[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 00:15)

QUOTE (leaflinks @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 07:52) Having an accountable and an elected presidency with a handful of powers, would be much more cheaper any day than a Monarch. Can you back up that claim?

He can't, because it's not true. I cannot think of a large, Western Democratic state with a presidential system whose elections cost less than the yearly cost of keeping the Royal family, without anything else taken into consideration. Of course, presidential elections aren't yearly, but the cost of keeping a president in official office isn't that much less than keeping the immediate royal family funded and supplied anyway, so it's a moot point.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 16:39)

QUOTE (Icarus @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 00:15) QUOTE (leaflinks @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 07:52) Having an accountable and an elected presidency with a handful of powers, would be much more cheaper any day than a Monarch. Can you back up that claim? He can't, because it's not true. I cannot think of a large, Western Democratic state with a presidential system whose elections cost less than the yearly cost of keeping the Royal family, without anything else taken into consideration. Of course, presidential elections aren't yearly, but the cost of keeping a president in official office isn't that much less than keeping the immediate royal family funded and supplied anyway, so it's a moot point.

The other thing is if, for example, Canada decided to become a republic and we kept the Office of the Prime Minister and just changed the Office of the Governor General to that of an Office of the President (in effect, having a President and a Prime Minister, like France, for example), then not only do we have to pay for the elections to elect the Prime Minister (from 2008 was pegged at about $300 million; not sure what the cost was for 2011), but then you'd have to pay for the elections of the President too, unless you managed to combine the election of the President and the Prime Minister.

On top of that, you need to pay for the new President's salary; right now the Governor General makes $134,970/year and the Prime Minister makes $317,574/year. However, if we had a semi-presidential system, the President would want to make more than the Prime Minister (ego and power, y'know) and government officials don't like taking salary cuts (who does?), so $134,970/year is now going to surpass $317,574/year, so just over $180,000 difference per year (at a minimum).

Security costs and such would be the same as that of the Governor General and they can keep the same official residence, so yeah, if we had a President, costs would go up - how much depends on certain factors (e.g. how much you want to give the President for an annual salary, election costs).

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 19:21)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 16:39) QUOTE (Icarus @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 00:15) QUOTE (leaflinks @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 07:52) Having an accountable and an elected presidency with a handful of powers, would be much more cheaper any day than a Monarch. Can you back up that claim? He can't, because it's not true. I cannot think of a large, Western Democratic state with a presidential system whose elections cost less than the yearly cost of keeping the Royal family, without anything else taken into consideration. Of course, presidential elections aren't yearly, but the cost of keeping a president in official office isn't that much less than keeping the immediate royal family funded and supplied anyway, so it's a moot point. The other thing is if, for example, Canada decided to become a republic and we kept the Office of the Prime Minister and just changed the Office of the Governor General to that of an Office of the President (in effect, having a President and a Prime Minister, like France, for example), then not only do we have to pay for the elections to elect the Prime Minister (from 2008 was pegged at about $300 million; not sure what the cost was for 2011), but then you'd have to pay for the elections of the President too, unless you managed to combine the election of the President and the Prime Minister. On top of that, you need to pay for the new President's salary; right now the Governor General makes $134,970/year and the Prime Minister makes $317,574/year. However, if we had a semi-presidential system, the President would want to make more than the Prime Minister (ego and power, y'know) and government officials don't like taking salary cuts (who does?), so $134,970/year is now going to surpass $317,574/year, so just over $180,000 difference per year (at a minimum). Security costs and such would be the same as that of the Governor General and they can keep the same official residence, so yeah, if we had a President, costs would go up - how much depends on certain factors (e.g. how much you want to give the President for an annual salary, election costs).

And on top of that, if Canada were to become a republic, that new President of Canada would no longer be a de facto head of state like the current governor general, but the real, de jure, full fledged head of state of Canada. That means actually MORE security costs, more politicking within your country since the President would likely have been elected and have some duties (military commander probably, maybe dissolve parliament). I mean I don't see the benefit other than just dumping the Queen for whatever reason. If Prince William/Duchess Kate have some good looking, sociable kids, the monarchy will probably last another 100 years throughout the commonwealth realms.

[Icarus]

Those two bits you mentioned, specifically the ability to dissolve Parliament and the Commander-in-Chief of Canada, are already held by the Governor General as the de facto head of state, so there would be no change in that sense if we had a President (The Queen also has those abilities - it's kind of like she and the Governor General share them, but she obviously ranks higher than the GG, being the Sovereign). However, the Governor General would, in general, not dissolve Parliament unless asked by the Prime Minister, since they tend to take their cue from the Prime Minister. There was a constitutional crisis in 1926 when MacKenzie King, then Prime Minister, asked Lord Byng, the Governor General at the time, to dissolve Parliament and call a general election (King was facing a motion of non-confidence). By convention, Byng would grant the dissolution; however, Byng actually refused to grant King's request and instead, asked Arthur Meighen, the Leader of the Opposition, to form the new government (it fell in a motion of non-confidence not too longer after that and King was re-elected with a majority). It was unprecedented for a Governor General to go against the request of the Prime Minister, but they had the power to do this, so there was technically nothing wrong with Byng refusing King's request. This led to a few changes in the role of the Governor General in Canada (as per the Westminster Statute of 1931) to the point where nowadays it is understood that while the Governor General (and the Sovereign) have immense reserve powers, they rarely exercise them. Australia had a case in 1975 where the Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister; that has yet to happen in Canada (and if it did, I could see it causing serious backlash).

If we had a President, however, and I believe this was the point you were trying to get across, is that a President might exercise the reserve powers currently held by the head of state more frequently, since the GG and the Sovereign are unelected and don't want to interfere with the political dynamics of the country, but this problem would not come up with a President since they were directly elected by the people. You are right though that it would likely lead to a lot more political BS in the country and I'm not sure how familiar you are with the politics of Canada, but there's enough of it as it is.

I'm sure many of the people who want to dump the Monarchy will say so because it costs too much, without actually reflecting on that point. However, there are some people who would like to leave the Monarchy behind not for cost reasons, but rather that it is a bit outdated and that Canada needs to move on and continue to find its own cultural identity. As I said in my first post, when this will happen, is really hard to say. People here are still quite fond of Queen Elizabeth, but many are weary of Prince Charles. I imagine there will be some discussions of republicanism once Charles becomes King (if he outlives his mother), but if we become a republic is a whole other story. This doesn't apply in Quebec; they tend to be very anti-Monarchy, but it makes sense from a historical perspective, considering the Monarchy is the pinnacle of the British society and Quebec is Canada's main hub for French culture and there's still some bitterness post-Battle of the Plains of Abraham (this was the battle in 1759 that basically shifted Canada from a French colony to a British colony). Basically, the British Monarchy represents what the Québecois society dislikes.

[Irviding]

Right, I know how Westminster systems work pretty well but I don't know much about the volatility of Canadian politics tbh, and wouldn't doubt that it'd get worse if there were a PM/President rather than just a figurehead Governor General.

I know the governor general already has those powers, I meant that the President would get them too. What I basically meant is that I doubt the governor general does anything really with the management of Canada, whatsoever. If there were a President, as with if that happened to Britain, you'd have split positions, unless somehow the system can be so changed like that in France where the Prime Minister does absolutely nothing and switches with the President. I don't know really, but I just think that in the UK at least, the system is fine how it is. In terms of Canada, I am not a Canadian, and my friends from Canada had no clue Queen Elizabeth was even their head of state, so I don't think their word is that trustworthy on Canadian politics anyway, but regardless, as an outside observer who is politically educated, I think the most stable system is the one you have at this point in time.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Jan 7 2012, 19:19)

What I basically meant is that I doubt the governor general does anything really with the management of Canada, whatsoever.

This is fairly accurate as the Prime Minister is the head of government, so he/she does all the management work, per se. The Governor General is supposed to be above politics and non-partisan, so they don't go around saying, "Well, in this term of Parliament, you should do this and that." Their "main" function, to sort of trivialize their role, is to grant Royal Assent to bills that have passed through the House of Commons and the Senate as well as reading the Speech from the Throne to outline what the government plans on doing in the upcoming session of Parliament. Of course, they do all the other roles that many heads of state do, but they're very much a figurehead, just like the Sovereign, but with very real powers (although they are rarely used, by convention).

