Reunify the British Empire

[Northern_Piper]

@BrainGlutton

I will, on the authority that I sat down behind her desk while everyone else was at the funeral. (It worked for Stalin . . .)

hmmm. I think I’ll stick with supreme executive power derived from a farcical aquatic ceremony.

[orcenio]

@MrDibble

Define “Anglosphere” - does South Africa count? We seem to count for cricket and rugby

define “First World” - which Caribbean islands count? Why only First World countries e.g. why Australia and not … say, Botswana?

Apparently Canada counts as “Anglosphere” too, which would anger plenty of red/white blooded french-Canadians. Frankly any Canadian nod towards an “Anglosphere” would, by definition, undermine our national unity/existence. Also I don’t feel that English-Canadians are linguistically/politically insecure enough to desire it.

[Kobal2]

@Northern_Piper

In Canada, stripping the monarch of all constitutional powers would require a constitutional amendment, consented to by the federal Parliament and all ten provinces. Politically, rather difficult.

And stripping the monarch of those powers still leaves unanswered the question of “who will exercise those powers?” Little things like dissolving Parliament and calling elections, appointing the Prime Minister, appointing judges. Those are all done now at the federal level by the GovGen in the name of the monarch, and at the provincial level by the Lieutenant Governors.

But, the GovGen and the Lt Govs have no independent powers in these areas: if the Crown no longer has those powers, neither would the GovGen and the Lt Govs.

So how would government function?

Howsabout the GovGen and the Lt Govs keep the exact same powers, except on account of having been elected by the People rather than for being de jure proxies of some transatlantic Germanic bint in a hat who, de facto, has never directly interfered or otherwise made her presence or influence felt in Canadian politics at all (that I know of, anyway - but I don’t know much, admittedly) ?

I know it sounds radically extreme and a drastic change, but it could very well work ! ;).

[BrokenBriton]

@John_Mace

I think the “Anglosphere Economic Zone” makes more sense. Basically:

UK
US
Canada
Australia
NZ
Ireland (maybe)

I’m not sure what value all those little Pacific and Caribbean Islands would add.

the most important ingredient of all - to those with money, and power: tax haven.

[sisu]

@UDS

If India were to join, its population would exceed the population of all the other countries put together so, assuming parliamentary seats are distributed proportionate to population, MPs representing Indian constituencies would be an absolute majority in Parliament - about 55% of the seats, if every Commonwealth member state were to join this new entity, but more if some did not. The next most populous Commonwealth member state, Pakistan, if it were to joint, would have one-seventh the number of seats that the Indians had, this being the ratio of their respective populations. The UK would have one-twentieth the number of seats that India had; Canada 1/35th; Australia, less than 1/50th.

Obviously, in this scenario, nobody could hope to have any influence in Parliament unless they aligned with one or other of the major Indian parties, and all the political parties from other countries would rush to do so. Unless Indian MPs enjoyed travelling to London for prolonged periods, the Parliament would very soon relocate to New Delhi, and so would the Ministers and, therefore, the ministries and departments of the central government.

Yep that was my point (but much more eloquent)

[Martini_Enfield]

@MrDibble

Define “Anglosphere” - does South Africa count? We seem to count for cricket and rugby

I’d define the Anglosphere as countries where English is the first or everyday language of the majority of the population, with bonus points if it is a de jure or de facto official language. Thus, Malaysia wouldn’t count even though the country is full of English speakers, since it is not their first language and it is not the language they speak at home.

Define “First World” - which Caribbean islands count? Why only First World countries e.g. why Australia and not … say, Botswana?

Places like the Bahamas, Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago; the ones with a reasonable per-capita GDP, basically.

The first world thing is to prevent a situation where millions of people who live in abject, TV charity appeal ad-level poverty suddenly up sticks and move to [del]Beverly. Hills, that is… swimming pools, movie stars![/del] places like the US/UK/Australia/Canada/New Zealand etc en masse.

I’m afraid I don’t know enough about Botswana to know what it’s like (the nearest map of Southern Africa I have handy still has refers to some country called “Rhodesia”) but apparently the UN considers the Southern African Customs Union countries (which includes Botswana) to be “developed” (ie first world in the sense most people understand the term), so in that case they could certainly be included in this hypothetical Anglosphere Schengen-style Zone if they met the “Most people speak English as a first or everyday language” definition.

