(Abolish) the Monarchy II

102 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Wed, 2011-06-01 16:37

Uncle John

The President should be elected by an absolute majority of Canadian electors and have simple veto power over any legislation coming out of the House of Commons and Senate. I suggest a runoff election or some kind of AV system which would produce 50% + 1.

I think this would go a long way to solving the democratic deficit in this country, and put a brake on the Prime Minister's powers which are excessive under the current system, able as he is to appoint both the Senate and the GG. We need a check & balance on this power.

Wed, 2011-06-01 16:51

Snert

Good idea. I vote for Elizabeth Windsor.

Wed, 2011-06-01 16:55

Krago

You want the President to have veto power over all federal legislation because you're worried about the excessive powers of the Prime Minister?

Indeed.

Wed, 2011-06-01 16:57

6079_Smith_W

You are talking about something entirely different than abolishing the monarchy.

Do we not have a political system that is tied up in enough ribbons without giving a single person veto power who has nothing to do with the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government? What is the point?

What this does is CREATE absolute power where none existed before.

Really, the problem with much of the discussion we have been having is that some people are under the mistaken impression that that is what the monarch or the GG does, even though it is completely false. The GG is a figurehead, and the notion that there is any significant political power there is nonsense, and I certainly would not want to create a head of state which HAD power.

I may think changing the monarchy to a ceremonial republican position is a decent idea, but I am under no illusions that by taking this step we would be striking a blow against tyranny or throwing off our shackles. That happened in 1848, in 1926, and in 1982. This is just tidying up.

And no, I am not in favour of an elected GG. It would be pointless, and we might REALLY wind up with Don Cherry as our national poet laureat-slash-bard (and I might have to slash my wrists).

From what I have seen, we have had some very good GGs and Lieutenant Governors in recent history who were appointed. Try and do the same thing by committee or election and I think it would be a great mess, and satisfy no one. Or do you really want to see a string of sport figures TV personalities country music singers and cops doing that job?

Like it or not, that is what a popularity contest is likely to produce.

Wed, 2011-06-01 16:59

Uncle John

We need a check or balance on the power of the Prime Minister, and that check should be someone with democratic legitimacy. Currently the Prime Minister has absolute power with less than 40% of the vote. If you have a better idea to check the power of the Prime Minister, I am all ears.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:10

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Who watches the watchers? Who provides a check on the new President?

In our parliamentary system we rely on the people to throw out governments. Any PM who doesn't care about winning the next election has complete power in our system. If Harper wants to he can fundamentally alter our society and then resign in a timely fashion to pick a new Kim Campbell to but before the outraged voters. I am hoping he wants his party to continue in government as the new natural ruling party because that is what provides the check on a PM's power.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:10

6079_Smith_W

If there is going to be a check it needs to be within the existing legislative branch - where it belongs.

How about curtailing whipped voting, for one thing. Or open up control of the parliamentary agenda a bit more. Or take some of the appointments that are now made by the PM and put them under the control of parliament.

I agree with you about Harper's concentration of power within the PMO's office, but the solution is not to create a single office with even more autocratic power. Those who want power will just move in and take that over too, then we'll be really screwed.

The way to fight autocratic power is to take apart the concentrating of power Harper has built, and re-establishing parliament as a whole as the seat of authority.

Who was it who really called Harper on the carpet after all? The Speaker of the House.

I think you raise good points, but this is a fundamentally different question than the abolition of the monarchy.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:23

6079_Smith_W

It would also be a good thing if the government could be compelled to follow the direction of parliament.

The decision they passed to ask for Omar Khadr's return to Canada, and which Harper simply ignored, is a good recent example.

Or how about changing the terms for what constitutes a confidence motion? That is a good part of the reason why the opposition parties were so gunshy in the last parliament.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:23

robbie_dee

I agree that abolishing the monarchy and creating a new elected office of president are two separate ideas, although they can certainly be presented together as one proposal. The Governor General already has the reserve power to veto legislation by refusing to sign it, but constitutionally and practically does not exercise that power (at least not except in extreme circumstances). Once you start electing a GG or other head of state, the individual does have democratic legimacy and may assert the right to refuse to sign or "veto" legislation that they don't agree with. In the U.S. and most other presidential systems, the legislature has the power to override a veto by a supermajority vote, this could also be considered in Uncle John's proposal.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:23

#10

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
If you have a better idea to check the power of the Prime Minister, I am all ears.

Guillotines have been known to slow the buggers down.

Wed, 2011-06-01 17:24

#11

6079_Smith_W

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
If you have a better idea to check the power of the Prime Minister, I am all ears.