If people don't like the Monarch because they're not elected by the people, then we couldn't adopt the French model. The only difference is that instead of the head of state not being elected, you have the head of government not being elected, rather, they're chosen by the head of state.

Another minor reason I can see some Canadians wanting to maintain the Monarchy is to have a system distinct from the United States. Canadians like to bitch a lot about the United States (sometimes in a joking manner; sometimes in a very serious manner) and if we had a full Presidential system, like the United States, and not a semi-presidential system, then people would see it as a further Americanization of Canada. Even though Canada derives its roots from the United Kingdom (as does the United States, but you guys have managed to define your own unique culture) and we've managed to keep some of the traditions due to our British history, specifically the legal system and the Monarchy, I believe Canada has also received a lot of cultural influence from the United States (with entertainment and media being the largest, in my opinion), which is to be expected, because it's only natural the dominant culture would diffuse northwards - we do share the longest (undefended - tongue-in-cheek comment) border in the world. With that said, Canadians like to have a few things different from the United States so we're not just seen as "United States, Jr." or the "Fifty-First State."

[Irviding]

QUOTE

With that said, Canadians like to have a few things different from the United States so we're not just seen as "United States, Jr." or the "Fifty-First State."[

Or "America's Hat"

I was just speaking subjectively though regarding the French system. What I meant is to change the Canadian system just really isn't worth it I suppose. I personally really like monarchies, and if we had one in the US somehow, I'd probably be in favor of it simply because an apolitical head of state (not a Germany/Italy style apolitical head of state, but a UK/Spain style one) is really an amazing thing to have for a country. Look at what the Spanish King did during the coup in the 80s. That's because though of course he has political beliefs, he is not tied to a certain party or ideology like the Italian or German presidents who are generally senior members of certain parties that just get the job. Israel too I believe follows that system akin to Italy/Germany.

[K^2]

QUOTE (Greenline @ Friday, Jan 6 2012, 02:35)

Blue=Republics Red=Monarchies

Russia's labeled wrong.

QUOTE (Icarus)

Well for the United Kingdom, the financial explanation works, because the Royal Family brings in a lot of tourist dollars from people wanting to see royal residences (e.g. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle) or whenever the Queen and her family make a general appearance in public (e.g. Royal Wedding of Prince William back in April). In Canada (and all the realms of the Commonwealth), we can't exactly profit from the royals in that manner. First and foremost, they're not in Canada on a habitual basis; usually a royal makes their way here once every year or two, so when they do come, we bring in some cash, but when they're not here, it's no different than the status quo (and it seems like Canada is one of their preferred destinations, so the other realms don't get to profit from them as much as we do). As well, whereas the UK has Buckingham Palace and many other royal residences, Canada only has Rideau Hall (at the federal level) and the Government Houses of each province, but they're not exactly world famous, so they're not going to pull in near the amount of tourist dollars that their counterparts in the UK would (just as a random point, I've seen Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but not Rideau Hall).

Get some dukes, or counts, or something. That's how they did it back in the feudal times. I see no reason why it can't work now.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (K^2 @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 15:02)

QUOTE (Icarus) Well for the United Kingdom, the financial explanation works, because the Royal Family brings in a lot of tourist dollars from people wanting to see royal residences (e.g. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle) or whenever the Queen and her family make a general appearance in public (e.g. Royal Wedding of Prince William back in April). In Canada (and all the realms of the Commonwealth), we can't exactly profit from the royals in that manner. First and foremost, they're not in Canada on a habitual basis; usually a royal makes their way here once every year or two, so when they do come, we bring in some cash, but when they're not here, it's no different than the status quo (and it seems like Canada is one of their preferred destinations, so the other realms don't get to profit from them as much as we do). As well, whereas the UK has Buckingham Palace and many other royal residences, Canada only has Rideau Hall (at the federal level) and the Government Houses of each province, but they're not exactly world famous, so they're not going to pull in near the amount of tourist dollars that their counterparts in the UK would (just as a random point, I've seen Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but not Rideau Hall). Get some dukes, or counts, or something. That's how they did it back in the feudal times. I see no reason why it can't work now.

