U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-24-2016, 08:40 PM
 
18,296 posts, read 10,390,605 times
Reputation: 13361

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
Or doing anything at all. Quite a nice gig: Get paid $20 million a year to live in ostentatious wealth and do absolutely nothing. Which is why Americans would never go for it. We value meritocracy over aristocratic tradition.
Oh really? What a crock of unadulterated shyte!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cMlIsd0seo

 
Old 12-24-2016, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Brisbane
3,521 posts, read 5,465,186 times
Reputation: 2830
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
The difference being, of course, that the public has no say into their Head of State in Canada (or the UK or Australia, etc).

It's quite an undemocratic and backward system to put people on your money whose only claim to power is being birthed into a diamond-encrusted crib. And there are no democratic means to get rid of them. Queen Elizabeth has been at the helm for 64 years.
Its actually very easy to get rid of the monarchy. It involves a democratic vote to change the constitution of each country. The monarch has no say at all it that process. The reason why QE2 has been the monarch for 64 years is that she does not enter into the political affairs of the various countries she rules over. If she ever did the chances are she would loose the commonwealth very quickly.
 
Old 12-24-2016, 09:28 PM
 
4,454 posts, read 5,748,553 times
Reputation: 2186
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775 View Post
Its actually very easy to get rid of the monarchy. It involves a democratic vote to change the constitution of each country. The monarch has no say at all it that process. The reason why QE2 has been the monarch for 64 years is that she does not enter into the political affairs of the various countries she rules over. If she ever did the chances are she would loose the commonwealth very quickly.
Well if Canada or Australia will be a republic, then the head of state will not be neutral and certainly be actively be involved in the political affairs of the country. It could be an unelected official that can be president too.

Anyway I do not think most Canadians or Australians would want a unelected official to be president if they ever become republics.
 
Old 12-24-2016, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Brisbane
3,521 posts, read 5,465,186 times
Reputation: 2830
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99 View Post
Anyway I do not think most Canadians or Australians would want a unelected official to be president if they ever become republics.
Personally i think that is the reason why the last republic vote in Australia failed.

Another interesting thing is that their is nothing that i can tell that says the Monarch of england needs to be the the monarch of Australia/Canada etc. If for example our Parliament wishes to appoint Mary Donaldsons son (The future king of the Denmark) as the Australian monarch, they could, without the need to change the constitution.

Last edited by danielsa1775; 12-24-2016 at 10:46 PM..
 
Old 12-24-2016, 09:41 PM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,110,808 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Oh really? What a crock of unadulterated shyte!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cMlIsd0seo
Quite the weak argument deflect. What do you expect the U.S. President to do: go to every monarchy and kick their crown prince in the groin?

Being overwhelmingly opposed to monarchy doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't engage with monarchies. Just like how a Canadian visiting Cuba for vacation doesn't mean they want Fidel Castro to be PM. Very weak argument on your part.
 
Old 12-24-2016, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,110,808 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775 View Post
Its actually very easy to get rid of the monarchy. It involves a democratic vote to change the constitution of each country. The monarch has no say at all it that process. The reason why QE2 has been the monarch for 64 years is that she does not enter into the political affairs of the various countries she rules over. If she ever did the chances are she would loose the commonwealth very quickly.
And even then 45% of Australians voted to abolish the monarchy in 1999. Imagine what happens when King Charles and Queen of Flatulence Camilla Parker-Bowles take the reins/reigns.
 
Old 12-24-2016, 10:52 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,491,264 times
Reputation: 4657
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa View Post
And even then 45% of Australians voted to abolish the monarchy in 1999. Imagine what happens when King Charles and Queen of Flatulence Camilla Parker-Bowles take the reins/reigns.
Puppet figures.
His son is already the apparent heir and people's prince.

They will be proud to be associated with the forward thinking royals.
 
Old 12-24-2016, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,178 posts, read 1,755,788 times
Reputation: 2652
Quote:
Originally Posted by other99 View Post
Well if Canada or Australia will be a republic, then the head of state will not be neutral and certainly be actively be involved in the political affairs of the country. It could be an unelected official that can be president too.