Guillotines have been known to slow the buggers down.

Well, they still drop at 32 ft per second squared.

Parts of them, anyway.

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:08

#12

Malcolm

robbie_dee wrote:

I agree that abolishing the monarchy and creating a new elected office of president are two separate ideas, although they can certainly be presented together as one proposal. The Governor General already has the reserve power to veto legislation by refusing to sign it, but constitutionally and practically does not exercise that power (at least not except in extreme circumstances). Once you start electing a GG or other head of state, the individual does have democratic legimacy and may assert the right to refuse to sign or "veto" legislation that they don't agree with. In the U.S. and most other presidential systems, the legislature has the power to override a veto by a supermajority vote, this could also be considered in Uncle John's proposal.

Which is exactly why those who claim abolishing the monarchy is simple are liars.

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:20

#13

Slumberjack

Malcolm wrote:
Which is exactly why those who claim abolishing the monarchy is simple are liars.

Simplicity is such a relative assessment isn't it? In that sense, perhaps we're just being treated to pie eyed optimism, as opposed to being subjected to your vitriolic description.

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:38

#14

Uncle John

I never said it would be simple.

There would be a lot of legal, parliamentary and extraparliamentary political, and democratic struggle.

But if we could get a referendum that replaced the monarchy with something which increased democracy, we would achieve two progressive goals at once.

There would of course have to be winning conditions for the referendum. The referendum seems like a good goal for an abolish the monarchy popular front. Unless you have any better ideas :)

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:42

#15

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I hate referendums. They are sooo republican and therefore easily subverted. I would prefer constitutional change to occur by our MP's voting for it.

I personally would expend no political capital on the Queen but a lot on PR and the Senate.

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:52

#16

6079_Smith_W

I think it might be possible to replace the monarchy, though I agree with Malcolm about the complexity, and that it is just not an issue of high priority - certainly not as high as proportional representation.

I don't see any damage being done by it that makes it something we have to deal with .

But unless we are talking about a position with NO POWER , I am not with you. That is essentially what we have right now - a monarchy and a GG with no power - and there is no reason at all to create yet another level of governmental nonsense, and create a position of absolute power in the hope that it will fix the problems we already have.

For one thing, can you imagine all of Canada - the west, eastern Canada, Quebec, the maritimes, Newfoundland and the north, accepting one person having veto power? Sounds like a recipe for even more problems and more division.

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:53

#17

Sean in Ottawa

Malcolm wrote:

robbie_dee wrote:

I agree that abolishing the monarchy and creating a new elected office of president are two separate ideas, although they can certainly be presented together as one proposal. The Governor General already has the reserve power to veto legislation by refusing to sign it, but constitutionally and practically does not exercise that power (at least not except in extreme circumstances). Once you start electing a GG or other head of state, the individual does have democratic legimacy and may assert the right to refuse to sign or "veto" legislation that they don't agree with. In the U.S. and most other presidential systems, the legislature has the power to override a veto by a supermajority vote, this could also be considered in Uncle John's proposal.

Which is exactly why those who claim abolishing the monarchy is simple are liars.

That is offensive.

And it can be relatively simple--

We have an institution of a head of State-- we can choose if we want to change its powers at the same time we choose who is in that role.

We could simply give the current GGs the title of President and preserve every other aspect of the position.

We could make it a little more complicated by changing how that position is selected-- by election rather than appointment for example

We could make it much more complicated by messing with the power vested int he position. This I would not do and only if you do that do you have something truly complicated.

If you look at the Irish President and the Canadian GG-- you will find they are very similar. The reason is they come from the same tradition. I would agree that installing a US model President here or making up from scratch what the role is becomes very complicated but why presume that?

Secondly-- the argument was about value-- not simplicity. I argue it would have value and that this would affect the attitudes and credibility of the people in the role of PM and President without changing the actual legal definitions.

In fact, I can make the argument that electing a President actually restores the balance that has been lost in the last number of decades. Consider that the political culture of 100 years ago did not question the authority of non-elected figures as much as they do now. The authority of the position 100 years ago would be more similar to an elected position today than retaining it using traditions that no longer have the same weight. A non-elected GG could stand up to a PM 100 years ago but started to have more trouble not long after and today really can't. An elected President might have the same authority today as a GG did way before the King-Byng affair.

You don't have to change everything to make a positive difference. And what I am proposing is tested (in Ireland for example) and relatively simple to achieve. There are real benefits to gaining greater moral and legal authority in these positions, in restoring what few checks and balances do exist for the role of PM and symbolism has value.

