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)
View Poll Results: What do you personally want to happen to the monarchy in Canada when Queen Elizabeth II dies?
We keep it 25 56.82%
We get rid of it 19 43.18%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2017, 09:18 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,075,374 times
Reputation: 1256

Advertisements

Having a constitutional monarchy is not something that is only largely ceremonial and it does not affect anything...sometimes it does...just ask the Australians about their 1975 constitutional crisis...maybe that is the reason why the boys and girls down under are a bit more eager to get rid of of the queen compared to Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2017, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Vancouver
12,697 posts, read 8,771,886 times
Reputation: 7314
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Having a constitutional monarchy is not something that is only largely ceremonial and it does not affect anything...sometimes it does...just ask the Australians about their 1975 constitutional crisis...maybe that is the reason why the boys and girls down under are a bit more eager to get rid of of the queen compared to Canada.
You're kidding right? You DO understand that it was actually the Governor General that did all that. Even though they are the representative of Her Majesty, Her Majesty had and has NO say in what the government does.

As this article ( the headline is misleading and sensational ) clearly points out

"The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch -- the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.697704d750ee

There would be hell to pay if The Monarchy tried to meddle in Canadian politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:04 AM
 
4,665 posts, read 2,645,995 times
Reputation: 3342
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
yeah, so many Americans who have absolutely nothing to do with this simply can't help making their decision on Canada's monarchy

Americans: when the choices say "we", it doesn't include you.
What?! When you guys say we, you don't automatically include Americans?!

I didn't vote, but as an American I do think it's a neat tradition you guys have held on to. I never equate Canada with the British monarchy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:21 AM
 
18,302 posts, read 10,393,778 times
Reputation: 13370
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Having a constitutional monarchy is not something that is only largely ceremonial and it does not affect anything...sometimes it does...just ask the Australians about their 1975 constitutional crisis...maybe that is the reason why the boys and girls down under are a bit more eager to get rid of of the queen compared to Canada.
O.K. let's ask:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...public-revived

Any bets as to how the latest example of a Federated Republic in action will influence their thinking even further?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:22 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,075,374 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
You're kidding right? You DO understand that it was actually the Governor General that did all that. Even though they are the representative of Her Majesty, Her Majesty had and has NO say in what the government does.

As this article ( the headline is misleading and sensational ) clearly points out

"The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch -- the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.697704d750ee

There would be hell to pay if The Monarchy tried to meddle in Canadian politics.

I'm not kidding at all....I never said that QE II sacked the elected Prime Minister of Australia....but the monarchy system allowed a non-elected individual to do so...that is the peril of what many people believe it is only a "ceremonial" institution you do not need to worry about.

Let's say that the Australians have reasons to be a bit more sensitive about the monarchy than Canadians.

The constitutional experts will clarify this but I believe that the Governor General of Canada has reserve powers as well as the GG of Australia.

By the way, QE II has never made public if she was being consulted by the GG in 1975 prior the sacking of Whitlam and Sir John Kerr is dead.

P.S.

Yes, the reserve power of dismissal do exist in Canada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power#Canada
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:25 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,075,374 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
O.K. let's ask:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...public-revived

Any bets as to how the latest example of a Federated Republic in action will influence their thinking even further?

Do you still believe in poll....do you??

This federated republic is doing just fine thank you...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:32 AM
 
18,302 posts, read 10,393,778 times
Reputation: 13370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
You're kidding right? You DO understand that it was actually the Governor General that did all that. Even though they are the representative of Her Majesty, Her Majesty had and has NO say in what the government does.

As this article ( the headline is misleading and sensational ) clearly points out

"The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch -- the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.697704d750ee

There would be hell to pay if The Monarchy tried to meddle in Canadian politics.
They also fail to realize the Governor Generals are appointed by the sitting governments so are de-facto representatives of the people acting with license from the monarchy. Here you have an excellent example of an authorized entity acting on behalf of the people, spanking the miscreants when they misbehave. I think that's kinda laudable and neat.

An entity completely immune from lobbyist influence, having the electorate's well being as it's primary concern, with the authority to demand accountability from elected representatives playing brinkmanship games. Gee; to die for!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:38 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,075,374 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Here you have an excellent example of an authorized entity acting on behalf of the people, spanking the miscreants when they misbehave. I think that's kinda laudable and neat.

.....best than comedy central....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:40 AM
 
18,302 posts, read 10,393,778 times
Reputation: 13370
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturno_v View Post
Do you still believe in poll....do you??

This federated republic is doing just fine thank you...
Polls are fine when they're conducted correctly.

"The paper draws on data from previous research, including the Australian Election Study, a long-running project to canvass public opinion in each federal election year."

And "fine" is only as relevant as the adjudicating individual

The jury's still out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2017, 11:41 AM
 
3,153 posts, read 2,075,374 times
Reputation: 1256
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post

Polls are fine when they're conducted correctly.
No, polls are fine until they are not....

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post

The jury's still out.

Exactly....so hold your horses on the "fiasco" label....and enjoy the weather!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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