Canadian Monarchy

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by jBirch

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.

But Dubya has a direct line to God. What could top that?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

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.
James.

Most of the Queen's assets are untouchable to her and in terms of money I would say that this is not, alone, a block to corruption- is it with rich Saudi or Kuwaiti royalty? Plus I would be inclined to say that the Bush dynasty were not exactly poor.

Why do you say that the monarch has the power to overturn bad laws, or has any precedent in doing so 'instantly'? Parliament could pass a law abolishing the monarchy and she couldn't stop it.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Most of the Queen's assets are untouchable to her and in terms of money I would say that this is not, alone, a block to corruption- is it with rich Saudi or Kuwaiti royalty? Plus I would be inclined to say that the Bush dynasty were not exactly poor.

No they are not. The Queen's position, however, is not dependent upon her wealth though, as it is with the Saudi/Kuwaiti royalty and as with the US President. The Queen is the Head of State by an Act of Parliament enacted way back in the 1200's (Statute of Westminster I) and ratified in the BNA of 1867 and subsequently as recently as 1931 and again in 1982. Her removal would require an Act or rebellion and as such, She has no need for wealth to secure Her position.

Why do you say that the monarch has the power to overturn bad laws, or has any precedent in doing so 'instantly'? Parliament could pass a law abolishing the monarchy and she couldn't stop it.

She would simply refuse the bill Queen's Assent. The House of Commons can pass all the crap they want, but it's not law until the monarch and the Senate agrees. I think you may be right that She can't retract her Assent, but I'm not sure. My understanding is that all laws in Canada are actually Royal edicts in the form of Statute and Bills.

Here's an interesting link to the most recent case of the Monarch exercising Her powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...proval%29_Bill

In Canada, the federal government is the Parliament and Parliament consists of three branches (Commons, Senate, Monarch) all of whom must agree to any proposal for it to become an Act of Parliament (Law). Where things get fuzzy is that the monarch acts solely on the advice of Her Privvy Council, which is made up of all living Cabinet Ministers (including those from past governments), all chief justices, all governors general and headed by the current Prime Minister of the House of Commons. By convention, this power is exercised by the Prime Minister.

Removing the monarch from Canada is possible via independent Acts of Parliament in each provincial legislature and in Ottawa with greater then 2/3rds in favour. You essentially have to change the constitution. Note that these are Acts of Parliament and as such, require Royal Assent.

You could change the Monarch by changing the lines of succession if you were interested in making the Canadian Monarch more obviously Canadian, but you'd have to break with the communal crown concept of the commonwealth nations first. There is another way to remove the monarch by simply failing to have the Privy Council recognise the new monarch after the death of the previous Monarch, but that would have to be agreed to be a majority of the Privy Council.

The only other way to get around this requirement for Royal Assent would be to rebel against the monarch and simply write a new constitution like the US did in the US Revolution. Such is the same case if you wanted to remove the office of President.

In practice, of course, nobody really cares. The House of Commons pretty much decides the law of the land and everyone else just carries along. The Senate and the Queen are merely progressive safeguards to prevent the House of Commons from doing something particularly stupid.

James.

[civiltech]

Canada has a unique Constitution in that is has the structure in place to dismantle itself! I kind of like this option, as we don't try and make the constution into a holy law that can never be broken, timeless, and etched in stone. Societies, Law, and views change.

Depending on what "you" want to change, there are requirements under the constitution to do that. To remove the Monarch from Canada would require unanimous consent in the House of Commons, Senate, and all Provincial legislatures (I think the provincial legislatures cause we actually have 11 crowns in Canada...not one when you talk legislatively. One for federal gov't, and the Crown in Right of "insert province here.")

[Gav]

Jbirch,

You seem to be the very essence of a monarchist, yet have little or no understanding of the UK constitutional monarchy. The prime minister is the de facto president (a little joke there). If the queen were to invoke her privilege it would precipitate a constitutional crisis that would [in all likelyhood] turn the UK into a republic. All this guff about assent is a formality. She doesn't even the write the Queen's Speech at Christmas. Her job is to be nice (and educated), turn up on time and be good at waving. I hear she does a nice line in medals (candidates chosen by the government) and tea parties.

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.

I liked that bit, it's a good joke - made me chuckle.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Gav

Jbirch,

You seem to be the very essence of a monarchist,

I try.

yet have little or no understanding of the UK constitutional monarchy.

Now that's just rude. I suppose you say that because I contend that the monarchy actually fullfills a governance duty and not just a ceremonial one.

The prime minister is the de facto president (a little joke there). If the queen were to invoke her privilege it would precipitate a constitutional crisis that would [in all likelyhood] turn the UK into a republic.

Depends which battles she chose. Why did she refuse then to give Parliament the ability to declare war? Why did Parliament acede to that whim?

All this guff about assent is a formality.

Yes...and no. Again, why did she refuse Parliament the ability to debate about whether She should have the sole power to declare war?

She doesn't even the write the Queen's Speech at Christmas. Her job is to be nice (and educated), turn up on time and be good at waving. I hear she does a nice line in medals (candidates chosen by the government) and tea parties.

And few Presidents write their speaches either. Does that mean that their job is the same? Could just be us colonials, but in Canada we consider HM to be a valuable part of Government. In fact, our natives refuse to deal with the government of the day, negotiating directly with the Queen for their relationship with Canada.

I liked that bit, it's a good joke - made me chuckle.

Glad I could make you laugh. It's good to be happy.

James.

[Gav]

James,

Try again.

The queen is a figurehad. She has no power. She knows it, the government knows it, the public knows it. Her job is PR; she's a tourist attraction. You are very confused by the concept of formality [and tradition] and real power.