Wed, 2011-06-01 20:58

#18

6079_Smith_W

On second thought, I might be okay with a grand poobah with ultimate veto power - on the condition that position be chosen by the Assembly fo First Nations.

Wed, 2011-06-01 21:06

#19

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

On second thought, I might be okay with a grand poobah with ultimate veto power - on the condition that position be chosen by the Assembly fo First Nations.

I have considered this as well before. It is not nearly as frivolous an idea as it might first sound. And given the relationship they Aboriginal peoples had with the Crown, the balance this could help create and the appropriate symbolic role, this remains an interesting option. -- Perhaps without the "ultimate" veto power... ;-)

Wed, 2011-06-01 21:15

#20

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

On second thought, I might be okay with a grand poobah with ultimate veto power - on the condition that position be chosen by the Assembly fo First Nations.

I have considered this as well before. It is not nearly as frivolous an idea as it might first sound. And given the relationship they Aboriginal peoples had with the Crown, the balance this could help create and the appropriate symbolic role, this remains an interesting option. -- Perhaps without the "ultimate" veto power... ;-)

I think that an aboriginal head of state would be a great idea but only if the person was elected by aboriginal people not appointed by one of the numerous legitimate groups speaking on behalf of aboriginal people.

Wed, 2011-06-01 21:40

#21

Uncle John

As much democracy as possible....

Wed, 2011-06-01 21:51

#22

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think it might be possible to replace the monarchy, though I agree with Malcolm about the complexity, and that it is just not an issue of high priority - certainly not as high as proportional representation.

The two are equally easy to achieve.

Both will extend representative democracy in Canada

and can be done at the same time if desired.

Wed, 2011-06-01 21:55

#23

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Which is exactly why those who claim abolishing the monarchy is simple are liars.

Spoken by someone who is never satisfied unless something is complicated.

How simple do you want to make it?

I'll tell you how:

It's as simple as getting the Fair Vote in Canada.

Make it a referendum where the question asked is:

"Do you want (to abolish) the monarchy (the Fair Vote)? YES or NO."

Wed, 2011-06-01 22:15

#24

edmundoconnor

Frmrsldr (and others), you've made me reconsider the whole subject. I'm now leaning toward republicanism, albeit under strict conditions. I would want to see an alternative presented to the people of Canada vs. keeping the monarchy. Kicking it into a federal commission makes it less transparent and democratic, no matter how you cut it. And I would want to make absolutely certain the whole conversation doesn't make an extended detour on Constitution Drive.

I look at the situation on the basis of strict utility and net benefit for Canada's democracy. The moment people talk about 'awakening a national spirit', 'orf with their heads' or, heaven forbid, 'free at last!', they lose me. Overheated/reheated rhetoric, especially of the nationalistic/jingoist variety, is the last thing this discussion needs. It needs to be presented as a sane cost/benefit analysis.

Wed, 2011-06-01 23:11

#25

Frmrsldr

edmundoconnor wrote:

I would want to see an alternative presented to the people of Canada vs. keeping the monarchy. Kicking it into a federal commission makes it less transparent and democratic, no matter how you cut it. And I would want to make absolutely certain the whole conversation doesn't make an extended detour on Constitution Drive.

Attempting to draw such a road map that would include all options in exhaustive detail in a referendum would be impossible, confusing, act as a disincentive to people, undesirable and act as a diktat: The government attempting to channel the people in (a) certain direction(s) because it's not possible to have all the options and their details in a referendum.

A Referendum followed by a commission or panel that is independent; at arm's length and not controlled or directed by the government are ways of avoiding opening up a Constitutional debate and thus are a detour away from "Constitution Drive."

Discussions and investigations into the nature and make up of the Canadian government after a successful Referendum ideally should employ all means of communication and involve all members of society: The Prime Minister and government, Parliament and MPs, the public service, Premiers, provincial governments, MLAs, MNAs, unions and other civic organizations, First Nations, all Canadians interested in joining the discussion of Canada's future. Communication would be by person-to-person meetings, live video conferencing, teleconferencing, e-mail, texting, tweeting, letters sent through the post - you name it. There should be open dialogue among all parties and persons concerned with this issue and who wishes his/her voice to be heard. Changes will be based on the largest consensus. Questions could also be boiled down and could be decided by future referenda.

This would be a "project under construction," "a work in progress," built by the Canadian people.

Democracy for the people, by the people and of the people.

Thu, 2011-06-02 01:00

#26

Malcolm

Uncle John wrote:

I never said it would be simple.

There would be a lot of legal, parliamentary and extraparliamentary political, and democratic struggle.

