Canada, dump the crown and become a republic? (poll)

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Canada, dump the crow

I agree, although (sorry to bring this book up again) if you think about it, if god really did create us in his image, then we havent strayed too far, he hung his own son up by a tree and allowed for 6 million of his own people to be murdered.

Sometime you wonder whether Lucifer was the voice of reason.....well anyway, I wasnt suggesting that Canada was a "republic" in the sense of China or the US, but more like say...Japan (a sovereign monarchy that even G W Bush complemented).

I am also not suggesting G W Bush is a facist dictator or indeed Adolf Hitler (although some would argue that), I'm simply saying, if you have an A-Political head of state watching over say prime minister (actually like Hindenburg DID do to Hitler until he died) then you wouldnt as easily have a leader who was voted in questionably, who's ethics are alway questionable and who COULD actually be a dictator with a few changes.

I know Britain went to war with the USA, but Blair had a MUCH harder time getting there, but what I'm saying is that 1 it's a political system that canda have thats used all over the world and is better than most and tradition, that's all britain has brought to the table for Canada, otherwise they are free to do what they like, so why question what they already have?.

Without history you are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past, plus even the US has incorporated a HECK of a lot of political and legal stuff from the UK.

although I say....free the natwest 3!!!!....Britain couldnt walk into the US and take 3 of their citizens and imprison them on flimsy charges..there'd be uproar!!!...

 

[Finder]

Daz a lot of those reasons might be because of the UK's size and isolation as an island nation. Such as the argument for the UK's ability to indestrialize so fast in historic arguments.

Anyhow it also over generalizes monarchy as in the British monarchy, but when you look at monarchies and monarchs around the world it has been very different. Just take a lookat the German and French monarchies (when they had them) over taxed, corruption and aggressive wars, not to mention class systems. All of which I have been problems in the UK in the past too.

An island nation such as the UK and Japan will always have unique surcumstances, which will allow them to function differently then nations on the mainland, and where economic, political systems fail or work on the mainland they may thrive on a island nation.

If Canada chose to become a republic tomorrow very little would change. Very little would have to change. The monarchy has little more then a ceremonial roll in our lives today in Canada and really most Canadians just ignore or just don't care if we are a monarchy or a republic because it effects our lives so little.

 

[Finder]

There is such a thing as a Presidential Parliamentary Republic, just throwing that out there.

Could have a system like the French Republic for instance... But I prefer the American Republican system to that of the French.

 

[#juan]

All the Scandinavian countries have a monarchy.

It is interesting that Norway voted to approve King Harold after Norway was free of Sweden and Denmark and became an independent country in 1905. Obviously they thought the monarchy was important,

 

[Finder]

All the Scandinavian countries have a monarchy.

It is interesting that Norway voted to approve King Harold after Norway was free of Sweden and Denmark and became an independent country in 1905. Obviously they thought the monarchy was important,

Well it's there choice, I'm not Scandinavian, but I am a Democratic Republican and I believe that it is the right system for Canada. *shrugs*

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Canada, dump the crow

it all comes down to a politucal model in the end really doesnt it, exactly like Australia, are you happy with the current system or would you wish to change the status quo, I think the majority dont somehow though

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Canada, dump the crow

it all comes down to a politucal model in the end really doesnt it, exactly like Australia, are you happy with the current system or would you wish to change the status quo, I think the majority dont somehow though

That's not correct, the Aussies decided to keep the Monarchy, within a few percentage points I might add, because the alternative was a President elected by Parliament, as opposed by the people, so they saw very little difference in the system. Imagine that, the people wanting to elect their own Head of State in the 21st century. Unimaginable!

 

[I think not]

There is such a thing as a Presidential Parliamentary Republic, just throwing that out there.

Could have a system like the French Republic for instance... But I prefer the American Republican system to that of the French.

The French system would be a better sell in Canada.

 

[I think not]

All the Scandinavian countries have a monarchy.

