Just interested in seeing what most people here are. Personally I'm an nominal Republican. Well at least for Canada but as I have Irish blood I am stiff supporter of the Irish Republic.
Republican, monarchist or what?
- Thread starter Finder
- Start date
i am completely for the abolishment of the monarchy. i do not recognize the queen of england as any authority figure.
I am a monarchist.
After all, the basic belief of conservatism is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
After all, the basic belief of conservatism is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
I am a monarchist, I suppose; while I have no intention of following any executive order from the Queen herself, I would like to see Governors General and Lieutenant-Governors elected, preferably by the provincial legislatures and the Houses of Parliament, so as to give them a mandate to exercise the powers of the Crown when necessary.
The monarchy is a major symbol of Canadian tradition and heritage, and to "abolish" that symbol, as I am sure for which many would be proponents, would subject Canada to an overhaul of all Constitutional text.
I think that, for example, the Governor General can serve a very real purpose here in Canada, not only through her (I shall use female pronouns herein, because our current Governor General is female -- this is not to say that I prefer one gender or the other to take this position) ceremonial duties in this country, but through the reserved powers of the Crown that she possesses for use in exigent circumstances.
For example, in Australia, when a Prime Minister had brought a minority House into unresolvable political deadlock, the Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister and appointed the Leader of the Opposition to lead the nation until a soon-to-be-held dissolution of Parliament.
Think of the theoretical usage of a Governor General's reserved power; if a Prime Minister's Government were to ever abuse the Parliamentary institution, there would be, frankly, nothing that the House could do to stop them. It is important, in my opinion, to have an officer, even one as apolitical as the Governor General normally remains, who could "break" a deadlock if necessary.
Consider this situation:
The election is over, and the 39th Parliament has begun to sit. The Liberals have returned with another minority mandate, but the Conservatives, opposing the Liberal Government on the Speech From the Throne, defeat the Government on a vote of non-confidence only days following the opening of Parliament.
In this case, I think that it would be perfectly warranted to withhold her order to dissolve the House of Commons, and to foster a spirit of co-operation for the purpose of getting something done that session.
Tradition, heritage, culture, and a real back-up for Parliamentary tyranny -- with all due respect to those who disagree, I feel much more comfortable in a Constitutional Monarchy than I would any Republic.
The monarchy is a major symbol of Canadian tradition and heritage, and to "abolish" that symbol, as I am sure for which many would be proponents, would subject Canada to an overhaul of all Constitutional text.
I think that, for example, the Governor General can serve a very real purpose here in Canada, not only through her (I shall use female pronouns herein, because our current Governor General is female -- this is not to say that I prefer one gender or the other to take this position) ceremonial duties in this country, but through the reserved powers of the Crown that she possesses for use in exigent circumstances.
For example, in Australia, when a Prime Minister had brought a minority House into unresolvable political deadlock, the Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister and appointed the Leader of the Opposition to lead the nation until a soon-to-be-held dissolution of Parliament.
Think of the theoretical usage of a Governor General's reserved power; if a Prime Minister's Government were to ever abuse the Parliamentary institution, there would be, frankly, nothing that the House could do to stop them. It is important, in my opinion, to have an officer, even one as apolitical as the Governor General normally remains, who could "break" a deadlock if necessary.
Consider this situation:
The election is over, and the 39th Parliament has begun to sit. The Liberals have returned with another minority mandate, but the Conservatives, opposing the Liberal Government on the Speech From the Throne, defeat the Government on a vote of non-confidence only days following the opening of Parliament.
In this case, I think that it would be perfectly warranted to withhold her order to dissolve the House of Commons, and to foster a spirit of co-operation for the purpose of getting something done that session.
Tradition, heritage, culture, and a real back-up for Parliamentary tyranny -- with all due respect to those who disagree, I feel much more comfortable in a Constitutional Monarchy than I would any Republic.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
There are Conservative Republicans in Canada, don't fool yourself there. Also ask the Republican Party of the USA if they are conservative. Also a large fraction of the Irish Republican movement was Catholic Conservatives. So you can easyly be a Republican and be a proud conservative.