But if we could get a referendum that replaced the monarchy with something which increased democracy, we would achieve two progressive goals at once.

There would of course have to be winning conditions for the referendum. The referendum seems like a good goal for an abolish the monarchy popular front. Unless you have any better ideas :)

My issue, as it has always been, is that on the list of things that undermine democracy in Canada, the purely symbolic and generally feckless monarchy is nowhere near the top of the list. Energy spent "struggling" to abolish the monarchy can be better expended on just about anything else. By analogy, if there's a fire in my attached garage and a sewer backup flood in my basement, repainting the bedroom ceiling is not my top priority.

Thu, 2011-06-02 01:12

#27

Malcolm

Sean, it is NOT that simple.

The Crown has significant notional power. In fact, to take the Constitution at its most literal, the Crown has virtually absolute power. By convention, the Crown exercises that power (except in extremis) only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The reason for the convention is that the Crown, being unelected, has no democratic legitimacy.

Having the officeholder elected by any means - even indirect election - confers on the office a democratic legitimacy that negates the rationale for the existing convention.

In other words, if the only change is to elect the GG (possibly by another title) then the effect is that we will have elected an unconstrained dictator.

Therefore, replacing the Governor General with an elected ceremonial President (or whatever) only works if we completely rewrite the Constitution to limit the executive authority of the office formally known as the Crown.

If you think that's a simple matter, fill your boots.

If you think that's more important than establishing a fairer electoral system, keeping big money out of politics, or addressing child poverty, you are welcome to make it a priority.

Fmrsldr, your inane ranting continues to demonstrate your ignorance of the issue.

Thu, 2011-06-02 04:01

#28

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

My issue, as it has always been, is that on the list of things that undermine democracy in Canada,...

Monarchy is a hereditary title/position/institution and therefore, by its very nature is unrepresentative, undemocratic and inegalitarian.

So um, yeah, the fact that Canada has involutarily had the British monarch as its head of state since Canada's foundation, not only undermines its sovereignty also undermines its democracy.

Malcolm wrote:

... the purely symbolic and generally feckless monarchy is nowhere near the top of the list. Energy spent "struggling" to abolish the monarchy can be better expended on just about anything else. By analogy, if there's a fire in my attached garage and a sewer backup flood in my basement, repainting the bedroom ceiling is not my top priority.

Yeah, we know your priorities Malcolm.

You love monarchy so much that it tickles your fancy that Canada is part of that children's bedtime fairy tale/Disney animated film world of kings, queens, fairy princesses, damsels in distress, valiant prince Charmings, etc.

Anything to try and prevent that world from crashing down.

However, surveys taken by the major polling companies over the past 20 years have shown a consistent majority of Canadians support abolishing the monarchy.

In this modern age, the time has truly come for an end to monarchy.

Relegate it to the world of children's bedtime fairy tales and Disney animated films where it belongs, I say. Not in the real world of adults.

Thu, 2011-06-02 06:41

#29

Ward

Check and Balance...How about a monthly online plebiscite? With the public vote being worth say...50 house of commons seats

Thu, 2011-06-02 07:18

#30

edmundoconnor

A commission/panel isn't as democratic as a referendum. Would you go back to the people a second time to put forward your idea to get their approval of it? Since they have just spoken on wanting to get rid of the monarchy, then surely they should be consulted on what they do want.

I still don't quite get why you couldn't have the independent commission/panel/whatever before any referendum, and present their preferred option as the alternative to the monarchy. Having a referendum is a decision to consult the people, in a system where, elections apart, the people are not consulted directly for their views. Deciding to present a firm alternative gives people a clear decision. Keeping the alternative a nebulous 'better' skews the debate to the republican side as people can always imagine something 'better' than what they have now, even if they can't imagine what that is. I'd prefer to keep the argument strictly based on the utility of such a change, and keep overblown rhetoric out of it.

Writing this, I sense you're trying to avoid the mistake Australian republicans made when they said that Parliament would choose the President, and not the people. The Australians made a rather odd decision in having more democracy (the referendum) to have the exact same amount as they did before (President elected by Parliament). The question was:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Being bundled in with an addition to the Constitution didn't help, either.

The solution here is to have a clear, well thought-out, alternative on the table in a referendum. It's hardly a 'diktat'. People can choose to vote yes, no, or not at all.

You seem to think that people have all the patience in the world while the commission fine-tunes its future model. What turnout would be sufficient to render such exercises legitimate? Any? I don't think it would be too much to ask for 50% turnout as a minimum barrier, especially on this subject.

Thu, 2011-06-02 09:58

#31

Frmrsldr

edmundoconnor wrote:

A commission/panel isn't as democratic as a referendum.

