Keep the Monarchy!

[Machjo]

A patriot loves the war in Afghanistan and loves how Ontario steals money from the Western Provinces and forces us to learn French and force us to print French on everything.

Damn straight I am not a Patriot. Boot Toronto and the French out of Canada, return the Red Ensign and drop the Fleur de lis from the Red Ensign flag.
The armpit and Quebec loves their Marxist Politicians; why not build an eternal paradise on your own?

What? By 'patriot', I just mean that I love my country. A person can support or oppose official bilingualism, support or oppose federalism, and support either capitalism or communism or anything in between. I'm not using the term in any political sense (precisely where I see a distinction between patriotism and nationalism). By patriot, I mean that I love my country, nothing more, nothing less. It means that I care about my country and want the best for the people of Canada.

I don't see how you get all you've mentioned above from a simple love of country, the definition of patriotism.

 

[Trotz]

Country = Government = Patriotism (Flag Patriot Tards)
Culture = People = Nationalism

 

[Corduroy]

I'm English, Scottish and Irish. And we Brits have a long tradition of eroding the powers of the monarchy. I support abolishing the monarchy because I want to continue that tradition and finally complete the task began for us by our ancestors at Runnymede.

 

[Cliffy]

Just playing devil's advocate here, not attached one way or the other, but it seems to me that Canada has become so much more than our French and British beginnings. We have people from just about every ethnic background on the planet. In fact, the British among us are probably a minority (I being one of them). So possibly we may want to consider what the rest of Canadians want.

As for a constitution, I would think that for the constitution of a true democracy should be approved by the majority of Canadians. I think Trudeau made a gigantic mistake in not holding a referendum on the constitution before it was enacted. As it is, as far as I know, Quebec did not sign on, but even if they did, I don't think the provinces had the right to agree to something without first taking it to their people.

Our present form of government is not working and does not represent the will of the people and should be revised or rewritten altogether with input from all citizens and the final product approved by the majority. As it stands we are a corporate dictatorship with a minority government that represents only 30% of the people in name only and 100% of the corporate interests. If Canada is to survive as a country, it is time it represented all its citizens.

 

[Machjo]

Just playing devil's advocate here, not attached one way or the other, but it seems to me that Canada has become so much more than our French and British beginnings. We have people from just about every ethnic background on the planet. In fact, the British among us are probably a minority (I being one of them). So possibly we may want to consider what the rest of Canadians want.

As for a constitution, I would think that for the constitution of a true democracy should be approved by the majority of Canadians. I think Trudeau made a gigantic mistake in not holding a referendum on the constitution before it was enacted. As it is, as far as I know, Quebec did not sign on, but even if they did, I don't think the provinces had the right to agree to something without first taking it to their people.

Our present form of government is not working and does not represent the will of the people and should be revised or rewritten altogether with input from all citizens and the final product approved by the majority. As it stands we are a corporate dictatorship with a minority government that represents only 30% of the people in name only and 100% of the corporate interests. If Canada is to survive as a country, it is time it represented all its citizens.

I'd be in favour of a complete constitutional overhaul. Bear in mind though that it could also raise certain animosities, and so before even engaging in such an open discussion, certain ground rules would have to be drawn:

1. No Constitutional change be done without it being done in accordance with the rules of the current constitution. Sure the courts would ensure that anyway, but let's make it clear that that is the intention of the government too.

2. Parts of the constitution that are in direct violation of the most basic of international norms as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would need to go. Two specific points being the separate school system and Quebec's sign laws. Of course, any such change must conform to rule 1 above.

3. We'd have to acknowledge our international relationship with the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. For example, any change to the monarchy would clearly require consent not only from within Canada, but all other Commonwealth Realms. We must also recognize our own domestic diversity with the First Nations. This would likely mean more language freedom for all (i.e. no more Official Languages Act or official language or languages in the constitution, like in the US).