I'm not bother going into this in great detail but; the difference between a president and our queen, is that one reads the words the other decides which words they want to read. They are both figureheads but one can drive the debate the other accedes to it. I'll let you figure out which is which.

You could remove the queen and the UK, and the commonwealth, would go on quite happily without her. Though she does bring in the cash, and so long as the people are happy with that, she can stay.

[civiltech]

Originally Posted by Gav

James,

Try again.

The queen is a figurehad. She has no power. She knows it, the government knows it, the public knows it. Her job is PR; she's a tourist attraction. You are very confused by the concept of formality [and tradition] and real power.

I'm not bother going into this in great detail but; the difference between a president and our queen, is that one reads the words the other decides which words they want to read. They are both figureheads but one can drive the debate the other accedes to it. I'll let you figure out which is which.

You could remove the queen and the UK, and the commonwealth, would go on quite happily without her. Though she does bring in the cash, and so long as the people are happy with that, she can stay.

Gav,

Your wrong on all accounts. I won't go into detail either just like you And I will one up you and not make any opinions presented as statement of fact as in your quoted post!!!

[pigeonmeister]

I think that Gav is how we say- A Republican, but he has a fair point about distinguishing between theoretical powers (which even Gav must admit she has in abundance) and actual power. Yet she does have total legal immunity- which must be a power in itself. I would also contend that it would not be as easy as Gav thinks to remove the Queen, in terms of constitutional politics. It is also questionable that the Queen 'brings in the cash' -after all people still visit the Royal French palaces (Versailles for example) and they lopped of the head of their king over 200 years ago.

Why did she refuse then to give Parliament the ability to declare war? Why did Parliament acede to that whim?

Again if you are arguing that the Queen has the theoretical authority to declare war then you are right. But, obviously, that authority doesn't come with the ability to carry out it out! So your points are largely academic. The monarchy has become, in order for it to survive, totaly benign.

Thus Royal prerogatives are literally nothing more than an extension of the Prime Minister's powers. He can declare war, without Parliamentary permission, yet chose to seek parliamentary approval for the War in Iraq. There is a trade off- our system has scope for abuse- for instance Blair promised that if the vote went against him he would not tell the Queen to declare war. But then a promise is not really concrete law is it! On the other hand the fact is that if Parliament had to scrutinize all the decisions currently made by Royal prerogative (by the PM and his ministers) it would paralyse parliament.

That is why I say that to remove the Queen would mean less power for the executive, and arguably a less efficient system. It would be a constitutional can of worms, and mean a compelte overhaul of a system that has grown organicaly around British politics for 1000 years. But remember that any individual prerogative could be removed by an act of Parliament, as they exist purely as common law.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Thus Royal prerogatives are literally nothing more than an extension of the Prime Minister's powers. He can declare war, without Parliamentary permission, yet chose to seek parliamentary approval for the War in Iraq. There is a trade off- our system has scope for abuse- for instance Blair promised that if the vote went against him he would not tell the Queen to declare war. But then a promise is not really concrete law is it! On the other hand the fact is that if Parliament had to scrutinize all the decisions currently made by Royal prerogative (by the PM and his ministers) it would paralyse parliament.

See, this is the major difference in Canada at least...Neither parliament, nor the senate, nor the Queen, may declare war unilaterally. They all must agree or else nothing happens. The "progressive" safeguards I talked about.

That is why I say that to remove the Queen would mean less power for the executive, and arguably a less efficient system. It would be a constitutional can of worms, and mean a compelte overhaul of a system that has grown organicaly around British politics for 1000 years. But remember that any individual prerogative could be removed by an act of Parliament, as they exist purely as common law.

Right, and again, Parliament is made up of the senate, the Queen AND the house of commons, not just the lower house.

We have an elected branch that has all of the nominal power and two unelected branches that act as a check on that elected group. In the US, everyone is elected and so there is no safeguard against the popular thing being the dumb thing. There is also no safeguard in a pure Republic against a powerful lobby group deciding the law of the land by spending enough money to elect their beholden candidates to each level of power.

James.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Right, and again, Parliament is made up of the senate, the Queen AND the house of commons, not just the lower house.

We have an elected branch that has all of the nominal power and two unelected branches that act as a check on that elected group.

Are we still talking about Britain or Canada? I'm a bit lost. But, in terms of a check on that elected group. The Queen provides no practical check to the executive (in fact has surrendered all of its power to the executive). The second chamber (House of Lords) has only a delaying power and cannot strike down any legislation (after the Parliament Act 1911). Even the delaying power could be removed by another Act of Parliament. The only practical check to Blair's power (or any PM with a large majority) is his own party, that is why it has been called 'Parliamentary Dictatorship'. Maybe the Canadian system is better I don't know.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Are we still talking about Britain or Canada? I'm a bit lost.

Canada. I thought the two were the same in this respect, but they're not.

But, in terms of a check on that elected group. The Queen provides no practical check to the executive (in fact has surrendered all of its power to the executive).

Sorry, who's the executive in Britain? In Canada, it is solely the monarch who acts on the advice (almost always) of the privvy council. All Executive powers reside in the Monarch.

The second chamber (House of Lords) has only a delaying power and cannot strike down any legislation (after the Parliament Act 1911).

Huh. In Canada, both houses must pass any legislation and the Senate can introduce all legislation except money bills. In fact, the Canadian senate rejected the criminalisation of Abortion that was passed by the House of Commons in 1991. Majorly pissed off the conservatives who have been trying to wipe out the institution ever since.

Maybe the Canadian system is better I don't know.

Of course it is. By definition. *grin*

James.