Canadian Monarchy

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Fencergrl

*fencergrl throws a snowball with a stale timbit in the centre at lochinvar*

I'm just waiting for them to start complaining about the Tim Bitterro Men...

James.

[lochinvar]

All fun aside, I understand the usage; I just don't see the need.
It seems a very inefficient division of roles to me.

[jBirch]

Well, what constituency of the people does the US President represent that puts his views on a higher plane then both the Congress and the Senate? What use does the US senate fulfill that is not satisfied by the Congress? Why is no-one elected for more then 4 years?

The Queen provides a very real check on both the power of the people and the elected officials. She provides a non-partisan, morally sound, un-coercible voice of reason that has been tempered since birth in the ways of power. Because of her wealth and stature The Queen is immune to lobbying efforts, accusations of corruption and ideological marketing. What better place to put the Executive power then in such a highly qualified individual?

She also provides a continuing personification of the word of Canada. When a group negotiates with Canada, be they person, community, nation or state, they are always dealing with the consistency of The Queen and she can fully squash any repudiations of Canada's word of honour.

Finally, she is the ultimate court of appeal whose word can be swayed by moral (and not solely legal) justification.

In a Republic like the US, everyone is elected and the whims of the majority hold sway. Treaties signed by one President are often considered void when the next comes on board. There is no appeal for right action beyond convincing the majority.

James.

[civiltech]

On April 21 The Queen celebrates her 80th Birthday. I know this isn't "really" part of the threads topic, but anyone interested in sending her a happy b-day wish:

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/feature.asp?pageId=50


Regards,

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Well, what constituency of the people does the US President represent that puts his views on a higher plane then both the Congress and the Senate? What use does the US senate fulfill that is not satisfied by the Congress? Why is no-one elected for more then 4 years?

The Queen provides a very real check on both the power of the people and the elected officials. She provides a non-partisan, morally sound, un-coercible voice of reason that has been tempered since birth in the ways of power. Because of her wealth and stature The Queen is immune to lobbying efforts, accusations of corruption and ideological marketing. What better place to put the Executive power then in such a highly qualified individual?

She also provides a continuing personification of the word of Canada. When a group negotiates with Canada, be they person, community, nation or state, they are always dealing with the consistency of The Queen and she can fully squash any repudiations of Canada's word of honour.

Finally, she is the ultimate court of appeal whose word can be swayed by moral (and not solely legal) justification.

In a Republic like the US, everyone is elected and the whims of the majority hold sway. Treaties signed by one President are often considered void when the next comes on board. There is no appeal for right action beyond convincing the majority.

James.

Absolutely James, now all together now (with Coldstream Guards in background and standing to attention):

'God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen, God save our Queen,
Send her victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save our Queen.'

Not sure of the rest!

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Well, what constituency of the people does the US President represent that puts his views on a higher plane then both the Congress and the Senate? What use does the US senate fulfill that is not satisfied by the Congress? Why is no-one elected for more then 4 years?

Your first question presupposes that the President's views are or ought to be on a higher plane than Congress (and Congress = House of Representatives + Senate). They are not, and need not be. The President does not make law, he carries it out. He sets the policy of the country in how the law is carried out, but his ability to influence legislation carrying out that policy is limited to asking Congress to do it.

As to your second question, the Senate represents the States, while the House represents the population. The country arose out of a confederation of separate powers, and to get those separate states to work together it was necessary to give each state an equal voice in the legislature.

And as to your third question, its basic assumption is incorrect. Senators serve 6 years, to provide a greater stability in the representation of their permanent states. Representatives serve 2 years, to better represent the fluctuations of the people's needs and attitudes. The President serves 4 years, as a balance in between. But all their actions are beholden to the yea or nay of the federal courts, and those judges serve for life.

