Bring Back the Queen

[dumpthemonarchy]

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 :lol 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]

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? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[countryboy]

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

I think the "script writers" likely are...it might be the "stage actors" with whom you have a problem! :lol::lol::lol:

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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

 

[JLM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[JLM]

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.

Yeah, I doubt if the job description of Chuck or Billy will match those of Richard the Lion Heart very close.

 

[Cliffy]

I'm with Spade on this one. Makes much more sense and takes all th emotional confusion out of the situation.

 

[JLM]

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.

If the Crown were left vacant, why would we need the G.G.? She'd be representing absolutely nothing? No? I'm lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

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.

Correct. There would be a lot less drama than people think. Because the current mechanics of govt could operate just fine with a GG as head of state. Our past would not vanish but looked at in a different light as legalistic ties with another nation are decisively cut.

 

[Spade]

If the Crown were left vacant, why would we need the G.G.? She'd be representing absolutely nothing? No? I'm lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We would not have to become a republic with all the associated constitutional and institutional wranglings during the change. The GG would be an appointed, term-specific, ceremonial position as it is now and with the same set of constitutional checks.
So, JLM the Crown would still be the Crown in terms of law federally and provincially. It's just that it would be permanently vacant.
It is another step in our evolution towards democracy.

 

[JLM]

If the Crown were left vacant, why would we need the G.G.? She'd be representing absolutely nothing? No? I'm lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks, Spade, I see it all now, just like a lot of other gov't. positions- occupies a space on a chart.................:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Spade]

Thanks, Spade, I see it all now, just like a lot of other gov't. positions- occupies a space on a chart.................:lol::lol::lol:

Yep! And this removes the argument from those who say, "Lets keep the 'British' crown. If the system ain't broke, don't fix it."

I can see the sentimental attachment some Canadians hold for the line of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (aka, the Windsors). But, that is a minority opinion. And, if we are truly serious about democracy...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Byng-King. One task per century. Very busy.

Nice one. You're just displaying your sarcastic ignorance again, you have no understanding of what you're talking about. I agree with you in principle, I think the monarchy is an archaic and undemocratic institution we can do without, but your style of argument will never convince anyone.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Nice one. You're just displaying your sarcastic ignorance again, you have no understanding of what you're talking about. I agree with you in principle, I think the monarchy is an archaic and undemocratic institution we can do without, but your style of argument will never convince anyone.

Being sarcastic doesn't mean you don't have a grip on the facts. I state facts, which help in understanding, but you need the facts first. Otherwise you invent wars due to fear and ignorance. :?:

The crown is above politics, which is why the GG is not busy. Then the GG will descend on the unwashed masses and pronounce judgement-which everyone will obey because it's just so darn impressive. Or at least that was the theory.

Think of the change, centuries ago in England and other countries, the crown was politics, it is a Canadian invention to shove it upstairs and gazingly admire it.

 

[talloola]

my reaction to having a monarchy/queen/king, remains as it
was as a little girl, where having a king, then a queen
was so 'cool', I loved it. It was like a story book, and
being a canadian little girl was, being very lucky to be in
such a position.

My mother and grandparents were born in london/eng., so the
chit chat in my house re: monarchy was so dedicated and
positive toward them, and not a word was ever said in
criticism of them.(with the exception of my irish father),
born in dublin, who poo pood the monarchy sarcastically,
but behind his back we thought he was being nasty. (guess
he was)

Hence, I have carried that feeling (yes feeling) along with
me all this way, and it has not gone away, so I am happy
to say, I invite the monarchy to always be a part of canada
and am proud to have them.
I do not see how they cast a negative shadow on canada in
any way, but they are giving us a regal quality, and I'm
sure there are others in the world who would love to be
part of the monarchy.
It certainly looks much better than what we have sitting in
Ottawa, fighting and bickering constantly like children.