Would Canada vote to be independent from the "Queen"?

[Zzarchov]

Im perfectly happy not being a Canadian Citizen, even though I lose a lot of entitlements. Would be nice to vote, but it won't kill me not to.

As the daughter of a long line of patriots, many of whom fought against both Britain and France, to swear allegience would be treason to me. I don't really care if you folks do, that isnt my point. My point is simply to support my view of not taking Canadian citizenship and reminding those who are by birth Canadian that they by birth have an allegiance to the Monarchy. Many people don't particularly like that idea.

ETA Something that Canadians don't talk about though is the opnion of some Americans that Canada is spineless and weak because they never walked away from the breast of mother England. Most Americans don't know all that much about Canada--they really don't have a need to in thier daily grind--but they do know that one thing...that Canada has a Queen and we took care of that problem 231 years ago.

You also had a slavery problem that lingered on alot longer and many of your countrymen fought long and hard to try and protect.

In the scale of "problems" Slavery is a little higher on the list than Monarchy, especially as most of us like the monarchy.

 

[Blackleaf]

The same voting like in Australia.
The result for Australians is that majority still wants to have the close tie with UK. When I asked a friend, a Canadian, he has a theory that most Canadians don't care to even have a vote like that.
Do you reckon so?
If there were such vote, what would be the result, you reckon?
What would you vote for?

This friend also said that the Australians are rather having cultural identity that is more close related to of the Brits, whereas Canadians aren't.
I must admit I did notice when I was in univ. with exchange students from US, UK, OZ, Kiwi land and Canada, the Americans and the Canadians don't really understand the slangs shared by the Brits, the Kiwis and the OZs. Just one of the small things that is noticeable.
So I wonder how Canadians view yourselves culturally? I.e. Canada is completely different to the UK or the neighbour, the US; or is quite similar to the US cause of the distance and the tie between the 2 or ... (feel free to fill in the blanks).

I think the British do feel more close to the Australians, South Africans and New Zealanders than they do to Canadians. For a start, we know a lot more about those countries than we do about Canada as we see more about them on TV than we do Canada and we share the same sports - like in Britain, rugby and cricket are extremely popular in South Africa, New Zealand an Australia but not in Canada, which shares the same "sports" as its southern neighbour.

Also, the preferred country of choice for Brits who choose to live abroad is Australia.

 

[Blackleaf]

The discrepancy is that most Canadians have NEVER sworn allegiance to the Queen. Only those who immigrated have. I too would have an issue swearing allegiance to the British Royalty (not just the Queen since we will have King Chuck in a coupe of years).

I am also curious what is wrong with swearing allegiance to our Maple Leaf flag? Seems like a perfectly acceptable alternative to the sitting Prime Minister for example.

You would be swearing allegiance to the Canadians royalty, not British royalty. She's not more ours than she is yours. She's equally the Head of State of all Dominions of which she is Head of State. The only difference is that she just happens to live here. She could easily, if she wants, quit Buckingham Palace and go and live in Canada if she likes.

Your monarchy is not the Britisih monarchy. It is the Canadian monarchy.

 

[Blackleaf]

I could think of better places to put that $1.10/Citizen..... The Federal Government could probably open quite a few hostels to house all of Toronto's homeless people with that $30 million per year....

Er, you can't have a monarchy for FREE you knw. There are some things in life that you have to pay for. Do you reckon that if Canada became a republic it would be for free? Leave off it. You'd have to pay for it, and it would probably cost more than what the monarchy costs.

The monarchy is incredibly cheap. For comparison it costs each Brits just 62 pence per year, whereas the Italian Republic costs each Italian £1 a year and membership of the hated EU costs each Brit a whopping £75 a year.

In fact, the monarchy gives more money to Britain than what Britain gives to the monarchy. It gives around £180 million every year to the British Treasury, which works out at around £2.40 to each Brit per year.

 

[jimshort19]

Queen

All provincial populations would be divided by the question. Most provinces would elect to keep the Queen. I expect that Quebec would elect to drop her. The press would have a field day. The whole tempest in a tea pot would die out entirely in two generations.

Culturally we see ourselves as much the same as our new world neighbour, the Americans, an undeniable fact. But a definite affinity for the whole English-speaking world, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand as particulars, exists and will continue. Quebec is more inward looking, never was really a big fan of France, but has a more purely linguistic affinity, and the attendant natural contempt, resentment and jealousy of the English collossus.

