It'd cost us far more to hold a referrendum, do all the campaigning, restructure into a Republic, rewrite all our legislation, reprint EVERYTHING (money, books, gov't docs, school cirriculums, etc), and then do it again for everything at a provincial level, than the $1.20 or whatever a year it costs to keep the Monarchy and host the royal family every year or so.
In a democracy, we shouldn't complain about the cost of exercising the democracy, nor should we avoid it because it costs money.
And referendum aside, won't a expensive changes have to happen when the queen dies and Charles become our new lord and master? Might as well use that opportunity of offset some of the costs and do a complete overhaul.
Time to move into the 19th century and form a republic.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
In a democracy, we shouldn't complain about the cost of exercising the democracy, nor should we avoid it because it costs money.
And referendum aside, won't a expensive changes have to happen when the queen dies and Charles become our new lord and master? Might as well use that opportunity of offset some of the costs and do a complete overhaul.
Time to move into the 19th century and form a republic.
Good points, but if we're a democracy already and the monarchy is all but for show, those costs are indeed quite relevant. If we're talking about the costs of going from an actual monarchy to a true republic (see: French revolution), then yes, we must ignore the costs (ie thousands and thousands of lives) to become a democracy.
But when you're talking about removing a cute old lady from the money and some other pomp & circumstance, then the lowest cost option wins out. Think of every little piece of paper or document that refers to the crown, or her majesty, or any federal/provincial act would have to be redone. Every court document, every court case, hell, even every police ticket pad would have to be redone.
This would not be cheap, at all.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ducay For This Useful Post:
In a democracy, we shouldn't complain about the cost of exercising the democracy, nor should we avoid it because it costs money.
True, but there is no reason to exercise democracy in this way at this time.
Quote:
And referendum aside, won't a expensive changes have to happen when the queen dies and Charles become our new lord and master? Might as well use that opportunity of offset some of the costs and do a complete overhaul.
You're getting lost in a matter of scale. The cost when our current head of state changes would be incurred under any system as we would be spending money to update the name of our head of state on relevant documents. Not only are you not gaining any savings, but it would be charitable to call such a cost trivial relative to the cost of completely overhauling our nation.
Over the holidays, I misheard a radio report and thought I heard that Queen Elizabeth had passed.
Now, before that, I really wouldn't have thought this would affect me much, but it instantly brought a lump to my throat. I'm completely indifferent to the monarchy, but this made me realize despite that, Queen Elizabeth clearly means something to me. I suppose it makes sense. She's been a part of most people lives their entire life and has done it with a tremendous amount of grace and class.
I understand disdain for the concept of a "Royal" family, but you have to give them credit. Despite being under constant scrutiny they have done as good a job as one can expect to living up to the high standards they are measured against. Queen Elizabeth is the reason for that. Her passing will be a very very sad day for most of the world.
Over the holidays, I misheard a radio report and thought I heard that Queen Elizabeth had passed.
Now, before that, I really wouldn't have thought this would affect me much, but it instantly brought a lump to my throat. I'm completely indifferent to the monarchy, but this made me realize despite that, Queen Elizabeth clearly means something to me. I suppose it makes sense. She's been a part of most people lives their entire life and has done it with a tremendous amount of grace and class.
One my earliest school memories is a school assembly for Queen Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee in 1977. We all sang Oh Canada in front of a picture of her, and were given commemorative coins. That was 40 years ago, and she had already been queen for 25 years.
Whatever else she is or represents, Elizabeth has been the personification of duty. Since her coronation 65 years ago, has anyone ever doubted that she is absolutely dedicated to her responsibilities as head of state? How many women in their 70s and 80s put in as many hours to public duty as she has? Precious few.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
One my earliest school memories is a school assembly for Queen Elizabeth's Silver Jubilee in 1977. We all sang Oh Canada in front of a picture of her, and were given commemorative coins. That was 40 years ago, and she had already been queen for 25 years.
Whatever else she is or represents, Elizabeth has been the personification of duty. Since her coronation 65 years ago, has anyone ever doubted that she is absolutely dedicated to her responsibilities as head of state? How many women in their 70s and 80s put in as many hours to public duty as she has? Precious few.
What exactly does she do other than wave at people?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
A great opportunity to ditch the monarchy. No need to make drastic changes, just elevate the position of governor general to be head of state and that's it.
