The royal family would everyone a favour if they just abdicated. But it's hard I guess to give up all that fantastic living and being at the top of the social pyramid. One less monarchy on Earth means more democracy, so unless they leave, they'll get pushed.
Is It Time For A Referemdum On The Monarchy?
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
The royal family would everyone a favour if they just abdicated. But it's hard I guess to give up all that fantastic living and being at the top of the social pyramid. One less monarchy on Earth means more democracy, so unless they leave, they'll get pushed.
Canada is quite democratic already, and maybe dumping the monarchy would be a wild card that could send us into reverse, but I doubt it. The monarchy could be quietly shelved and few would notice. It's an abstraction to me that has no meanng anymore.
Old kings made it because they got something for their people, more land and conquest for example. People used to die for king and country. Now that seems absurd. I can't see what the monarchy does for us anymore. Old with the old, in with the new.
You know what? I'll support a referendum the day Dumpy and his anti-Monarchist quasi-republican buddies volunteer to:
a) pay the costs for said referendum if they lose
b) pay any additional costs for the removal of the Monarchy should they win... which shouldn't be much according to them, because the Monarchy costs so much to support and it supposedly won't cost much to change everything over
a) pay the costs for said referendum if they lose
b) pay any additional costs for the removal of the Monarchy should they win... which shouldn't be much according to them, because the Monarchy costs so much to support and it supposedly won't cost much to change everything over
That's because you don't really know much about it and you're not looking. Maybe you should study up a bit on what the Governor General actually does and what powers are attached to the office. There's a pretty good discussion of it in an old textbook I have, chapter 8, "The Monarchy and the Governor General" in The Government of Canada by R. MacGregor Dawson, 5th edition revised by Norman Ward, University of Toronto Press, 1970, ISBN 0-8020-1720-7. Any good library should have it. Find out what you're talking about before you diss it, then ask yourself this question: what important problems would dumping the monarchy solve? If you can't come up with anything better than a generalized dislike of it as an archaic and undemocratic institution, which is really all I've seen you put forward here and is not actually a fair characterization of it, you should rethink it.
As I already said, I agree that the issue is in no way urgent and that it wouldn't solve anything significant beyond giving anti-monarchists like me more pride and affection for Canada as a country. But for the sake of argument, what does the monarch do that the GG couldn't do in a system virtually the same but with no higher position than GG (the monarch)?
You also say calling the institution archaic and undemocratic isn't a fair characterization. You're gonna have to defend that position. Can you dispute the claim that the system is in conflict with the principle of secularity and equality between the sexes? I am referring of course to the fact that the system prefers males to females and that our Monarch is by default the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. It would seem to me that a skeptical and rational mind like yours would at least see some form of contradiction with this and our supposed modern secularity.
From what I recall God doesn't like idolatry.
I'm not exactly sure what a Referemdum is but I think everybody should have one in their kitchen cupboard just incase.
I'm not exactly sure what a Referemdum is but I think everybody should have one in their kitchen cupboard just incase.
Can't help but notice that everytime this subject rises to the top of the list! Should be a good lesson to all of us to check our spelling if we are starting a new thread because - there is no editing it. I do recall Spade doing the same thing along time ago and asking for someone to fix it. It was fixed.
That's never actually been tested, the only thing I can think of offhand is that the monarch appoints the GG, which the GG obviously can't do, unless we diddle things so that each GG appoints a successor. The broader issue is pretty murky though, with questions like, what's the status of the GG when the monarch is in the country? What if the government fell during a royal visit? Who gets to sign bills into law? Nobody knows.
It isn't a fair characterization because it's incomplete. It IS archaic and undemocratic to a degree, but that's not all it is, it does have some real functions that are quite important to the way the system operates, and its hedged about with restrictions that render it less archaic and undemocratic than it would at first appear. I do see the contradictions you refer to, I just don't think they matter much in the larger scheme of things. Life is bulging with contradictions and inconsistencies, the ones around the nature and role of the monarchy and the GG seem pretty trivial to me, and there are some pretty serious legal issues around making significant changes. All executive power, for instance, in law is vested in the institution of the Crown (not the person of the monarch) and is permanently delegated in varying degrees to assorted officers of the government. If you take the Crown away, then what is the source of executive power? I suppose in the simplest case we could just declare the GG to be the President and change nothing else except the manner of appointment, leaving the President with the same role and powers the GG has, but that leaves it open to the same criticisms--archaic, undemocratic, and so forth--as are directed at the monarchy. It would change nothing of significance. We can't just dump the monarchy as some would have us do, it's far more complex than that.
I see from your profile that you're in Turkey, which possibly explains that misperception. Canada is in no meaningful sense in the shadow of England, it's simply that for complex historical reasons the Queen of England also happens to be the Queen of Canada, just as she's also the Queen of Scotland and Wales (which together with England make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain), Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, The Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, and St Kitts and Nevis.