4. We'd need to consider the concerns of privileged groups that would naturally resist losing their privileged status. For example, maybe Ontario's Catholics would find a voucher programme to be palatable since it would still give some school choice, even if constrained by free market supply and demand, unlike the absolute guarantee they have now. I wouldn't propose such a school voucher programme in the Constitution, but at least the principle that there is to be no distinction based on religion. Quebec might also be able to accept the idea that English should not be a compulsory second language in its school system, leaving it up to individual schools to decide. And though the federal government would have no official language, we might allow provincial and local governments to adopt an official language of their choice. This would mean that while federal offices in Vancouver would no longer need French, all provincial government employees in Quebec would likely require a knowledge of French, while still protecting the language freedom of the private sector. The freedom of schools to choose their second language and of provinces to adopt an official language of government administration ought to suffice to protect French in Quebec without oppressing the English-language minority as is currently happening now.

 

[Colpy]

I'd be in favour of a complete constitutional overhaul. Bear in mind though that it could also raise certain animosities, and so before even engaging in such an open discussion, certain ground rules would have to be drawn:

1. No Constitutional change be done without it being done in accordance with the rules of the current constitution. Sure the courts would ensure that anyway, but let's make it clear that that is the intention of the government too.

2. Parts of the constitution that are in direct violation of the most basic of international norms as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would need to go. Two specific points being the separate school system and Quebec's sign laws. Of course, any such change must conform to rule 1 above.

3. We'd have to acknowledge our international relationship with the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. For example, any change to the monarchy would clearly require consent not only from within Canada, but all other Commonwealth Realms. We must also recognize our own domestic diversity with the First Nations. This would likely mean more language freedom for all (i.e. no more Official Languages Act or official language or languages in the constitution, like in the US).

4. We'd need to consider the concerns of privileged groups that would naturally resist losing their privileged status. For example, maybe Ontario's Catholics would find a voucher programme to be palatable since it would still give some school choice, even if constrained by free market supply and demand, unlike the absolute guarantee they have now. I wouldn't propose such a school voucher programme in the Constitution, but at least the principle that there is to be no distinction based on religion. Quebec might also be able to accept the idea that English should not be a compulsory second language in its school system, leaving it up to individual schools to decide. And though the federal government would have no official language, we might allow provincial and local governments to adopt an official language of their choice. This would mean that while federal offices in Vancouver would no longer need French, all provincial government employees in Quebec would likely require a knowledge of French, while still protecting the language freedom of the private sector. The freedom of schools to choose their second language and of provinces to adopt an official language of government administration ought to suffice to protect French in Quebec without oppressing the English-language minority as is currently happening now.

1. Fine. You just made the entire exercise impossible.

2. Fine. Quebec used the "notwithstanding" clause.............and agreement of all provinces is essential to constitutional amendment. See number one.

3. Fine. You just guaranteed Quebec will not join in.....see number one and two.

4. Once again....Quebec wants MORE power and influence.......and language protection....not less. See numbers one through three.

Constitutional reform in this country would require a revolution.

Good luck with that.

And the Queen stays.

 

[Machjo]

1. Fine. You just made the entire exercise impossible.

2. Fine. Quebec used the "notwithstanding" clause.............and agreement of all provinces is essential to constitutional amendment. See number one.

3. Fine. You just guaranteed Quebec will not join in.....see number one and two.

4. Once again....Quebec wants MORE power and influence.......and language protection....not less. See numbers one through three.

Constitutional reform in this country would require a revolution.

Good luck with that.

And the Queen stays.

Party pooper.

 

[Cliffy]

And the Queen stays.

Typical conservative, giving orders!

I say put it to a vote. And revolution may not be as far away as you might think. The greedy wil jack up gas prices and then food and other commodities will go through the roof, inflation will skyrocket and people will be destitute in the million, just like in the Middle East, only what took them decades to get motivated, will only take us the next six months to a year.

 

[Trotz]

Just playing devil's advocate here, not attached one way or the other, but it seems to me that Canada has become so much more than our French and British beginnings. We have people from just about every ethnic background on the planet. In fact, the British among us are probably a minority (I being one of them). So possibly we may want to consider what the rest of Canadians want.

No, we are a majority but a lot have filled Canadian in the census; confusing ethnic background with nationality. However, I am talking about the entire country from 0 - 99, everyone in between and even including those who live in rural communities.

It's a bit different in Naskup, everywhere in the Okanagan has been taking in "white flight" from the Vancouver Metro Region since the 1980s - the people who saw the writing on the wall and refused to allow their children to grow up in such an environment. Myself, I grew up in Vancouver and have a good idea of what people in the city want. I was often one of the few Anglo's in the classroom and this never changed when I went into secondary, post-secondary or even when I entered the workforce.

Most are refugees from their original countries but most aspire to recreate the conditions which caused them to flee. Richmond is a mini-China complete with a Lenin statue (so much for Hong Kongese fleeing Communist China!) behind WSBC. And, Surrey will probably have a Sharia Court within a decade or two.

Our present form of government is not working and does not represent the will of the people and should be revised or rewritten altogether with input from all citizens and the final product approved by the majority. As it stands we are a corporate dictatorship with a minority government that represents only 30% of the people in name only and 100% of the corporate interests. If Canada is to survive as a country, it is time it represented all its citizens.

There was no consent with the flag, anthem or change on immigration. There's a reason why 99% of countries in the world are afraid of adopting Swiss-styled referendum democracy, as it might in fact transfer power to the ordinary people as oppose to big corporations and their stooges.

They call it "populism" but calling someone a "populist" is another way of saying "the masses should not rule"

 

[Corduroy]

We'd have to acknowledge our international relationship with the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. For example, any change to the monarchy would clearly require consent not only from within Canada, but all other Commonwealth Realms.

Clearly? Not so clear on this end. Could you explain why our constitutional matters require the consent of foreign states?

 

[talloola]

I can't help it.

My family were Loyalists....both sides.

My father-in-law, born in Massachusetts but brought up in Lunenburg, NS........was a combat veteran of World War Two, having served in the Canadian Army. (although he was a US citizen) Before he died he insisted his coffin be draped with the Union Jack, because he "fought for King and country, Dammit"

My Mom is the greatest monarchist on the east coast. And that is saying something...

Keep the Monarchy....it is no trouble, it is our heritage, and many of us actually LIKE it......

yes, one's heritage is valuable and should not be discarded, either family or country.

 

[Machjo]

Hmmm... well, I could also see another solution:

We agree to Quebec becoming an sovereign nation recognized by the UN, with the ROC either keeping the name Canada, or calling itself English Canada, or some other name. Quebec and the Rest of Canada maintain a common citizenship and passport.

Now for the rest of Canada:

Of course within our current constitutional framework (i.e. in accordance with the rules necessary to make any changes to our constitution):

1. We adopt a new Constitution fully in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2. English becomes the sole official language of federal government administration. As per point 1 above though, this would limit itself explicitly to federal government administration, with the federal government having no jurisdiction over commercial signs for example.
3. Again as per point 1 above, no preference could be given on the basis of religion, so the separate school system goes. As a token of good faith, we could always adopt a voucher programme for example, though again this is not something I'd support in the constitution but merely in law. We could ensure though that nothing in the constitution would ban such a possibility so as to put Catholics at ease over this concern.
4. In collaboration with all other Commonwealth realms, we try to introduce an elective constitutional monarchy. Failing that, we keep the monarchy we currently have.

As for the new sovereign state of Quebec, obviously its constitution would be its business for the most part, except for the fact that its constitution too would have to recognize Canadian common citizenship and a common passport, revocable only though mutual consent with Canada (and our Constitution would obviously have to include the same thing towards Quebec). Beyond that though, Quebec could adopt whatever it wants into its constitution.

I think such an arrangement would wash English-Canada's hands of any heavy handed tactic on Quebec's part, leading to any international criticism of Quebec language laws for example becoming a matter that would embarrass Quebec only and not English Canada. Meanwhile, the guarantee of a common citizenship would help to protect Canadian access to the St. Laurence River at least to an extent, and Quebec access to a larger North American market.

Any further agreement between English Canada and Quebec would be strictly on a legal and not constitutional level. Constitutionally, each country could have its own military, regulate its own resources, and have its own currency should it wish to do so, any shared policy on that front being purely mutual and voluntary, only on a legal and not constitutional level on either side as long as it is mutually beneficial, and therefore cancellable at any time.

