Bring Back the Queen

[Blackleaf]

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

Rubbish. That's nothing but drivel put forward by republicans ignorant at how cheap and cost-effective the monarchy is.

Canadians actually pay NOTHING for the monarchy. The Monarchy is paid for by British taxpayers through the Civil List, and it is incredibly cheap - it costs each person in Britain just 62p each YEAR. A British republic would cost taxpayers much more. The US President's Air Force One alone costs more than the entire British monarchy.

And only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are "paid" for through the Civil List. Though this isn't actually payment for them, but merely funding for their official work. All other royals make their own money. If they don't work for the Queen then they have to have jobs elsewhere. Prince Charles earns money through his Duchy of Cornwall and Falklands veteran Prince Andrew, the fourth in line to the Throne, is Britain's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.

In fact, the Monarchy actually pays for itself. The Crown Estate is a statutory corporation run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue of around £190 million for HM Treasury every year, greatly EXCEEDING the costs of the Civil List. Despite this, the Civil List, which cost £7.9 million annually - the same as it did way back in 1990 - is to become exhausted.

In 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was carried over from the 1990-2000 Civil List. The reserve was created due to the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the palace more efficient.

Canadian republicans cannot use cost as an excuse to get rid of the monarchy, because Canadians pay nothing for it. So you'd each be slightly poorer financially if you became a republic, which you would have to pay for. The Monarchy puts more money into the British treasury than it gets out - it raises £190 million itself annually to go into the Treasury, whereas the Civil List costs just £7.9 million annually.

 

[Spade]

With all due respect, Blackleaf, we are not discussing whether Britain should retain the monarchy. The debate is about whether the British monarch has any role in Canada. What is your opinion as a non Canadian?

 

[Blackleaf]

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.

I think you'll find that it was the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not Canadians, that led to the creation of the democratic Constitutional Monarchy that we see today, the modern world's best form of governance.

 

[Spade]

I think you'll find that it was the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution, not Canadians, that led to the creation of the democratic Constitutional Monarchy that we see today, the modern world's best form of governance.

Before or after British imperialism?

 

[Blackleaf]

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.

There's nothing undemocratic about our Constitutional Monarchy. The Monarch isn't even a politican and can't even vote in elections. There is no need to vote for a non-political Head of State.

And archaic is the term I would use for a republic, a form of governance which has been around for thousands of years. Not for a form of governance which has been around for a mere 300-350 years.

 

[Blackleaf]

Before or after British imperialism?

You can thank yourself lucky that the British decided to colonise your part of the world, otherwise there'd be no Canada today and you'd either not have been born or you'd not be Canadian. And Britain didn't conquer Canada. It created it.

 

[Spade]

 

[Spade]

You can thank yourself lucky that the British decided to colonise your part of the world, otherwise there'd be no Canada today and you'd either not have been born or you'd not be Canadian. And Britain didn't conquer Canada. It created it.

brush up on your history on the Seven Years War.

 

[YukonJack]

Blackleaf, the Royal a$$-kisser opined:

"You can thank yourself lucky that the British decided to colonise your part of the world, otherwise there'd be no Canada today and you'd either not have been born or you'd not be Canadian. And Britain didn't conquer Canada. It created it"

He is right, of course!

If the people with spine and integrity had not rebelled against the mentally unstable, insane sick King of a dying "Empire" and established the first Democracy, in 1776, there would not be a Canada today. Neither would there be a United States of America.

Is there anyone, who, seeing the last two-hundred and thirty years, care to disagree and why?

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

To say England created Canada is one enterpretation of history, but I don't really suscribe to it. The European colonizers who became Canadian and lived here and endired the harship of a new land made Canada. We inherited languages and a system that is not a carbon copy of what is found in England. The world knows that.

Culturally, being Canadian also means we are part English, it is unavoidable, it depends how much you want to stress it. It's the legal political conections we need to jetison ASAP.

 

[FiveParadox]

dumpthemonarchy, once yet again, Canada’s Crown is a completely distinct legal entity from the Crown of the United Kingdom. There is no valid reason for us to jetison a unique and entirely-Canadian institution, that we are lucky enough to share with fifteen other Realms of the Commonwealth, each with their own distinct legal take on the Crown. Her Majesty the Queen is a Canadian subject, as are all members of The Royal Family — their roles elsewhere are irrelevant to our own constitutional arrangements.

The argument that constitutional monarchy costs too much is false and intentionally dishonest — the facts are clear that republics are much more expensive than constitutional monarchies to run and govern. The Office of the Secretary to the Governor General is constantly working to derease the operating budget of Government House, and year after year they have succeeded in delivering an excellent vice-regal program for Canadians at the very lowest possible cost.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

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

Last week he was saying reform or even abolishment of the senate.

n 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?

An environment where we had a better sense of what's really going on at the highest levels of government. Harper is so preoccupied with controlling the message everything has to pass through the Privy Council before information can be obtained from the government. We just saw how willing the PM and his ministers are to distort and invent "truth" to serve their own purposes as they spent more than a month attacking a former foreign service diplomat who was moved to come forth about what's really going on in Afghanistan, one who was ultimately vindicated. The reason our Parliment is now taking a time out.

Under these conditions... no real Parlimentary oversite and a virtual press blackout in the PMO...do we really want to have our political system remade. Canada could end up looking more like Columbia or Afghanistan, two governments Harper and his conservatives ardently support, both with little or no claim to being democratic or having respect for human rights.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Isn't that part of the point of a constitutional monarchy?