In my version, the role of the commission/panel consists solely of that of moderator. The politicians are not acting in their capacity, they are involved as citizens and their input into the process carries the same weight, is of equal value to that of any person. The purpose is to be inclusive of all. The people would be involved in the process through all the modern means of communication: live video conferences, teleconferences, e-mail, facebook, texting, tweeting, etc.

edmundoconnor wrote:

Would you go back to the people a second time to put forward your idea to get their approval of it? Since they have just spoken on wanting to get rid of the monarchy, then surely they should be consulted on what they do want.

In a word, yes.

In my original posting on the subject, I have a sentence buried in there that states along the lines that a consensus of the majority views would be boiled down and could be made into future referenda for the people to vote on.

edmundoconnor wrote:

I still don't quite get why you couldn't have the independent commission/panel/whatever before any referendum, and present their preferred option as the alternative to the monarchy. Having a referendum is a decision to consult the people,... Deciding to present a firm alternative gives people a clear decision. Keeping the alternative a nebulous 'better' skews the debate to the republican side as people can always imagine something 'better' than what they have now, even if they can't imagine what that is.

You have provided me with a perspective I haven't thought of before.

If the process is done the way I envisioned, the difference being that the commission/panel consultation process is done first, the roadmap is drawn and then the theory is put into practice by the people voting on it after - I can definitely support that.

That prevents the government from channeling the people in (a) certain direction(s) by limiting or eliminating their options which was my original fear.

My only other fear is that some may criticize the cost of the consultation process.

But hey, look at what they spent on the G8/G20 summit diktats.

Not nearly as much is going to be spent on the consultation referenda. Over $1 billion is not going to be required on security.

edmundoconnor wrote:

I'd prefer to keep the argument strictly based on the utility of such a change, and keep overblown rhetoric out of it.

As the process is one of open consultation run by an independent and politically neutral commission/panel, there probably won't be any overblown rhetoric, except perhaps, from some pro monarchist diehard objectionists who may wish to attempt to obstruct the process.

edmundoconnor wrote:

Writing this, I sense you're trying to avoid the mistake Australian republicans made when they said that Parliament would choose the President, and not the people. The Australians made a rather odd decision in having more democracy (the referendum) to have the exact same amount as they did before (President elected by Parliament). The question was:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Being bundled in with an addition to the Constitution didn't help, either.

Yes.

That was the greatest concern that was in my mind.

edmundoconnor wrote:

The solution here is to have a clear, well thought-out, alternative on the table in a referendum. It's hardly a 'diktat'.

If done in this manner you are entirely correct, it certainly wouldn't be the diktat I was concerned about.

edmundoconnor wrote:

You seem to think that people have all the patience in the world while the commission fine-tunes its future model. What turnout would be sufficient to render such exercises legitimate? Any? I don't think it would be too much to ask for 50% turnout as a minimum barrier, especially on this subject.

The length of time of the process could be a factor and should be clearly set at the outset. I'm thinking it shouldn't be longer than half a year. So 16 to 24 weeks (4 to 6 months) max, perhaps(?).

The effort to inform and contact the people should be very similar to the effort to inform and contact people as done by the Census. All effort should be made for video conferencing (could be done at community centers, townhome meeting style) and teleconferencing to be available to as many people as possible. Through facebook, texting, tweeting, email, etc., I think the turnout or input of the peole will be much higher than 50%.

As for the requirement for the ballot/referenda to pass: 50%+1.

Thu, 2011-06-02 10:10

#32

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

The Crown has significant notional power. In fact, to take the Constitution at its most literal, the Crown has virtually absolute power.

Which "constitution" are you talking about?

The British or Canadian?

If Britain, Britain doesn't have one - only conventions, Magna Carta and here and there throughout its laws.

If Canadian, are you sure it refers to the power of the British crown/monarch or the Canadian Guvnah (Genral)?

Malcolm wrote:

By convention, the Crown exercises that power (except in extremis) only on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Again, what are you talking about - Britain or Canada?

If Canada, when was the last time "the crown [of Britain] exercised its power on the advice of the (Canadian) Prime Minister?"

When Trudeau asked Lizzie to sign the Canadian Constitution back in '82?

Malcolm wrote:

Having the officeholder elected by any means - even indirect election - confers on the office a democratic legitimacy that negates the rationale for the existing convention.

In other words, if the only change is to elect the GG (possibly by another title) then the effect is that we will have elected an unconstrained dictator.

O.K. so now you've jumped back to Canada.