Now if you believe that Queen does something good for Canada thats a different story. Then yes you are a monarchist. Oh and I guess if you believe its a tradtion we should keep (as one of my best friends does) then I guess you are one too.
But if you believe that just because you were concieved between the right sheets you should be a king/queen then you should be a Republican.
Well thats the simple explaintion.
Colpy said:
There are Conservative Republicans in Canada, don't fool yourself there. Also ask the Republican Party of the USA if they are conservative. Also a large fraction of the Irish Republican movement was Catholic Conservatives. So you can easyly be a Republican and be a proud conservative.
Now if you believe that Queen does something good for Canada thats a different story. Then yes you are a monarchist. Oh and I guess if you believe its a tradtion we should keep (as one of my best friends does) then I guess you are one too.
But if you believe that just because you were concieved between the right sheets you should be a king/queen then you should be a Republican.
Well thats the simple explaintion.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
You sound like my friend Marie... She uses the same logic... I have to respect that opinion even though I don't agree with it.
But you know even if we did become a Republic we could stay in the Common Wealth and we could keep some of our Monarchist tradtions. We just wouldn't regonize the Queen or her GG as the head of the Canadian State as we do now. I think our tradtions are nice and would never wish to abolish them like the Americans did. I just don't think she nor the gg should be regonized as head of state.
thats my $3.50
FiveParadox said:
You sound like my friend Marie... She uses the same logic... I have to respect that opinion even though I don't agree with it.
But you know even if we did become a Republic we could stay in the Common Wealth and we could keep some of our Monarchist tradtions. We just wouldn't regonize the Queen or her GG as the head of the Canadian State as we do now. I think our tradtions are nice and would never wish to abolish them like the Americans did. I just don't think she nor the gg should be regonized as head of state.
thats my $3.50
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
Yeah, my answer was a little light, wasn't it?
I come, on both sides of my family, from Loyalists. In fact, when we were small and engaged in bad behaviour, my mother refered to us as "Fenians"
, which shows exactly how far apart our respective heritages are.
So I guess my support for the monarchy comes from tradition, and a great respect for the history of British parliamentary practice. I see no reason to separate ourselves from that.
It is, as an aside, amazing how much tribalism still exists in the human condition. I support monarchy because my tribe always has, even though we (as a family) have been separate from Great Britain for 250 years. You support Republicanism for the same reason (or lack thereof).
Interesting.
Finder said:
Yeah, my answer was a little light, wasn't it?
I come, on both sides of my family, from Loyalists. In fact, when we were small and engaged in bad behaviour, my mother refered to us as "Fenians"
, which shows exactly how far apart our respective heritages are. So I guess my support for the monarchy comes from tradition, and a great respect for the history of British parliamentary practice. I see no reason to separate ourselves from that.
It is, as an aside, amazing how much tribalism still exists in the human condition. I support monarchy because my tribe always has, even though we (as a family) have been separate from Great Britain for 250 years. You support Republicanism for the same reason (or lack thereof).
Interesting.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
Well I'm a little more messed up.
In all parts of my family I have Canadian Monarchists, Irish Monarchists, Irish Republicans and UK Republican tendencies in my family. Though as you can tell I have strong beliefs on the Irish Republic as most people in the Irish Republic are Republicans (I'm not counting Northern Ireland).
Colpy said:Finder said:
Yeah, my answer was a little light, wasn't it?
I come, on both sides of my family, from Loyalists. In fact, when we were small and engaged in bad behaviour, my mother refered to us as "Fenians"
So I guess my support for the monarchy comes from tradition, and a great respect for the history of British parliamentary practice. I see no reason to separate ourselves from that.
It is, as an aside, amazing how much tribalism still exists in the human condition. I support monarchy because my tribe always has, even though we (as a family) have been separate from Great Britain for 250 years. You support Republicanism for the same reason (or lack thereof).
Interesting.
Well I'm a little more messed up.