A great opportunity to ditch the monarchy. No need to make drastic changes, just elevate the position of governor general to be head of state and that's it.
that would not be possible in a republic. unless you want an actual King of Canada with succession.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
A great opportunity to ditch the monarchy. No need to make drastic changes, just elevate the position of governor general to be head of state and that's it.
So the head of state is the one the Prime Minister gets to appoint? Ya can't see any problems with that....
So the head of state is the one the Prime Minister gets to appoint? Ya can't see any problems with that....
That's what happens now, except the governor general is the representative of the head of state. What problems do you foresee with having the PM appoint someone to a powerless figurehead position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
that would not be possible in a republic. unless you want an actual King of Canada with succession.
Why not? Considering we are a sovereign nation, I think we can do as we please.
Keep everything the same as it is now, just sever the ties with the British crown. That's the easiest pathway moving forward.
Uhm, the head of state is not a powerless figurehead position, it is the most powerful position in our government. Did they not teach you about our system in school?
Uhm, the head of state is not a powerless figurehead position, it is the most powerful position in our government. Did they not teach you about our system in school?
The Queen and by extension the GG have very little real power. It is pretty much entirely a ceremonial role.
Uhm, the head of state is not a powerless figurehead position, it is the most powerful position in our government. Did they not teach you about our system in school?
This is actually the best reason for leaving the current system as is. If you change it to an elected position we end up in a US style division of powers fight. If you get rid of it entirely you end up with a problem if a Prime Minister decides to not follow our social conventions in place in our democracy.
Having a person that is relatively ceremonial but non political who is the highest authority but who essentially does nothing that could step in if say a prime minister decides not to step down is likely a best of both worlds scenario.
Effectively our elected dictatorship form of government allows for decisive action but our ceremonial positions (that actually have real power) protect us from autocratic rule.
And if the ceremonial position ever tried to act against the government we very quickly have a referendum to get rid of it and wed have a constitutional crisis but there is good incentive for no one to go there.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
The monarchy is what it is: a quaint tradition and historical tie. The only real impact it has on our day to day lives is whose picture appears on the reverse of our coins. That's it.
As far as when Lizzie dies, what will happen (here, at any rate) is flags will be lowered to half mast, TV specials will air and the Royal Canadian Mint will change the dies to their coin printing presses.
What about any government operations that reference the queen? Court of Queen's Bench? Queen's Printer? Going to change those for a king or leave them as is?
What exactly does she do other than wave at people?
She gets a huge pile of paperwork from British parliament and other Commonwealth countries every day (the 'Red Box') that she has to read and sign off on.
She hosts receptions for her subjects and visiting dignitaries, and attends all kinds of ceremonies. All told, the royal family carries about 2,000 official engagements a year.
Basically, she serves the role of head of state. Republics like France have them too. I'd be surprised if her duties for most of her reign took much less than 40 hours a week (though she has reduced her workload in recent years).
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
What about any government operations that reference the queen? Court of Queen's Bench? Queen's Printer? Going to change those for a king or leave them as is?
From the article:
Quote:
We’re in for a whole lot of paperwork
The front page of a Canadian passport notes that it is issued in “the name of Her Majesty the Queen.” The drum majors of Canadian military bands wear a sash bearing Queen Elizabeth’s cipher of “EIIR.” Lawyers across Canada have business cards printed with the title “QC” for “Queen’s Counsel” and go to work at a “Court of Queen’s Bench.” Every day, government contractors ink their agreements with “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.” Conservative MPs sit in “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.” For a period of as long as 18 months, bureaucrats in virtually every branch of Canadian government will have to meticulously weed out all mentions of “Queen” and replace it with “King.” Making it all the more confusing is that some references to Queen Elizabeth II will remain: Alberta’s Queen Elizabeth II Highway, for instance, was named for the sovereign personally, so the title stays.
The Queen and by extension the GG have very little real power. It is pretty much entirely a ceremonial role.
They have the potential to have more power than anyone in our government. In practice, they don't exercise it, which is maybe what they are getting at? The GG gives royal ascent to every bill. Without the GG's approval, the government can't do anything. Harper had to go to the GG for approval to prorogue Parliament. That could have been denied. Seriously, have you guys not had any education about how our system works?
Uhm, the head of state is not a powerless figurehead position, it is the most powerful position in our government. Did they not teach you about our system in school?
I'm well aware of the Westminster system. I think you must be confusing the head of government (PM) with the head of state (Sovereign).