While Quebec wants sovereignty, I think it also recognizes the importants of some kind of guaranteed access to a larger North American market. And while English Canada may feel weighed down by Quebec, it also recognizes the importance of guaranteed access to the St. Laurence. I think this is something both sides might go for.

Clearly? Not so clear on this end. Could you explain why our constitutional matters require the consent of foreign states?

The only way for Canada to change the rules of accession without breaking from the monarchy altogether would be through unanimous consent of all Commonwealth Realms. Now to break our ties with the monarchy, that is something we could do unanimously, either by adopting our own monarch or scraping the monarchy altogether. Short of that though, unanimous consent of all Commonwealth Realms would be essential to make any change to the rules of accession such as establishing an elective monarchy.

Also, seeing that citizens of a Commonwealth realm are subjects of the monarch, this would mean that implicitly, if we wanted to share a common citizenship with a sovereign Quebec and we kept the monarchy, they'd have to accept the monarch too on some level, even if only symbolically. But again, it's something Quebec might be able to accept in exchange for so much sovereignty along with guaranteed access to such a large North American market.

 

[Corduroy]

The only way for Canada to change the rules of accession without breaking from the monarchy altogether would be through unanimous consent of all Commonwealth Realms. Now to break our ties with the monarchy, that is something we could do unanimously, either by adopting our own monarch or scraping the monarchy altogether. Short of that though, unanimous consent of all Commonwealth Realms would be essential to make any change to the rules of accession such as establishing an elective monarchy..

Ah well here I was thinking our lack of sovereignty was just nominal. I'll add this to my list on reasons to abolish the monarchy. Thanks!

 

[Machjo]

Ah well here I was thinking our lack of sovereignty was just nominal. I'll add this to my list on reasons to abolish the monarchy. Thanks!

Well, Canada could unanimously abolish the monarchy off of its own territory, but by doing so would also be breaking away from the other Commonwealth Realms. I personally see a symbolic benefit of maintaining these ties and for that reason would rather keep the monarch but merely see if we could get consent from all commonwealth realms to possibly go for an elective monarchy. Failing that, then I'd say maybe keep the monarchy we have now.

 

[Trotz]

How so? There are other commonwealth countries without the Queen as Monarch; she is effectively an Alphabet Soup figurehead.

Unfortunately, we might have to put up with Elizabeth II for another 15 years and playboy Charles for another 40, ugh... is my reaction

 

[Machjo]

And Corduroy, absolute sovereignty is not always a good thing. Just to take an example, imagine Canada and Quebec separating completely from one another. Loss of guaranteed access to the St. Laurence would be devastating to the Canadian economy, as would loss of Quebec's guaranteed access to the larger continental market. As for the Commonwealth, a Canadian who runs into trouble abroad can always count on a British embassy or consulate. Needless to say as long as Canadians and Quebecers share a common citizenship, and as long a Canada continues as a Commonwealth Realm, then so Quebec would also benefit from such service. Britons can turn to a Canadian Embassy for help too.

Sovereignty, like many things, is good in moderation, but not in excess. Why do you think the US states all banded together? How do you explain the EU? The UNITED Kingdom, etc.? Why do we have so few city states in the world today? Simple answer. They all recognized the benefit of exchanging a little sovereignty so as to belong to or have access to a larger entity than themselves. And in the modern era, sovereignty becomes even harder to maintain.

 

[Corduroy]

Well I looked up what countries were Commonwealth Realms to see which ties you consider so important. I don't think we'd lose any of our relations with these nations if we lost the monarchical ties but stayed within the Commonwealth, but more importantly, this note on the Wikipedia article was hilarious:

On 3 September 1939, the United Kingdom declared war on Nazi Germany, but it was only on 6 September that, under the articles of the Statute of Westminster, the Union of South Africa did same, followed by Canada on 10 September. Therefore, from 3 September to 10 September, King George VI, as king of the UK, South Africa and Canada, was both at war and at peace with Germany. Similarly, as he was still technically monarch of Ireland, it was George VI's duty to validate the credentials of the German consul to Ireland, which remained neutral throughout the war.
A more extreme example was the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, in which George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself. Similarly, in 1983 Queen Elizabeth II was monarch of Grenada when her governor-general there requested the invasion of the country by a number of other Caribbean states, including some that were also realms of the Queen; an undertaking that was opposed by a number of Elizabeth's other governments, such as those of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Belize.

