Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

New Republics

Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:03:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

No. In fact, they should strengthen the monarchy.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:05:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They should either let kings actually rule, or abolish monarchy. It is just like in Denmark where we have a queen, but she possesses no valid political power at all.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:08:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

No.

Well, actually, I can't speak for Australia. Their country has always had a large republican movement, and they're closer to a republic than any other Commonwealth country still using the Westminster system. But for Canada, no.

Why? Because having the monarchy makes us distinct, and because any switch wouldn't really bring much change or difference anyways. If Canada were to become a republic, it isn't as if our Presidents would have any sort of power that the counterparts to the south do. The President would just end up fulfilling the same role as the Governor General, except we'll make it partisan and have a very pointless election over the position. It's a non-starter of an idea. What would be the point? We'd also have to fiddle with the constitution and open up huge debates and fights between the provinces over essentially nothing. That's not good.

Our allegiance to the Queen gives Canada a flair you can't find elsewhere in the Western world. We're a multi-lingual, legally-separated former colony which likes sticking to our respected traditions and friends. It's a historical, integral part of this country that even Quebec separatists say they would be reluctant to get rid of. Its simply Canadian to have our monarch.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:10:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

Not really, Most of the people aren't really Natives anyway. It's good that they don't forget that they live on stolen land.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:11:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:08:12 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
How about implementing the Islamic Republic of Canuckistan after the queen dies. :D lol jk...

Lol don't say that you'll make Cereb spend his life savings on army suit to defend your republic.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:22:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:08:47 PM, Volkov wrote:
Well, actually, I can't speak for Australia. Their country has always had a large republican movement, and they're closer to a republic than any other Commonwealth country still using the Westminster system. But for Canada, no.

Why? Because having the monarchy makes us distinct, and because any switch wouldn't really bring much change or difference anyways. If Canada were to become a republic, it isn't as if our Presidents would have any sort of power that the counterparts to the south do. The President would just end up fulfilling the same role as the Governor General, except we'll make it partisan and have a very pointless election over the position. It's a non-starter of an idea. What would be the point? We'd also have to fiddle with the constitution and open up huge debates and fights between the provinces over essentially nothing. That's not good.

Our allegiance to the Queen gives Canada a flair you can't find elsewhere in the Western world. We're a multi-lingual, legally-separated former colony which likes sticking to our respected traditions and friends. It's a historical, integral part of this country that even Quebec separatists say they would be reluctant to get rid of. Its simply Canadian to have our monarch.

If Canada were to become a republic they could simply have the Governor General, President or whatever we would call the new leader take on the role of Head State and the Head of the Government, and open the Senate up to elections something we have been trying to do forever. It is also a myth that the role of Governor General is strictly ceremonial, they have the ability to veto any law passed my the democratically elected body of parliament.

For a large majority of Canada history we have been looking for ways to establish ourselves from England, it is not Canadian to have a monarchy.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:37:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:22:58 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
If Canada were to become a republic they could simply have the Governor General, President or whatever we would call the new leader take on the role of Head State and the Head of the Government,

GG is head of state, PM is head of government. Our country has its executive vested in Parliament, and we can already see how badly it goes when we centralize control in the PMO and Parliament can't exercise its authority. A Presidential system puts that into law.

and open the Senate up to elections something we have been trying to do forever.

No - the Senate issue isn't because of the GG, and any Presidential arrangement will not change that. The Senate can't get reformed because the provinces are reluctant to do so. Why? There are varying reasons, but the mains one being the regional balance and the fact that Senators would take way from a Premier's influence, since Senators are supposed to represent the provinces. Despite what Harper and his Reformatories say, you can't reform the Senate without the provinces.

It is also a myth that the role of Governor General is strictly ceremonial, they have the ability to veto any law passed my the democratically elected body of parliament.

Yet the GG never does, because the GG's powers are limited and rarely used except in precedent, otherwise we'd have a Liberal government right now. Plus, it isn't too much to work around the GG and override if the GG so abuses their power - there are clauses or this. A president's powers would be the same way, but what would be the point in switching?

For a large majority of Canada history we have been looking for ways to establish ourselves from England, it is not Canadian to have a monarchy.

I disagree. We are distinct from England, but the monarchy and our colonial past are apart of our history. To ignore it is to ignore what has built this country up. If there are no legislative, economic or jurisdictional benefits from switching to a republic, why should we purge part of our history for nothing?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:43:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

No... Monarchies rock... it's not really something that can be explained. You either get or you don't. I guess it's like transubstantiation.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:50:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:39:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Volkov, what are your views on the Canadian Senate? Do you think it should stay as is, be reformed, or abolished?

Reformed. I view the Senate as a needed legislative tool, but as a democracy, it shouldn't be above the voter's wrath. However, I realize that it may not be possible to make it elected, at least not in this lifetime.

What I think is doable is talking to the provinces and reforming the Senate to be representative of provincial legislatures. This is the system that South Africa has. Essentially, depending on the make-up of the provincial assembly, that many Senators from each represented party will go to Ottawa. To put it in context, if each province is allocated 10 Senators, for BC, 5 Liberals and 5 NDP would be sent to Ottawa, since BC's legislature is almost split by half.