Let's ignore the option of not replacing the Guvnah and Parliament reclaiming powers lost by Prime Ministerial creep over the past decades.

Otherwise, a hereditary position is always preferable over an elected one:

You just can't trust the "mob" out there, don't you know.

I think that's how an elitist would put it. Or have I got it wrong?

Other countries that were monarchies like Germany, the Republic of Ireland and South Africa among others, have made the transition and haven't suffered from "electing unconstrained dictators."

Your paranoia is more theoretical than real.

Otherwise, how do you account for these former monarchies who made the successful transition without electing unconstrained dictators?

In your opinion, why were these countries a success and Canada is such a basket case?

Malcolm wrote:

Therefore, replacing the Governor General with an elected ceremonial President (or whatever) only works if we completely rewrite the Constitution to limit the executive authority of the office formally known as the Crown.

Now you're jumping back and forth between Canada and Britain.

In that last quote, you talk about replacing the Canadian Guvnah and "limiting the executive authority of the office formally known as the crown" in the same breath.

The Canadian Guvnah is the British monarch's representative when the British monarch is not in Canada.

The Canadian Guvnah and the British monarch are not the same, so why do you phrase it as if they are?

Malcolm wrote:

Fmrsldr, your inane ranting continues to demonstrate your ignorance of the issue.

Malcolm, your inane ranting continues to demonstrate how much of a pro monarchist propagandist you are.

Thu, 2011-06-02 11:20

#33

6079_Smith_W

@ edmundoconnor

You can hold a referendum. It just wouldn't be binding.

For one thing, it is not just a federal question.

Any constitutional change like this would be a process between the federal and provincial governments. That is exactly the point Quebec raised this week with respect to senate reform.

A referendum is certainly something they would take under advisement, but they certainly wouldn't have to obey it, or even act on it at all. And all the actual decisions would come down to horsetrading and broken deals, and some people not getting what they want - just like the repatriation of the constitution.

So no, it is not simple.

Thu, 2011-06-02 11:35

#34

Malcolm

Fmrsldr, all I've ever talked about in this regard is Canada. Whether the UK wishes to abolish the monarchy or not is the UK's business. You are deliberately trying to confuse the debate by misrepresenting what I've said and lying about my position. It's bad enough you have no clue what you`re talking about. Your constant lies only add to the confusion.

The Canadian Constitution establishes all executive authority in "the Crown" - which means the monarch or (de facto) the Governor General acting as the delegate of the monarch. If one merely replaces the Governor General with a President, then all executive power will reside with that office.

The Crown or its replacement (assuming no other Constitutional amendment) has absolute executive power. By convention (and convention does have constitutional significance in all Westminster systems) the Crown only exercises its authority on the advice of the person who holds the confidence of the House of Commons (except in extremis). This is because the Crown lacks democratic legitimacy.

If the replacement office holder is elected - directly or indirectly - then the office will have democratic legitimacy and the previous convention will cease to have effect, barring further and extensive amendments to the Constitution delimiting the power of the office. As a result, the elected President, in Canada, would hold and be free to exercise the full notional authority of the office, without let or hindrance by the House of Commons or anyone else.

This is simply a fact, Fmrsldr - a fact that has been explained to you countless times over the past few months and a fact you defiantly ignore because it does not conform to your ignorant prejudices.

My position has been crystal clear throughout, and I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about it.

There is no reason in principle not to abolish the monarchy, and overall it would be a desirable outcome.
There are significant complications in any proposal to abolish the monarchy, quite apart from the need to win the consent of Parliament and all ten provincial legislatures. Indeed, the seemingly simplest solutions actually create the most complications.
Given that the Crown exercises absolutely no real power (except in extremis), there is no logical reason for this to be a priority for any future progressive government.
Political and consitutional energy focussed on this issue is political and constitutional energy taken away from other far more pressing issues - and indeed a focus on this issue would likely derail any serious attempt to address other, more pressing constitutional issues.

You are welcome to believe that this meaningless eccentricity of the Canadian Constitution is the most pressing issue of the day. That merely demonstrates the depths of your ignorance.

At a certain level, the act of governing is about choosing priorities. No government can enact all of its agenda in one fell swoop, and governments that overreach in this regard do not last very long. While addressing simple symbolic issues can be a "quick and dirty" way for a government (especially a new government) to rack up some quick victories, meddling in more complicated symbolic issues tends to become a quagmire which derails a government from addressing more significant priorities.

Apparently you would prefer to see any future progressive government in Canada bogged down dealing with complicateed trifles.

Thu, 2011-06-02 11:46

#35

Uncle John

Oh lets put dealing with the reactionary "Monarchy" off, for.. like.. forever...