Culturally we are conservative, but vote liberal. Quebec is even more conservative, and even more likely to vote liberal. We have free trade with the U.S., but not so much among ourselves. Our nationalism is generally soft and specious, except when it comes to being polite and appreciating endless expanses of rocks and trees and lakes and snow. Americans have rockets, we have politeness, and tundra. Canadians have an inferiority complex about this because we are actually no more polite than Americans and Alaska puts us in an American bite, with expanses of rock and snow on both sides... furthermore politeness makes dull movies and doesn't work with communists and terrorists.

Canada will get a seat on the UN security council within 20 years, but will we ever get this politeness thing down convincingly? Politeness being an expression of love it is the finest identity trip on Earth, ranking next only to generosity, hospitality having been commercialized. And we've rarely been accused of being very generous, though the Dutch recall our efforts against the Nazis with tulips every year. Very polite, those Dutch. Damn. Canadians are unsure of their schtick, or rather this uncertainty or lack is our media schtick endlessy cultivated by underemployed journalists. The most of us don't care much for media packaging, but are partial to Canada, unpackaged, unsteriotyped, except for a few old tokens, like the Queen.

 

[warrior_won]

The Queen is an apolitical head of state who isn't after our votes, and as such, is a valuable asset to the country.

How does Canada derive any value from having a foreign monarch as a quasi head of state? What possible value do Canada and Canadians get from that? That is, aside from sparing the Canadian Mint from having to be creative with the backside of Canadian coins.

 

[warrior_won]

You are right most Canadians don't care, however the whole Queen thing brings in a lot of money, as Americans like to pomp and ceremony and the tourists come to see that sort of thing. The other reason I would not want to entertain a vote on this as it would mean openning up the constitutuion, and we all know how much fun that would be right

If I'm not mistaken, and I may very well be, it would be quite easy for Parliament to make laws amending the Constitution with relation to the executive government of Canada. I would suspect that "executive government" means the Governor General and the Queen.

Section 41 of the Constitution Act gives the government the ability to dump the Queen, the Governor General, and Lieutenant Governors.

Section 44 gives parliament the exclusive authority to amend the Constitution, scrapping the Queen, Governor General, and Lieutenant Governor.

So if I'm not mistaken, Parliament would not need the consent of two thirds of the provinces in order to scrap the Queen from executive government. Am I misinterpreting this? By all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Nuggler]

The title: "Would Canada vote to be independent of the Queen" is kind of mis-leading. We are already "independent. The Queen has no say in our government in other than a titular capacity. The Queen is an apolitical head of state who isn't after our votes, and as such, is a valuable asset to the country. I would not be interested in any vote to remove the Queen from her present position in our country.

Funny you should mention that, Juan. I was contemplating her titular capacity just this morning, and agreed with myself that she used to have great titular capacity. Probably a bit saggy now, but I mean..........then.....eh.

:roll:

 

[jimshort19]

Nuggler's Titulars

Is this the Once Great Titular Capacity thread?

Hey, how about that lady-judge-conservative-Prime minister girl, Kim somebody. Wasn't she as hot as the queen?

But how big were Benazire Butto's buttocks? Can anybody help me?

 

[MikeyDB]

Either way, the substance of "leadership" is known and well understood. Tony Blair played lap-dog for the Yanks and the queen coiffed her hair..

The queen like any political figure isn't to be trusted any further than she could be thrown.

 

[darkbeaver]

What kind of vegetable is served with boiled monarch. Something yellow I think maybe. I have have dinner soon.

 

[Nuggler]

What kind of vegetable is served with boiled monarch. Something yellow I think maybe. I have have dinner soon.

You intend to have the Queen for dinner. Jolly good show there Beaver of Great Darkness. May have to parboil to a tad on the well done side there old chap. Old twitcher could be a bit on the tough side eh wot?

Serve with "le soup de inbred", and a dash of "fuk des peasants", and you have a great meal there m'lad.

If I wasn't just so far away by de jeez, I'd come on over, bring a bottle of "sur le back des imbiciles", 1847, and help yez set the table.

Quite a feast weze cud have der.

TTFN

:read2:

 

[darkbeaver]

You intend to have the Queen for dinner. Jolly good show there Beaver of Great Darkness. May have to parboil to a tad on the well done side there old chap. Old twitcher could be a bit on the tough side eh wot?