In all parts of my family I have Canadian Monarchists, Irish Monarchists, Irish Republicans and UK Republican tendencies in my family. Though as you can tell I have strong beliefs on the Irish Republic as most people in the Irish Republic are Republicans (I'm not counting Northern Ireland).
Well, I think that the recognition of the monarch as the Head of State could still work in Canada, so long as the people are truly educated on the difference between a ceremonial Head of State, and a functional Head of Government; so long as the Queen's representative is required to have some sort of legitimate mandate to exercise his or her authority (again, ratification or election), then I think that it would still work. I mean, the Governor General could serve as a President in France would, but I don't think there's any reason to create a "parallel" position to perform almost exactly the same function.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
If only you say was the current situation. lol. I think I wouldn't even care if we were a republic or not. But alas the GG is not elected and the people arn't really educated on the GG. Unfortunitly you could blame two different sectors of society on this. The people for not carrying because they are too lazy and too absourbed into there own lifes, and the media for basically ignoring the Senate and the GG and how they become Senators and GGs. Too much indiferance in Canada to government.
I think the turn out for this election will be extremely low.
FiveParadox said:
If only you say was the current situation. lol. I think I wouldn't even care if we were a republic or not. But alas the GG is not elected and the people arn't really educated on the GG. Unfortunitly you could blame two different sectors of society on this. The people for not carrying because they are too lazy and too absourbed into there own lifes, and the media for basically ignoring the Senate and the GG and how they become Senators and GGs. Too much indiferance in Canada to government.
I think the turn out for this election will be extremely low.
See, that's the truly sad thing about the sate of our current democracy in Canada. If Canadians were more informed and involved in governance, then we could make very good changes to our way of doing things without any constitutional changes, but rather through collectively agreeing on new conventions to follow.
For example, the ratification of a Governor General's appointment would not involve any changes to any particular piece of legislation, but rather it would depend on the understanding of the Canadian people that such is the way it should be, and that the Queen be asked not to entertain the appointment of a Governor General unless the Speaker of the House of Commons (obviously representing a majority in the House) endorses the appointment.
Note I know that my specific example doesn't quite work, due to the "tyranny of the majority," but I think the principle of the argument probably got across.
Changes like that would be well overdue, and warranted, but unfortunately, unless the people of Canada become more involved, the only way to do something like that is through messy and difficult constitutional reform.
For example, the ratification of a Governor General's appointment would not involve any changes to any particular piece of legislation, but rather it would depend on the understanding of the Canadian people that such is the way it should be, and that the Queen be asked not to entertain the appointment of a Governor General unless the Speaker of the House of Commons (obviously representing a majority in the House) endorses the appointment.
Note I know that my specific example doesn't quite work, due to the "tyranny of the majority," but I think the principle of the argument probably got across.
Changes like that would be well overdue, and warranted, but unfortunately, unless the people of Canada become more involved, the only way to do something like that is through messy and difficult constitutional reform.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
you hit the nail on the head there. I doubt with the Liberal government in power anyhow or pretty much any government in power this won't change untill the people have a reason to care about government. I tell people who tell me they think all politicians are the same and won't vote. I say to them that they should be informed on which wones they think have the best beliefs, which party stands for what. Because largly or in general these parties do, do what they say they are going to do and what there core beliefs are. It is a reality in Canada that we have only had two parties rule Canada. Liberal and Conservative, and if you complain about the government and think things never change you are right because the people of Canada have not demanded a change for they have voted in the same people time and again and the same parties time and again and as Tommy Douglas once said about mouse land. The mouses voted in White cats first, then they voted in the Black cats, and then they voted in black and white cats and this didn't change a thing but how about voting in some mice, in mouse land? Sometimes you need a change in who governs you to make the other parties listen to you.
Sadly I still hope we never need the system to be changed and we are governed by ok ppl who won't do too many stupid things, I hope Canada stays lucky because I don't have hope that Canadian citizens will get off there lazy ass's and partibate in government.
voting is a privlage we have in Canada, one which is a right but should also be something all citizens do happly. Hell Citizenship in Canada should have soem responcibilities such as voting. Like those of the Greeks in Athens had to.
