• Commonwealth in "Secret Succession Plans"
    20 replies, posted
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43040240]Source[/url] [quote]The Commonwealth has secretly begun considering who might succeed the Queen as its head, the BBC has learned. The issue is hugely sensitive because the role is not hereditary and will not pass automatically to the Prince of Wales on the Queen's death. The Commonwealth has set up a "high level group" to look at the way the international organisation is governed. This group is meeting later, officially to review how the Commonwealth is run by its secretariat and governors. It said the issue of the succession of the head of the Commonwealth was not part of the group's mandate, but described the day-long discussions as "open". However, senior sources added that the gathering in London would also consider what happens when the Queen, who turns 92 in April, dies. One said: "I imagine the question of the succession, however distasteful it may naturally be, will come up." The agenda for the summit, seen by the BBC, says there will be a discussion of "wider governance considerations" which insiders say is code for the succession. The group is expected to report to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in London in April, which is likely to be the last that the 91-year-old monarch will attend. The group said it was independent of the London-based Commonwealth Secretariat, and would report only to the heads of Commonwealth governments.[/quote] Interesting article, didn't know if it belonged in PD or SH so move if needed
just let it be william thanks
Commonwealth of Republics when
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53128784]Commonwealth of Republics when[/QUOTE] can we get back in if that's the case, We'll nominate Money as our head
can it be me please
I propose the Institute.
I bet Rand and Mitch were sweating bullets at that title.
Frankly, I hope Canada abolishes the monarchy. It's an archaic institution that has no business existing in this country's legal system.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;53132623]Frankly, I hope Canada abolishes the monarchy. It's an archaic institution that has no business existing in this country's legal system.[/QUOTE] I disagree, actually. It plays such a minor role in actual governance that it's sort of a pretty historical hold-over that encourages and potentially even strengthens bonds between similars, and this is coming from a Québecer that bleeds a weird sort of french blue.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;53132623]Frankly, I hope Canada abolishes the monarchy. It's an archaic institution that has no business existing in this country's legal system.[/QUOTE] Enjoy wasting the time and money of everyone in your country to further some nationalistic nonsense when your government could be doing something actually useful.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;53132623]Frankly, I hope Canada abolishes the monarchy. It's an archaic institution that has no business existing in this country's legal system.[/QUOTE] Years back someone here made an argument for the monarchy which sorta stuck with me. (I'm from the UK so our system might be a tad different) 1) serves as a branch of government as a "power check" even if its ability to do so is flimsy they could, likely at cost of their status, refuse to rubber stamp a policy put fourth by parliament (more accurately by the majority party/coalition) 2) serves as the head of state without any real power, if people rebel against a government its likey they'll keep the monarchy around, meaning the state doesn't fully collapse and the head rarely changes - lending stability especially in times where peoples confidence in the government is waning. Ontop of that they do make the UK money and, last time I checked, they only cost each of us 50p per year. (all UK data) I'm not big on the Royal family or the massive wealth inequality but maybe the stability of having them around/help to national image is worth the yearly price of 2 freddos (or 5 2001 freddos)
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53133393]Years back someone here made an argument for the monarchy which sorta stuck with me. (I'm from the UK so our system might be a tad different) 1) serves as a branch of government as a "power check" even if its ability to do so is flimsy they could, likely at cost of their status, refuse to rubber stamp a policy put fourth by parliament (more accurately by the majority party/coalition) 2) serves as the head of state without any real power, if people rebel against a government its likey they'll keep the monarchy around, meaning the state doesn't fully collapse and the head rarely changes - lending stability especially in times where peoples confidence in the government is waning. Ontop of that they do make the UK money and, last time I checked, they only cost each of us 50p per year. (all UK data) I'm not big on the Royal family or the massive wealth inequality but maybe the stability of having them around/help to national image is worth the yearly price of 2 freddos (or 5 2001 freddos)[/QUOTE] Well, that's the UK, which has the royal family living there most of the time and developed alongside the succession of British kings. It's built into your history. Meanwhile, Canada is a pretty new country, and our independence is newer still. Canada's head of state is nominally the Queen, but in practice it is the Governor-General who is the Queen's proxy when she is outside of Canadian borders (which is nearly all the time). Our "real" head of state is the Prime Minister, our cultural body of political discourse treats the PM as the de facto head of state, and the GG rubber-stamps bills because refusal would trigger a constitutional crisis. The Governor-General of Canada serves what effectively is a symbolic and ceremonial position [I]except[/I] for the fact that all Canadian laws receive the GG's signature, and in the event that Canada's government went insane and attempted to pass totalitarian laws (meaning, we're already in a crisis), the GG serves as a final handbrake to the process and could refuse to sign tyrannical bills into law. The Governor-General also has the ability to dissolve the Parliament and force new federal elections, as well as shitcan the Prime Minister -- however, use of either of these powers without explicit request from either the Prime Minister or the official Leader of the Opposition with a Vote of No Confidence in hand would also immediately create a constitutional crisis because those are big nukes to throw around. If this role of final arbiter was absorbed into the Canadian government apparatus and assigned to a non-partisan domestic position instead of being the lifeline to the Commonwealth monarchy, the monarchy will have no functional place in Canada except as a cultural holdover (some people here [I]really[/I] like the Royals) and as a very minor tourism magnet.