Anyway I do not think most Canadians or Australians would want a unelected official to be president if they ever become republics.
Not necessarily.

I can see an unelected official being head of state of a Commonwealth realm if and only if that official had the same duties and powers as the current one; that is, nothing serious, politically-speaking; and certainly nothing unconstitutional. Oh, they can open hospitals, visit disaster-affected areas, and bestow honours as much as they like (on the advice of the current government, of course), but they cannot take an active role in governing.

This is where some (not all) Americans have problems: they fail to see that the offices of Head of State and Head of Government are two separate offices. In the American President, they are combined; and a US President takes an active role in the government of the nation. In the Commonwealth realms, these offices are separate, and the head of state is not allowed to take part in governing.

To begin with, the head of state in Commonwealth realms under a Westminster system is necessarily apolitical--this does not mean that anything the monarch does is undemocratic; rather, it is very democratic, as the monarch (head of state) takes the advice of the prime minister (head of government) who holds the confidence of the House of Commons and Senate; one or both of which (depending on realm) has been democratically elected. I should state that "taking the advice of the prime minister" is constitutional-law-speak for "doing what the prime minister says." In other words, the monarch is, constitutionally-speaking, bound to do what the democratically-elected government wants. Constitutional-law scholars in Canada have a saying: "The Queen reigns, but does not rule." Ruling would make her political, and making political rulings is the job of the government. It is not the job of the head of state in a Commonwealth country.

In other words, if Canada was to move to electing (or appointing) its head of state, and that person's powers were limited to what the Queen currently has, then we could elect (or appoint) any Canadian: Celine Dion, Dan Aykroyd, Justin Bieber, Wayne Gretzky ... it wouldn't matter, because they would have no political say in how Canada is governed.
 
Old 12-25-2016, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,110,808 times
Reputation: 1908
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Not necessarily.

I can see an unelected official being head of state of a Commonwealth realm if and only if that official had the same duties and powers as the current one; that is, nothing serious, politically-speaking; and certainly nothing unconstitutional. Oh, they can open hospitals, visit disaster-affected areas, and bestow honours as much as they like (on the advice of the current government, of course), but they cannot take an active role in governing.

This is where some (not all) Americans have problems: they fail to see that the offices of Head of State and Head of Government are two separate offices. In the American President, they are combined; and a US President takes an active role in the government of the nation. In the Commonwealth realms, these offices are separate, and the head of state is not allowed to take part in governing.

To begin with, the head of state in Commonwealth realms under a Westminster system is necessarily apolitical--this does not mean that anything the monarch does is undemocratic; rather, it is very democratic, as the monarch (head of state) takes the advice of the prime minister (head of government) who holds the confidence of the House of Commons and Senate; one or both of which (depending on realm) has been democratically elected. I should state that "taking the advice of the prime minister" is constitutional-law-speak for "doing what the prime minister says." In other words, the monarch is, constitutionally-speaking, bound to do what the democratically-elected government wants. Constitutional-law scholars in Canada have a saying: "The Queen reigns, but does not rule." Ruling would make her political, and making political rulings is the job of the government. It is not the job of the head of state in a Commonwealth country.

In other words, if Canada was to move to electing (or appointing) its head of state, and that person's powers were limited to what the Queen currently has, then we could elect (or appoint) any Canadian: Celine Dion, Dan Aykroyd, Justin Bieber, Wayne Gretzky ... it wouldn't matter, because they would have no political say in how Canada is governed.
Great, do that then. I don't see why Canadians put someone on their currency who neither roots for Canada during the Olympics nor visits the country frequently. Seems very desperate to me.
 
Old 12-25-2016, 12:40 AM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,491,264 times
Reputation: 4657
Regarding saving the planet and global warming ... fossil fuel uses and products.

Clay has replaced plastics in some car engine parts. Can clay replace plastics in medicine?
Clay is sterilizable, like plastic. Can it be manufactured at the same cost as plastic?
Why is fossil fuel based plastic chosen over ceramics and other sustainable products?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top