Your right ITN, I recall my friend telling me that britain almost went to war with the US just before World War 1
No More Common Wealth - An Independant Canada
- Thread starter UnknownUSER
- Start date
Until 1929 the US had on file plans for the invasion of Canada. The emergence of Japan as an adversary during 30's changed US policies towards Britain and it's colonies and former colonies.
I think I read those plans somewheres. I seem to recall laughing. I'm fairly certain it wasn't an actual plan, more of an exercise 'just in case' sort of thing. If I remember correctly. THe documetn was declassifed in the 70's, again if I remember correctly.
Edit to add: This is all I could find. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcanadawar.html
This issue keeps popping up on Canadian lists all the time. Why must we sever ties with monarchy? What harm does it do to retain our heritage and traditions as Citizens of Her Majesty the Queen?
Further, why sever our ties with the Commonwealth? I daresay it is one of the strongest reasons we have had preventing American occupation.
chris
Why would you think the Monarch, the Gov.-General and the Lt. Governors are not doing anything?
ok, quick post here.
If we got rid of the Queen, Our prime minister would not become our head of state. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government , he is the equivalent of the US first speaker of the Congress.
Seeing as there does not seem to be a rational use to a Head of State beyond coming corrupt and siezing the country in a coup (as most nations presidents have at some point), I don't see why we should get rid of the queen.
She is as Much a Canadian citizen as she is British.
If we got rid of the Queen, Our prime minister would not become our head of state. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government , he is the equivalent of the US first speaker of the Congress.
Seeing as there does not seem to be a rational use to a Head of State beyond coming corrupt and siezing the country in a coup (as most nations presidents have at some point), I don't see why we should get rid of the queen.
She is as Much a Canadian citizen as she is British.
Not necessarily. There isn't any reason on earth, in a non-monarchial system why the PM couldn't also be the Head of State. They're just titles anyway. Some countries have both aPM as head of government and a President as Head of State.
Me, I say just leave well enough alone;-)
He couldn't be the head of state because he doesn't hold that kind of power, If he did hold that kind of power then we wouldn't be able to have either a head of state nor head of government during a minority government (the leader of the party with the most seats is not automatically the PM, especially in a coalition)
Are you serious? I don't know where you live, but in reality the PM has the majority of the power. In fact, a Canadian PM has more power than an American President.
You compared his role earlier to the speaker of the American congress. I meant to comment on that, because there is no comparison. The PM is head of the government, and all that it implies.
And he could have anything we want him to have. You miss the point. These are not real things, you know, Kings, PM's or whatever. They are just commonly supposed labels. Our Head of State could be called Chief Chicken Doctor, it's all just a title. The reality is the power.
Really. It is my understanding that, in most cases, the leader of the majority party is very much the PM. Can you name a time this was not so in our history that I may not be familiar with?
Well, if its a majority party then its not a Minority government is it?
But if you mean "the party with the most seats", then it happened in 1926.
The Party with the most seats gets first dibs at running the country, however to do so it must be able to control the parliment , Ie, command the majority of seats.
So for instance, If The Bloc, NDP and Liberals all voted to boot harper (all being left leaning), it would not neccecarily mean a new election.
They could opt to either let the Liberals run the country, or form a coalition (ie, Liberal PM, Bloc Finance minister, NDP education minister, etc etc)
But if you mean "the party with the most seats", then it happened in 1926.
The Party with the most seats gets first dibs at running the country, however to do so it must be able to control the parliment , Ie, command the majority of seats.
So for instance, If The Bloc, NDP and Liberals all voted to boot harper (all being left leaning), it would not neccecarily mean a new election.
They could opt to either let the Liberals run the country, or form a coalition (ie, Liberal PM, Bloc Finance minister, NDP education minister, etc etc)