Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

When you come to think of it, countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various others which have the arrangement of having monarchy but GG representing the monarch, have the worst of two worlds.

Namely, if you prefer to have monarchy, then at least you would prefer to have your countryman or -woman as the monarch but you don't. Your monarch is a foreigner who lives on the other side of the vast ocean.

If Canada ever turned into a republic it would probably only mean that you changed the office of GG as president as today GG is de facto president. Presidents in republics which have a constitution whereby presidents are almost like monarchs without any real power are basically totally useless puppets. With monarchs there is at least some glamour about it but with powerless presidents it is totally boring.

But you have it both ways; you have a monarch who is a foreigner and you have a de facto powerless president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It is your system but I'll still say that in my opinion it is not right that the PM has the say who becomes GG who, after all, as being the Queen's representative has at least a formal role of being a

Imagine if David Johnston was ever accused of beating his wife and killing a person in a car?  Either JT is incompetent for not properly vetting Payette or he just didn't care cuz she's a Francop

I won't be a white dude, that's for sure!

I must say that I find it rather unbelievable that in countries such as Canada where you have had  very established independence but yet you still stick to the present arrangement whereby a foreigner is your head of state and some political puppet pretends to be that monarch's representative.

On the other hand, who am I to blame you. I'm from Finland which is a totally runover vassal-state of Germany. Nothing happens in Finland unless Merkel has given her permission. Our puppet-politicians make me very angry.

Actually, having thought of it through, you with the British Queen as your head of state you are actually way better off than we are here in the hinterlands of Merkelstan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/3/2018 at 6:56 PM, -TSS- said:

When you come to think of it, countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and various others which have the arrangement of having monarchy but GG representing the monarch, have the worst of two worlds.

Namely, if you prefer to have monarchy, then at least you would prefer to have your countryman or -woman as the monarch but you don't. Your monarch is a foreigner who lives on the other side of the vast ocean.

If Canada ever turned into a republic it would probably only mean that you changed the office of GG as president as today GG is de facto president. Presidents in republics which have a constitution whereby presidents are almost like monarchs without any real power are basically totally useless puppets. With monarchs there is at least some glamour about it but with powerless presidents it is totally boring.

But you have it both ways; you have a monarch who is a foreigner and you have a de facto powerless president.

Worse: the sitting PM names the GG, and then the British monarch (must be Church of England) agrees.

IOW: In Canada, Australia, etc, the Head of Government selects the Head of State: except in the UK, where the Head of State is decided by, well, birth.

==========

I far prefer the American method of choosing a Head of State.

Chinese and British will argue otherwise. But the American way is apparently sustainable, and largely civilized.

En passant, je ne suis pas Amércain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know do the constitutions of Canada and Australia differ regarding the power of the GG as in Australia the GG actually fired the government as he had the power to do so under the circumstances whereby the government could not pass the budget in the Australian parliament.

However, if the Canadian GG has similar powers, it is absurd if the PM chooses the GG who in turn could kick out the PM. Doesn't that mean the PM would choose a person who would never under any circumstances kick out the PM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All authority rests with the Queen. She appoints the Prime Minister and she appoints the Governor General. Political power rests with the Prime Minister. All power relies on the will of Parliament. That is where money is voted. If the Prime Minister tried to go against the Crown, the PM would pay a considerable price. The position of the Queen is double locked into the Constitution. The PM is hardly mentioned. 

So, the answer to your question "Doesn't that mean the PM would choose a person who would never under any circumstances kick out the PM?" is no, the Prime Minister is, by convention, obligated to nominate an eminent person who would dismiss the PM should circumstances warrant it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2018 at 3:37 PM, -TSS- said:

I must say that I find it rather unbelievable that in countries such as Canada where you have had  very established independence but yet you still stick to the present arrangement whereby a foreigner is your head of state and some political puppet pretends to be that monarch's representative.

On the other hand, who am I to blame you. I'm from Finland which is a totally runover vassal-state of Germany. Nothing happens in Finland unless Merkel has given her permission. Our puppet-politicians make me very angry.

Actually, having thought of it through, you with the British Queen as your head of state you are actually way better off than we are here in the hinterlands of Merkelstan.

Ever cross your mind why we have such a great country, because we kept our past. Countries that have a monarch I would say have done a lot better. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Do Canadian members of Parliament have to swear tghe oath of allegiance to the Queen like their British counterparts have to? In the British Parliament there are always 4-5 seats vacant because Sinn Fein has won those seats but obviously they can't swear that oath, which excludes them from taking their seats in Parliament.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
Quote

Do not be shocked if it emerges that this most touchy-feely of governments has created an expensive, superfluous position to provide a soft landing for Payette

How do you solve a problem like Julie? The Prime Minister’s Office won’t even admit there is a problem with the Governor General, Julie Payette.