 

[Machjo]

How so? There are other commonwealth countries without the Queen as Monarch; she is effectively an Alphabet Soup figurehead.

Unfortunately, we might have to put up with Elizabeth II for another 15 years and playboy Charles for another 40, ugh... is my reaction

There is a difference between a Commonwealth country and a Commonwealth Realm. Don't confuse the two terms. All members of the Commonwealth of Nations are Commonwealth countries. Not all of them are Commonwealth realms though. India would be an example of such a country. It is a Commonwealth country but not a Commonwealth Realm. It has its own president. The UK and Canada would be examples of Commonwealth countries that are also commonwealth Realms keeping the Queen as head of state.

Now granted we could break with the Monarch while maintaining indirect ties via the Commonwealth like India does and simply be a Commonwealth country but not Commonwealth Realm. Personally though, though I see an advantage in remaining a Commonwealth country, I see an added advantage in also being a Commonwealth Realm in that it makes us much closer to other Commonwealth Realms.

Well I looked up what countries were Commonwealth Realms to see which ties you consider so important. I don't think we'd lose any of our relations with these nations if we lost the monarchical ties but stayed within the Commonwealth, but more importantly, this note on the Wikipedia article was hilarious:

On 3 September 1939, the United Kingdom declared war on Nazi Germany, but it was only on 6 September that, under the articles of the Statute of Westminster, the Union of South Africa did same, followed by Canada on 10 September. Therefore, from 3 September to 10 September, King George VI, as king of the UK, South Africa and Canada, was both at war and at peace with Germany. Similarly, as he was still technically monarch of Ireland, it was George VI's duty to validate the credentials of the German consul to Ireland, which remained neutral throughout the war.
A more extreme example was the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, in which George VI, as head of state of both warring nations, was, in a legal sense, at war with himself. Similarly, in 1983 Queen Elizabeth II was monarch of Grenada when her governor-general there requested the invasion of the country by a number of other Caribbean states, including some that were also realms of the Queen; an undertaking that was opposed by a number of Elizabeth's other governments, such as those of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Belize.

It still maintains symbolic ties which also cannot be ignored.

 

[Trotz]

Maybe for Toronto and Ottawa but the rest of us in the west will do fine without the St. Lawrence, we still have Churchill in Manitoba.
Regardless, if the Frenchies were going to play like that, we outnumber them and we'll just take Montreal and Eastern Quebec so we have a land corridor to the Maritimes.

 

[Machjo]

Maybe for Toronto and Ottawa but the rest of us in the west will do fine without the St. Lawrence, we still have Churchill in Manitoba.
Regardless, if the Frenchies were going to play like that, we outnumber them and we'll just take Montreal and Eastern Quebec so we have a land corridor to the Maritimes.

They have a quarter of Canada's population. We could win, but at what cost?! Would it really be worth the destruction on both sides, not to mention Canada's image abroad? And don't you think the US would react pretty quickly to the flood of refugees? Consider too that even without Quebec, about one third of the population of the new Canada would be in Ontario. So if Ontario's economy went down, and the West still trades with Ontario, then the west would suffer too. Of course so would Quebec's economy. In the end, neither side would really have a choice in this. It would be in both sides' mutual interest, if Quebec ever did decide to separate, to do so on amicable terms that could in fact benefit both sides mutually.

Again, English Canada probably could win a war against Quebec, but the big question is: Would it be worth the cost in life, money, destruction, and reputation?

And what would we win exactly? It would likely be a hollow victory bringing us back to square one with English Canada controlling Quebec and Quebec wanting out more than ever. And then since both economies would be ruined anyway, then the next time around Quebec would want total separation seeing that neither side would have much left to trade anyway.