Should the Queen be the last monarch?

[Yukon]

You are obviously quite ill informed with respect to Canadian Parliamentary democracy. I suggest you take a course in Canadian Society 101.

What are you talking about?

The Queen has ULTIMATE power. When the Queen is not in Canada, her representative - the Governor-General - holds all the cards.

Parliament cannot be dissolved without the Queen or GG's say-so. Bills cannot be made into law without the Queen or GG's say-so. Essentially, our government cannot function if the Queen or GG doesn't say so.

The most democratic systems in the world are parliamentary monarchies. There is utility in a monarch. The British Commonwealth is united by a common recognizance of the Queen as each member's Head of State. The Commonwealth fosters brotherly ties and good relations with the 50-some odd countries (if I'm not mistaken) in the Commonwealth.

The monarchy acts as the police of our government, disallowing gigantic abuses of power. It doesn't have a party affiliation and is completely neutral. There is a damn lot of utility in the monarchy.

While I agree that the display of wealth and opulence inherited only through blood is crass and antiquated, the monarchy is a very important figurehead as well.

Personally, I think we can have the best of both worlds by simply electing a common Head of State for all Commonwealth countries. Someone neutral, not affiliated with any party, moderate, has good principles, education, and someone who can be trusted with the policing of our government.

Essentially give the same powers to someone who is elected on their merits, but take away the wealth and opulence of the monarchy.

 

[lunakilo]

Personally, I think we can have the best of both worlds by simply electing a common Head of State for all Commonwealth countries. Someone neutral, not affiliated with any party, moderate, has good principles, education, and someone who can be trusted with the policing of our government.

Essentially give the same powers to someone who is elected on their merits, but take away the wealth and opulence of the monarchy.

Personally I think one of the good things about monarchy is that the monarch is NOT elected. It saves us from the election campaign in which people make great promises that are impossible to keep. There is scheming and plotting and intrigue, and who ever is elected will not be representing the population as a whole, just a small part of it.

Not electing the head of state creates some problems too I guess

If you were to elect the head of state, who would elect him/her?
Should it be the general population or the parlament or who?

 

[CatholicCrusader]

I find it rather ironic, that so many people who elsewhere complain about the wealth of corporations that actually EARN their money, give such deference to this old bat who is draped in jewels and sucks her lavish lifestyle off the working people.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I find it rather ironic, that so many people who elsewhere complain about the wealth of corporations that actually EARN their money, give such deference to this old bat who is draped in jewels and sucks her lavish lifestyle off the working people.

You mean the same corporations who "earn" corporate welfare in the form of obscene tax cuts and unnecessary subsidies? The same corporations that put more jobs offshore to save a buck, rather than employ some people here? Or how about those corporations who try to skirt environmental and ethical regulations and guidelines by bribing politicians and officials?

To boot, if anything, one of the main arguments AGAINST the monarchy here is exactly that: She's an old bat who is draped in jewels and sucks her lavish lifestyle off the British people. I don't see anyone here defending her wealth and opulence.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Personally I think one of the good things about monarchy is that the monarch is NOT elected. It saves us from the election campaign in which people make great promises that are impossible to keep. There is scheming and plotting and intrigue, and who ever is elected will not be representing the population as a whole, just a small part of it.

Not electing the head of state creates some problems too I guess

If you were to elect the head of state, who would elect him/her?
Should it be the general population or the parlament or who?

Extremely good question. There are advantages and disadvantages to both your options.

Being directly elected by the general population makes the system more democratic, but let's face it. Many, many, many people are uninformed and stupid and would prefer a partisan ideologue to a well-educated, neutral, responsible person. Not to mention the cost of having another election.

Being directly elected by Parliament might work in other countries - it won't work in Canada. We have a First Past the Post system and so ridings are usually represented by candidates who obtained less than 50% of the popular vote. Not to mention that Parliamentarians would likely vote along party lines and the exercise would be largely pointless. If we had a Conservative government, the person responsible for policing the government would be Conservative and more likely to turn a blind eye to any abuses of power and process. Same if they were Liberal or New Democrat. It would be less costly than having a separate election: it would just be like any other vote in Parliament.

I think the ideal solution is to have them elected by the Supreme Court who can then grill and question them. The Supreme Court is made up of very well-educated and balanced individuals who have extensive knowledge of the law. It would be easier to test the fitness of the candidates. I would add that the process should be completely open and transparent to the general public.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You are obviously quite ill informed with respect to Canadian Parliamentary democracy. I suggest you take a course in Canadian Society 101.

To boot, you couldn't actually point out where I was wrong.

 

[evane123]

Should Queen Elizabeth II be the last monarch, and should the UK become a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy? Many people say it should, because that is more politically "modern" and gives more power to the people. Many people dislike the idea of having someone who has power merely because of their blood and heritage, which is a fair point.

Personally, I like the monarchy. It makes us stand out, and personally I just don't like the idea of becoming a full-on democracy like every other country. I'd like to keep hold of the monarchy, for tradition's sake. I think a lot of policy-making is often made for the benefit of a particular party, and I think that politicians aren't always quite sure of what's best for the country. An individual who has no affiliation with any party or bias will be ideal for overseeing and making sure our country runs smoothly, and doesn't become a playground for political warfare. Well, not that the Queen ever really exercises her power anyway...

I think there is a difference between a democracy and a republic. I think a democracy tries to state that all people within the borders have made the decision to back every decision made by the government. I think i republic states that the supreme power can be left to the individual. I think governments are traps to pull out the people who are dangerous to the kings and queens of the world. I think monarchs are more upfront about there intentions. I think they admit to running the government.
I think there are examples of wars that have been fought to rid the supply of people who do activities that hurt independent thinkers. I think when people get together and do things because a different person told them to is dangerous to me and a way to rid myself of the danger is to educate and round them up and use them for my own benefit and they are willing to do that. I think i do not want maniacs who will kill me because a different person told them i was evil to find a safe haven with a group of thugs that hurts me. I think using the people is usually more beneficial. I think by stating this i also create counterintelligence about what the actual situation is in other areas. I think worry increases and i think the chances of people who are terrorist being deterred is increased. I think when a individual gives away there power to others who torture others without information about the actual information about the situation that those people are terrorist. I think they are torturing others by giving the power to others to make the decision to torture and not having reason to torture those people without only using other peoples information that could be false to do terrorist activity against the group being targeted.

 

[kai]

seriously i dont know anyone who even considers political power ( or not ) when talking about the queen its just not really a factor. In general i think we all consider her the figure head, the personification of the nations, the pageantry of our heritage , The chief representative , head envoy, Her wealth is inherited and we haven't got a limit on what people leave to their children.

People moan about the civil list but dont understand it, or try very hard to understand it, There is a republican element around somewhere but in general i think foreigners debate it more than we do.


The British are a funny lot Politicians come and go The government swings from left to right and back again like a perpetual motion machine and the Queen is an anchor , a sense of stability of continuity. and i can assure you if we didnt want a monarchy we wouldn't have one. As for her being the last one i suggest that the first Monarch to mess up will be the last one.



The monarchy currently remains secure in the United Kingdom with MORI Polls in the opening years of the 21st century showing support for retaining the monarchy stable at around 70% of people.[4] In 2005, during the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, support for the monarchy dipped slightly with one poll showing that only 65% of people would support keeping the monarchy if there were a referendum on the issue, with 22% saying they favoured a republic.[4] In 2009 an ICM poll, commission by the BBC, found that 76% of those asked wanted the monarchy to continue after the Queen, against 18% of people who said they would favour Britain becoming a republic and 6% who said they did not know.[5] In the wake of the 2009 MP's expenses scandal, a poll of readers of the Guardian and Observer newspapers placed support for abolition of the monarchy at 54%, although only 3% saw it as a top priority[6] and both these papers have disproportionately left-of-centre readerships.[7]
In February 2011, a YouGov poll put support for ending the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's death at 13%, if Prince Charles becomes King.[8] However, an ICM poll shortly before the royal wedding suggested that 26% thought Britain would be better off without the monarchy, with only 37% "genuinely interested and excited" by the wedding.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[evane123]

do you think the queen votes? Do you think the queen has absolute power if she wants?

 

[kai]

do you think the queen votes? Do you think the queen has absolute power if she wants?

The Queen can vote, as can members of her family, but they do not do so because in practice it would be considered unconstitutional.

As for absolute power those days are well and truly over.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

seriously i dont know anyone who even considers political power ( or not ) when talking about the queen its just not really a factor.

It's been a factor in Canada several times in recent years, and in a rather negative (and IMO undemocratic) way. The potential is there for the same thing to happen in the UK; there's not much difference in our Parliamentary systems, so the thing that's saved you from it is only a different political climate. If you find yourself with minority governments more often, then the potential greatly increases for the monarch to play a much larger role in government... deciding which coalition should form the government, for instance, or ruling on whether a motion of prorogation is in order.

 

[kai]

It's been a factor in Canada several times in recent years, and in a rather negative (and IMO undemocratic) way. The potential is there for the same thing to happen in the UK; there's not much difference in our Parliamentary systems, so the thing that's saved you from it is only a different political climate. If you find yourself with minority governments more often, then the potential greatly increases for the monarch to play a much larger role in government... deciding which coalition should form the government, for instance, or ruling on whether a motion of prorogation is in order.

I may be wrong but i am under the impression that all the queens roles are at the behest of the government/privy council, she doesn't decide which coalition forms a government just announces which coalition forms a government After a general election, the Queen is obliged, by convention, to invite the person who seems most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons to become prime minister and to form a government.
If the outcome of that election is inconclusive, it is for the political parties to determine who that person is, and to communicate that choice to Buckingham Palace.Only then will the Queen receive any outgoing prime minister to accept a resignation and, a short time later, to invite someone else to take the roleThats her constitutional role as head of state.



and why would she rule on a prorogation motion? thats done in parliament.

even the so called Royal prerogatives are exercised by Government Ministers in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is bound constitutionally to follow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I may be wrong but i am under the impression that all the queens roles are at the behest of the government/privy council, she doesn't decide which coalition forms a government just announces which coalition forms a government

My impression was that the Privy Council acts as the monarch's advisor, and that the Queen generally follows its recommendations, but the final decision-making authority rests with her.

