A question for British and other Commonwealth(?)-dwelling Dopers

In My Humble Opinion
61

a) I am the world’s only living Quebec New Democrat monarchist. We queens must stick together, you know.

I don’t think that a country that wasn’t already a monarchy ought to become one, and I wouldn’t be heartbroken if a general consensus came to be that we should become a republic. However, from the standpoint of interesting-ness, we have republics beat by a mile. So much so that, if we do decide to become a republic, I really must insist that the head of state be called the Governor General, because the title “President of Canada” is so boring I can barely type it without falling asleep.

Also, what everyone else said about separation of powers, etc. (I loved the “thou too art mortal” analogy.) I think it’s good that the person who embodies the dignity of the state not be at all partisan, and reflect history and such. Not that I can’t see the other side of things as well. But, for example, as someone once said, if they asked you to have dinner at the White House, are you having dinner with the President of the United States, or with a Republican politician who espouses certain policies? This metaphorical situation doesn’t come up with the monarchy.

In a similar vein, it helps us to remember that the government is not the state, and the parliamentary opposition is as much serving its country as the government side is. That’s why they call it Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. It makes it harder for the prime minister to wrap him/herself in the flag and ascribe patriotism or the lack thereof to certain political positions.

62

c) Don’t care. Most Canadians couldn’t even tell you that the Queen is our head of state anyway.

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
In a similar vein, it helps us to remember that the government is not the state, and the parliamentary opposition is as much serving its country as the government side is. That’s why they call it Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. It makes it harder for the prime minister to wrap him/herself in the flag and ascribe patriotism or the lack thereof to certain political positions.
[/QUOTE]

I think that’s more of a feature of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy than a feature of the monarchy.

63

though i am no big fan of the monarchy, i could only personally support such a change away from constitutional monarchy in the formation of canadian governments if:

a) the westminster-style parliamentary system was largely maintained (though i am fully willing to suggest & debate different methods & formulas of representative election,)

and

b) the head of state (whether called president, or preferably, governor-general) was maintained as a largely ceremonial, apolitical, post; whether appointed or elected, and with powers that are theoretically extensive, but in practice rarely required.

64

I guess Monarchist, on paper, in that I don’t mind HM and her lineage continuing to wield the approximate current level of power, which is to say - in practical terms - very little.

65

Mild Monarchist - ain’t broke, don’t fix, etc.

Australian.

66

[QUOTE=Cunctator]
I don’t really see this as an argument against a foreign head of state. The Queen wasn’t involved in the Whitlam dismissal. It’s true of course that the Governor-General used his reserve powers as her representative. But an Australian president with the same powers (and this is one of the republic models that has been suggested) could have done exactly the same thing.
[/QUOTE]

It’s true that the end result might have been exactly the same - but the responsibility for it would have been entirely and transparently Australian.

(maybe the whole thing is a pretty minor footnote in modern Oz, it’s just that a know a couple Aussies from the previous generation who still can be provoked to the point of apoplexy by mention of Gough)

I’m in flavor of Scottish devolution for instance- not because I think it necessarily means better decisions being made (in fact I’ve always thought the first years were always bound to be iffy until reality starts biting) - but because, as far as possible people should be in charge of their own fate, and take responsibility for it.
(It’s one of the problems with the EU in my opinion, which is one of the few times I agree wih Tony Benn’s views - but that’s a whole other can of worms)

67

[QUOTE=Cazzle]
Mild Monarchist - ain’t broke, don’t fix, etc.

Australian.
[/QUOTE]

Ditto

English.

68

Kerr was Whitlam’s own nominee for the post, so if he failed to get a pliable yes-man who would do his bidding, then it was his own fault.

69

Mildish anti-Monarchy, just on principle, really. But I do love all the random traditions associated with the Crown; the State Opening of Parliament has a load of these and it’s pretty fun (well apart from the speech itself :wink: ).

70

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
In a similar vein, it helps us to remember that the government is not the state, and the parliamentary opposition is as much serving its country as the government side is. That’s why they call it Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. It makes it harder for the prime minister to wrap him/herself in the flag and ascribe patriotism or the lack thereof to certain political positions.
[/QUOTE]

Harder, maybe, and yet it happens. In the last election the previous government (Martin’s) quite openly questioned the Canadianness of the party that would form the next government. That government (Harper’s) of course, learning from that experience, would never stoop to… ha ha ha, I am of course joking. Just a few months ago they accused the Opposition of siding with the Taliban.

71

[QUOTE=RickJay]
It’s not even clear the Queen has the power to do that, at least in Canada. The Governor-General dissolves Parliament. The G-G officially represents the Queen, but where does it say the G-G takes orders from the Queen?
[/QUOTE]
Constitution Act, 1867:

*s. 9 “The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.”

  1. “The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.”*

What that means is that the Governor General is the Queen’s agent, and that when the Governor General has a particular power or authority, it is on behalf of the Queen. Thus when the Governor General has the power and authority to dissolve Parliament, it is in fact the power and authority of the Queen.

Similarly, when section 12 sets out that the Governor General is responsible to Parliament (“* . . . be abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada.”*), this means that the Queen is responsible to Parliament.

Note that Parliament is made up of not just the Commons and the Senate, but also of the Queen (s.17). It is the power and authority of the Queen as part of parliament that is used to turn bills into statutes. It is only out of convenience that the Governor General does this on behalf of the Queen, for the power and authority lies wth the Queen. Proof of this is in the proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1982, by the Queen herself, not the Governor General, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.

Beyond this there is also Canada’s unwritten constitution – essentially the way things are. (For example, although we have always had a Prime Minister, modeled on the British Parliamentarian system, this was not noted in our written constitutional documents until relatively recently – 1982 I believe, but don’t quote me on this, for there may be an earlier minor constitutional document out there with that office noted in it.) The way colonial rule developed, governors general had great discretion, but they were always fully accountable to the Crown, served at the pleasure of the Crown, and had no powers other than those that fell to the Crown.

What’s the Deal with Canada’s Queen?

72

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But I do love all the random traditions associated with the Crown; the State Opening of Parliament has a load of these and it’s pretty fun (well apart from the speech itself :wink: ).
[/QUOTE]

I suspect that more than a few people like the sheer daftness of a lot of it. It all adds to the national reputation for eccentricity. What other country insists that the doors leading to the Legislature’s chamber have to be first knocked up by a Black Rod? :eek:

73

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Harder, maybe, and yet it happens. In the last election the previous government (Martin’s) quite openly questioned the Canadianness of the party that would form the next government. That government (Harper’s) of course, learning from that experience, would never stoop to… ha ha ha, I am of course joking. Just a few months ago they accused the Opposition of siding with the Taliban.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, sure, people do it, but it’s more difficult, and usually it’s nominally based on some question of national values or other, rather than simply equating opposition to the policies of the government with unCanadianness.

74

[QUOTE=Capt B. Phart]
It’s true that the end result might have been exactly the same - but the responsibility for it would have been entirely and transparently Australian.
[/QUOTE]
That’s precisely my point. The Queen **wasn’t ** involved. The responsibility was entirely and transparently Australian.

No doubt we’ll have to agree to differ.

75

[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
Well color me fascinated.

The second is because I believe monarchy firmly supports the silly hat industry, and they must be stopped.
[/QUOTE]

Huh just how do you sleep at night?
I hope the faces of those poor little silly hat manufacturers cute ,lovable children haunt your dreams when they’re begging in the gutter.

76

[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
Sure, but that’s not a de jure system. You get that in any society. In American society I don’t like it mostly out of pure jealousy. But when it’s enforced by law that certain people will be magnificently rich for no apparent reason, it bugs me.
The monarch does, in theory, have the power to prevent bills from passing into law. I’m not saying I’d expect it to ever in a million years happen, but on paper the privilege is there. I imagine that if she were to ever use that privilege, there’d be quite a bit of clamor and unhappiness.
[/QUOTE]

A particular government refuses to stand down and then stand for reelection after the customary period or manufactures an artificial crisis so that it can declare a state of emergency and cling on to power .

A government refuses to accept the results of a free and fair electoral ballot .

A government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority ,out of the blue brings in legislation of radical and fundamental importance (eg. nationalisation of the banks ,nuke Russia or the like ) that wasn’t in their election manifesto but due to the size of their party in Parliament will be voted through .

In the above cases the the leader of the opposition will make a request to the monarch who in turn will take advice from constitutional lawyers and then order parliament to be dissolved until a free and fair election has held and a government voted in.

The monarch will not sign any voted thgrough legislation until the new election has occured which means that none of that legislation will become law.

