Monarchy?

[Edward Campbell]

PS Argyll,

Given our legal tradition isn't it equally possible to argue that the 1982 Constitution is in conflict with the 1704 Act and calls for a judgement - a judgement that could just as easily find that notwithstanding 1982, 1704 has precedence and for the good of the realm should prevail?

No, because we are, now, de facto, sovereign and our written Constitution can overrule our other written constitutional foundation stones. It is our very sovereignty that makes a shared monarch increasingly difficult because our British cousins will, naturally, want to use the 'power' of our monarch's person for their political and economic advantage - 'advantages' which we might not see as such.

By the way, so long as we don't muck about with Constitutional amendments, the legal, constitutional cage that contains the British monarch, the lad or lady who presides in Westminster, also contains our Regent - that's another reason why unwritten constitutions are, always and everywhere, superior, in every way, to written ones.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I. However, my daughter grew up open minded and was able to throw off the bonds and make her own decisions. 8)

Here too as well.  Both of mine are, unfortunately at times, of a highly independent nature.

 

[Kirkhill]

No, because we are, now, de facto, sovereign and our written Constitution can overrule our other written constitutional foundation stones. It is our very sovereignty that makes a shared monarch increasingly difficult because our British cousins will, naturally, want to use the 'power' of our monarch's person for their political and economic advantage - 'advantages' which we might not see as such.

By the way, so long as we don't muck about with Constitutional amendments, the legal, constitutional cage that contains the British monarch, the lad or lady who presides in Westminster, also contains our Regent - that's another reason why unwritten constitutions are, always and everywhere, superior, in every way, to written ones.

I'll stipulate your first point but take exception to your second.  The Law plays second fiddle to popular support.  If the public does not support the Law then there is no Law.  Equally the public likes the idea of law in general but not necessarily the law in particular.  The Canadian (and Commonwealth) population has become accustomed to legal, popular leaders.  All that it would take for the Canadian Regent to jump the traces is for the Regent to find legal pretext to act according to the laws, and if that Regent were popularly elected there would be no restrictions on them.  As you yourself have noted in the past the single thing that restrains the Monarchy from using the Reserve Powers is the lack of democratic legitimacy.  She wasn't elected.

If a Regent were granted democratic legitimacy then the Reserve Powers (appointing Prime Minister, GG, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Privy Council, proroguing Parliament) would then become available. 

Or do you lot want to relive the Protectorate?

 

[quadrapiper]

...but has the issue of defining the reserve powers of the Governor General/Regent of Canada and clarifying that role in Confederation.

And leaves the country's ultimate executive authority (however usually ceremonial) in the hands of someone technically answerable to no other, and, unlike the current setup, placed in that position by the PM. Sure, there's centuries of custom against serious abuses, but all that custom was set in place by monarchs in a formally adversarial position as far as Parliament goes: monarchs with the institutional memory of Parliamentarians chopping the head off the last of their number who tried to make the job something other than a gilded Anglo-Saxon chieftancy. A Governor-General-like Regency, the appointee owing their position to the PM and without the Lady in London to answer to, is somehow worrisome.

Would dearly love the non-hereditary checks upon, and balances against, our elected leadership, to be appointed through some means less related to the PM than is currently the case, and not under any circumstances using a popular vote. For the GG, perhaps offer the gig to the House of Windsor as a spot for the second in line. What better representative for the Boss could you ask for? Might encourage a bit more humility in the elected set, especially those styled "Minister."

As for Senators, the only system potentially worse than the current one is anything where people vote for (or nominate by petition, or anything numbers-related) senators. Wouldn't object to it being an automatic perk for former holders of high office, PMs, Premiers, CDS, Speakers, and so on, and the public-minded sorts that get senior grades in the Order of Canada - the latter with some sort of five or ten year waiting period between award and office.

Sorry... staggered rather far off topic.

As to the monarchy itself: God Save the Queen, and confusion to her enemies.

 

[Infanteer]

and not under any circumstances using a popular vote.

What's wrong with letting the populace exercise its sovereignty?  Seems like the best way of getting things done to me.

I find it somewhat disingenious that some can argue that all that lies between us and the abyss is the fact that the pandora's box of executive authority is tied up in the conventions of a figurehead monarchy.  That authority is exercised everyday by the Prime Minister.

Those powers are needed for the day to day running of the state - right now these lay by de facto with the PMO.  Edward's proposal of a vacant Regency is sound, if anything to grow up as a soveriegn people and acknowledge the fact that we don't need a family hailing from another country across the ocean to have a lock as our head of state due to birthright.  Putting the powers of the executive into an elected position as a counter to the PM is something worthy of study, although there is likely a requirement to rejig some of the distribution of powers.  I've argued before to look at a long-term elected GG restricted to a single term.  It ain't in the BNA, but the great thing about Convention is we can just make it up as we go....

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'll stipulate your first point but take exception to your second.  The Law plays second fiddle to popular support.  If the public does not support the Law then there is no Law.  Equally the public likes the idea of law in general but not necessarily the law in particular.  The Canadian (and Commonwealth) population has become accustomed to legal, popular leaders.  All that it would take for the Canadian Regent to jump the traces is for the Regent to find legal pretext to act according to the laws, and if that Regent were popularly elected there would be no restrictions on them.  As you yourself have noted in the past the single thing that restrains the Monarchy from using the Reserve Powers is the lack of democratic legitimacy.  She wasn't elected.

If a Regent were granted democratic legitimacy then the Reserve Powers (appointing Prime Minister, GG, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Privy Council, proroguing Parliament) would then become available. 

Or do you lot want to relive the Protectorate?

While I accept your points, it seems to me that we, in liberal democracies, have learned to moderate the "will of the people," which we understand to be an ephemeral thing. Yes a popularly elected Regent could jump the traces; so could an appointed GG or or an anointed monarch. The fact is that we have hemmed in the monarch and her henchmen with laws and (more powerful) customs.

I grant you that it could happen, especially if we were to popularly elect the Regent, but as the old saying goes: "if wishes were horses then poor men would ride." I checked, yesterday, (whilst out looking for signs of the rapture  ) and the poor are still safely afoot. Thus, I conclude that wishes and fears are equally safe at bay.

 

[Canuk Crusader]

What's wrong with letting the populace exercise its sovereignty?  Seems like the best way of getting things done to me.

I find it somewhat disingenious that some can argue that all that lies between us and the abyss is the fact that the pandora's box of executive authority is tied up in the conventions of a figurehead monarchy.  That authority is exercised everyday by the Prime Minister.

You make it seem as if having a Queen of Canada somehow impedes upon our sovereignty. It seems to me that we have managed to function as our own country all these years "despite" having a Queen.

And I don't think anybody is arguing that we would fall into the abyss by getting rid of the monarchy as much as we would be cutting of an important part of our Canadian identity, while at the same time causing constitutional troubles.

For what it's worth we already have a regent (even if a different title is used), and he is most certainly a Canadian. He is the Governor General.

 

[Franko]

But seriously, I have mentioned the  oath to him and he has found a "way around it." He is willing to swear the same oath while thinking solely of the Canadian people, he calls this "patriotism" but frankly I can think of a few other words for it. He also said he only considers those who fight for "Canada and Canada alone" (he thinks the Queen is only a Briton) to be great and holds those who also do so for the Queen in (very) low regard.

Your friend will be corrected immediately by the Officer conducting the swearing in ceremony if he tries anything but the proper oath.

Regards

 

[Infanteer]

You make it seem as if having a Queen of Canada somehow impedes upon our sovereignty. It seems to me that we have managed to function as our own country all these years "despite" having a Queen.

You're right, which is why this is purely a sentimental issue - the issue of the monarchy isn't one of how to run the government, it is one of who do we want as our ceremonial figurehead.  Since it's a sentimental issue, the responses are likely to be opinions, and we know what those smell like.  It is largely a question of ""Canadian Identity", pitting "traditional identity" vs "modern, democratic identity".

As Edward's proposal highlights, the functional issue (those powers of the executive) are another issue; but since convention has moved those powers, for all intents and purposes, to the Lower House the role of the monarchy is immaterial as to how we want these powers distributed and executed.

 

[Kirkhill]

You're right, which is why this is purely a sentimental issue - the issue of the monarchy isn't one of how to run the government, it is one of who do we want as our ceremonial figurehead.  Since it's a sentimental issue, the responses are likely to be opinions, and we know what those smell like.  It is largely a question of ""Canadian Identity", pitting "traditional identity" vs "modern, democratic identity".

As Edward's proposal highlights, the functional issue (those powers of the executive) are another issue; but since convention has moved those powers, for all intents and purposes, to the Lower House the role of the monarchy is immaterial as to how we want these powers distributed and executed.

Powers moved by custom and lodged there until contested by a popular figure.  History is full of barracks-room lawyers generating a following based on their personal interpretations of the law.

Leave well enuff alone, sez I.

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the experience of our American cousins, their initial thoughts on the elections of the houses *might* hold some useful lessons in this debate (even if it never comes to fruition in the real world).

Each level of the Federal Government was legitimized through very different systems of election.

The House, being the people's body and designed to deal with the day to day business of the people, was elected by direct vote of the citizens.

The Senate, being a deliberative body to provide a check on the popular passions, represented the States and Senators were elected by the State Legislature and reported back to the Statehouse. The American conception of Statehood is actually much closer to what is considered nationhood elsewhere (America was correctly referred to as "These United States" up to the time of the Civil War. Reading the American Creed* also makes this idea of States as Nations clear as well). To prevent larger States for dominating smaler ones, each State has an equal number of Senators regardless of size or population.

The Executive is elected by the Electoral College, which is also designed to prevent small States from being crowded out by larger ones.

Now I know Infanteer objects to indirectly elected Senates and I would guess that he might not like an indirectly elected Head of State (Edward's Regent, in this case), but one of the key reasons for indirect elections is to reduce or eliminate the influence of demagogues and prevent the imposition of sweeping changes based on current popular passions. The American founding fathers knew Roman history, and rightly feared mob rule. (My own namesake also had a lot to say about demagogues in The History of the Peloponnesian War, and most Greek philosophers who considered the question were also not keen on democracy). Three separate systems of election also make "gaming" the system more difficult for would be demagogues and tyrants, and certainly much harder to crack open.

* "I believe in the United States of America, as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.
I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.”

— William Tyler Page, The American's Creed

 

[Infanteer]

(America was correctly referred to as "These United States" up to the time of the Civil War.

Not entirely true.  Read the first line of the U.S. Constitution.  "These" United States was more of a populist sentiment than a legal one.  That being said, you are correct in pointing out that the U.S. Constitution was meant to act as a contract between 13 sovereign states; it was built with strong states and a weak federal government.  Our Constitution was written just after the U.S. Civil War with the opposite in mind.  Curiously, since then, the two have juxtaposed in terms of federal relationships.

Now I know Infanteer objects to indirectly elected Senates and I would guess that he might not like an indirectly elected Head of State (Edward's Regent, in this case), but one of the key reasons for indirect elections is to reduce or eliminate the influence of demagogues and prevent the imposition of sweeping changes based on current popular passions.

American's use of elector colleges and indirect votes probably had as much to do with the logistics of running a country in the 18th century as it did with fear of demagoguery; although I'd have to read more into it to know for certain.

I fail to see the logic that indirect elections protect the state from demagoguery.  The folks who indirectly elect officials are just as likely to fall pray to a demagogue as the populace in general; if anything, it's easier since there are fewer of them.  As well, there are some pretty big differences in our system - ranging from the media to party caucuses to the public's perception of government - that kind of separate us from the clag that got Alcibiades.

 

[a_majoor]

I fail to see the logic that indirect elections protect the state from demagoguery.  The folks who indirectly elect officials are just as likely to fall pray to a demagogue as the populace in general; if anything, it's easier since there are fewer of them.  As well, there are some pretty big differences in our system - ranging from the media to party caucuses to the public's perception of government - that kind of separate us from the clag that got Alcibiades.

Demagogues have to pitch their demagoguery to the particular audience they are playing for. Giving them several different audiences and multiple venues reduces the speed at which they can work, provides "cooling off" periods as they move between audiences and offers more opportunities to muster opposition or let them trip themselves up. Since it is unlikely they will be able to address the indirect electors directly (having to speak to them through the media, for example), their ability to sway all the governing bodies quickly is highly constrained.

Two fine examples of how demagoguery can cause problems are found in the History of the Peloponnesian War:

Cleon and Diodotus: The Revolt of Mytilene (428-427 BC), and;
The Sicilian expedition

 

[Edward Campbell]

Powers moved by custom and lodged there until contested by a popular figure.  History is full of barracks-room lawyers generating a following based on their personal interpretations of the law.

Leave well enuff alone, sez I.

History is, indeed, dotted with popular figures who, however temporarily, revolutionize things. But for every Cromwell there are a hundred Cecils - keeping the ship of state on course. One of the reasons I like old King Edgar is that his idea "that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire" wasn't new over 1,000 years ago and it could not be stamped out even by as good a barracks-room lawyer as William of Normandy nor, even, by those awful, inbred Stuarts. One of the great advantages to real liberalism (one it shares with Confucianism) is that it seems not to allow the suppression of really good ideas.

If we lived in France or Greece or, for that matter, in 190 of the UN's 200 or so members states I would share more of your concerns.

 

[Kirkhill]

History is, indeed, dotted with popular figures who, however temporarily, revolutionize things. But for every Cromwell there are a hundred Cecils - keeping the ship of state on course. One of the reasons I like old King Edgar is that his idea "that poor man and rich may possess what they rightly acquire" wasn't new over 1,000 years ago and it could not be stamped out even by as good a barracks-room lawyer as William of Normandy nor, even, by those awful, inbred Stuarts. One of the great advantages to real liberalism (one it shares with Confucianism) is that it seems not to allow the suppression of really good ideas.

If we lived in France or Greece or, for that matter, in 190 of the UN's 200 or so members states I would share more of your concerns.

One thing we seem to always be in agreement on is the role of the Stuarts (Stewarts).  An other area of agreement is on the role of culture broadly writ.  Which brings me to try to walk on eggshells.

We may not live "in 190 of the UN's 200 or so members states" but increasingly Canadians are found from those self-same states.  How does that influence our "culture", liberal or otherwise?  On the one hand we are at "risk" of becoming more like those states because of the origins of Canadians but on the other hand, through a process of governmental screening and self-selection (and probably more of the latter than the former), we may tend to import people that share our values.  The recent election certainly seemed to indicate that as a possibility.

Either way our culture is in flux.  I don't know if the relative proportions of "native (ie settler)" culture and "immigrant" culture are the same as, or different to those seen during the Huguenot influxes (1550 to 1715) or at the time William's Franco-Danes descended on The Confessor's Saxon-Danes.  I don't know if the "native" culture is as strongly rooted as it was in Britain (keep in mind the Cheddar school teacher that was found to share DNA with the 8000 year old Cheddar man of the same village).  I don't believe it is a safe bet that our culture, now and going forward, is enough to insulate us from outcomes similar to those other 190 states.

When Edward the Confessor died in 1066 it was 300 years, 1362, before the English parliament was again addressed in English (as opposed to the Norman version of French).  And even that language, spoken by Angevin Edward Plantagenet III would have been incomprehensible to Edward the Confessor.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I tend to regard the browning of Canada as a long term good thing. We need to be careful in the immediate and medium terms - we must not be too tolerant of some, maybe even many practices that are inimical with the culture into which we want our to evolve. I welcome immigration - especially from certain, select, regions because some advanced, sophisticated cultures will enrich ours.

We should always tolerate religious beliefs but that does not mean that we should ever tolerate illiberal practices - even when they are based on some religious belief.

 

[FoverF]

Monarchy?

Yes, please.



I would be quite pleased to see a number of minor reforms to the institution of the crown, namely those which have been brought up here (primogeniture and religious prerequisites). But the monarchy is the foundation upon which the Canadian government is based. And despite all the impressions they try to cultivate to the contrary, the Canadian government is extremely effective, not just in comparison to 3rd world juntas but even when compared to our peers. Before we go breaking an arm patting ourselves on the back, I think we should recognize that a large portion of this is the fact that we have social and political institutions that are set up for success. I think that this success can be continued even with changing demographics and culture in Canada, because these institutions are proven and successful. But we introduce significant changes to them at our peril.

Quick case study: I am currently living a country (guess!!) which spent hundreds of years killing and dying to get away from the crown, and subsequently ran itself into the ground. They recently managed to briefly borrow their way back into the 1st world, but due to government incompetence and corruption are further into debt than ever before in their history, needing IMF and EU approval of government expenditures. Now, despite previously being the poster children of rebellion against the crown, there is a growing body of popular opinion here that suggests handing the keys back to Buckingham Palace with a note apologising for the state of the place. A visit by HM The Queen last week (the first since Home Rule began) was widely considered the most important state visit in the history of the republic, and was not met by violence (as one might be forgiven for expecting), but rather by glowing newspaper headlines and the Union Jack flying at the top of the mast in downtown Dublin. Make what you will of that.

 

[Kirkhill]

I tend to regard the browning of Canada as a long term good thing. We need to be careful in the immediate and medium terms - we must not be too tolerant of some, maybe even many practices that are inimical with the culture into which we want our to evolve. I welcome immigration - especially from certain, select, regions because some advanced, sophisticated cultures will enrich ours.

We should always tolerate religious beliefs but that does not mean that we should ever tolerate illiberal practices - even when they are based on some religious belief.

A quibble, before someone else picks us up on it:  I have met many "darkly brown" "Englishmen" both in England before I left and from many other countries since.  Many of them had never set foot in England (or any place else in the UK for that matter).  Equally I know Scots with Italian names, Indians that support Rangers and West Indians with accents found in earshot of the Bow Bells.  So I think we might be better to leave that particular aspect of the discussion aside.  It is strictly the cultural aspects of immigration that concerns me - and even there it is not so much the fact of change that bothers me as the potential pace of change.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Fair enough; I was using a term that I thought had entered general use 20+ years ago when the browning of America was used to describe the impacts, plural - some good, some not so good, of non-European immigration on North America.

 

[Mudshuvel]

I'm not exactly going to jump on the bandwagon with my own opinions of being a monarchist or an abolishionist (spelling?).

I think the Royal Family represents the core of some Canadians and to others, another thing that divides us from being American. My wife is from Milwaukee, WI, US. She never really studied the Royals other than through the eyes of Independance. She never quite understood why we have the 'Queen of Britain' on our 20$ or our coins. Least of all, she doesn't understand why we pledge allegiance to her. She even went as far to say 'Canada isn't even its own country really then' when she first moved up here.

Now that she's here, I think shes a bit monarchist. From her persepective, having a third party (ie the Governor General) as an intermediatary during political squabbles has its advantages. She put into example the rule of King George Bush the 2nd. The people didn't want him elected the second time around, they were afraid to impeach him over fears of Martial Law. Of course, its not the same for all Americans, but in the more Liberal North, that was the overall feeling for some. Recently, my wife watched with interest when the GG allowed for Her Royal Opposition to try and take Harper out of power. It wasn't because shes of this party or that, its because she's never really seen something apart from Clinton's almost impeachment happen. She read up on how the GG works and why they're there.

That was going a little off topic, however what would really separate us from the Americans if we did leave the Commonwealth, and I'm not saying the US is satan or anything. For a lot of people in Canada, the Royal Family is an institution upon itself. You see pictures of Charles with the Native Americans in Saskatchewan, you see the Queen with her corgies at Rideau Hall. There is no doubt in my mind that they love Canada not just because she 'rules us'.

To slighty correct one of the previous posts concerning the Royal Family being Britains envoy to America. In most cases, when the Queen visits the US, she is going as Queen and representative of Canada.

I believe that both sides, republican and monarchist have their bonuses. My personal belief is regardless of how some of us feel about it, the Crown is part of our identity whether we like it or not.