Quote:
Originally Posted by ToxiK
(Post 5330852)
Maybe we should let the provinces who choose to get rid of their lieutenant-Governor. That will be that much money saved.
|
The Lieutenant Governor is the head of the executive. You can't "get rid" of that. You can only delegate it to the premier, a position that I think already has too much power vested in it. It could turn a majority premier into a dictator. Those functions will still have to be performed by someone and there will still have to be staff to see to them.
It won't save any money. It will just allocate it to another section of government. It will probably costs even more; I don't know how the government manages to do it, but when they eliminate positions by merging departments they always end up spending more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfanman
(Post 5330805)
I refused to watch the debacle and when a German buddy of mine questioned me as to why, I explained that the British Queen was still our head of state and that I wasn't happy with that. He replied "That's funny, I thought that Canada had grown up".
How do you respond to that?
|
Explain what happened since 1867 and then say that you're a republican? You're from Québec too so you've got to reasons to dislike the monarchy, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfanman
(Post 5330902)
(and if one more fucking monarchist insults my intelligence by telling me that the Queen is Canadian! You're not Canadian just because you decree yourself to be)
|
She didn't decree herself to be Canadian. We did. No offense to your intelligence but that should be cleared up! She still regularly refers to herself as British, I think even when speaking with us.
Legally speaking though, she
is Canadian, and Prince Charles will automatically become Canadian when she dies if he isn't one already. That's just how the constitution is laid out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
There is a thought that once the Queen dies parliament could simply not go through whatever motions are required to recognize the new monarch.
I agree, if constitutional modification is required it becomes much less palatable. Then again, this might be one thing that would pass easily.
|
"La Riene est mort. Vive le roi." The position transfers automatically upon death. Prince Charles will become our king before we find out Queen Elizabeth is dead; even before
he finds out. That's just how it works.
I am pretty sure a law could be passed to change that, though, and there is a procedure parliament goes through to recognize the new monarch, as well as the coronation later (Elizabeth was Queen almost a year before her coronation).
I think a few countries have ended their relationship with the monarchy upon the death of the reigning monarch so it isn't impossible, but if it does require constitutional amendments, it will be very difficult to change.
I wouldn't oppose such a law, though I don't think it is very necessary and worry about the abhorrent cost of such a relatively pointless procedure. The fiscal conservative in me says "if it isn't broken, leave it alone", and while Novelleecosse's argument is a good one, I don't think that changing that is worth the cost of actually changing it. We might not get any money from visits to Buckingham Palace, but we aren't going to get much revenue from visits to 24 Sussex, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
I don't find the legitimacy argument all that convincing.
|
Well the Prime Minister can't appoint himself. That is what the Governor General does right after the election, even if it is a majority. He chooses which party forms government and then appoints the leader of that party as the Prime Minister. Who will fulfill that role if we abolish the monarchy? The "previous" Prime Minister can't do it.
This is just an example of one of the many things about our government system that will have to change with a republic system. Considering how long it would take to change these things, I doubt we'll finish it before Queen Elizabeth dies, and that is even taking into account her family's longevity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
If our head of state was a giant inflatable weiner, one could also ask "how is it failing us?", as though one would need a convincing proof of failure to justify ditching it.
|
The giant inflatable wiener has legitimacy. ;)
I think you could have chosen a better example than an inflatable wiener. But, honestly, if that Wiener did what the monarchy does for the same price, it might still be a less expensive deal than a republic, and we won't have to figure out who will appoint the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
- I do relate to the sentiment that having a foreign (yes foreign) head of state is a symbol of not having fully 'grown up' as a nation.
- I do not want new sovereigns faces on our money
- I do respect Elizabeth and have no issue with retaining the monarchy until her death
|
I generally agree on these points. I have a copy of A Vision of Britain from the Library and I'm not too fond of seeing its cover on the back of the 20. Even when he was younger Charles was hard on the eyes. :yuck:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
- I support simply keeping all of the current processes in place, the Governor General will remain as it always has, doing the same job they always have, they will simply just be the Canadian head of state, rather than representing the Queen.
|
But now we have a dilemma one step up from that which I explained about the Prime Minister.
Without a Queen, who appoints the Governor General? Does the Prime Minister retain this power? Do party politics come into play like in a republic or does the role remain non-partisan? (I'd prefer the latter and I think most Canadians would as well.)
