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.
Am curious, why do you think it is necessary for a modern country like Canada to retain a head of state thousands of miles away? Really, am just wondering about countries like Canada and Australia that seem afraid to cut these old ties to England.
It isn't necessary to retain them. I don't think either country is afraid to cut ties to the UK, either.
For most, the monarchy plays no role at all in their day to day lives. If the queen were no longer head of state, absolutely nothing would change for them. So, why bother, except to make a symbolic gesture?
Originally Posted by tom77falcons Am curious, why do you think it is necessary for a modern country like Canada to retain a head of state thousands of miles away? Really, am just wondering about countries like Canada and Australia that seem afraid to cut these old ties to England.
It isn't necessary to retain them. I don't think either country is afraid to cut ties to the UK, either.
For most, the monarchy plays no role at all in their day to day lives. If the queen were no longer head of state, absolutely nothing would change for them. So, why bother, except to make a symbolic gesture?
Ditto what Stubblejumper said. It isn't necessary and it's not out of fear of cutting ties. It doesn't matter that our monarch establishes her traditional residence on the other side of the puddle.
I don't imagine her traditional place of residence is an issue with the other 15 countries that have her as monarch either.
It is our preference that it is the way it is .... it is what it is .... and as someone else mentioned, it's also a bit of a safety cushion against the elephant on the continent.
It's stress-free, familiar, homey, cozy and comfortable. Why should we cut ties with a tradition that is so comfortable?
There is a lot of passive indifference as well. People don't really think about it much, and since it doesn't have any negative impacts on them, well they have bigger fish to fry...
Personally, I am a non-monarchist and I think Canada should have its own head of state that is not associated as the head of state of another country. So if the question was asked in a vote, this is the way I would vote. But there are far more pressing issues so I am not particularly motivated to advocate change in this area.
Another reason it has never been changed (or a change has never been attempted) is to avoid a potentially divisive and hostile national debate on the issue. So most of our politicians prefer to avoid the issue entirely.
To substitute having a monarch as our Head of State we would need to have an elected Head of State. That would involve national elections with a national campaign where regional grievances come into play... In Canada that means opening up a whole can of worms.
Remember, there is no country in the world that only has a Parliament without an underlying head of state. (according to Wikipedia, for what its worth) The Prime Minister after all only represents his/her riding and leads the party.
I can appreciate the demographic upheaval that is going on in California and some other states, but the situation in Quebec is on a whole other level.
There is little or no assimilation of French speakers to English in Quebec. Almost all French speakers there use that language primarily in their personal and even professional lives.
The entire society is set up to function in French (with only a few exceptions) and has essentially been that way for roughly 400 years.
I don't think you're too familiar with the dynamic in California. There are places you will go where English is not used unless it has to be. With the exception of parts of the Bay Area, Hispanics don't assimilate like you might think they do. Then there's the whole situation with Ca. once being part of Mexico but I will not go into that. Just read some of the threads in the Ca. forum to get a feel for what I'm saying.
My point in all this is that it seems the French speakers in Quebec (correct me if I'm wrong) are also feeling like a land they felt belong to them first is "in danger" of being lost to the descendants of those who came after them. It does seem however that this has gone further in Canada since Quebec has some autonomy. Also Quebec's population and that of French Canadians in general is fixed and not continuously added to by immigration so, while I'm sure the dynamic is different, I don't see it as being potentially as volatile. I could be wrong about this.
It's tough to compare US/Canada numbers because "race" doesn't define the Quebec difference, language does. Wikipedia (Quebec page), first language:
French 80%
English 8%
Other 12%
Found those 2010 racial composition numbers on the CA dep't of finance website -- not sure how accurate they are but they have to be 'close' to the truth:
Non-hispanic white 42%
Hispanic 37%
Asian 12%
Black 6%
Other 3%
Another thing making the CA/QC comparison bogus is the dynamics that led to those demographics -- in CA this is the result of immigration. In QC it's the result of 400 years of history (although part of that history includes language laws and battles of the past 40 years that have triggered a decline of English all the way down to that 8%).
Remember, Hispanic isn't a race. It's an ethnicity that can be of any race. I wasn't really trying to "make a comparison" the way you think I was. I was simply trying to better understand the situation there and so needed to have a point of reference.
Ditto what Stubblejumper said. It isn't necessary and it's not out of fear of cutting ties. It doesn't matter that our monarch establishes her traditional residence on the other side of the puddle.
I don't imagine her traditional place of residence is an issue with the other 15 countries that have her as monarch either.
It is our preference that it is the way it is .... it is what it is .... and as someone else mentioned, it's also a bit of a safety cushion against the elephant on the continent.
It's stress-free, familiar, homey, cozy and comfortable. Why should we cut ties with a tradition that is so comfortable?
Then there's the whole situation with Ca. once being part of Mexico but I will not go into that. Just read some of the threads in the Ca. forum to get a feel for what I'm saying.
This is just such a completely bogus argument. Spain claimed the western USA for itself. It was never a part of "Mexico", whatever that is? Mexico was created by Spain, the Aztecs certainly never claimed California. What gave Spain the right to claim these territories?
It is pure bulls....
The bottom line is that California was largely settled by people from the eastern USA and they created the state of California. Just because Spain plunked down a few missions doesn't mean it was part of Mexico. The vast amount of Mexican immigration to the USA is what is changing the demographics. Personally, I want the door shut. Enough is enough.
Am curious, why do you think it is necessary for a modern country like Canada to retain a head of state thousands of miles away? Really, am just wondering about countries like Canada and Australia that seem afraid to cut these old ties to England.
It's not a fear of cutting old ties but a concern about upsetting the apple cart. We have built up a system of checks and balances that while flawed still works. Cutting old ties means replacing it with an unknown and opening old wounds. Quebec may decide they don't like the new arrangement.
All countries have a symbol that is supposed to be above politics. Politicians must answer to a higher power. In Canada that is the Queen, in other countries it is allegiance to the flag or the Constitution. In our parliamentary system the PM gets authority from a higher (supposedly) neutral authority, The Governor General, to open/close parliament, form a government etc... The GG decides if it's in the country's best interest to have coalition form a government -and if it provides stability for "peace, order and government".
Getting rid of the monarchy won't solve any problems - but I expect Canada will evolve to that eventually. The sad day of the death of QE2 will hasten that debate.
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.
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.
