Imperial Preference was a buying policy in effect in the old Britsih Empire. Its intent was for British owned countiues to trade with eachother…sort of a mercantilist/protectionist system. Is this still in effect? Years ago, I was in Freeport (Bahamas) which was once a British posession. Here we were , 90 miles from Miami, and at duinner, the beef came from Austarlia, the butter from New Zealand, and the milk from Canada…what is going on? Is this system still in effect?
No, it isn’t. Britain abandoned (what was left of) it upon joining what was then called the European Economic Community in 1973. Since the EEC was a free trade zone, Britain could not - and still can’t - erect barriers against European goods and services in order to prefer those from former British possessions.
[nitpick]
1975
[/nitpick]
I guess I was in error about the visa. But they still don’t have rights of permanent residence or right to work here without a work permit, something EU nationals can do without question.
If Australia (likely) or Canada (less likely) ever move to republics they will probably continue to retain Commonwealth membership, recognising the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth, an not-very-logical arrangement that was devised to cater for India in 1949 and has been used for numerous members since.
Should I understand this as being vaguely parallel to the situation during the nation-building era of Europe, when one monarch might rule multiple realms that were not contiguous, for example the Hannoverian kings who ruled Hannover as well as England? The two realms were thoroughly understood to be separate, even though they were ruled by one king.
Understood, of course, that the Queen today doesn’t really rule anything, but I’m sure you understand my meaning.
I think so. I believe that the next monarch of Canada (or lack of one, should that be the choice) will be independently decided on, apart from what the UK might do. I expect that Queen Elizabeth’s UK successor will also be chosen as her successor in Canada, but I see no reason that must happen.
I suppose we could cook up alternate scenarios:[ol][]Canada and Britain are ruled by different members of the House of Windsor.[]The Canadian Head of State is “patriated” back to Canada and chosen by (and from?) the residents of Canada.[*]As a variant of 2, Canada creates its own royalty. (If that happens, I want to be Duke of Toronto. 
) [/ol]I like the idea of the Head of State having the symbolic role. If we patriate the Head of State, I think the office should continue to be named the Governor-General, and should be chosen by the members of the Order of Canada, with corresponding arrangements for the provincial Lieutenant-Governors.
Yup. She is Queen of England. Quite separately, she is Queen of Canada. Originally the King was King of England of which Canada was a colony, but when Canada became a Dominion (a less offensive name for a Kingdom), the Queen became Queen of Canada in its own right, meaning that the Queen was separately Queen of England and Queen of Canada. It took about a hundred years after this for all control by England to gradually be transferred to Canada. At this point, we are our own master. The Queen of Canada happens to live in England and happens to separately be the Queen of a lot of other places, but that is all moot to us here in Canada.
Of course this raises the question as to why bother having a Queen at all. Given the tremendously varried national origins of so many Canadians, I doubt if we will have the monarchy for much longer. Once the war brides and war babies are gone, I doubt if there will be too much support, whereas having a Queen who lives in england is very offensive for a great many Canadians, including many French Canadians.
As I vaguely recall, despite the temendous fuss about the GG pulling the plug, the fundamental problem was that the upper house was not going along with a major bill from the lower house.
One of the great benefits of a parliamentary system is that when there is gridlock, an election can be called, giving the people a chance to give fresh directions to the parliament. All the GG did was call an election in the face of gridlock between the two houses.
Had the head of state been a home-grown, home elected person, with no association direct or indirect with the monarchy, the same gridlock would have taken place, and an election would have been called, for non-confidence is non-confidence, whether through a non-confidence vote in the lower house, or through the lack of support for a major bill in the lower house, or through the repeated lack of support for a major bill in the upper house.
If such a gridlock is to be avoided in the future, then provisions must be made to ensure that the upper house is prohibited from ultimately rejecting major bills from the lower house. The solution is not to be found in patriating the head of state. To put it another way, although there are a many very good reaons for such patriation, the '75 constitutional crisis is not one of them.
Mmm. The anti-republicans try that one on here too. Artificial much?
She’s English, she’s the English Queen, she lives in England, that she rather patronisingly is the Queen of somewhere else also (as something of an afterthought, frankly) doesn’t make the situation any better.
And the G-G was wandering along without a road map, and if he’d gone off the trail (and some argue he did) there is no procedure for getting him back on. So his personal decisions were important, and we didn’t elect him, and he’s answerable primarily to a foreigner.