The Queen provides a very real check on both the power of the people and the elected officials. She provides a non-partisan, morally sound, un-coercible voice of reason that has been tempered since birth in the ways of power. Because of her wealth and stature The Queen is immune to lobbying efforts, accusations of corruption and ideological marketing. What better place to put the Executive power then in such a highly qualified individual?

Ah, so her qualifications stem from her aristocratic essence, rather from any actual proven abilities and accomplishments?

She also provides a continuing personification of the word of Canada. When a group negotiates with Canada, be they person, community, nation or state, they are always dealing with the consistency of The Queen and she can fully squash any repudiations of Canada's word of honour.

So you need a living person to be the national identity? Why not have the national identity be represented by the policies and practices of the nation itself? It is somewhat more permanent than any human being, and should be able to be judged on its own merits and protect its own reputation, eh?

Finally, she is the ultimate court of appeal whose word can be swayed by moral (and not solely legal) justification.

Don't your courts consider equity (fairness) and "the interests of justice", which may require results contrary to the letter of the law, as do the courts of the other countries with legal systems derived from English Common Law? What need for a queen? And doesn't the executive have pardon powers?

In a Republic like the US, everyone is elected and the whims of the majority hold sway. Treaties signed by one President are often considered void when the next comes on board. There is no appeal for right action beyond convincing the majority.

We actually have checks and balances to ensure that the whim of the majority is muted and controlled by higher law and policy. And you are flat-out wrong that treaties become void -- treaties are the law of the land, like the Constitution, and cannot be ignored or violated. And of course there is appeal for right action beyond mere numbers, which is why our system is set up so ingeniously. It is a representational republic, not a pure democracy, for a reason.

[civiltech]

I don't think anyone wants to get into a battle on what form of gov't is better. Is there really a "best one???"

The Constitutional Monarchy is great for Canada. If the US system works for them ok. Thats great. The last thing we should do is try and one up each other on our forms of government...excutive or legislative....no good will come of that!

Long live the Queen!

CT.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Absolutely James, now all together now (with Coldstream Guards in background and standing to attention):

'God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen, God save our Queen,
Send her victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save our Queen.'

Not sure of the rest!

"My country reeks of trees
Our yaks are really large
And they smell like rotting beef carcases,

And we have to clean up after them.
Our saddle sores are the best
Poisonous snakes will devour us
And our bones will bleach in the sun!"

(courtesy Ren and Stimpy)

I like the queen. "She's a good sheila and not a bit stuck up."

[Gav]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Absolutely James, now all together now (with Coldstream Guards in background and standing to attention):

'God save our gracious Queen, long live our noble Queen, God save our Queen,
Send her victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us, God save our Queen.'

Not sure of the rest!

Tsk - and I had you down for the current encumbent.

[Gav]

In her defence though I don't think that Elizabeth the first has been that bad a queen. Although when I met her I couldn't help but think "she's shorter than my granny." Pleasant enough in her own way.

[lochinvar]

Well, it would be rather difficult for her to be a "bad" queen, seeing as she doesn't really do anything except ride in carriages waving and breaking bottles on ship prows and the like.

Not like the old days--dissolving parliaments, putting down rebellions, issuing letters of marque, etc., etc.

[civiltech]

I would have to disagree with you!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...0birthday&ct=5

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by civiltech

I would have to disagree with you!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...0birthday&ct=5

You do realize that this makes Lochinvar's point perfectly, right?

[Gav]

Originally Posted by civiltech

I would have to disagree with you!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...0birthday&ct=5

Ahhhh the Daily Mail, that bastion of all things: progressive, accurate, sober (as in not hysterical) and socialist.

[Morion]

Originally Posted by Gav

In her defence though I don't think that Elizabeth the first has been that bad a queen. Although when I met her I couldn't help but think "she's shorter than my granny." Pleasant enough in her own way.

Errr How old are you Gav??? Wasn't Elizabeth I queen somewhere around 1500? The current queen of the UK is Elizabeth II.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Morion

Errr How old are you Gav??? Wasn't Elizabeth I queen somewhere around 1500? The current queen of the UK is Elizabeth II.