Doesn't matter that a lot of us think it makes us look like serfs and peons...

Why can't we choose our own leaders and determine our own future?

Surely basic democracy over autocracy is a priority?

Thu, 2011-06-02 12:03

#36

Ward

At some point I expect it would be polite for "The Royalty" to offer their version of the "Clairity Act"....surely they must have some degree of faith in their subjects ability to look after themselves by now.

Thu, 2011-06-02 12:07

#37

Uncle John

No matter what the power of the monarchy, they are posited as our social "betters" by virtue of a lucky sperm event. Canadians should be free from this psychological oppression, once and for all.

Thu, 2011-06-02 12:31

#38

6079_Smith_W

@ Uncle John

As someone who lives in a province where a large percentage of the votes were completely discounted because of gerrymandering and FPTP, I can think of real things undermining our democracy that need to be dealt with right now:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/05/03/sk-vote-boun...

If you have some evidence that we live in an autocracy however, and that that is more pressing, I invite you to make your case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy

Thu, 2011-06-02 13:41

#39

Malcolm

Uncle John wrote:

Oh lets put dealing with the reactionary "Monarchy" off, for.. like.. forever...

Doesn't matter that a lot of us think it makes us look like serfs and peons...

Why can't we choose our own leaders and determine our own future?

Surely basic democracy over autocracy is a priority?

If the Crown were exercising any real power, it would be scandalous and this would be a pressing issue.

As it is, it is merely a strange quirk, about as embarrassing as a zit on one's nose, and about as important.

Thu, 2011-06-02 13:43

#40

Uncle John

According to the above Wiki: Autocracy is defined by one individual having unlimited legislative and executive power:

Well, we have a Prime Minister who has dictatorial powers, with no checks and balances on his authority.

1. The monarchy is used as a cover for the Prime Ministerial dictatorship, giving "Royal Assent" through an official appointed by the same Prime Minister. My proposal: Replace the monarchy with an official elected by 50% + 1, who has veto power over the Prime Minister.

2. The Senate is a body of "sober second thought", also completely appointed by the same Prime Minister. My proposal: Abolish the Senate or replace it with an elected body. I am open to ideas of equality of provinces or Nations, however in my opinion the more democratic it is, the better it will be. My late mom had this really different idea of a House of Lobbies where you would have a boss and a union rep from each industrial sector. I don't know how well that would work, but at least it would get the Lobbying out in the open. Seems like the Senate now is a clandestine House of Lobbies.

3. The Cabinet, which is also completely appointed by the Prime Minister, was supposed to be a place were public policy was debated at a high level. The power of the Cabinet has been usurped by the Prime Minister's Office since about Trudeau.

4. The Caucus, who are trained seals, and dare not step out of line, especially after hearing the fate of Ms. Guergis. Clearly, you don't challenge Mr. Harper's authority and get away with it. Many Caucus are there because the PMO appointed the candidates, brushing aside the democratic will of the Tory riding associations.

These non-prime ministerial positions and bodies are designed to give the illusion of being a check on Prime Ministerial Power, but they are appointed by the same Prime Minister. Hence, we have an autocratic government.

In fairness, we cannot say this all Stephen Harper's fault. This Banana Republican Prime Ministerial Dictatorship has been going on at least since Trudeau, got worse under Mulroney, Chretien, and Martin, and is now in the sorry state of affairs we see today. The system has given Mr. Harper an inch, and we should not be surprised if he has taken a mile.

Psychologically (which is sort of my not-necessarily-correct angle on things), we have had "Tough Guy" or "Strong Man" leaders. There is a big neofascist constituency who like Strong Man leaders, however this should be anathema to any Democrat, New or otherwise. I am not a big fan of "leadership", as I think democratic centralism is probably the way to go. If we all had a hand in a decision which was wrong, at least we can all shoulder part of the blame for it, and shoulder some of the responsibility for its mitigation.

We need more democracy in our system. I do not claim to have all the answers, however we have to move forward in a more democratic direction if Canada is going to be progressive. Psychologically, I find the current state of affairs to be a little oppressing and hence depressing.

Thu, 2011-06-02 13:46

#41

Malcolm

Uncle John, the United States, France, Russia, Syria, Argentina, Pakistan, China, both Koreas and Singapore (just for a few examples) have no monarchs. I am pleased to learn that these countries are all egalitarian utopiae with no meaningful amount of class division or social exclusion.

If you believe that changing the Governor General to the President will get rid of the idea that some people are better than others, then you are seriously deluded.