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

When Martini Enfield doesn’t like the idea, you know it won’t fly. It was you that wanted to reinstate a sort of kinder colonial system, wasn’t it?

Yes, that was me.

[BrokenBriton]

England is having an enormous problem just now unloading Scotland, the last thing anyone with any sense wants is more bother.

The job is done: go forth and multinational.

[RickJay]

@Northern_Piper

Or do you want a ceremonial head of state? If so, a popular election is not the best way to go. But then how do you have an election of some sort?

You’d hold an election in essentially exactly the same way you do now. In Canada, the monarch does nothing with regards to elections; the Governor General executes such duties as must be done.

If you eliminated the concept that the Governor General is acting on the monarch’s behalf, nothing of substance would change.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Kobal2

Howsabout the GovGen and the Lt Govs keep the exact same powers, except on account of having been elected by the People rather than for being de jure proxies of some transatlantic Germanic bint in a hat who, de facto, has never directly interfered or otherwise made her presence or influence felt in Canadian politics at all (that I know of, anyway - but I don’t know much, admittedly) ?

I know it sounds radically extreme and a drastic change, but it could very well work ! ;).

Fuck, no. I’m okay with severing ties to the monarchy, but I’d keep the Gov-Gen an appointed ceremonial position, just to avoid the ridiculous mess the Americans get themselves into every four years.

[Northern_Piper]

[QUOTE=Kobal2]

Howsabout the GovGen and the Lt Govs keep the exact same powers, except on account of having been elected by the People rather than for being de jure proxies of some transatlantic Germanic bint in a hat who, de facto, has never directly interfered or otherwise made her presence or influence felt in Canadian politics at all (that I know of, anyway - but I don’t know much, admittedly) ?

I know it sounds radically extreme and a drastic change, but it could very well work ! .
[/QUOTE]

Here’s the thing.

The Queen, and thus the GovGen and the LtGovs, have extensive constitutional powers:

• royal assent to a bill is required; a bill does not become law without royal assent;

• the GovGen appoints the Prime Minister, and has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister;

• the GovGen appoints all members of the Senate;

• the GovGen in Council appoints all federally appointed judges.

Those are extremely extensive powers, granted to the GovGen by the Constitution.

Now, everyone knows that the GovGen always carries out these duties on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or based on the election results and the composition of the House of Commons, in the case of the appointment of the Prime Minister.

However, that is not legally required. There is absolutely no legal requirement for the GovGen to follow the advice of the PM or the Commons. If the GovGen wants to, he can refuse to follow that advice.

But he always does. Why? Because he has no political legitimacy or authority. He’s appointed by a hereditary monarch, who in turn has made that appointment on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the political legitimacy because he’s led his party to victory in a national election.

That’s the result of two centuries of political and constitutional developments, ensuring that government is carried out by the duly elected government, chosen by the people. Democracy requires that the GovGen follows the advice of the elected Prime Minister. As well, constitutional convention requires that the GovGen not belong to any political party, to be neutral, and take advice from the Prime Minister, regardless of the GovGen’s own political views.

But what happens if the GovGen is popularly elected? Suppose the GovGen is elected by a national mandate, maybe 52% of the electorate? And the Prime Minister has a majority in the Commons, but only with perhaps 45% of the national vote? The underlying basis for the constitutional convention that the GovGen has to follow the Prime Minister’s advice has disappeared. The GovGen can then say, with accuracy, that he has greater political legitimacy than the Prime Minister, and no longer needs to follow the advice of the Prime Minister.

So now there’s no longer any guarantee that the GovGen will give royal assent to bills passed by the Constitution. The GovGen may choose not to follow the PM’s advice as to who to appoint to the Senate, or to the courts. The GovGen might even take it into his head to dismiss a Prime Minister that he doesn’t agree with.

Couldn’t happen? why not, if the GovGen is popularly elected with a mandate greater than the Prime Minister?

So now, as a result of electing the GovGen, we’ll have changed the fundamental principles of our government.

It’s this type of analysis that explains why the Australians rejected the proposal to abolish the monarchy a decade ago: what do you replace her with, and what powers does the new head of state have?

