|
Post by jetsorbust on Jan 14, 2013 8:25:21 GMT -6
^ I would endorse Canada becoming a Republic. We are Canadian, not British. People have complained about Canada lacking identity, if we keep the Queen, we are doing nothing about that. It's not about being Britisweet's a connection to our history. For all legitimate purposes Britain has zero power or influence over Canada. I support the symbolic connection to our former homeland. It's part of what makes us unique as Canadians. Agreeed, it absolutely helps to make us unique. It costs Canada a piddly amount of money to keep our association with the monarchy, and it does help to give us cultural and historical signifigance. I know a lot of people say it's a waste of money, but I can guarantee it would cost way more to pay droves of high priced lawyers to re-write all of the legal and constitutional crap for a decade or so to change it, plus we would lose the benefits of our history and royal tours that help to bring in tourism, trade, etc. Cutting ties with the monarchy would be absolutely stupid.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jan 14, 2013 11:29:05 GMT -6
We will still have our history but it is time to be unique as Canadians. By finally disolving the Monarchy we will be unique. There is nothing significant or unique about being part of the Commonwealth. Keeping a part of it is udderly rediculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 11:55:38 GMT -6
absolutely stupid vs. udderly rediculous. I think I am Undecided.
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Jan 14, 2013 12:17:25 GMT -6
We will still have our history but it is time to be unique as Canadians. By finally disolving the Monarchy we will be unique. There is nothing significant or unique about being part of the Commonwealth. Keeping a part of it is udderly rediculous. We're pretty clearly already unique. How would becoming "not a member of the commonwealth" make us unique in any way shape or form?! To each his own, but I 100% disagree on this.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jan 14, 2013 12:37:04 GMT -6
It would be unique as we could maintain a similar system of government as what we have now except with an actual elected Canadian as Canada's Head of State instead of somebody born into that position accross the Atlantic. We will have adopted a Parlimentary system and self governance while fully embracing independance and soverginty through diplomacy. How much more unique can it get.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Jan 14, 2013 14:07:18 GMT -6
It would be unique as we could maintain a similar system of government as what we have now except with an actual elected Canadian as Canada's Head of State instead of somebody born into that position accross the Atlantic. We will have adopted a Parlimentary system and self governance while fully embracing independance and soverginty through diplomacy. How much more unique can it get. To have an elected canadian as head of state that would involve changing how our voting system works, becasue as it stands now, we dont elect our Prime Minister, he is just any old MP that was chosen by his party to be the head of the party. Unless you mean the head of state needs to be somebody who is an elected MP and not an old lady who lives across the ocean in a castle or her chosen representative.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jan 14, 2013 14:13:55 GMT -6
^ Our Prime Minister is an elected representative who is the Head of their party as voted on by their party's members. While we do not directly vote in our PM, we know who they are when we vote for our local representatives. Parties have suffered in the past for a poor choice as their leader (a certian Liberal comes to mind) but none the less they are elected Canadians representing our country. I am fine with our Head of State being an elected MP, just as long they are Canadian and as jetsv2 said, "not an old lady who lives accross the Ocean, or her representative".
|
|
wolf357
Alternate Captain "A"
Posts: 557
|
Post by wolf357 on Jan 14, 2013 14:42:24 GMT -6
I for one would never say never...but this is a close... "never going to happen"... Biggest reason, this would open up the whole Constitution can of worms and nobody....nobody wants to open that up after the disaster of the Meach lake acord, and the Quebec question. Plus Canadas Laws are more tied to the crown than the UK. This is a question of "if it aint broke dont fix it: I dont realy have any so called Loyalty to the Crown...however it also doesnt bother me. I would guess the save the monarchy side would only get about 35%
|
|
|
Post by jetsorbust on Jan 14, 2013 14:51:46 GMT -6
^ Our Prime Minister is an elected representative who is the Head of their party as voted on by their party's members. While we do not directly vote in our PM, we know who they are when we vote for our local representatives. Parties have suffered in the past for a poor choice as their leader (a certian Liberal comes to mind) but none the less they are elected Canadians representing our country. I am fine with our Head of State being an elected MP, just as long they are Canadian and as jetsv2 said, "not an old lady who lives accross the Ocean, or her representative". It's a symbolic position, so I don't get what your point is? You seem to be suggesting the problem is that we can't elect our own head of state so some lady across the ocean is in charge. I might agree with you if they still had any real power or influence, but they don't. Why would we want to elect a symbolic figure head? That would make no sense to me. At the end of the day the monarchy is a symbolic attachment to our history. I would wager they benefit Canada more than they cost us, but I can sure as hell tell you they do more for us than the Senate and that costs us a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jan 14, 2013 15:01:58 GMT -6
I for one would never say never...but this is a close... "never going to happen"... Biggest reason, this would open up the whole Constitution can of worms and nobody....nobody wants to open that up after the disaster of the Meach lake acord, and the Quebec question. Plus Canadas Laws are more tied to the crown than the UK. This is a question of "if it aint broke dont fix it: I dont realy have any so called Loyalty to the Crown...however it also doesnt bother me. I would guess the save the monarchy side would only get about 35% Every government up until Harper took over was leaning in favour of severing the ties with the monarchy. I think eventually it is going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by TheDeuce on Jan 14, 2013 16:20:50 GMT -6
{snip} Every government up until Harper took over was leaning in favour of severing the ties with the monarchy. I think eventually it is going to happen. Not even remotely close. 'Every' government? Phoney baloney. I'd argue that the only Prime Minister who wanted to sever ties with the monarchy was Pearson (who would have done so if he'd won a majority in his last term [Michael Bliss: Right Honourable Men]). Mackenzie King brought in the Canadian Citizenship Act but stated that he never wanted to cease being a 'British subject', Diefenbaker was so British his funeral plans included having his casket draped with the Red Ensign, Trudeau had the opportunity to snip the tie with the 1982 Constitution Act (and didn't). But for Pearson I can't recall a single Prime Minister who advocated severing ties with the monarchy. m.
|
|
|
Post by jetsv2 on Jan 14, 2013 17:52:03 GMT -6
Can we cut ties to the Monarchy and at the same time get rid of the Senate?
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jan 14, 2013 19:55:51 GMT -6
There is a group lobbying to cut ties with the monarchy, Citizens for a Canadian Republic. They have more details regarding the idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2013 20:27:43 GMT -6
I guess what you really have to ask yourself is, would the decision to rid of everything Monarchy improve life in Canada somehow?
|
|
|
Post by wolfmannick on Jan 14, 2013 20:30:54 GMT -6
^ It would give us more self identity and national pride. How often have you heard people complaining about Canadians having a lack of identity? This is a big step forward.
|
|