This way, voters are indirectly elected Senators, and depending on the national tide, instead of having two chambers controlled by, say, the Conservatives, if there are more Liberals elected in the provinces, the Liberals will control the Senate.
Registered_Trademark
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:51:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:43:27 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

No... Monarchies rock... it's not really something that can be explained. You either get or you don't. I guess it's like transubstantiation.

Isn't it kind of an outdated way of thinking to believe someone has a right to govern because they are a descendant of someone who had the "divine right" to rule?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:56:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:50:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:39:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Volkov, what are your views on the Canadian Senate? Do you think it should stay as is, be reformed, or abolished?

Reformed. I view the Senate as a needed legislative tool, but as a democracy, it shouldn't be above the voter's wrath. However, I realize that it may not be possible to make it elected, at least not in this lifetime.

What I think is doable is talking to the provinces and reforming the Senate to be representative of provincial legislatures. This is the system that South Africa has. Essentially, depending on the make-up of the provincial assembly, that many Senators from each represented party will go to Ottawa. To put it in context, if each province is allocated 10 Senators, for BC, 5 Liberals and 5 NDP would be sent to Ottawa, since BC's legislature is almost split by half.

This way, voters are indirectly elected Senators, and depending on the national tide, instead of having two chambers controlled by, say, the Conservatives, if there are more Liberals elected in the provinces, the Liberals will control the Senate.

From what I know Senates operate as more-less a constitutional safeguard. Throwing the same majority into the senate causes

1) Party politics
2) Any constitutional concern by the oppositio is immediately overturned by the majority in control in both houses.

I like the idea of inverse proportion, but that just means some cooky BNP style party with one seat dominates the senate.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 1:59:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:51:16 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:43:27 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

No... Monarchies rock... it's not really something that can be explained. You either get or you don't. I guess it's like transubstantiation.

Isn't it kind of an outdated way of thinking to believe someone has a right to govern because they are a descendant of someone who had the "divine right" to rule?

Yes... and no... sort off. Hmm.

Technically the British monarchy does not subscribe to the Divine Right of Kings. The last monarch to publicly hold such a view was Charles I and we all know what happened to him. Also if such a right does exist it is conditional on not being a Catholic... otherwise our current Monarch would be Francis II of Bavaria if memory serves me right and is in theory conferred by the act of either crowning or coronation, though there can be quite a gap between ascending the throne and becoming King so thats probably rubbish.

But our monarchs no longer govern. Hence we have a Parliament of scum.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:00:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:56:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I like the idea of inverse proportion, but that just means some cooky BNP style party with one seat dominates the senate.

Why not just make it realistic proportional representation.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:00:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:50:53 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:39:02 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Volkov, what are your views on the Canadian Senate? Do you think it should stay as is, be reformed, or abolished?

Reformed. I view the Senate as a needed legislative tool, but as a democracy, it shouldn't be above the voter's wrath. However, I realize that it may not be possible to make it elected, at least not in this lifetime.

What I think is doable is talking to the provinces and reforming the Senate to be representative of provincial legislatures. This is the system that South Africa has. Essentially, depending on the make-up of the provincial assembly, that many Senators from each represented party will go to Ottawa. To put it in context, if each province is allocated 10 Senators, for BC, 5 Liberals and 5 NDP would be sent to Ottawa, since BC's legislature is almost split by half.

This way, voters are indirectly elected Senators, and depending on the national tide, instead of having two chambers controlled by, say, the Conservatives, if there are more Liberals elected in the provinces, the Liberals will control the Senate.

Fair enough. That seems pretty reasonable. I despise the current set-up of the senate. There needs to be elected representatives for fair representation or complete abolishment.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:03:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 2:00:14 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:56:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I like the idea of inverse proportion, but that just means some cooky BNP style party with one seat dominates the senate.

Why not just make it realistic proportional representation.

At 4/13/2010 1:56:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Any constitutional concern by the opposition is immediately overturned by the majority in control in both houses.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:06:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 2:03:43 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 4/13/2010 2:00:14 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:56:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I like the idea of inverse proportion, but that just means some cooky BNP style party with one seat dominates the senate.

Why not just make it realistic proportional representation.

At 4/13/2010 1:56:54 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Any constitutional concern by the opposition is immediately overturned by the majority in control in both houses.

That doesn't answer the question. That just results in need to remove any constitutional system in a politics
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:48:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To point out, the Senate of Canada isn't there for constitutional safeguard. Any constitutional changes are decided by the provinces and the premiers.

Senators are supposed to be representatives for the provinces at a federal level. It was supposed to help smaller provinces have a say. It doesn't fulfill this role because its become a partisan battleground, because only the Prime Minister can appoint members, and usually, they only appoint sympathetic partisan Senators. That's the problem.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2010 2:52:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 4/13/2010 1:03:51 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 4/13/2010 1:01:03 PM, Registered_Trademark wrote:
Let me begin by saying I am posting this question mainly to generate conversation.

In your opinion after the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II passes should Canada and/or Australia should become republics, with the ability to choose their own head of state?

Explain.

No. In fact, they should strengthen the monarchy.

You would rather power become centralized?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord