the last one we had.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

Great job, great pay, awesome house, no responsibility. I want the job.

If you got it, you'd soon find out the "no responsibility" part isn't true. You might usefully study up a bit on what the G-G actually does.
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy View Post

Ha, ha...I think there are quite a few freebies in that particular job. At least the one we have in there now isn't quite as loose with the cash as the last one we had.

The current GG might be tighter on the purse strings, but the whole rotten monarchial infrastructure costs us needless millions.
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

The current GG might be tighter on the purse strings, but the whole rotten monarchial infrastructure costs us needless millions.

You have a point there. I don't have a huge problem with the monarchial side of things at this point - I think there are bigger fish to fry ( you mentioned fish earlier ) on a bunch of other money-costing fronts.

If anything, the bit of pomp and circumstance associated with the monarchy might well be one of the "glues" holding the country together!
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

If you got it, you'd soon find out the "no responsibility" part isn't true. You might usefully study up a bit on what the G-G actually does.

While in the political spotlight, the GG had a chance to briefly point the sharp end of a political stick at the Harper govt over proroguing Parliament, but declined.

Obviously she was very busy with other critical duties. Name one.
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy View Post

You have a point there. I don't have a huge problem with the monarchial side of things at this point - I think there are bigger fish to fry ( you mentioned fish earlier ) on a bunch of other money-costing fronts.

If anything, the bit of pomp and circumstance associated with the monarchy might well be one of the "glues" holding the country together!

I gotta say I'm a little confused with the pomp and circumstance business. Political events in Canada just seem so dull and scripted. There is a lack of sponteneity that turns me off.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

I gotta say I'm a little confused with the pomp and circumstance business. Political events in Canada just seem so dull and scripted. There is a lack of sponteneity that turns me off.

Scripted??????????? Don't people who script things have to be literate?
 
countryboy
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Scripted??????????? Don't people who script things have to be literate?

I think the "script writers" likely are...it might be the "stage actors" with whom you have a problem!
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#24
Perhaps Harper inspires some of you. Or maybe Gordon Campbell or Carol James. Stiff dullards all.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

Perhaps Harper inspires some of you. Or maybe Gordon Campbell or Carol James. Stiff dullards all.

I thought we had it sorted out years ago that politicians are NOT intelligent people.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I thought we had it sorted out years ago that politicians are NOT intelligent people.

All the more reason for The Crown of Canada , the vice-regal representatives thereof, and the Public Service of Canada to play a more active role in the decision-making process.
 
Dexter Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchy View Post

While in the political spotlight, the GG had a chance to briefly point the sharp end of a political stick at the Harper govt over proroguing Parliament, but declined.

Obviously she was very busy with other critical duties. Name one.

Educating you is your problem, not mine, and you've got a long way to go. You really have no idea how to argue a point sensibly. You don't know what the G-G actually does, and you don't understand what the monarchy's role is in legal and constitutional terms or you wouldn't have written that first sentence. Pointing sharp sticks at the government is not the G-G's job, but whatever she does, you'll object to it. Proroguing Parliament is a perfectly legitimate way to end a session, the only unusual circumstance in this case was the volume of unfinished business, but the G-G had no compelling reason to refuse. This is a political issue, not a constitutional issue, and she correctly stayed out of politics. If she HAD pointed the sharp stick, I've no doubt you'd have objected that an unelected representative of the monarchy was interfering with democratic processes.

The G-G does have some real power, but exerts it only under very unusual circumstances, because it means refusing the advice of the PM. As far as I know it's happened only once in Canada's history. Look up the King-Byng affair. Being busy with other duties is irrelevant to what she did, your second paragraph is a pointless and sarcastic non sequitur that doesn't advance your argument at all and doesn't deserve an answer. A case can be made for getting rid of the monarchy, but first you have to understand what the monarchy's role really is. You don't.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox View Post

All the more reason for The Crown of Canada , the vice-regal representatives thereof, and the Public Service of Canada to play a more active role in the decision-making process.


Maybe they couldn't screw things up any worse eh?
 
dumpthemonarchy
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Educating you is your problem, not mine, and you've got a long way to go. You really have no idea how to argue a point sensibly. You don't know what the G-G actually does, and you don't understand what the monarchy's role is in legal and constitutional terms or you wouldn't have written that first sentence. Pointing sharp sticks at the government is not the G-G's job, but whatever she does, you'll object to it. Proroguing Parliament is a perfectly legitimate way to end a session, the only unusual circumstance in this case was the volume of unfinished business, but the G-G had no compelling reason to refuse. This is a political issue, not a constitutional issue, and she correctly stayed out of politics. If she HAD pointed the sharp stick, I've no doubt you'd have objected that an unelected representative of the monarchy was interfering with democratic processes.

The G-G does have some real power, but exerts it only under very unusual circumstances, because it means refusing the advice of the PM. As far as I know it's happened only once in Canada's history. Look up the King-Byng affair. Being busy with other duties is irrelevant to what she did, your second paragraph is a pointless and sarcastic non sequitur that doesn't advance your argument at all and doesn't deserve an answer. A case can be made for getting rid of the monarchy, but first you have to understand what the monarchy's role really is. You don't.

Hmm. Byng-King. One task per century. Very busy. At a cost of millions over time.

True, what ever you think the monarchy does is fine, whatever it does to me is a farce. You only see the theory, I look for practice and see none for about half a century. In the old days the monarchy actually did something, chop heads, find new lands, fight wars etc. You know, work.
 
Spade
Free Thinker
#30
When the Queen passes on, the Privy Council through the Governor General must assent to the new sovereign. The Canadian government could quite legitimately (See the Statute of Westminster) leave the Crown vacant. Were that to happen, the Governor General would be the de facto head of state. There would be no change to the day-to-day workings of any Canadian institution. No constitutional change would be required.

Canada would still acknowledge its past - both its past French and British ties. And, we would still wipe tears of reminiscence. But, we would be finally a more mature democracy without institutionalized inherited privlege.
Last edited by Spade; Jan 17th, 2010 at 12:06 AM..
 

Similar Threads

236
Let's Bring Back the Old Gods!
by Spade | Dec 14th, 2018
20
Should we bring back DDT?
by ironsides | Aug 11th, 2009
29
Why we should bring back hanging
by Blackleaf | Mar 4th, 2008
0
Bring back the Victorians
by Blackleaf | Feb 17th, 2007