It is interesting that Norway voted to approve King Harold after Norway was free of Sweden and Denmark and became an independent country in 1905. Obviously they thought the monarchy was important,

The Scandinavian countries are also shifting from mulitculturalism to integration, I'm curious if you will use them as an example for that.

 

[Finder]

There is such a thing as a Presidential Parliamentary Republic, just throwing that out there.

Could have a system like the French Republic for instance... But I prefer the American Republican system to that of the French.

The French system would be a better sell in Canada.

Yeah but I think if you are going to do it at all you should do it right... *sighs* The American Republic is close to a perfect republican module. The only problem with it being used in Canada, is it is American. So yeah I think your right, if we became a Republic it would either be a Republican Wesminister hybrid, or a French type Republican system.

I envy the American Republican system, except for the Electoral collage. Though in theory I like how it works and it worked for a long time, but I can't help but believe in our modern age it has out lived it's use and the expectations of the American people.

 

[I think not]

The Electoral College needs reform, there is no doubt about it, make no mistake though it serves the interests of minorities and ensures majority mob rule doesn't prevail. That's it's strongest point in my view.

 

[Blackleaf]

The monarchy has little more then a ceremonial roll in our lives today in Canada and really most Canadians just ignore or just don't care if we are a monarchy or a republic because it effects our lives so little.

Most Canadians DO care, because surveys have shown that most Canadians want to keep the Monarchy.

And saying that "It effects so little of our lives" is just stupid. Surely, whether you are a Constitutional Monarchy or a Republic affects everyone living in Canada.

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Canada, dump the crow

no political system is perfect...look at the election before last in the US, what about the high number of blck voters being excluded?....any system can be tampered with to suit an ends, "reportedly" the Bush camp did it in florida, the Australian Prime minister did it with his drawing up of a system that entitled the governement to vote in a Pres.

How long and what pain did the french go through to get their system?....which is rife with Socialist corruption I might add.

Nope, nothing is perfect, so why change the model they have now?, and I'm sure if it was voted on tomorrow that would be the result. It's horses for courses but what IS so inherently wrong with an constitutional monarchy anyway ITN?.

Is it simply because your an american?, is there logic to this and not some long since programmed dislike of anything british even a political system?

 

[Blackleaf]

Re: RE: Canada, dump the crow

Imagine that, the people wanting to elect their own Head of State in the 21st century. Unimaginable!

American Republicans like you just don't get it.

Britain doesn't elect its own Head of State but that is NOT undemocratic as our Head of State has NO say in politics and does not rule the British people outright.

The person who DOES rule the British people is the Prime Minister, who the British elect in elections held every 4 or 5 years. Even though the Prime Minister is not the Head of State like the American President, he's actually almost exactly the British equivalent of the American President. He is elected to rule over us.

Our Head of State isn't elected, but Britain is a democracy (and is more democratic than the republics of the US, France and Germany) and we elect our leader every 4 or 5 years. Our elected Prime Minister has the power and leads the British people, not the Monarch.

 

[Nikki]

We need to have an elected senate so that they can put a check on our government. We need set election days ( like the USA has). I think we need set terms ( you can only serve in offie for 2 terms of 4 years). We don't need someone in our office for 10 yeras look what Chretien did.

God, I wish people would do a little reading before they write. Having set election days gives us an election campaign for the last year of every term

Limiting the number of terms will help us how?

Look what Mulroney did in nine years.

Hey fuck you. I do lots of research before I post. It's how I feel and if you don't agree fine. But there is no need to be an asshole about it.

You may not be with me on set terms and that is fine. But an elected senate would be good for this country. If it isn't elected there is no point in having a senate. If the PM is just going to control the senate why do we even have it. :roll:

Set terms will help us keep people from running our country for 15+ years. There is no need to have the same person in power for so long. It is not good for our country. What if someone like Bush gets into office? You want him in there for 15 years? It's not good for our country.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Canada, dump the crow

no political system is perfect...look at the election before last in the US, what about the high number of blck voters being excluded?....any system can be tampered with to suit an ends, "reportedly" the Bush camp did it in florida, the Australian Prime minister did it with his drawing up of a system that entitled the governement to vote in a Pres.

How long and what pain did the french go through to get their system?....which is rife with Socialist corruption I might add.

Nope, nothing is perfect, so why change the model they have now?, and I'm sure if it was voted on tomorrow that would be the result. It's horses for courses but what IS so inherently wrong with an constitutional monarchy anyway ITN?.

Is it simply because your an american?, is there logic to this and not some long since programmed dislike of anything british even a political system?

You know what, you're not interested in an analysis or debate, you're only interested in throwing rocks, so fuck you and I'm not addressing your bigotted comments anymore.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Canada, dump the crow

Imagine that, the people wanting to elect their own Head of State in the 21st century. Unimaginable!

American Republicans like you just don't get it.

We got it just fine in 1776, something that went over your heads in the UK, when King George III taxed your population to submission because he wanted to show who had the bigger dick.

Yes, we got it just fine.

 

[Said1]

We need to have an elected senate so that they can put a check on our government. We need set election days ( like the USA has). I think we need set terms ( you can only serve in offie for 2 terms of 4 years). We don't need someone in our office for 10 yeras look what Chretien did.

God, I wish people would do a little reading before they write. Having set election days gives us an election campaign for the last year of every term

Limiting the number of terms will help us how?

Look what Mulroney did in nine years.

Hey *censored* you. I do lots of research before I post. It's how I feel and if you don't agree fine. But there is no need to be an asshole about it.

You may not be with me on set terms and that is fine. But an elected senate would be good for this country. If it isn't elected there is no point in having a senate. If the PM is just going to control the senate why do we even have it. :roll:

Set terms will help us keep people from running our country for 15+ years. There is no need to have the same person in power for so long. It is not good for our country. What if someone like Bush gets into office? You want him in there for 15 years? It's not good for our country.

But what if it's someone we like and want for 15yrs? It could happen, however imporbable. Either way, I don't think it matters. With the exception of Mackenzie King, has anyone served more than two full terms?

 

[Daz_Hockey]

RE: Canada, dump the crow

hey hey.......I'm just asking....is it pre-programmed?, nothing biggited about it, you know systems can be pissed with, why call me a name eh?, if it wernt for my own yes vote this whole pole would be up in the air now anyway.

Seriously, if you look at your last statement are seriously trying to tell me it doent look as if because I disagree with your republican views that I HAVE to be wrong, why resort to name calling?, it's just a debate.

I havent ACTUALLY said I favour the british model at all, just questioned if any of the others were any better and couldnt be tampered with.....so hve a drink, cool down and stop calling me a bigot, I am not

 

[Nikki]

We need to have an elected senate so that they can put a check on our government. We need set election days ( like the USA has). I think we need set terms ( you can only serve in offie for 2 terms of 4 years). We don't need someone in our office for 10 yeras look what Chretien did.

God, I wish people would do a little reading before they write. Having set election days gives us an election campaign for the last year of every term

Limiting the number of terms will help us how?

Look what Mulroney did in nine years.

Hey *censored* you. I do lots of research before I post. It's how I feel and if you don't agree fine. But there is no need to be an asshole about it.

You may not be with me on set terms and that is fine. But an elected senate would be good for this country. If it isn't elected there is no point in having a senate. If the PM is just going to control the senate why do we even have it. :roll:

Set terms will help us keep people from running our country for 15+ years. There is no need to have the same person in power for so long. It is not good for our country. What if someone like Bush gets into office? You want him in there for 15 years? It's not good for our country.

But what if it's someone we like and want for 15yrs? It could happen, however imporbable. Either way, I don't think it matters. With the exception of Mackenzie King, has anyone served more than two full terms?

Ofcourse it could happen. But I think that the benefits of set terms outway that.

Maybe noone has but they could. If not set terms we should have set elections. None of this PM calling it whenever he pleases. We need to have it set up like the US. We vote every 4 years in Nov. ( or whatever). I just don't agree with the way it works now. I guess it just doesn't seem very democratic to me.