FiveParadox said:
you hit the nail on the head there. I doubt with the Liberal government in power anyhow or pretty much any government in power this won't change untill the people have a reason to care about government. I tell people who tell me they think all politicians are the same and won't vote. I say to them that they should be informed on which wones they think have the best beliefs, which party stands for what. Because largly or in general these parties do, do what they say they are going to do and what there core beliefs are. It is a reality in Canada that we have only had two parties rule Canada. Liberal and Conservative, and if you complain about the government and think things never change you are right because the people of Canada have not demanded a change for they have voted in the same people time and again and the same parties time and again and as Tommy Douglas once said about mouse land. The mouses voted in White cats first, then they voted in the Black cats, and then they voted in black and white cats and this didn't change a thing but how about voting in some mice, in mouse land? Sometimes you need a change in who governs you to make the other parties listen to you.
Sadly I still hope we never need the system to be changed and we are governed by ok ppl who won't do too many stupid things, I hope Canada stays lucky because I don't have hope that Canadian citizens will get off there lazy ass's and partibate in government.
voting is a privlage we have in Canada, one which is a right but should also be something all citizens do happly. Hell Citizenship in Canada should have soem responcibilities such as voting. Like those of the Greeks in Athens had to.
I have friends like that, one in particular, who says that the Government is basically rigged anyway, it's more or less for rich white men, who he never plans on voting. And that depresses me. The fact that our leaders have caused the nation's youth to lose confidence in the Parliamentary system is a major issue, and that should be one of their main campaign items -- how to re-involve the population of Canada in our Government. Not theirs, but ours.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
Yup.
I know it sounds pretty harsh, but something like you lose apart of your rights of a Citizen if you don't vote. A Citizen of Canada is someone who actively takes parts in Canada and that should be voting. I'm not blaming capitalism here but with the advent of the rise of capitalism and those classes which have benifited by capitalism, perhaps this effects people in thinking government and puplic life doesnt matter as much as personal and the gaining of welath.
You can see this in effect in Europe both East and west. You have pretty good voter turnouts in the east around the time of the fall of Communism because the Capitalist gaining class was pretty small and the people had more of a sence of community and wanting an envolment in removing a dictoral government.
In Western Europe you have a Western socialist tration mixed with capitalism which again has more of the puplic envolved in politics and you have whole towns and cities even provinces which are bitterly one side or the other and politics is everything. I remember reading a posting by my old comapny saying if you were going to france not to give soemone a red rose unless they were a member or a support of the socialist party. You would never have something like that in north america.
Hmmm anyhow perhaps I'm reading into this a little too much but perhaps North America, Canada and the USA both care a little bit too much in the individule and not enough in our nation's governance.
FiveParadox said:
Yup.
I know it sounds pretty harsh, but something like you lose apart of your rights of a Citizen if you don't vote. A Citizen of Canada is someone who actively takes parts in Canada and that should be voting. I'm not blaming capitalism here but with the advent of the rise of capitalism and those classes which have benifited by capitalism, perhaps this effects people in thinking government and puplic life doesnt matter as much as personal and the gaining of welath.
You can see this in effect in Europe both East and west. You have pretty good voter turnouts in the east around the time of the fall of Communism because the Capitalist gaining class was pretty small and the people had more of a sence of community and wanting an envolment in removing a dictoral government.
In Western Europe you have a Western socialist tration mixed with capitalism which again has more of the puplic envolved in politics and you have whole towns and cities even provinces which are bitterly one side or the other and politics is everything. I remember reading a posting by my old comapny saying if you were going to france not to give soemone a red rose unless they were a member or a support of the socialist party. You would never have something like that in north america.
Hmmm anyhow perhaps I'm reading into this a little too much but perhaps North America, Canada and the USA both care a little bit too much in the individule and not enough in our nation's governance.
In other countries people die for the right to vote. It really annoys me that most Canadians couldn't care less about voting. Self determination is one of the sweetest things a person can possess.