I thought a constitutional monarchy was supposed to allow greater representation, not allow one man or one small group to dictate terms to the majority. Most Canadians voted for a party other than the conservatives, and their representatives aren't being given a voice... the whole point of a democratic system.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

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

And how many of them are going to be going to bed in a palace tonight.:lol:

All I'm saying is if we've got to put up with someone who's bound and determined to show us just how superior they are to the rest of us then bring in a pro...

 

[Spade]

It is amazing how we as Canadians have been indoctrinated into responding with just one word, "Democratic," when we are asked what kind of government we have or what out traditions are. We are more democratic than many, but much less democratic than some (Examples upon request). Nevertheless, I am a proud Canadian who has a foolish wish that we continue towards that goal. To say that a monarchy, once absolute and founded on "divine right" ensures our democracy is just plain foolish.

If you say, "My ancestors were British! I like drinking tea with a pointy pinky, and, damn it, I want to remain in the realm of queens, princesses, and faeries!" Well, at least you're being honest!

 

[Spade]

Now, here is real democracy!
Would you see this at Bucking Ham Palace?
YouTube - Patches the Coolest Horse

 

[FiveParadox]

In regards to the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the reforms proposed are entirely unreasonable (and most probably unconstitutional, at least according to several very knowledgeable and honourable senators). One of the prime minister’s reasons for proroguing the Parliament of Canada is to gain a stronger foothold in the Senate for political purposes; prorogation has never been used for such a political purpose before in Canada’s long history.

For our representative democracy to function as it was intended (and in the manner that would be the most effective and produce the best decisions), it is imperative that the Governor General is able to independently represent the Queen, and that our honourable senators have relative independence from the prime minister to complement the democratic decisions of the House of Commons and to offer real and constructive feedback. The prime minister seems diametrically opposed to this effective model, abusing his privilege to advise the Governor General, and disrupting the business of the Senate with needless and misguided reforms.

 

[countryboy]

In regards to the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the reforms proposed are entirely unreasonable (and most probably unconstitutional, at least according to several very knowledgeable and honourable senators). One of the prime minister’s reasons for proroguing the Parliament of Canada is to gain a stronger foothold in the Senate for political purposes; prorogation has never been used for such a political purpose before in Canada’s long history.

For our representative democracy to function as it was intended (and in the manner that would be the most effective and produce the best decisions), it is imperative that the Governor General is able to independently represent the Queen, and that our honourable senators have relative independence from the prime minister to complement the democratic decisions of the House of Commons and to offer real and constructive feedback. The prime minister seems diametrically opposed to this effective model, abusing his privilege to advise the Governor General, and disrupting the business of the Senate with needless and misguided reforms.

FP - I'm not trying to start a fight or get all bent out of shape about this, but isn't it true that the prime minister is the one who appoints the (new) senators? I'm wondering about the "relative independence" of the senators, based on some of the politically-motivated actions I've seen in that house. Am I reading this all wrong?

 

[Spade]

In regards to the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the reforms proposed are entirely unreasonable (and most probably unconstitutional, at least according to several very knowledgeable and honourable senators). One of the prime minister’s reasons for proroguing the Parliament of Canada is to gain a stronger foothold in the Senate for political purposes; prorogation has never been used for such a political purpose before in Canada’s long history.

For our representative democracy to function as it was intended (and in the manner that would be the most effective and produce the best decisions), it is imperative that the Governor General is able to independently represent the Queen, and that our honourable senators have relative independence from the prime minister to complement the democratic decisions of the House of Commons and to offer real and constructive feedback. The prime minister seems diametrically opposed to this effective model, abusing his privilege to advise the Governor General, and disrupting the business of the Senate with needless and misguided reforms.

Perhaps democracy will come to Canada? Apparently, it's coming to the USA.
YouTube - Democracy

 

[FiveParadox]

I thought a constitutional monarchy was supposed to allow greater representation, not allow one man or one small group to dictate terms to the majority. Most Canadians voted for a party other than the conservatives, and their representatives aren't being given a voice... the whole point of a democratic system.

The Constitution Act, 1982 stipulates that it is a democratic right of Canadians to have the House of Commons meet on at least one occasion per year. It would be nice to have the House of Commons running at all times, of course, but that would also be unrealistic in a nation where much of a Commons member’s time should also be spent in their respective electoral districts so that we have the opportunity to have a truly representative democracy. The issue here is not that Parliament has been prorogued — as prorogations do nothing to harm democracy and nothing to harm the integrity of the Commons. Rather, the issue here is the reasons for having prorogued Parliament.

And how many of them are going to be going to bed in a palace tonight.:lol:

All I'm saying is if we've got to put up with someone who's bound and determined to show us just how superior they are to the rest of us then bring in a pro...

I don’t feel that Her Majesty the Queen of Canada has ever endeavoured to seem ‘superior’ to the rest of us — perhaps you have an example I’ve missed that you’d like to post for the rest of us. The Queen lives on a very modest personal income, with only Her Majesty’s official State functions funded by Her Majesty’s Government. On the domestic side of things, Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada, earns an income considerably less than either honourable senators or members of the House of Commons, while nonetheless carrying out a packed vice-regal agenda every single day.

Considering the significant effort that the Queen and Her Majesty’s vice-regal representatives have made to reduce the costs of our constitutional monarchy, and to avoid the excesses that would be so possible were their Offices abused, I think that this is reason enough to trust in the sincerity and wisdom of both the Queen and our present Governor General, and to trust in this fabulous system that has evolved to provide for the most stable and effective system of governance available to any nation today. Luckily, considering statements of support from both The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, and Mr. Michael Ignatieff M.P. (Etobicoke Lakeshore), the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, not to mention a rather monarchist membership in the Senate, I don’t think that the monarchy is an immediate concern for any parties on the federal stage.