There is a real possibility that electing the GovGen by a national election will change our constitutional system from a parliamentary system with responsible government, to something similar to a presidential/congressional system, only without the checks and balances that are typically built into those systems, such as impeachment, overriding a veto, and congressional oversight of judicial appointments.

[Northern_Piper]

@Kobal2

… rather than for being de jure proxies of some transatlantic Germanic bint …

1. Since when are ethnic slurs an appropriate form of debate in Great Debates? why is being of German ethnic origin a derogatory factor?

2. In any event, why do you say that Her Majesty is Germanic? She was born in Britain. Her father and mother were both born in Britain. All of her grandmothers and grandfathers were born in Britain. Of her eight great-grandparents, five were born in Britain, one in Denmark, one in Slovenia and only one in Germany.

[Northern_Piper]

@Bryan_Ekers

Fuck, no. I’m okay with severing ties to the monarchy, but I’d keep the Gov-Gen an appointed ceremonial position…

When the Queen’s gone, who appoints the GovGen?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Same as now, the Prime Minister. We just skip the royal rubber-stamp part.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Next up: all borders shall be redrawn so as to be consistent with the game of Risk.

[Trinopus]

Diplomacy, surely?

(The “grown up” version of Risk!)

[Martini_Enfield]

@Northern_Piper

The GovGen might even take it into his head to dismiss a Prime Minister that he doesn’t agree with.

This has already happened in Australia (in the sense the Governor-General did exercise his power to unilaterally dismiss the Prime Minister) once, and the country didn’t descend into Mad Max-style anarchy as a result.

Personally, I like knowing there’s someone at least theoretically impartial who has the ability to pull the pin on the Government if it starts being Very Silly.

[davf]

Why not just unify the whole world and call it Earth.

[Kobal2]

@Northern_Piper

1. Since when are ethnic slurs an appropriate form of debate in Great Debates? why is being of German ethnic origin a derogatory factor?

1. I wasn’t aware that “Germanic” was derogatory *or *an ethnic slur. I imagine our German readers will be equally interested to know you think it is.

2. In any event, why do you say that Her Majesty is Germanic? She was born in Britain. Her father and mother were both born in Britain. All of her grandmothers and grandfathers were born in Britain. Of her eight great-grandparents, five were born in Britain, one in Denmark, one in Slovenia and only one in Germany.

2. Because her House is really Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which was renamed Windsor during WW1 on account of sounding a little too German-y, which at the time was considered a profound negative (well, profound enough to ditch one’s ancestral name, anyway. Which is supposed to be a Thing aristos care about, isn’t it ?).
   That historical oddity amuses me. I’m easily amused.

[Malden_Capell]

@Kobal2

2. Because her House is really Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which was renamed Windsor during WW1 on account of sounding a little too German-y, which at the time was considered a profound negative (well, profound enough to ditch one’s ancestral name, anyway. Which is supposed to be a Thing aristos care about, isn’t it ?).
   That historical oddity amuses me. I’m easily amused.

But there are thousands of non-royal families worldwide who have changed their names from one to another to detach themselves from a non-local past. What is confusing is why you think it’s significant for the royals, as if people will go ‘Oh crap! She’s a GERMAN?!’ and ditch the monarchy.

[Kobal2]

@Malden_Capell

But there are thousands of non-royal families worldwide who have changed their names from one to another to detach themselves from a non-local past. What is confusing is why you think it’s significant for the royals, as if people will go ‘Oh crap! She’s a GERMAN?!’ and ditch the monarchy.

There’s nothing interesting or amusing whatsoever about Joe Blow changing his name to Joe Bloe.
However aristos are, by nature, very attached to traditions ; mottoes ; names ; heraldries and titles passed down since Charlemagne and so on. It’s sort of the whole point of toffery. Georges V however (and other branches of the Saxe-Coburg family, since the Belgian ones also switched, and IIRC a third European line as well) thought that the very people he was ruling could think ill of him if he appeared to be a little bit Boche on the fringes, as it were.

Which, to me, is amusing because it suggests that they thought their subjects might conceivably go “My Lord, we’re lorded over by GERMANS ?! Oust the royals, by Jove !”. As I said, I’m easily amused.