Should Canada still see the British Monarch as its own?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Razor

Do any of our tax dollars get funneled directly to them? I hope not!
In my version of a just world they would get rid of the monarchy, liquidate all of their assets, and give back the proceeds to British tax payers..Really, all their wealth is accumulated blood and tax money if you go back just a few centuries and beyond..I get the tradition and all + The Queen and the Royals do a lot of good work with charities, but the whole birthright thing and crazy wealth bothers me. Especially, knowing that it's old blood money collected from peasants..I feel the same way about the Catholic Church and all it's riches btw.

Where do you think the Trump’s money comes from,or the Kennedy’s? It’s built on their ancestors. The British system just goes farther back.

[Loco101]

If enough people get upset and want the monarchy gone, it will be gone. Why are these British elitists who become the royal family by birth important to Canada today? We need to begin phasing out the monarchy in Canada. I'm all for getting rid of it.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by memememe76

Is there a reason why the Monarchy must be tied to our current parliamentary system? What is there to replace? I just want the Monarchy out.

I really like our parliamentary system and see that as something great that originated in Britain. I don't see the monarchy as great.

There are many things we could do to replace the monarchy. We could have a head of state who is elected, appointed by the PM, elected in parliament, and other ways. My thinking is that it could follow an Indigenous model, a non-hereditary one where we have someone who signs laws and is more symbolic and not so political.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by memememe76

Is there a reason why the Monarchy must be tied to our current parliamentary system? What is there to replace? I just want the Monarchy out.

Not necessarily, but it can upset the balance of power. If you replace the Monarch (who is reluctant to use powers) with an elected President (who will feel democratic legitimacy when using reserve powers) then you have a completely different system.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

If enough people get upset and want the monarchy gone, it will be gone. Why are these British elitists who become the royal family by birth important to Canada today? We need to begin phasing out the monarchy in Canada. I'm all for getting rid of it.

As long as those people can command a majority in all 10 legislatures, the House and Senate for multiple years. Which seems unlikely.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As long as those people can command a majority in all 10 legislatures, the House and Senate for multiple years. Which seems unlikely.

Isn't there a formula for constitutional changes? 7 out of 10 provinces or enough provinces that make up 2/3 of the population? Something like that?

The other option is a federal referendum and I think change can be done using those same formulas.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Loco101

Isn't there a formula for constitutional changes? 7 out of 10 provinces or enough provinces that make up 2/3 of the population? Something like that?

The other option is a federal referendum and I think change can be done using those same formulas.

That's the formula for a regular constitutional change. Changes involving the list pasted below require all 10 provinces. The constitution cannot be changed through referendum. Governments can organize non-binding plebiscites (as they did in 1992) but the actual amendments have to go through the same process.

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) changing the amendment procedure itself.

[casper]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's the formula for a regular constitutional change. Changes involving the list pasted below require all 10 provinces. The constitution cannot be changed through referendum. Governments can organize non-binding plebiscites (as they did in 1992) but the actual amendments have to go through the same process.

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) changing the amendment procedure itself.

There is a simple solution. On the death of the Queen we simply don't appoint a replacement. In principle it automatically goes to the next in line and the governor general issues a proclamation. But what if no such proclamation is issued. The country continues to function.

The underlying principle is the Crown's role is in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians and the government is a servant of the people.

The recent events demonstrate a process for removing a governor general that abuses his/her power. I think we just continue on without amending anything. We simply allow "the crown" to become an abstract concept not tied to a specific individual. Think of the crown in the same light as the concept of "lady liberty" in the US content.

We simply should leave everything else alone. No need to amend the constitution.

[Chadillaccc]

Interesting to see this thread revived. I just made a post on Insta today about the need for Canada to abolish the monarchy. A completely useless archaic vestige of an obsolete past, and the jig is up now that we know they're still just a bunch of racist pedophiles even still in the 2020s let alone how bad they were throughout the rest of history. Fuck em all.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by casper

There is a simple solution. On the death of the Queen we simply don't appoint a replacement. In principle it automatically goes to the next in line and the governor general issues a proclamation. But what if no such proclamation is issued. The country continues to function.

The underlying principle is the Crown's role is in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians and the government is a servant of the people.

The recent events demonstrate a process for removing a governor general that abuses his/her power. I think we just continue on without amending anything. We simply allow "the crown" to become an abstract concept not tied to a specific individual. Think of the crown in the same light as the concept of "lady liberty" in the US content.

We simply should leave everything else alone. No need to amend the constitution.

I like this thinking. As silly as keeping up the monarchy is--especially when it's not our own--in 2021, I don't have any appetite for a constitutional fight. But if we can just ignore Charles until he goes away, I don't see why we shouldn't.

I guess whichever government does so would leave the doors open for the next government to stick us with the monarchy again, but seeing through that window of monarchless existence might be all Canadians need to realize that we don't need them.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

There is a simple solution. On the death of the Queen we simply don't appoint a replacement. In principle it automatically goes to the next in line and the governor general issues a proclamation. But what if no such proclamation is issued. The country continues to function.

The underlying principle is the Crown's role is in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians and the government is a servant of the people.

The recent events demonstrate a process for removing a governor general that abuses his/her power. I think we just continue on without amending anything. We simply allow "the crown" to become an abstract concept not tied to a specific individual. Think of the crown in the same light as the concept of "lady liberty" in the US content.

We simply should leave everything else alone. No need to amend the constitution.