Rideau Hall insists that the Queen’s representative in Canada is “fully committed to the responsibilities” of her office.

“I look forward to sharing our accomplishments to date and to presenting some new initiatives as we approach the one year mark in my mandate,” Payette said in a statement.

Yet, as my colleagues, Marie-Danielle Smith and Brian Platt, revealed in exhaustive detail on the weekend, there is a problem — the governor general is chafing at the public scrutiny and adherence to convention the job entails. She is said to be unhappy in the job and one source even suggested the government is looking for an off-ramp that would allow her to leave without acknowledging its own dereliction of due diligence in appointing her in the first place.

Events that, at first glance, appear unrelated may offer a clue into how the Trudeau government intends to solve a problem entirely of its own star-struck making.

On Saturday in Montreal, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Canada will create an ambassadorial position dedicated to women, peace and security.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-a-sign-the-government-looking-for-an-off-ramp-for-the-governor-general

Would switching Payette from the GG post to an ambassadorial position provide a diversion from Trudeau bungling the appointment of Payette as GG in the first place.

Edited by capricorn
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

On 9/25/2018 at 8:24 PM, Hates politicians said:

Get rid of the position. Its nothing but a waste of taxpayers money.

So you would rather have direct rule. It would likely entail a greater cost with all the travel back and forth between Ottawa and London.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

What part of get rid of don't you understand? 

You said get rid of the position of Governor General. Therefore, you must mean that the Queen would assume the duties of the Governor General. So, either she would be coming to Ottawa on a weekly basis or her Prime Minister would be travelling to her. Since we don not pay the Queen, on first glance, it would appear to be a cost saving, but just the travel costs would be more than the compensation paid to the GG.

You do not appear to have thought this out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You said get rid of the position of Governor General. Therefore, you must mean that the Queen would assume the duties of the Governor General. So, either she would be coming to Ottawa on a weekly basis or her Prime Minister would be travelling to her. Since we don not pay the Queen, on first glance, it would appear to be a cost saving, but just the travel costs would be more than the compensation paid to the GG.

You do not appear to have thought this out.

Get rid of the queen as well she is another useless waste of skin as well as all of the other royal uselessness. Run the country as the husiness it is put all the pomp and ceremony on display in a museum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just how would you do that? Who would you replace her with? You indicate you hate politicians so obviously you don't want a President. Who would appoint a Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers? Who do you suggest assume the ultimate authority? How would you select a Head of State? How would you train them? A President would have the same authority and power as the Queen, but you would have to pay them a few hundred thousand dollars per year. Do you want a President like Austria's Kurt Waldheim, a former SS officer? Or maybe Robert Mugabe, Donald Trump or Joe Clark?

Finally, the Crown is double locked into the Constitution. It cannot be abolished. As someone who hates politicians, why not do away with the Prime Minister? No constitutional action required.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What failure?

Payette...   (sp.)

I'd rather keep our system than go to a Republic,  I don't mind the Monarchy as it's part of our heritage and culture, they are only figureheads after all.    How about Prince Harry, if it's possible for GG

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Hates politicians said:

 Run the country as the husiness it is put all the pomp and ceremony on display in a museum

I am really having difficulty even reading between the lines to what you were trying to write here.  Do you look up to people who can form sentences ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Just how would you do that? Who would you replace her with? You indicate you hate politicians so obviously you don't want a President. Who would appoint a Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers? Who do you suggest assume the ultimate authority? How would you select a Head of State? How would you train them? A President would have the same authority and power as the Queen, but you would have to pay them a few hundred thousand dollars per year. Do you want a President like Austria's Kurt Waldheim, a former SS officer? Or maybe Robert Mugabe, Donald Trump or Joe Clark?

Finally, the Crown is double locked into the Constitution. It cannot be abolished. As someone who hates politicians, why not do away with the Prime Minister? No constitutional action required.

We arent locked into anything we can get rid of the crown and have a president. There are people who are'nt politicians who can run this country better than the shitbags  who are running it into the ground currently

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scribblet said:

Payette...   (sp.)

I'd rather keep our system than go to a Republic,  I don't mind the Monarchy as it's part of our heritage and culture, they are only figureheads after all.    How about Prince Harry, if it's possible for GG

 

 

Good for you. You can pay for these wastes of skin as well. I sure as hell don't want to, and I'm not alone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...