Prince Charles and the future of the Monarchy in the Commonwealth

[PiMan]

The GG doesn't have power? What was the dismissal all about? Besides, plenty of heads of state don't have power but people still vote for them, East Timor springs to mind at this hour.

EDIT: The ability to block all legislation by withholding signature is also fairly powerful. The operative thing here is, just because you don't use your power, doesn't mean you don't have the power to start with.

I know they have power, I just expect them not to use it. Using it even less than they do already.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Winner really should be given a honorary knighthood for standing up for the British Empire.

 

[Winner]

Winner really should be given a honorary knighthood for standing up for the British Empire.

I wouldn't object against it

 

[Orange Seeds]

I envision the same for Canada, except that we will abandon the monarchy coinciding with the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and that the Governor General be made an elected position so that s/he will have a true mandate to fulfill their role. And the GG does in fact have a considerable function, most notably deciding if and when to dissolve Parliament.

Of course, abandoning the monarchy does not mean leaving the Commonwealth, which I believe that we should remain a part of. Of course, we should also lobby for a winter version of the Commonwealth Games so that we can be the ones winning all the medals.

The last thing i want is an elected head of state who has a democratic mandate. I'm not sure what problem you hope this will solve? Power should remain concentrated within the parliament; it is separation of powers mantra that forces governments to 'bribe' legislators with "pork Barrel" politics as is the case in the US.

In the past century the GG has had a contentious say only twice: once in 1927 and again last Fall.

And no, having the centuries old lineage of the Queen is much less prestigious than having a CBC journalist opening the Olympic games. /sarcasm.

I'm not particularly fond of the monarchy but the mess that can be unleashed when you try to replace it is enormous.

John Ralston Saul:

Canada is “administered under the third oldest constitution in the world, which causes Canadians to insist that it has never worked and must be changed

 

[Arwon]

I support Australia changing to a republic as soon as possible, but I would also like the change to be largely ceremonial. This just means taking away the powers of the queen, and where they aren't already in the hands of the governor general, give him/her those powers too.
Don't even bother changing the GG's title. We don't need a president.

The current system works, why change it any more than symbolically...

EDIT: The only condition I place is that we still get to compete in the Commonwealth Games. I like getting as many medals as the next 10 countries combined.

The ultra-minimalist model would be redefining "sovereign" as the people and having a vote in place of the Queen's selection. Not one I favour, but it's there.

The last thing i want is an elected head of state who has a democratic mandate. I'm not sure what problem you hope this will solve? Power should remain concentrated within the parliament; it is separation of powers mantra that forces governments to 'bribe' legislators with "pork Barrel" politics as is the case in the US.

In the past century the GG has had a contentious say only twice: once in 1927 and again last Fall.

And no, having the centuries old lineage of the Queen is much less prestigious than having a CBC journalist opening the Olympic games. /sarcasm.

I'm not particularly fond of the monarchy but the mess that can be unleashed when you try to replace it is enormous.

John Ralston Saul:

It's perfectly possible to elect a president without giving them a mandate. Just ask the Israelis or Irish. There are many ways to keep the role of president from being directly political or populist.

 

[Shekwan]

Interesting conversation a few pages back in this thread about Australia "de-westernising", and the idea that a large proportion of its population will soon be of "foreign" culture. Even if there was huge inflows of immigrants surely after a few generation they would be basically Australian anyway?

I mean theres lots people I know and have met here whose parents were immigrants from various countries like Korea or Nigeria and they're as Irish as me.

 

[Kerozine]

Interesting conversation a few pages back in this thread about Australia "de-westernising", and the idea that a large proportion of its population will soon be of "foreign" culture. Even if there was huge inflows of immigrants surely after a few generation they would be basically Australian anyway?

I mean theres lots people I know and have met here whose parents were immigrants from various countries like Korea or Nigeria and they're as Irish as me.

Very true, but I thought the point was that they didn't look like you.

 

[Shekwan]

Yeah thats probably it, although it will be denied.

Maybe Korean and Nigerian culture is "compatible" with Irish culture.

 

[Winner]

Interesting conversation a few pages back in this thread about Australia "de-westernising", and the idea that a large proportion of its population will soon be of "foreign" culture. Even if there was huge inflows of immigrants surely after a few generation they would be basically Australian anyway?

Why? What iron rule says that? And more importantly, what's "Australian"?

This irrational belief in spontaneous assimilation is especially funny coming from firm believers in multiculturalism - an ideology that goes directly against assimilation of immigrants.

 

[sysyphus]

Sysphus, won't it make more sense to rename the "Governor General" to "President" if that happens?

Would people really go out and vote for a "Governor General"? Do average Canadians understand what the position is for and what it represents?

A President takes a more active role than does a Governor General. A GG is more ceremonial but on occasion needs to take charge when Parliament gets out of control and begins to border on dysfunctional, this past December was a prime example.

@Orange Seeds, I agree that our system has worked very well for us, but look at how public morale slumped with the crisis that evolved last December, and Harper is still showing that he can take it down again.

