Retain the Monarchy in Canada?

[Infanteer]

How likely is it that there will be unanimous consent? Not bloody likely!

Although it would be interesting to see how the constitutional mechanisms would work if the question was put to a national referendum and a "republican" vote won a majority (say 60% or higher).

But I think Swingline has the right of it - Liberal Party spitballing ideas to contest to the Conservatives on.

 

[aesop081]

Really?

national child-care program

Yup, like i said, still out of ideas.

 

[GAP]

You just wait until they trot out Paul Martin's napkin with his aboriginal saviour plan....that was only 5 Billion, the daycare was 10 billion, and I'm sure there must be a bargin somewhere, maybe China, for suitable kites to replace those F35's.......

 

[vonGarvin]

I just find it ironic for a party that seems from time to time to embrace a sort of knee-jerk anti-Americanism to push for an amendment that would bring our system of government closer to that of the United States.

 

[Pusser]

What I find interesting is the outcry in the popular press that consistently laments the loss of many aspects of "Liberal" Canada (i.e. many of the things that the Liberal Party instituted and has long supported).  Yet the Conservatives haven't really done anything they didn't promise to do.  It would seem to me that the people have spoken.  Canadians elected a Conservative government and gave them a majority.  Contrary to what the vocal liberal element claims that Canadians want, Canadians actually seem to want a more conservative nation. 

I read an article (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-01/01/c_131337801.htm) earlier today that said:

Harper sent out a clear message that he wanted to undo some of the Canadian nationalism that the Liberals had fostered during their lock on power in the 20th century.

He announced the country's navy would be re-named the Royal Canadian Navy, and the air force would now be called the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Canadian nationalism fostered by the Liberals?  I would argue that the Conservatives have done more for Canadian nationalism in the last decade than the Liberals did in the entire 20th Century.  Restoring the proper names of proud institutions undoes nothing and only serves to right an historic wrong.

 

[Remius]

I find that in most cases, people are in favour of severing ties with the monarchy are generally anti-monarchists not necessarily people that propose something better or more effective.  It seems to be more about getting rid of the royals then creating something else.  Our system may have it's faults but it is one of the best in the world.  You just need to look south of the border and see the gong show going on there.  Our problems pale in comparison.  The monarchy, though more symbolic now, still serves to legitimise our system.  There is something comforting in seeing someone above our elected politicians, impartial, embodying our country and values.  Something to respect.  Politicians and appointed senators don`t normally get that.  And I doubt an elected head of state would either.

 

[vonGarvin]

And I doubt an elected head of state would either.

Agreed.  An elected head of state would probably have to become the executive branch of government, complete with a cabinet, probably approved by the legislative branch (House of Commons, which we should rename the House of Representatives, because "commons" implies "commoner", which is of course a reference to social status, and we can't have that...).  Then we'll have an elected senate, and then apply for 51st State status, because heaven knows, our form of government hasn't worked!

(By "hasn't worked", I mean, it's actually allowed the baby-eating Harper get his claws into power in Ottawa).

In short, our system is like any other system in the world in that it is imperfect.  But it works fairly well, I would offer.

 

[Swingline1984]

(By "hasn't worked", I mean, it's actually allowed the baby-eating Harper get his claws into power in Ottawa).

Been reading the Toronto Star I see  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

It is possible to have elected Presidents as Heads of State who do not wield political power, in these nations the Prime Minister is the head of government and wields political power.

Is this a good thing or not? I have no opinion, since the example that I know most about (Israel) also has issues due to the PR electoral system and constant deal brokering that the Prime Minister (or PM presumptive in a close election) has to do. In that particular case you could argue for either a more politically powerful President or to eliminate the office entirely.

Having our own "King" or Regent at least makes the issue entirely home grown, given we haven't needed to appeal to Westminster or even have the GG openly use his/her reserve powers since the 1930's (Byng-King affair, although it was rumored His Excelency Edward Schreyer was prepared to use the reserved powers during the various kerfuffles around the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982), in this regard I fully support Edward Campbells ideas on the matter as posted on this board.