Appointment of the Governor General however is easier to solve than appointment of the government and prime minister. Parliament could appoint the Governor General, by committee with a list of well researched candidates and then secret ballot to choose an individual, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
- The argument that the monarchy is all that separates us from the States is an incredibly sad commentary, and one that I don't believe to be true. In a sense that's using the monarchy as a crutch to prove Canadian 'differentness'. If the loss of the monarchy makes some think we're now just the same as the Americans, perhaps the push to actually differentiate ourselves vs relying on the monarchy is a good thing.
|
The structure of our government and the nature of our political system is one of our biggest differences but I agree, defending the monarchy out of fear of "becoming American" is bullshit. If the only different is the Queen, we might as well
join the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5330985)
- This might be overstated, but I think ditching might help the French/English tensions in the country, although I think due to those tensions being pretty low at the moment it may not have any effect. It might though have an effect in the future should tensions flare up.
|
I don't think it will help too much. If we end up with an anglophone Governor General (or whatever we call the head of state) two times in a row, it will probably cause tension. I suppose we could have two heads of state, one Anglophone and one Francophone, but then you'll probably get Aboriginals upset saying they're not represented and who knows how many heads of state we'll have then. Switzerland, a country with several large ethnic groups (French, German, Italian and Romansch) has seven heads of state.
The EU presidency rotates from nation to nation. We could do something like that. Eliminate the Governor General and give the provincial Lieutenant Governors the top role for one tenth of the year on a rotating basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix
(Post 5331272)
Second, if we were to get rid of the monarchy, all we'd have to do is replace the Office of Governor-General with President, Secretary-General, Grand Poohbah, whatever. They'd still have the same powers the Governor-General/Queen currently have and could live in Rideau Hall. Where do these magical "it'll be more expensive as a Republic" costs come from? How much money does it really cost to wake up one day and say: "We're ditching the monarchy. Mr. Johnson, you're now the President of Canada and elections will be held in 2015 for your replacement"?
|
The cost would be in restructuring. Even if we create a law that says "all references too ... are replaced with ...", we're going to have to educate people on the republican equivalents of monarchic positions down the line, when the monarchy becomes a memory.
The process of becoming a republic will be long and drawn out as well, and that could cause economic instability. We saw that kind of instability with all the elections and political uncertainty over the past seven years; republicanizing could lead to greater uncertainty, especially if the debate drags on for along time or becomes heated.
The court currently draws its authority from the crown; land is owned by the crown; government companies are crown corporations; we're going to have to replace the concept of crown. With what? More laws to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix
(Post 5331272)
As for my personal beliefs, the monarchy in England actually creates substantial tourism dollars. I will accept a monarchy in Canada on the following conditions:
- Some members of the British Royal Family move to Canada and live in Rideau Hall.
- Their children are born in Canada and raised as Canadians.
- This "Canadian Monarchy" actually bases themselves in Canada and serves as the nation's regency. Essentially, they make their homes here and come to represent the country.
|
I agree with these, and agree that it would be much easier to do than becoming a republic. I'm a way it is kind of surprising it hasn't already been done. You would think a realm as established by ours would have its own branch of the monarchy, especially when the monarch back at home already delegates the bulk of their responsibilities to a representative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix
(Post 5331295)
Did we stop after the first trains, planes and automobiles were created? No. They weren't broken, but we saw ways to improve upon them and advance them. Currently, because of the monarchy, we have stagnated. It's not progress, it's not regression; it's stagnation.
|
You could argue that the stability of monarchy is better than a republic though. The Scandinavian and Low countries are also monarchies and they're not doing too bad in the long run. Canada, a monarchy where the monarch doesn't even reside in the country, has weathered the recession pretty well. Not very stagnant. Socially, we're very progressive, just like the other northwest European monarchies. (Spain is a bit different.)
I don't really see how we have stagnated because of the monarchy. What kinds of progress would we have as a republic that we don't have now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzyEdge
(Post 5331794)
also, to elaborate on my point about "although possibly should be elected at some point", I said that because the most critical role he or she would play would be interpretation of constitutional law, so I look at the position more like that of a judge, than a politician, and wonder if a public election is the best route. What about a council of former GG's who vote in a new GG?
|
As I explained above, have Parliament do it. Currently, the Prime Minister suggests someone to the Queen and the Queen appoints the Governor General. Have the Prime Minister, or a committee of all parties in the house, to make suggestions and vote on the best choice, or you could have the Prime Minister mention people and just vote on who would be preferred until someone gets a majority of the vote.
I think Germany does this to appoint their Chancellor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer
(Post 5331872)
Well, he might like to be Queen, but John Baird has called dibs. :notacrook:
|
Is that a gay joke? :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix
(Post 5331918)
Indeed. This is how I've often felt about such a scenario. Furthermore, if they were to live in La Citadelle in Quebec City and learn French, it could help to potentially bridge the divide between French and English Canada.
...
I actually had no idea about that. Learn something new every day I suppose. He or any of the actually Canadian members of the Royal Family would get my support for Regent provided they meet the three criteria I listed earlier.
|
The Queen speaks French (very well, too) and has a strong interest in Canada's aboriginal cultures. She's always considered Canada her "favourite". Another plus for her, but she won't live forever. Charles is much more focused on the UK than the other realms, as William also appears to be. Not being in the direct line of succession is probably why Harry had more time to spend "exploring", and decide that he likes Canada. Elizabeth is from the era when the British Empire was winding down (to put it lightly) so she was well travelled by the time she became Queen. (She was in Africa when it happened.)