If, with one little tweak to the system, Mme Jean had been able to put Parliament in its place quickly, the public may very well have been confident enough in the system to know that it doesn't in fact need serious overhaul. I'm sure you can appreciate that given that we have a PM who seems to think otherwise.

 

[dosed150]

Why? What iron rule says that? And more importantly, what's "Australian"?

This irrational belief in spontaneous assimilation is especially funny coming from firm believers in multiculturalism - an ideology that goes directly against assimilation of immigrants.

i don't think assimilation and multiculturalism are completely at odds sometimes elements of the immigrants cultures can influence the native culture while the immigrants adopt some elements of the native culture

as to australias position in the world i thought it was a bit odd that australia is the asia group for football world cup qualification, yet theres an oceania group which i would have thought they should be in

 

[sysyphus]

as to australias position in the world i thought it was a bit odd that australia is the asia group for football world cup qualification, yet theres an oceania group which i would have thought they should be in

They used to be, but they were so dominant in that group they were moved to give a fair chance to the other countries.

As far as the question "What is an Australian?" goes, we've wasted so much time contemplating that question applied to Canada with nothing to show for it... I wouldn't wish the same on our Aussie bretheren.

The Aussies know who they are and what they're all about and how they will be with a changing demographic. They don't need to explain it to the rest of us.

 

[Kerozine]

They used to be, but they were so dominant in that group they were moved to give a fair chance to the other countries.

As far as the question "What is an Australian?" goes, we've wasted so much time contemplating that question applied to Canada with nothing to show for it... I wouldn't wish the same on our Aussie bretheren.

The Aussies know who they are and what they're all about and how they will be with a changing demographic. They don't need to explain it to the rest of us.

That's a question that tends to be needlessly over-thought about.

 

[amadeus]

Nah, it's phonetic in Chinese too. 澳大利亚 - something like "oh - da - li - ah" I believe.

I think Japan has an alternate name based on the Chinese transilteration though

Japanese has a different system of writing (called katakana) for foreign words. Australia is translated as オーストラリア (o-sutoraria)

 

[Camikaze]

as to australias position in the world i thought it was a bit odd that australia is the asia group for football world cup qualification, yet theres an oceania group which i would have thought they should be in

That really doesn't have anything to do with Australia's position in the world, although it does reflect it. It is more a matter of convenience, and balance, as explained here.

 

[warpus]

A President takes a more active role than does a Governor General. A GG is more ceremonial but on occasion needs to take charge when Parliament gets out of control and begins to border on dysfunctional, this past December was a prime example.

Well.. If we do end up electing someone to represent the country, maybe he/she should have a bit of a more active role.

Say.. the way Poland does it. We have a Prime Minister (leads the Cabinet) and a President (The head of state)

 

[Kerozine]

Orange Seeds mentioned the enormous amount of trouble the country will have to go through in order to abolish/reform the post of GG.

With that, it should also include a massive overhaul of our political institutions such as reforming/abolishing the Senate, reforming the post of PM (not being elected by Parliament for instance), reforming the electoral system, etc. It's as serious as it gets when the country at large considers it necessary to abolish something so.. benign as the monarchy (i.e. normally insignificant).

Since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, a more complete amending formula has been adopted in the Constitution Act, 1982, in sections 38 to 49. Amendments can only be passed by the Canadian House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the national population (the 7/50 formula). Though not constitutionally mandated, a popular referendum in every province is also considered to be necessary by many, especially following the precedent established by the Charlottetown Accord (see below).

If a constitutional amendment only affects one province, however, only the assent of that province's legislature is required. Eight of the ten amendments passed so far have been of this nature, with four passed by and for Newfoundland and Labrador, one passed for New Brunswick, one for Nunavut, one for Prince Edward Island, and one for Quebec. Some of the above did also require approval by the federal Parliament under section 43(b) due to the English and French nature of the amendment.

There are some parts of the Constitution that can only be modified by a unanimous vote of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament, however. These include changes to the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, changing the process for amending the constitution itself, or any act affecting the Offices of the Canadian Monarch or Governor General.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Canada#Amendment_formulas

I might emphasize the need for a referendum as it would more affect the population at large in the long-term and on a permanent basis at that.

Spoiler :

Sorry if this is just a brain fart on my part.

 

[sysyphus]

As OS indicated, the country has worked quite well over the years, and a drastic overhaul may be more destructive than constructive.

If changes are to be made, they should be incremental. One large sweeping reform will fail miserably as the majority of people will find even one small thing that's enough for them to vote against it. A lesson learned from the Charlottetown Accord.

 

[Kerozine]

As OS indicated, the country has worked quite well over the years, and a drastic overhaul may be more destructive than constructive.

If changes are to be made, they should be incremental. One large sweeping reform will fail miserably as the majority of people will find even one small thing that's enough for them to vote against it. A lesson learned from the Charlottetown Accord.

Oh right, Charlottetown..

 

[Evie]

Heh, Charlottetown was useless anyway - it wouldn't have pacified Quebec.

Incidentally, this thread is very interesting from a Quebec perspective. It brings very interesting thoughts to mind on why Quebec and Canada are so alien to one another sometime.