 

[Pusser]

It's worth noting that the majority of the countries usually listed as the "best" in the world (in a variety of indexes based on GDP, social programs, education, basic freedoms, etc) are monarchies.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[dapaterson]

It's worth noting that the majority of the countries usually listed as the "best" in the world (in a variety of indexes based on GDP, social programs, education, basic freedoms, etc) are monarchies.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Germany?

France?

USA?


...a certain lack of Royalty in those countries, I think...

 

[Pusser]

Germany?

France?

USA?


...a certain lack of Royalty in those countries, I think...

I said the majority, not all of them.  Seven of the top ten in the 2011 Human Development Index are monarchies:

Norway
Australia
Netherlands
USA
New Zealand
Canada
Ireland
Liechtenstein
Germany
Sweden

Japan, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, the UK and the UAE all fall into the top 30

 

[Infanteer]

It's worth noting that the majority of the countries usually listed as the "best" in the world (in a variety of indexes based on GDP, social programs, education, basic freedoms, etc) are monarchies.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

That's a logical fallacy.  Circumstances far beyond a neutered monarchy go into making these countries the "best".  We can start with uninterrupted rule of law, lack of open warfare within the country, and prospering under the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War.

 

[quadrapiper]

That's a logical fallacy.  Circumstances far beyond a neutered monarchy go into making these countries the "best".  We can start with uninterrupted rule of law, lack of open warfare within the country, and prospering under the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War.

And all but the latter could be, in one way or another, linked to an apolitical and inherited head of state position.

There's certainly other ways to keep a country in decent shape; long-established usage and custom, diffusion of control over the major organs of state, and Politburo-style committee rule; but an established monarchy is certainly one of the more common ways to maintain stability in a country.

Monarchs are, generally, creatures of stability: the idea is to hand the job and the country down to the kids, complete with palace, treasury, jewels, and so on. There's certainly outliers: North Korea's Communist dynasty comes to mind; but, generally, the crown has a need for real good government, if only to keep things sweet for the royal family.

It also seems as if it'd be harder (not impossibly, but harder) for an upstart political movement to seize absolute power or start a civil war when a nation's military owes its loyalty to King and Country, rather than either more easily re-defined symbols, like a constitution, or to one elected office or another. I'll offer Mussolini as an example where this didn't work, and Thailand as a contemporary extreme, outlier example of this in action.

 

[Pusser]

That's a logical fallacy.  Circumstances far beyond a neutered monarchy go into making these countries the "best".  We can start with uninterrupted rule of law, lack of open warfare within the country, and prospering under the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War.

And you don't feel that a stable political system had something to do with this?

 

[Kirkhill]

And you don't feel that a stable political system had something to do with this?

Or, further to this, that perhaps the retention of a monarch in a diminished role demonstrates a useful cultural characteristic of accomodation, toleration, adaptation and incrementalism?  As opposed, perhaps, to cultures that seem to have developed a pattern of discarding babies with bathwater?

 

[Remius]

1. Barbados
2. St.Kits and Nevis
3. Bahamas
4. Trinidad and Tobago
5. Antigua & Barbuda
6. Grenada
7. Dominica
8. St. Lucia
10 . St. Vincent and the Grenadines

This is the list of top caribean countries.  All but one have Queen Elizabeth as head of state.  But all have westminster style of governments (one is a parliamentary republic).  Is it maybe that a westminster style of parliament and not necessarily who the head of state is, that is better off in most cases than a Presidential style republic?

 

[GR66]

1. Barbados
2. St.Kits and Nevis
3. Bahamas
4. Trinidad and Tobago
5. Antigua & Barbuda
6. Grenada
7. Dominica
8. St. Lucia
10 . St. Vincent and the Grenadines

This is the list of top caribean countries.  All but one have Queen Elizabeth as head of state.  But all have westminster style of governments (one is a parliamentary republic).  Is it maybe that a westminster style of parliament and not necessarily who the head of state is, that is better off in most cases than a Presidential style republic?

Perhaps we should create a Canadian monarchy (I'm available btw...) and graciously agree to take on the above into OUR commonwealth.  They will benefit from our strong Canadian dollar and generally wonderful society as well as the influx of Canadian tourists able to travel there domestically during the winter.  I will personally commit to extended Royal visits annually (November to March) so they don't feel neglected by their monarch!

;D