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53134148] The Governor-General of Canada serves what effectively is a symbolic and ceremonial position [I]except[/I] for the fact that all Canadian laws receive the GG's signature, and in the event that Canada's government went insane and attempted to pass totalitarian laws (meaning, we're already in a crisis), the GG serves as a final handbrake to the process and could refuse to sign tyrannical bills into law. [/QUOTE] And what happens if the GG agrees with said totalitarian laws?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;53134255]And what happens if the GG agrees with said totalitarian laws?[/QUOTE] Then the system has failed its last legislative check and balance. It would then be up to the courts to save the rule of law, and the Supreme Court of Canada is, as are the provincial courts below it, empowered to do so. But the same question could be asked about a hypothetical case where Congress passes a tyrannical law and the President signs it instead of vetoing it. An interesting little difference is that the US Legislative and Executive branches are considered peers, so Congress has a veto override in the event that the President chooses to defy their will. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such override in the case of the GG, as s/he occupies the ultimate seat of power in the Canadian legislative system -- the GG, as proxy of the Queen, is peerless. Incidentally, the GG also has three options, not two, when presented with a bill: Sign it (the default), refuse to sign it (kept locked behind glass labeled "in case of tyranny break glass"), or reserve consent and defer to the sovereign herself -- literally have the Queen make the decision instead of the GG going ahead in their own initiative. I'm not a Canadian history expert but I don't know that either of the latter two options have ever been exercised, and it's largely expected that if they ever are exercised to block a bill a constitutional crisis demanding a reexamination of the role of the monarchy in Canada's self-governance will result.
[QUOTE=Zelpa;53133302]Enjoy wasting the time and money of everyone in your country to further some nationalistic nonsense when your government could be doing something actually useful.[/QUOTE] I'll make sure to let India, Jamaica, and every other country that abolished the monarchy know that they were just wasting time and money on abolishing an archaic institution that had little purpose in their countries then.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;53134463]I'll make sure to let India, Jamaica, and every other country that abolished the monarchy know that they were just wasting time and money on abolishing an archaic institution that had little purpose in their countries then.[/QUOTE] Jamaica is a Commonwealth realm, and do you really not see how there's a difference between Anglo countries like Canada and other British colonies like India?
[QUOTE=Zelpa;53133302]Enjoy wasting the time and money of everyone in your country to further some nationalistic nonsense when your government could be doing something actually useful.[/QUOTE] I don't get how it's nationalistic nonsense, though it is useless because the Queen is powerless. Monarchies of any type are archaic useless and need to be ended, though it is nowhere near the top of the world's problems right now. If you absolutely cannot live without a monarchy, for fuck's sake make it elective. Bloodline privilege is a byproduct of the past, something that I guarantee people can live without.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53134287]An interesting little difference is that the US Legislative and Executive branches are considered peers, so Congress has a veto override in the event that the President chooses to defy their will.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the Founding Fathers were big on creating "firewalls" between and within government. The Federalist Papers (especially the ninth essay) highlight the states' ability to quarantine dangerous political movements in order to limit the damage done to the Union as a whole. It still works today, too - just look at how the West Coast counterweights Trump's ridiculous policies.
[QUOTE=Zelpa;53135823]Jamaica is a Commonwealth realm, and do you really not see how there's a difference between Anglo countries like Canada and other British colonies like India?[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Jamaica[/url] [quote]Andrew Holness, Simpson-Miller's successor as prime minister, also affirmed a commitment to republicanism upon taking office, and stated his government would introduce a bill to replace the Queen with "a non-executive president as head of state".[/quote] My apologies, they haven't abolished it yet. I suppose instead I'll have to direct that statement towards [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm#Former_Commonwealth_realms]the following countries.[/url]
Alternatively we could just keep her even after death. legacy is a powerful thing.
[QUOTE=Sims_doc;53138687]Alternatively we could just keep her even after death. legacy is a powerful thing.[/QUOTE] How would the Governor General defer decisions to the Monarch or be appointed by the Monarch then? A seance? A Ouija board?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.