Jump to content
270soft Forum

Should Canada Remove Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State and Become Fully Independent?


vcczar
 Share

Should Canada Remove Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State and Become Fully Independent?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Canada Remove Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State and Become Fully Independent?

  2. 2. Who should play the role of head of state?

    • A single executive, such as a president.
    • A multi-person executive committee, such as what they have in Switzerland and in many New England towns.
    • Canada should have its own monarch.
    • They should praise Trump until he moves to Canada whereup he becomes dictator for life and potentially invades the US out of spite for having lost the 2020 election. *for admin270*
    • other *for Patine*
    • I don't know
  3. 3. Should Canada keep their parliamentary system if they become fully independent?

    • Yes, replacing it with a US-style bicameral legislature
    • No
    • other
    • I don't know


Recommended Posts

I don't live in Canada so my opinions will be distorted by my American experiences and life. Therefore, I put "I don't know" on all of these. 

What I'd like to see based of how I think governments aught to be run in most cases is: 

1. Yes 

2. Multi-person executive. 

3. Keep the parliamentary system 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q2 and 3 are a bit complicated. @vcczar

Q2 "Who should play the role of head of state?" doesn't gives you a possibility when you are favoring Queen Elizabeth II. as I do in the initial question. So I chose "Canada should have its own monarch."

Q3 asks you if Canada should keep it's parliamentary system, while the only ''yes answer'' talks about replacing it. While I'd favor a US-style system, I think it would be more comfortable for Canada to keep it as it is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheLiberalKitten said:

Canada is independent already. I believe that was established by the Constitution Act of 1982. The Queen has a largely ceremonial role in Canada just like in Australia and New Zealand too.

She has a largely ceremonial role in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen doesn't really have any direct political power. I'm not sure what is gained by removing her as monarch. Practically speaking, we are already fully independent.

I would say on the whole the royal figures have a good effect right now - they have a uniting cultural aspect, and to a large degree (hopefully) are above the fray of everyday Canadian politics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The Queen doesn't really have any direct political power. I'm not sure what is gained by removing her as monarch. Practically speaking, we are already fully independent.

I would say on the whole the royal figures have a good effect right now - they have a uniting cultural aspect, and to a large degree (hopefully) are above the fray of everyday Canadian politics.

Are you going to take the poll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Are you going to take the poll?

The poll is predicated on the false and misinformed assumption that's Canada's independence is hinged on whether the Monarch of the UK (and the Commonwealth) or a republican-style is head-of-state. Thus it can't, by that reckoning, be accurately answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the modern relevance of the Queen or the rest of the Royal family in the UK, much less elsewhere.  But because I don't understand it, while it seems unnecessary, I chose "I don't know."  I like having an "I don't know" option for things that I haven't personally researched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Are you going to take the poll?

Question number one needs a "Canada became fully independent as of the Canada Act 1982 regardless of the symbolic, ritual, ceremonial, and effectively powerless monarchially head-of-state and is not politically subservient in any way to Westminster and Whitehall, and changing the head-of-state from a monarch to a republican-style leader would just be a huge money sink for appreciable gain," option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jayavarman said:

Down with the monarchy!  I wish to see no more Kings and Queens in the world.

Kings and Queens (with actual power, who, in the modern world are all in some Arab countries, Bhutan, Tonga, and Swaziland - and nowhere else) are no stupider, more incompetent, more corrupt, and less giving a damn about their people on average than elected Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Chancellors today. And, as I said, no remaining European Monarch today has any real power, and they're all just symbols (except, ARGUABLY, the Prince of Lichtenstein - who is also, by far, the wealthiest in personal assets head-of-state and/or government of a predominantly "White," country - but him aside), and the nations they're heads-of-state of are headed by elected Parliamentary Prime Ministers. Your sentiment is a century late to be meaningful. And, does your sentiment also include changing American inheritance laws to dismantle de facto Neo-Feudal American political and business dynasties, as well?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should not be given the position of the head of a state just because you were born into the right family.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MBDemSoc said:

You should not be given the position of the head of a state just because you were born into the right family.

The head-of-state in this case has no power, as has been said. The executive power in the Commonwealth realms is NOT AT ALL with the Monarchy or it's Vicereagal representation - they're purely symbolic and ceremonial - but instead with the heads-of-government (which, unlike the U.S., are separate offices), which are the 16 Prime Ministers of the 16 Commonwealth Realms, the 21 Premiers of the 10 Canadian Provinces, 3 Canadian Territories, 6 Australian States, and 2 integral Australian Territories, the First Ministers of the Devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and 19 Premiers/Chief Ministers/Presidents/etc. of the Executive Council of the 3 Crown Dependencies, 12 self-governing British Overseas Territories, 3 Nations in Free Association with New Zealand, and the external Australian Territory of Norfolk Island. Please, get a grip here. The true power and authority held by the British Crown over Government was worn away through strife by Parliament in the days of the House of Stuart (1603-1715).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Patine said:

Kings and Queens (with actual power, who, in the modern world are all in some Arab countries, Bhutan, Tonga, and Swaziland - and nowhere else) are no stupider, more incompetent, more corrupt, and less giving a damn about their people on average than elected Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Chancellors today. And, as I said, no remaining European Monarch today has any real power, and they're all just symbols (except, ARGUABLY, the Prince of Lichtenstein - who is also, by far, the wealthiest in personal assets head-of-state and/or government of a predominantly "White," country - but him aside), and the nations they're heads-of-state of are headed by elected Parliamentary Prime Ministers. Your sentiment is a century late to be meaningful. And, does your sentiment also include changing American inheritance laws to dismantle de facto Neo-Feudal American political and business dynasties, as well?

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MBDemSoc said:

You should not be given the position of the head of a state just because you were born into the right family.

The Governor-General (who represents the monarch) of a Commonwealth nation is nothing more than a ceremonious position.  Duties include dissolving Parliament, signing legislation, etc. in the name of the monarch.  There is no real power attached with the head of state in this system

 

21 hours ago, Patine said:

Question number one needs a "Canada became fully independent as of the Canada Act 1982 regardless of the symbolic, ritual, ceremonial, and effectively powerless monarchially head-of-state and is not politically subservient in any way to Westminster and Whitehall, and changing the head-of-state from a monarch to a republican-style leader would just be a huge money sink for appreciable gain," option.

This 100%.  Canadian republicanism never gathered a strong following because it never made any sense to begin with.  Go ahead and remove the monarch, now you have to change money, legislation, the whole political system for no appreciable gain at all.  Canada and any other country that still retains the monarch as head of state is already independent.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia has a significant republican movement despite the Queen playing only a ceremonial role in their politics. I've often wondered why the issue hasn't caught on in Canada or New Zealand to the same extent.

BTW, do most Quebec separatists want to remain within the Commonwealth with the Queen as Head of State, or do they favor more of an independent republic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, RI Democrat said:

do most Quebec separatists want to remain within the Commonwealth with the Queen as Head of State, or do they favor more of an independent republic?

Quebecers in general seem to view the monarchy negatively. 17% approval in Quebec vs. ~50% everywhere else, according to this 2018 Leger poll.

main-qimg-05e3679b47dabb88ff89264085dccc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Quebecers in general seem to view the monarchy negatively. 17% approval in Quebec vs. ~50% everywhere else, according to this 2018 Leger poll.

main-qimg-05e3679b47dabb88ff89264085dccc

That's interesting in that - assuming I'm reading the French correctly - 44% of Canadians overall would prefer to abolish the monarchy, and yet the issue seems to be a non-factor in Canadian politics, whereas it's at least something of a live issue in Australia with only slightly higher levels of support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Australia#Public_opinion

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...