"It is time to say goodbye to our indisputably British monarch."

Actually the protocol is that the governor general follow the direction of the prime minister, not parliament. You are mistaken.

You know, I said before that I don't mind talking with you , or that you are American, but you are being very insulting about something you do not seem to have a good understanding of.

You don't like the monarchy, fine. But calling our system degrading, humiliating and fucked up is over the line.

NDPP wrote:

OK then I will: Our system is degrading, humiliating and fucked up.

For the reasons he believes? I don't think so. Sorry, but his arguments aren't based on anything at all, Our government doesn't go begging to the queen to sign laws and you know it.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And Malcolm

No attacks from me. I agree with you - except that I have no problem with a head of state appointed by the head of government, or a commons committee.

And if we were to have a head of state other than the monarch, the easiest choice fror me would be either an appointed GG, or the Speaker of the House of Commons.

I'd be concerned that an office holder purely a creature of the Prime Minister would never exercise the reserved powers, even when justified.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Why are you so wrapped around the axle over the U.S.A. as being the one and only example to follow?

You do see the irony in what you're saying, I should hope.

The only irony is what you see.

Provide me a quote where I have argued that Canada ought to follow the U.S.A.'s example.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Frmrsldr

Actually while we are back on this ridiculous subject you said something at the end of our last discussion that I found both ignorant and kind of insulting. You said that your colonists became "Americans" and asked what the identity of British North Americans was, as if to imply that is all we are. It is complete nonsense. 

In the first place your country was a number of distinct colonies with distinct and in sone things very conflicted cultures.  

And at least 20 percent of those people actually remained loyal to crown and had to leave your country as refugees. And a lot of people down there didn't care one way or another.

I had several lines of my family who lived in your country since the first white people came there, including one put his name on your declaration of independence, and another family whose father was in the vermont militia during your revolutionary war but whose children decided to come north to ontario. It is not so cut and dried as you make out. 

And as for the people here, we were not "British North Americans" There were Canadians, Nova Scotians, Quebecois, Acadien, Prince Edward Islanders, Newfoundlanders, Mohawk, Iroquois, Metis, African Canadian, and numerous other cultures at least as complex, and probably moreso than yours. 

It seems enough "Americans" were able to agree on one thing in the 1770s and that was they weren't British and they didn't want to ultimately be governed from London or have British troops stationed in America.

Fair enough about your comments concening the people living in British North America (Canada.)

The term "British North America" was coined by the British, from the British North America Act.

Better that than the Spanish ca nada, or "nothing here."

Frmrsldr wrote:

The protocol in Britain is that the monarch follows the direction of Parliament. It started out that way in Canada, but has since been corrupted by the more imperial or Presidential Prime Minster creep that has occurred over the past decades.

I'm not calling your entire government system degrading, humiliating and fucked up.

Only those issues I specifically raised.

So don't address those issues.

Just use thinly veiled ad hominem arguments.

And blow smoke in our faces instead.

This isn't Britain, Frmrsldr, it is Canada. 

On the one hand you refer to us as humiliated by the monarchy, and then you refer to our system of government as a corruption of the British one?

Surely you must be aware of the only time a GG has turned down a prime minister's request since confederation - in 1926. It was one of the reasons for the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster you keep going on about. And the only "corruption" that came about because of that was that it was made clear that the GG was working for us - not for the British parliament.

(edit)

And they were actually calling it British North America for awhile before the BNA Act, which was passed in 1867. But it was also refered to by the proper names of its colonies - Upper and Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, as well as your colonies.

My problem was witht he way you used the term to imply that we did not have cultural and poltiical  identities of our own, and I think you know that.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Provide me a quote where I have argued that Canada ought to follow the U.S.A.'s example.

Well, there was the time you got a wrapped around the axle whan I suggested that we didn't necessarily have to call a new head of state "President."  Indeed, if we were to proceed with this unimportant matter, I'd rather we specifically did NOT call the head of state "President," if only to piss off a certain imperialist American.

Malcolm wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Provide me a quote where I have argued that Canada ought to follow the U.S.A.'s example.

Well, there was the time you got a wrapped around the axle whan I suggested that we didn't necessarily have to call a new head of state "President."  Indeed, if we were to proceed with this unimportant matter, I'd rather we specifically did NOT call the head of state "President," if only to piss off a certain imperialist American.