The Nickel Resolution of 1919 causes a problem there. In short, the Sovereign cannot grant knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages to Canadian citizens. It's actually because of this rule that Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to take up his seat in the British House of Lords.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 18:17)

QUOTE (K^2 @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 15:02) QUOTE (Icarus) Well for the United Kingdom, the financial explanation works, because the Royal Family brings in a lot of tourist dollars from people wanting to see royal residences (e.g. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle) or whenever the Queen and her family make a general appearance in public (e.g. Royal Wedding of Prince William back in April). In Canada (and all the realms of the Commonwealth), we can't exactly profit from the royals in that manner. First and foremost, they're not in Canada on a habitual basis; usually a royal makes their way here once every year or two, so when they do come, we bring in some cash, but when they're not here, it's no different than the status quo (and it seems like Canada is one of their preferred destinations, so the other realms don't get to profit from them as much as we do). As well, whereas the UK has Buckingham Palace and many other royal residences, Canada only has Rideau Hall (at the federal level) and the Government Houses of each province, but they're not exactly world famous, so they're not going to pull in near the amount of tourist dollars that their counterparts in the UK would (just as a random point, I've seen Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, but not Rideau Hall). Get some dukes, or counts, or something. That's how they did it back in the feudal times. I see no reason why it can't work now. The Nickel Resolution of 1919 causes a problem there. In short, the Sovereign cannot grant knighthoods, baronetcies and peerages to Canadian citizens. It's actually because of this rule that Conrad Black gave up his Canadian citizenship to take up his seat in the British House of Lords.

A quick reading of it seems to be that the sovereign is requested not to, not that the sovereign can't. I think the Queen should just start arbitrarily granting hereditary dukedoms to random Canadian people... would be funny.

[Icarus]

Hmm, you're right - it's a request, not an actual forbidding. I guess it would be hard for Her Majesty's Canadian government to forbid her to do anything since she actually is in control of it (technically).

It was convention before the Nickel Resolution that all the Prime Ministers received a knighthood, although there were a couple that didn't (and oddly enough, the Nickel Resolution passed during the tenure of Sir Robert Borden). The last Prime Minister to ever receive a peerage was R.B. Bennett (who is the only PM from my home province), but he kind of took exile to the United Kingdom after his Prime Ministership; he was the Prime Minister during the depression and many people were upset at him for how the economy turned out, so he didn't feel too welcomed in Canada. Just as a side story, apparently he would respond to personal letters from citizens and whenever they were expressing they had no money (due to the depression), he would send them five dollars out of his own pocket. I can't argue his heart wasn't in the right place.

If the Nickel Resolution wasn't kicking around, I imagine all the former Governors General (back to Vincent Massey) and the current one would be granted some sort of peerage, since before 1952 when all the Governors General were from the UK, they were all peers.

[Irviding]

Yeah. People always say she is a powerless figurehead, but the amount of power vested within the sovereign in the Commonwealth realms and the UK is pretty damn large.

Yeah, isn't it true that Canadian citizenship didn't even exist until like 50-60 years ago, and that if one was born in Canada, he was just a British subject?

[Icarus]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 18:55)

Yeah, isn't it true that Canadian citizenship didn't even exist until like 50-60 years ago, and that if one was born in Canada, he was just a British subject?

Yes, that's correct. Canadian citizenship only came about in 1947; before that, people born in Canada were, as you said, British subjects.

MacKenzie King was actually the first person to take the Oath of Citizenship in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jeeebuuus]

I have not brought this up but almost right after this thread was created, a story broke about a young woman being found murdered on the queens estate. Boy, I imagine the conspiracy theorists are going wild with ritual sacrifices. Bwahahaha.

[Stefche]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 13:42)

an apolitical head of state (not a Germany/Italy style apolitical head of state, but a UK/Spain style one) is really an amazing thing to have for a country. Look at what the Spanish King did during the coup in the 80s. That's because though of course he has political beliefs, he is not tied to a certain party or ideology like the Italian or German presidents who are generally senior members of certain parties that just get the job. Israel too I believe follows that system akin to Italy/Germany.

I agree wholeheartedly. Why Serbia hasn't converted itself to a constitutional monarchy post-dissolution of Yugoslavia, for example, really puzzles me, considering that the monarchy (despite not having any powers at all) still is popular within the country, and would serve as a fantastic neutraliser in a political climate which is almost as divided as it is ethnically homogeneous. Who gives a sh*t about "democratic choice" and "the voice of the people" if your country is more stable and prosperous through a slightly-less anarchic political system? It would just mean that they have one fewer election to vote in.

Being an Australian, I have no inherent problems with the monarchy at all, although I do think that we should have a flag without a Union Jack (much like Canada). But I'm a conservative, so the mantra of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" rings pretty well with my own beliefs. Besides, the Australian flag and the Southern Cross have become too well-entrenched in our own culture to revoke now for some gold-and-green field with a f*cking kangaroo or something. In addition, bitches absolutely swoon whenever Prince William comes to town. And I mean swoon.

[Irviding]

Yup. Prince William and his wife are probably the greatest things that have happened to monarchists ever. No one, and I mean no one, will get away with saying they want the monarchy abolished under them. Charles maybe, yeah, but hopefully he'll just die before the Queen does.

[Icarus]

QUOTE (Stefche @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 21:52)

[...] although I do think that we should have a flag without a Union Jack (much like Canada).

That apparently caused a lot of controversy with us when we wanted to adopt the Maple Leaf and ditch the Red Ensign. In fact, John Diefenbaker, the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, decided to stage a filibuster in the House of Commons to try and stall the passage of the bill that would give us the new flag. He got really pissed when Lester Pearson decided to invoke cloture, because Pearson felt that the Opposition were just going to drag the filibuster on forever, so he managed to bring the debate to a close.

February 15, 1965, we finally got our new flag. You'll find a lot of older people who still hold the Red Ensign close to heart and I can understand that; I mean, it was the flag people fought under during the two World Wars, so there's a lot of sentimental value. As for me, I was born in 1988, so I hold the Maple Leaf close to heart.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Monday, Jan 9 2012, 11:32)

QUOTE (Stefche @ Sunday, Jan 8 2012, 21:52) [...] although I do think that we should have a flag without a Union Jack (much like Canada). That apparently caused a lot of controversy with us when we wanted to adopt the Maple Leaf and ditch the Red Ensign. In fact, John Diefenbaker, the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister who was Leader of the Opposition at the time, decided to stage a filibuster in the House of Commons to try and stall the passage of the bill that would give us the new flag. He got really pissed when Lester Pearson decided to invoke cloture, because Pearson felt that the Opposition were just going to drag the filibuster on forever, so he managed to bring the debate to a close. February 15, 1965, we finally got our new flag. You'll find a lot of older people who still hold the Red Ensign close to heart and I can understand that; I mean, it was the flag people fought under during the two World Wars, so there's a lot of sentimental value. As for me, I was born in 1988, so I hold the Maple Leaf close to heart.

As an outside observer, IMO the Red Ensign flag is a lot nicer than the maple leaf

[Icarus]

I love the Maple Leaf. Granted, I am biased as it is the flag that I grew up with and it is the flag that I associate with Canada. Plus, unlike the Red Ensign, I feel like it's something we can properly call our own, since the Red Ensign was defaced with the Union Jack, which belongs to the United Kingdom.

[Irviding]

QUOTE (Icarus @ Monday, Jan 9 2012, 12:49)

I love the Maple Leaf. Granted, I am biased as it is the flag that I grew up with and it is the flag that I associate with Canada. Plus, unlike the Red Ensign, I feel like it's something we can properly call our own, since the Red Ensign was defaced with the Union Jack, which belongs to the United Kingdom.

True. I remember studying that whole flag debate when I took a British History class last semester... before looking at it I'd have thought the maple leaf would have been a no brainer. So many people wanted to hold onto that British heritage though. I guess because a good chunk of Canadians descend from the United Empire Loyalists that left the US and went to British Canada after the revolution. Even our US state of Hawaii is defaced with a British flag lol.