Papachongo said:
Couldn't agree with you more. The level of indifferance is horrible. The worst part about it, it's just the not the 20 somethings or 30 somethings. It's the old and young alike. which makes me feel as if it might actually be a social thing.
Of course there is no silver bullet in this one. One part I can blame the FPTP system, the redundancies in government (Senate/GG). Having too many people living good and thus as long as they have there two cars, or these days there SUV 2.3 kids and the right to drink as much as they want... well I think they don't care mostly and on the other hand they become cynical of politics because they dislike anything which may change there life style. One of the reason the Liberals win all the time. Being the masters of the status quo.
We really should have citizen rights and to be a citizen you have to particbate somehow in Canada. One way could be voting but there could be other things as well. The Athanians did it. =-D
i agree with you finder. people like to talk of their rights, but not of their responsibilities. To some extent, rights should be earned.
Re: RE: Republican, monarchist or what?
Something finally we can say we agree about. It burns me when people complain about politicians, politics and then the parties and then proudly say they don't vote.... Don't they know THEY are the problem!!! grrrrrrr In the end I don't care if you vote Communist or Conservative you still have my respect that you voted and let the nation know how you feel at least with the populer vote. Thats what every citizen owes Canada, thats the very least!!! It's those who don't which make this nation so sad.
BTW I'm suprised about the high amount of monarchists. I hope thats not ppl confusing Republicanism, with the Republican party of the USA.
In national polls it's usually 50/50 or close enough to it.
If you ask me the movement leaders in both Camps the Monarchist and the Republican are a little too heavy handed and out of touch with Canadians. I think the monarchists are right that the traditions of the monarchy are needed in Canada and I think the Republicans are right that the head of state should be elected. But who says we can't have monarchist tradtions and be a republic or republican values in government mixed with monarchists.
http://www.monarchist.ca/new/index.html
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
the caracal kid said:
Something finally we can say we agree about. It burns me when people complain about politicians, politics and then the parties and then proudly say they don't vote.... Don't they know THEY are the problem!!! grrrrrrr In the end I don't care if you vote Communist or Conservative you still have my respect that you voted and let the nation know how you feel at least with the populer vote. Thats what every citizen owes Canada, thats the very least!!! It's those who don't which make this nation so sad.
BTW I'm suprised about the high amount of monarchists. I hope thats not ppl confusing Republicanism, with the Republican party of the USA.
In national polls it's usually 50/50 or close enough to it.
If you ask me the movement leaders in both Camps the Monarchist and the Republican are a little too heavy handed and out of touch with Canadians. I think the monarchists are right that the traditions of the monarchy are needed in Canada and I think the Republicans are right that the head of state should be elected. But who says we can't have monarchist tradtions and be a republic or republican values in government mixed with monarchists.
http://www.monarchist.ca/new/index.html
http://www.canadian-republic.ca/
http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/
I see we agree on something again, Finder.
I'm perfectly happy "compromising" between the monarchy and a republic. For example, continuing to deem the Governor General to be a representative of the Queen, even if she were required to be ratified prior to appointment, would still be good enough for me as a monarchist.
I don't really "oppose" republicanism in Canada; rather, I oppose absolute republicanism. I don't want to see ourselves stuck with a republican Government, mainly because that would likely involve a branching away, at some point, from the responsible Westminster style Parliamentary system that has served us so well. Granted, it has issues and glitches that should be addressed, but for the most part, it works.
Note Edited to remedy a formatting problem.
I'm perfectly happy "compromising" between the monarchy and a republic. For example, continuing to deem the Governor General to be a representative of the Queen, even if she were required to be ratified prior to appointment, would still be good enough for me as a monarchist.
I don't really "oppose" republicanism in Canada; rather, I oppose absolute republicanism. I don't want to see ourselves stuck with a republican Government, mainly because that would likely involve a branching away, at some point, from the responsible Westminster style Parliamentary system that has served us so well. Granted, it has issues and glitches that should be addressed, but for the most part, it works.
Note Edited to remedy a formatting problem.