What are you talking about?

Find the quote where I got pissed off over your suggestion that you didn't necessarily have to call a new head of state "President."

You don't have to do the search.

But if you do

you will run into the (at least) one where I argue that the Guvnah doesn't even need to be replaced by a single person but could either be replaced by the Constitution or the powers could be shared out among the Supreme Court/Justice, Speaker of the House, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and/or other appropriate positions.

Why would I get wrapped around the axle on a name over a position that may not even be necessary?

I wouldn't.

I don't.

Must be someone else you're confusing me for.

Hmm double post

Slumberjack wrote:

This yankie name calling is so unnecessary.  

My feelings precisely. I used to participate in an American board and made my feelings about American imperialism well known, and I was never called out as an interfering Canuck. I expect the same kind of courtesty here.

closing for length

6079_Smith_W wrote:

My problem is with us being called hypocrites, children, slaves, and our system being called humiliating, degrading, a corruption, and fucked up

These are analogies. Not personal attacks.

Bacchus wrote:

No they are perosnal attacks.

Oh. Since you're referring to what I wrote, I guess you're clairvoyant.

You know my own mind better than I do.

The next time I try to figure out what I write, I'll consult you.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Come on Frmrsldr, I am willing to talk with you, but if you are so dedicated to matters of principle at least have the guts to stand by your own words.

Where have I ever betrayed the courage of my own convictions?

Quotes help.

Malcolm wrote:

The issue here is very clear.  Unless we all agree to think as Fmrsldr would have us think, then we are "hypocrites, children [and] slaves" and our parliamentary system is "humiliating, degrading, a corruption and fucked up."

Further more, these epithets apply should we disagree with his . . . creative . . . explanations of how our system works, none of which bear the least resemblance to reality.

Where do I state that "unless you agree to think as I would have you think," then the (quoted remarks) follow?

I don't.

Malcolm wrote:

It is amusing that he has taken to referring repeatedly to the Statute of Westminster of late, given that he denied the significance of it a few months back.

I found your claim that the abdication of Eddy VIII was/resulted in a change in the laws of succession quite amusing.

I found your interpretation (even an incorrect date was given) of the Statute of Westminster quite amusing.

I also find it amusing that you haven't found any fault with my understanding of this law.

Frmrsldr wrote:

 

Where have I ever betrayed the courage of my own convictions?

Quotes help.

Are you kidding me?

To call us hypocrites, children, slaves, and all manner of insulting names, and then claim it is just an analogy and not a personal attack is to not stand by your words, 

Even though I disagree strongly with you on this issue, and with your analysis I am willing to talk with you about this.  But if you aren't willing to admit the intent of your words then we have a problem here.

Malcolm wrote:

I did say that the effect of the Statute of Westminster was that the Abdication had to be ratified and implemented separately in the Dominions - resulting in the anomaly that he was actually King of South Africa slightly longer than the rest of the Dominions.  The matter was brought up because the similar effect of the Statute is that changes to the laws of succession now require the consent of the other Commonwealth monarchies.

No you didn't.

It was the Irish Free State where buddy was king (24 hours) longer than the rest of the Dominions.

The "laws of succession" as you put it is the Settlement Act.

The Settlement Act was not changed.

Former Soldier and Present Obfuscator.

The Statute of Westminster did not change the Act of Succession.  No one said it did.  No one.

The Statute of Westminster DID however, require that the Instrument of Abdication be validated and given effect by each of the Commonwealth Monarchies acting independently. 

Which is all anyone said.

The Statute of Westminster also means that the Parliament at Westminster would only alter the Acts of Succession with the consent of all the Commonwealth monarchies.

It's quite clear to me that this does not make the Statute of Westminster and the Act of Succession one and the same.  I have no idea why you're so confused - other than the fact that you know next to nothing of the subject at hand and are mostly making it up as you go along.

Rather like your former President.

Funny...I THOUGHT oldgoat closed this for length fifteen posts ago...

Also...the monarch isn't "indisputably British".  She(and her offspring)are mainly German.

He's either a little rusty, or hesitant to close such an engaging conversation.  All the same, things have get pretty bad for me to start calling for a little decorum.