She is Elizabeth the II of England, but the first of Canada, Australia, Scotland and some other places.

James.

[Morion]

Originally Posted by jBirch

She is Elizabeth the II of England, but the first of Canada, Australia, Scotland and some other places.

James.

Oh!?!? Typical American.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by civiltech

I don't think anyone wants to get into a battle on what form of gov't is better. Is there really a "best one???"
CT.

I think that the US model is intrinsically more fair. We don't (as a nation) vote for our Prime Minister, our head of state, our second chamber legislative or our judiciary. We have heriditary peers sitting in the House of Lords, we have the rest appointed under very dubious procedures. But then in terms of a working system I think it works well for us because our constitution is organic. Our model makes it much easier to adapt to the environment. The relationship between Parliament, powers of Royal prerogative and the office of Prime Minister epitomise a constitutional relationship born of centuries of pragmatism and non codified tradition. If we got rid of the Queen, then this largely uncodified system would have to be replaced with a much more rigid, codified constitution (like the US) that would lay down (not by precedent) what exactly this relationship should be. Laws would have to be constitutional (not just soveriegn Acts of parliament). This would make the system totaly inflexible and inefficient- how many amendments have been made to the US Constitution in the last 100 years? Is this not an obstracle to gun control etc.. I gues some see it as a welcome firewall, but I stil think that a document written more than 200 years ago should be easier to adapt. When we banned hand guns, after UK's equivalent of Columbine, all it needed was an act of Parliament

If we got rid of the Queen we would have to sort out and constutionalise Royal prerogative powers currently held effectively and by tradition by the PM (open and close parliament, declare war, sign treaties). They would have to codify a working relationship between Parliament and the House of Lords. This would mean an elected second chamber and probably a system of President, and Prime Minister. Both houses would compete for power (with both now having an electoral mandate) The President would either be in competition with the PM or a powerless figurehead- who's position and 'court' would probably suck up more money than the Royal Family anyway (but with less tourist revenue). The whole concept of the 'Parliament Act' would be changed and I am not sure it would be an efficient form of governement. People also like the idea of the 'Royal Marines, Royal Mail etc..

As in every part of government, it is not about identifying the problem- it is about replacing it with something that will stand the test of time as an effective way to govern. Blair, in 1997, said heriditary peers should not sit in the House of Lord. He tried to get rid of them all, but then agreed to keep a few. The whole policy of reform of the House of Lords is guided by two facts: 1) It is undemocratic and needs changing 2) F**K knows what to replace it with!

Therefore it is far more easy to accept it faults and keep constitutional monarchy as a flexible system that has worked for centuries and, frankly, is far far too difficult and traumatic to replace.

[jBirch]

The biggest problem I have with a Republic is the massive duplication in function. You elect a representitive to represent you based on your population. You elect a different representitive to represent your geographic location. Finally, you elect an entirely different representitive with the power to veto anything either of those other guys figured out. I always thought that the US system was deliberately designed to make it as difficult as possible for the government to do anything on the theory that the people will take care of governing themselves. As such, it is deliberately the most ineffective means of government available.

In a totally democratic system, there is no check on the stupidity of the people acting en masse. There is no one to counteract the democratic tendency to elect mediocre compromise people to important positions of power. No check on the rationality of laws (as opposed to their consistency: through the judiciary). No check on their morality. No guarantee on the betterment of the people being governed.

I prefer the appointment process we have in Canada as the best structure for governance. Senators are appointed by the government of the day, giving a smoothing effect on the whims of the day. If you have 50 years of Liberals and then 1 year of Conservatives, the 50 years of Liberals is represented. Not so with the US Senate.

The monarch is trained from birth to distinguish between good laws and bad ones and then trusted with the power to overturn bad laws instantly. The monarch has so much money, prestige and priviledge that the risk of corruption is negligible. Not so with the US President.

Hope this helps.

James.