The thing is, in the current system, it may be true that technically, according to the rules, the GG is appointed by the Monarch. But at the end of the day, we all know it's the party in power and the prime minister that proposes a candidate. The Monarch just gives her blessing. I can very well see the exact same system functioning with no Monarch. The blessing part could come from let's say a 66% support from the House of Commons or the Senate.
You could say that the advantage of a Monarch is for her to be neutral and apolitical. But I don't see anything ''neutral'' in being the Head of State of whole nations for the simple reason of being the descendant of past monarchs. Monarchy IS political. You can't read the history of European nations and say monarchy isn't rooted in a highly political past. There's nothing neutral about it. And I would much prefer seeing elected MPs as a collectivity be the watchdog of the GGs appointment.
But again, that's just my opinion and that goes beyond the obvious fact that Canada doesn't seem ready for this change and that there ARE more pressing concerns such as ecology and economy.
It is complex. But I think history shows us that once we get past certain challenges, new and more complex challenges inevitably appear. But that"s not a good reason to avoid the challenges in the first place. For example, slavery was a very simple and efficient system for the slave owners. But eventually the problem of human rights emerged. Now that we've moved past slavery we must face a more complex set of ethical and economical choices. Capitalism? Communism? Socialism? A mix of all that? What should be the minimum wage? Is one a slave for working at a factory with minimum wage in a job that will slowly but surely wreck your body?
Surely not many of us would accept that we should've stuck to slavery because the a world without slavery would be too complicated to deal with. We all know within our hearts that a world without slavery is a BETTER world.
This was an extreme example but it's useful for the point I want to make. It's my view that a Canada without monarchy would be a better Canada for the simple reason that our system would be more coherent with our modern values of equality and secularity. I see it a bit as foundations of a house. Eventually, foundations erode and something must be done. Eventually we'll have to face social evolution and ''renovate'' our foundations. Now might not be the time... but it is just a question of time.
On a different note, I strongly believe that getting rid of monarchy would have a very deep effect in Quebec and would do much to boost national unity. With the Conservatives in power, the opposite is happening. But if let's say monarchy was dumped right now, it would be a potentially devastating blow to separatism which is struggling to find cohesion right now. It would certainly be warmly welcomed by soft nationalists like me who really identify to Quebec first but sees the rational advantages of being part of a larger Canadian web of solidarity. It would most definitely boost the Canadian-ness of many Quebecers like me. I think that's something the ROC should think about...
Haven't you ever wondered what would happen if the Monarch refused to appoint the person recommended by the government? Because, you know, she *could*, at least in principle, and pick someone she likes better, like one of her children or grandchildren, which would be very interesting for other reasons. Although I think if she did that we'd suddenly see a huge swell of support for dumpthemonarchy's ill-considered position, that's crossing a line in the unwritten rules about the way things should be.
More generally, I can't argue with anything you said in that post, because I think you're right, about all of it, right down the line. But none of it seems high on the list of things that urgently need doing either, so I'm inclined to take the "don't tease the bear" position. This is an ugly jar of maggots we're talking about here (gawd, I'm mixing my metaphors horribly; so sue me...
), major constitutional changes in this country are always complex and difficult and acrimonious, and I see no good reason to rip the lid off it just now.
I also think it has to do with our histories JLM. Many of us over 40 or so have grown up with the monarchy. Many have actually been somewhere to see them in person. They are part of our lives and part of our history. Me, I think it is cool to have a queen. I like the old gal.
We have far better things to spend our money on then a referendum that is unnecessary, IMHO.
The British can listen to us, but they don't have to. If the head of state is so important to Canadians, and we have no say on who it is, why have this one? We need our own, oh, we already have one, called the PM. Get rid of royal deadwood bureacracy.
Consulting Canada on the royal succession merely a 'courtesy' - Canada - CBC News
Consulting Canada on the royal succession merely a 'courtesy'
The British can listen to us, but they don't have to. If the head of state is so important to Canadians, and we have no say on who it is, why have this one? We need our own, oh, we already have one, called the PM. Get rid of royal deadwood bureacracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/14/f-royal-succession-canada.html
Consulting Canada on the royal succession merely a 'courtesy'
Consulting Canada on the royal succession merely a 'courtesy' - Canada - CBC News
Consulting Canada on the royal succession merely a 'courtesy'
The British can listen to us, but they don't have to. If the head of state is so important to Canadians, and we have no say on who it is, why have this one? We need our own, oh, we already have one, called the PM. Get rid of royal deadwood bureacracy.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/14/f-royal-succession-canada.html
Consulting Canada on the royal succession merely a 'courtesy'
You are into an argument here that just can't be won in a rational way. It's like Motherhood and Apple Pie. It's called tradition which is important to a lot of folks, just like marshmallows at a campfire.