Serve with "le soup de inbred", and a dash of "fuk des peasants", and you have a great meal there m'lad.

If I wasn't just so far away by de jeez, I'd come on over, bring a bottle of "sur le back des imbiciles", 1847, and help yez set the table.

Quite a feast weze cud have der.

TTFN

:read2:

"sur le back des imbiciels" :lol::lol::lol::lol: Nuggler you made me pee! and the tears won't stop, I fear I will not survive you humour, it's lethal

 

[darkbeaver]

You intend to have the Queen for dinner. Jolly good show there Beaver of Great Darkness. May have to parboil to a tad on the well done side there old chap. Old twitcher could be a bit on the tough side eh wot?

Serve with "le soup de inbred", and a dash of "fuk des peasants", and you have a great meal there m'lad.

If I wasn't just so far away by de jeez, I'd come on over, bring a bottle of "sur le back des imbiciles", 1847, and help yez set the table.

Quite a feast weze cud have der.

TTFN

:read2:

"sur le back des imbiciels" :lol::lol::lol::lol: Nuggler you made me pee! and the tears won't stop, I fear I will not survive your humour, it's lethal

 

[Blackleaf]

The discrepancy is that most Canadians have NEVER sworn allegiance to the Queen. Only those who immigrated have. I too would have an issue swearing allegiance to the British Royalty (not just the Queen since we will have King Chuck in a coupe of years).

I am also curious what is wrong with swearing allegiance to our Maple Leaf flag? Seems like a perfectly acceptable alternative to the sitting Prime Minister for example.

Canadians don't swear allegiance to the British Royalty. They swear allegiance to the Canadian Royalty. It's not the case that Britain's monarch rules Canada. Canada's monarch does.

The Balfour Declaration of 1926 provided the Dominions of Britain the right to be considered equal to Britain, rather than subordinate; an agreement that had the result of a shared Crown that operates independently in each realm rather than a unitary British Crown under which all the Dominions were secondary. The monarchy thus ceased to be an exclusively British institution.

there is no provision in Canadian law that states the King or Queen of Canada must be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom; thus, if the United Kingdom were to breach the convention set out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster and change the line of succession to the British throne without Canada's consent, the alteration would have no effect on the reigning sovereign of Canada or his or her heirs and successors.

 

[Blackleaf]

Plus it's cheaper having a monarchy than a republic.

The Canadians pay NOTHING towards their monarchy, whereas each British person pays a tiny 62p a year - about the same price as a bottle of milk.

I always love telling the French that each one of them pays seven times as much per year for their republic than the British do to their monarchy.

 

[Blackleaf]

Has anyone ever tallied up how much the Allegiance to the Royals costs Canadians?

Yep. Canadians pay NOTHING, zilcho, zip, rien, nada for theri monarchy. They get it for FREE.

Flags are cheap. Queens aren't. Nor is her huge entourage.

Queens and Kings are cheap, much more cheaper than any president would be.

Latest figures show that each British pays pays just 65 pence each year for the monarchy.

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Queen Elizabeth costs each UK taxpayer just 62 pence (US$1.13) a year, with the overall cost of running the royal family increasing above the rate of inflation, Buckingham Palace said on Wednesday.

The Royal Public Finances report said the queen's family and household spending was £37.4 million ($68.2 million), a 4.2 percent increase from the previous year, costing the taxpayer an extra 1 pence more a year.

The queen's accountants said the expenditure figure represented a decrease in real terms of 2.5 percent since 2001.

"The annual cost per person in the country, in funding the Head of State, amounts to 62 pence," said Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse.

"This is the annual cost, not the daily, weekly or monthly cost. We are pleased that the total cost of the monarchy is lower in real terms than it was in 2001.

"The reduction in the amount of Head of State expenditure reflects the continuous attention the Royal Household pays to obtaining the best value for money in all areas of expenditure."

The death of Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997 marked a turning point in public opinion and led to attacks on the monarchy's wealth and demands that it become more open and accountable.

Shortly afterwards, the queen agreed to scrap her beloved royal yacht Britannia rather than ask the public to pay 60 million pounds for a replacement.

news.bbc.co.uk

 

[SwitSof]

I always love telling the French that each one of them pays seven times as much per year for their republic than the British do to their monarchy.

I can imagine you Brits would love telling French that! :lol:
But it's true, even people say here in France only people who have children or a couple with 1 spouse not working who can enjoy the benefits paid by the high income tax the working adults pay.