Thu, 2011-06-02 13:53

#42

Uncle John

I believe that changing an unelected person for an elected one is a good thing.

Just because things didnt work out the way you wanted them to in other countries does not mean we don't have the right to try them here.

If I can get rid of the President through MY VOTE and those of my FELLOW CITIZENS I have POWER over that President. I have NO POWER OVER THE QUEEN. I don't know why you have such a contempt for democracy.

You can say I am deluded all you like. Malcolm, I experienced worse from better. However even on IRC, when you attack the person and not the ideas, you have LOST THE ARGUMENT.

Q.E.D.

Thu, 2011-06-02 14:16

#43

6079_Smith_W

@ Uncle John

Aside from the fact that you have not presented a case. As in.... show me a concrete example of two of the Queen or the GG overriding democracy.

What you propose in the OP is giving one person REAL sole power to approve or spike all legislation. I think that is a dangerous and anti-democratic idea. Not to mention that it is completely unnecessary and does not solve anything.

Thu, 2011-06-02 14:46

#44

Uncle John

I think I did present a case that our system is autocratic. To improve that, we need to be more democratic. We now have one person who makes all the decisions, with no checks or balances on his power. Having another person as a check on that unlimited power is somehow worse? The very idea of having an unelected monarchy and appointed GG overrides democracy. All the time, for its continued existence.

How is giving power to someone who has been elected by a majority of electors 'dangerous and anti-democratic'? We elect them to have power. Otherwise, why bother voting? If they do a bad job, we get to boot them out. Unlike the current system.

Currently we have one person with the REAL sole power to do anything he wants, as executive order or as legislation. He holds all the cards. There is no check on his power. I want more democracy and more accountability to the people. I believe we will get better government that way.

Thu, 2011-06-02 15:13

#45

Krago

The Monarch (or Governor General) defers to the Prime Minister. If s/he is unsure who is the Prime Minister, s/he defers to Parliament. If Parliament is unsure who is the Prime Minister, s/he defers to the people.

Not too difficult to understand, is it?

Thu, 2011-06-02 15:29

#46

Uncle John

The GG defers to the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the Prime Minister.

The Senate defers to the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the Prime Minister.

The Cabinet defers to the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the Prime Minister.

Parliament defers to the Prime Minister, and Government MPs are approved by the Prime Minister.

Yeah, not too difficult to understand.

Thu, 2011-06-02 15:43

#47

Snert

Quote:

No matter what the power of the monarchy, they are posited as our social "betters" by virtue of a lucky sperm event. Canadians should be free from this psychological oppression, once and for all.

You can free yourself right now.

Lots of people think they're better than you. So? Why are you playing along?

Thu, 2011-06-02 16:11

#48

6079_Smith_W

Uncle John wrote:

I think I did present a case that our system is autocratic.

No I don't think I did get an example - a real example of the GG going against protocol and subverting democracy.

THe only one I can think of in recent history - and it is debatable - is King-Byng in the 20s. The notion that this is an ongoing antidemocratic problem is a myth.

Thu, 2011-06-02 17:03

#49

Malcolm

Uncle John wrote:

I believe that changing an unelected person for an elected one is a good thing.

Indeed, it is.

But why should changing a largely irrelevant ceremonial office be a priority when there are real issues to deal with? That's what none of you hot-to-trot republicans have been able to answer.

Thu, 2011-06-02 17:04

#50

Malcolm

Uncle John wrote:

The GG defers to the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the Prime Minister.

The Senate defers to the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the Prime Minister.

The Cabinet defers to the Prime Minister, and is appointed by the Prime Minister.

Parliament defers to the Prime Minister, and Government MPs are approved by the Prime Minister.

Yeah, not too difficult to understand.

There are a host of problems with our system. The choice between calling Dr. Johnston Governor General or President fails to make the top 50.

Thu, 2011-06-02 17:09

#51

Malcolm

6079_Smith_W wrote:

THe only one I can think of in recent history - and it is debatable - is King-Byng in the 20s. The notion that this is an ongoing antidemocratic problem is a myth.

And there is an argument to be made (though certainly not a decisive one) that Byng's position was more respectful of democracy than King's - though in the end the people chose to back King.

We have two other rumoured examples of the vice-regal authority being used to warn off a first minister. Schreyer is said to have told Trudeau that he would not go along with any unilateral attempt to patiate the Constitution, and Fedoruk is said to have made it clear to Grant Devine that if he had better render the necessary advice to call the '91 election in Saskatchewan. In the latter case, the threat was to dismiss Devine and invite a new Premier (not necessarily Romanow) to render the necessary advice.

Pages

Topic locked