In turn that means that the civil service will not implement any legislation through the paperwork process,the treasury will not try to collect the new taxes,the police and armed forces will not enforce the new laws and foreign governments will not enter into any negotiations with the unconstitutional government because without the Monarchs consent it is NOT the government .

Because politicians of all persuasions are aware of this they dont even bother trying to subvert our constitutional process as it would be pointless.

The Windsors are independantly wealthy and surrender much of that wealth to tha country in return for the Monarch alone receiving an allowance for expenses ,premises wage bills etc.
A bit like Bill Gates being made P.O.T.U.S. and surrendering all of Microsofts income to the U.S. taxpayer in return for the presidential salary.

As a non elected H.O.S. our monarch is not susceptible to political blackmail or bribery nor for that matter financial bribery .

Our P.M actually decides who gets honours ,knighthoods etc. not the Queen ref lord Archer etc.

77

[QUOTE=Cunctator]
That’s precisely my point. The Queen **wasn’t ** involved. The responsibility was entirely and transparently Australian.

No doubt we’ll have to agree to differ.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll agree to be wrong, if it helps!
(I don’t think I’m likely to win any arguments about Australian political history, given my knowledge is about nil - and you’re actually in Oz, I may sulk a bit though)

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
Our P.M actually decides who gets honours ,knighthoods etc. not the Queen ref lord Archer etc.
[/QUOTE]

My point isn’t that Liz get to choose who gets the honour (I imagine she metaphorically holds her nose when handing out gongs to some of the slime who buy, er, earn them)
It’s that she sits at the top of a hierarchical system inherited from a previous age and helps perpetuate it.
It may be a pale shadow of an actual feudal system - but Britain shouldn’t have a class structure reinforced even by empty symbols- it’s still too prevalent (not least in the inverted snobbery at the bottom end)

We’re supposed to tug our forelocks (however emptily) to the various Knights and Lords because of their title, not their abilities (theoretically the honours should go to people who have done “good works” so it shouldn’t matter too much and with the OBEs and MBEs that seems to be the case, but in practice the top gongs are about political favours/connections or worse)

78

[QUOTE=NinjaChick]
The monarch does, in theory, have the power to prevent bills from passing into law. I’m not saying I’d expect it to ever in a million years happen, but on paper the privilege is there. I imagine that if she were to ever use that privilege, there’d be quite a bit of clamor and unhappiness.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know about that–back when the Goods and Services Tax was introduced in the early 1990s, there were quite a few Canadians who were hoping the Governor-General, on behalf of the Queen, would withold Royal Assent to the GST bill, thus preventing it from becoming law. Nope, didn’t happen. The tax bill was signed, became law, and many unhappy Canadians had to pay it. They would have been very happy if she had only exercised her power to refuse assent. But she didn’t. Why?

I think one of the most difficult things for Americans (who, as we all know, have a single written constitution that explains how the nation is governed) to understand about Commonwealth countries is that we come from a tradition that has no written constitution. What this means, for Canada at least, is that what constitutional documents we do have tend to have grown out of the act of the UK parliament that chartered our nation. This act was amended and changed as necessary over time, and was assumed to be incorporating the unwritten rules, principles, and traditions of the UK parliament; even after we patriated our constitution in 1982. These unwritten rules, principles, and traditions can be as binding as any written document. So while the Queen may well have some powers “on paper,” as you put it, were she ever to exercise them, she would be acting against years, perhaps centuries, of precedent. And thus she might be said to be acting (strange as it sounds to American ears), unconstitutionally.

This is why Royal Assent was granted to the tax bill referred to above: because not doing so would have been unconstitutional. A bill originating in the Commons and debated both there and in the Senate, and passing both houses, leaves the Queen (actually the GG, but you know what I mean) little choice. By unwritten tradition, as binding as any written document, she must sign the bill. Perhaps if Canadians had rioted in the streets against the bill and civil order was breaking down, she might have dissolved Parliament and called a new election (thus acting to preserve order, as I said above), and thus killed the tax bill. But we didn’t, so she did what tradition said she had to do.

79

A mild monarchist. More because I think our leaders (and Opposition Leaders) of the last few years are so dreadful that having the monarchy sitting quietly in the background is kind of reassuring.

Frankly, I think the last thing we really want is to give those tits in our government even more power.

80

[QUOTE=Bites When Provoked]
Frankly, I think the last thing we really want is to give those tits in our government even more power.
[/QUOTE]

Even only titular power? :smiley: