Queen Elizabeth of England dead at 96.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redpossum said:
1. Could be worse. At least you're a sovereign nation. Australia still has a governor-general, with the authority to depose the elected government.
2. Third cousins isn't a problem. In terms of the risk of birth defects, it's not significantly different from marrying someone totally unrelated.
3. If you make it to 96, you got your money's worth.
Click to expand...
1.Our constitutional position vis a vis the UK is exactly the same as Australia's. It was only in 1982 that Canada "patriated" our constitution, the British North America Act 1867. Prior to 1982, if any government in Canada (federal or provincial, we are a federation like the US and Argentina), wanted to change or amend our constitution, the Federal or provincial parliament had to ask the UK parliament to legislate the necessary amendments. That was changed by the 1982 Constitution Act which was still an act of the UK parliament or as it was referred to even back then, the "imperial" Parliament. Australia's position was the same until 1986, when they received a similar Act from the UK parliament whereby the UK parliment ceded any authority to legislate in Australian affairs. There are a lot of family ties between the UK and Canada just as there are between US and Canada. My own family illustrates this, my brother and his family live in London and both my brother and I were educated in the UK. But this doesn't mean that, aside from being allies, that one country should have the ability to interfere in the affairs of its neighbour. Aside from sharing a Head of State and membership in the Commonwealth (whatever the hell that is), Australia and Canada are completely sovereign from the UK and very different countries. That being said, there are still many other odd colonial holdovers. This summer I was travelling in July in Spain, and when exiting passport control, the Spanish customs officer assumed I was from the UK, because the Canadian passport looks almost identical to the UK passport. In fact, my first passport as a child in 1978 and prior to 1982 said "A Canadian citizen is a British subject". Our passports no longer say that but still reference "Her Majesty the Queen requests...." and advises Canadian citizens to seek out British or Australian consular assistance where no Canadian consular assistance is available if we are abroad. I suppose that is an advantage but despite the family and historical ties, in my view, I would like to relegate them to history.
2. I don't know enough about the genetic risks of breeding with people who shared a great grandparent so I'll pass on that.
3. The idea of living to 96 is exhausting to me. My paternal grandmother made it to almost 103, sharp and healthy, and she treasured her little letter from the Queen when she turned 100. My recently deceased Aunt also shared that veneration, but I can safely say amonst my generation I don't see the fawning silliness and love for Kings and Queens. It's nonsense in my view.
 
Alby said:
You're a lawyer. What's your alternative model? How would it work. Be specific and detailed please. What risks does your model run? How would you mitigate them?
Click to expand...
It's a good question and a tough one given that we have a complex parliamentary, federal system of government with many sovereign indigenous nations. I think Canadians should decide that for themselves, with the understanding that the First Nations peoples have treaty, constitutional and sovereign rights that cannot be abridged in any way by Canadian governments. But I'll take a stab at answering your question.
About a decade ago, a Canadian newspaper of note, The Globe and Mail, suggested that we simply replace the Queen with our the Governor General being made Head of State, holding a limited ceremonial position somewhat like the President of Ireland. As to who picks the Goveror General, the Globe suggested that Members of the Order of Canada (sort of like the US Presidential Medal of Freedom), in convocation, elect the GG, but there are many possible methods of selection. Our current GG happens to be Canada's first indigenous Governor General, Her Excellency Mary Simon. She is an excellent Governor General, very dignified and doing an excellent job. I would have no problem swearing allegiance to her.
 
And there's the rub (for those uninitiated about how these debates play out in the countries where the issue exists). On the face, it seems obvious that these anachronistic arrangements should change and extraordinary that they still persist. But finding agreement on what should replace them, and covering off any unforeseeable (and foreseeable) consequences of the change is the hard part.
 
Alby said:
And there's the rub (for those uninitiated about how these debates play out in the countries where the issue exists). On the face, it seems obvious that these anachronistic arrangements should change and extraordinary that they still persist. But finding agreement on what should replace them, and covering off any unforeseeable (and foreseeable) consequences of the change is the hard part.
Click to expand...
You seem very much in favour of national sovereignty. Europe has moved in the other direction: the diminution of sovereignty under the EU. I assume you are therefore pro Brexit and likely for Scottish secession.
 
Ronnie Hotdogs said:
Contrast the recent "feriado" over the attempted assassination of CFK with the death of our monarch.
Our unions who were due to strike are returning to work as a mark of respect.
Probably says something about the differences between the two countries.
Click to expand...
Yet despite being a truly historical moment for the country, the UK will not have a public holiday during its time of National grief, but will leave it up to employers if they want to give their staff time off to attend certain events over the coming weeks.

This is a small but important difference that reassures me that in a modern British/ Nordic context a constitutional monarchy does actually work well to stop politicians getting ahead of themselves and putting their own self-importance ahead of National and unifying interests, as we see here and many other parts of the world. It seems, more often than not, politics is just a rat-race for the top dog position where actually delivering on the job you’re paid to do takes second place, especially if there is no one or no “untouchable” system to actually hold you accountable or curb your ambitions other than yourself (well for a few years anyway…but even then voters in most places are easy enough to confuse and manipulate which is why authoritarianism and neo-fascism are still very much a thing in 2022.)
 
sergio said:
You seem very much in favour of national sovereignty. Europe has moved in the other direction: the diminution of sovereignty under the EU. I assume you are therefore pro Brexit and likely for Scottish secession.
Click to expand...
I am not referring to the UK. The debate I mean is the one that plays out in countries, like Canada and Australia, where we contract out the head of state role to the sovereign of another country. I voted no in a referendum about changing the arrangements in one such country because I couldn't (and can't work) myself up into a frenzy about anachronism, especially when nobody can be sure that the replacement model will work better than, or even as well as, the one it replaces. Also relevant is the fact that some of these countries were built on post war migrants fleeing Europe looking for a system of government, however anachronistic, that provided stability and curbed tyrannical tendencies.
 
Rich One said:
Queen Elizabeth II was supposed to have "decolonized" many British Colonial holdings in Africa and Asia. Some local TV channels here are already are questioning if King Charles III will return Las Malvinas.. ???
Click to expand...
No excuse for them to keep Malvinas. It's shameful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top