The proclamation of a new monarch is more akin to a press release than a legally binding instrument. The wikipedia specifically says "Upon a demise of the Crown (the death or abdication of a sovereign), the late sovereign's heir immediately and automatically succeeds, without any need for confirmation or further ceremony"

The process for removing the old GG was to threaten to ask the Queen to remove her. A monarch is vital to the process.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by biguc

I like this thinking. As silly as keeping up the monarchy is--especially when it's not our own--in 2021, I don't have any appetite for a constitutional fight. But if we can just ignore Charles until he goes away, I don't see why we shouldn't.

I guess whichever government does so would leave the doors open for the next government to stick us with the monarchy again, but seeing through that window of monarchless existence might be all Canadians need to realize that we don't need them.

You can't just ignore Charles until he goes away. He becomes King of Canada automatically when the Queen abdicates or draws her last breath (unless she outlives him, then William becomes King automatically). I guess you could stop having visits or change the money if you really wanted to be dickish about it.

[WestCoastEcho]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's the formula for a regular constitutional change. Changes involving the list pasted below require all 10 provinces. The constitution cannot be changed through referendum. Governments can organize non-binding plebiscites (as they did in 1992) but the actual amendments have to go through the same process.

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time the Constitution Act, 1982 came into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e) changing the amendment procedure itself.

Correct. And the chances of this happening is zero to none.

Not only have we never been able to achieve a constitutional amending under that unanimity procedure, we've never succeeded at *any* major reform requiring even the lesser '7/50' rule of the general procedure.

The key stumbling block is our inability to engage in discussions of constitutional reform on single issues. Any discussion about constitutional reform will inevitably expand onto other issues that aren't related to the original issue being discussed at hand.

Want to become a republic? Suddenly, Quebec has demands! And suddenly so does Alberta, New Brunswick, Labrador and Newfoundland, Manitoba, etc. And all of these demands will eventually butt heads with each other, and the whole conversation turns into one unholy mess. See what happened at Meech Lake and at the Charlottetown Accords.

Coupled to the high threshold in the amending formula with a political culture that is absolutely frightened of "opening the Constitution" because it's a massive Pandora's Box for national unity, and no - we're not 'getting rid of the monarchy'.

Originally Posted by casper

There is a simple solution. On the death of the Queen we simply don't appoint a replacement. In principle it automatically goes to the next in line and the governor general issues a proclamation. But what if no such proclamation is issued. The country continues to function.

The underlying principle is the Crown's role is in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and democratic system of government of Canadians and the government is a servant of the people.

The recent events demonstrate a process for removing a governor general that abuses his/her power. I think we just continue on without amending anything. We simply allow "the crown" to become an abstract concept not tied to a specific individual. Think of the crown in the same light as the concept of "lady liberty" in the US content.

We simply should leave everything else alone. No need to amend the constitution.

Nope. We might be able to change rules of succession made by the Commonwealth by assenting to changes to UK law, but going our own way?

That would almost certainly be a change to the 'office of the Queen' - requiring the unanimous consent formula present in the Constitution.

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Interesting to see this thread revived. I just made a post on Insta today about the need for Canada to abolish the monarchy. A completely useless archaic vestige of an obsolete past, and the jig is up now that we know they're still just a bunch of racist pedophiles even still in the 2020s let alone how bad they were throughout the rest of history. Fuck em all.

As far as we know only one member loosely fits the first claim and only one fits the second claim. To say they are a 'bunch of racist pedophiles' puts the entire Royal family into that insinuation.

As well, enquiring about the skin colour of a baby may not be considered to be racist by some people...just curiosity. I have my doubts as to how strong the tone of that conversation was to be honest. One of Harry/Meghan said it occurred before they got married and the other said when she was pregnant.

I'm not a fan of Meghan at all. There seems to be too many broken relationships in her past and she doesn't seem to take any responsibility for them.

Once the Queen is no more, Canada should free ourselves of the Royal shackles. We can't be living in our parents basement forever.

[kool maudit]

Come on. Meghan is a grasping fameball laundering her personal grievances through the faux-therapeutic media machine of the US bourgeoisie and the Royal Family are a tangle of vicious reptiles sprawled wretchedly over a pile of ill-gotten plunder.

This whole thing is probably a shadow of a reflection of some weird internal Anglo-American struggle between imperial vampires who would be happier if you were dead.








To identify with any of this is to eat garbage.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

they're still just a bunch of racist pedophiles even still in the 2020s let alone how bad they were throughout the rest of history. Fuck em all.

Pretty over the top there Chad, don't you think?

Are you accusing Betty Windsor of being a pedophile? Come on.........

Seems to me you've been drinking from the Q-Anon Kool-Aid - just the left wing version of Q-Anon that is.

[kool maudit]

The reality of powerful people consorting with predators has nothing to do with the QAnon psyop; the only thing the latter has done to the former is to make it seem more suspicious and disreputable.

Savile. Dutroux. Heath. Dolphin House. You don't need to even enter US airspace if you don't want to.

[MonctonRad]

Looks like Betty is the one about to be preyed upon.

[kool maudit]

But excessively focusing on the girls and boys obscures the lesson: this sort of dynastic power is AT BEST a temptation to corruption, at worst a spiritual abyss.

[905er]

Fuck the Monarchy!! Put your big boy pants on Canada and lets forge the way on our own... cut the umbilical cord already for fucks sake. It's an antiquated institution that we have no use for now.