After a general election, the Queen is obliged, by convention, to invite the person who seems most likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons to become prime minister and to form a government.

"By convention"... not by law?

and why would she rule on a prorogation motion? thats done in parliament.

Not entirely. Once Parliament has moved for prorogation, the matter goes to the Monarch (in the UK) or her representative (in Canada and elsewhere), who decides whether the motion is correct... i.e. that the business of the session of Parliament really is finished. This gives an opportunity, in the case where Parliament's business isn't actually finished and prorogation is being used as a political tactic - as was the case in Canada twice in recent years - to reject the motion and send Parliament back to work.

 

[kai]

My impression was that the Privy Council acts as the monarch's advisor, and that the Queen generally follows its recommendations, but the final decision-making authority rests with her.
This may be of interest
Overview


"By convention"... not by law? youd be surprised how much of what goes on here is by convention the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. I beleive in Canada the The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown


Not entirely. Once Parliament has moved for prorogation, the matter goes to the Monarch (in the UK) or her representative (in Canada and elsewhere), who decides whether the motion is correct... i.e. that the business of the session of Parliament really is finished. This gives an opportunity, in the case where Parliament's business isn't actually finished and prorogation is being used as a political tactic - as was the case in Canada twice in recent years - to reject the motion and send Parliament back to work.

i am interested in this do you have any sources for it ?

 

[Yukon]

To boot, you couldn't actually point out where I was wrong.

Your statement is completely wrong. You should be ashamed of your lack of knowledge regarding the Canadaian Parliamentary system. Are you American?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This may be of interest
Overview

It is, but is it supposed to go against what I said before?

youd be surprised how much of what goes on here is by convention the British constitution has not been codified into one single document and much of it remains unwritten. I beleive in Canada the The Constitution Act, 1867 clearly delineates the powers of the Crown

Yeah, pretty much.

i am interested in this do you have any sources for it ?

Here you go:

Prorogation of Parliament

The prorogation of Parliament ends a session. This is done by the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, either by means of a special ceremony in the Senate Chamber, or by the issuing of a proclamation published in the Canada Gazette. Both the Senate and the House of Commons stand prorogued until the opening of the next session.

During a period of prorogation (or recess), the Speaker, the Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries remain in office and all Members of the House retain their full rights and privileges.

The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.

In order for government bills to be proceeded with in a new session, they must be reintroduced as new bills or they may be reinstated, if the House agrees to this.
The Standing Orders provide for the automatic reinstatement of all items of Private Members' Business in a new session. Committee work may also be revived either by motion in the House, or in committee, depending upon the nature of the study.

Prorogation does not affect Orders or Addresses of the House for the tabling government reports required to be tabled by statute. Requests for responses to committee reports or petitions are still valid following a prorogation. These continue in force from one session to another, but are ended by dissolution.

Prorogation of Parliament - Detailed Article - Compendium of Procedure - House of Commons ? Canada

BTW - according to Wiki, the British system has had issues with prorogation in the past as well:

Probably the most prominent case of alleged abuse of prorogation in recent United Kingdom history was the short session of Parliament convened in September and October 1948, which included a King's Speech on 14 September 1948 and prorogation on 25 October. The Labour government of Clement Attlee used this tactic to ensure a more rapid enactment of the Parliament Act 1949 which reduced the powers of the House of Lords.

Legislative session - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vile Atheist]

Your statement is completely wrong. You should be ashamed of your lack of knowledge regarding the Canadaian Parliamentary system. Are you American?

You're a pretty bad troll. You still can't point out where I'm wrong.

 

[Mike182]

Removing the monarchy from power would be tricky and a politically difficult move.

I wonder how many of the armed and civil forces would actually stand by their oath to the Queen and how many would fall in line with the Government should such an attempt be staged.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Removing the monarchy from power would be tricky and a politically difficult move.

For the UK, maybe. For Commonwealth countries, it's relatively simple. Most of them have done it, in fact.

I wonder how many of the armed and civil forces would actually stand by their oath to the Queen and how many would fall in line with the Government should such an attempt be staged.

Are you talking about a coup or about a legal, duly-passed constitutional change by the elected representatives of the government? I don't think anyone's talking about getting rid of the monarchy the old-fashioned way.

 

[Mike182]

Are you talking about a coup or about a legal, duly-passed constitutional change by the elected representatives of the government? I don't think anyone's talking about getting rid of the monarchy the old-fashioned way.

I'm not talking about a coup, and one is incredibly unlikely.

A constitutional change could probably remove the monarchy, my understanding of the constitution is that the monarchy and parliament rely upon each other for their respective power and right to rule/reign, though I'm by no means well read on the matter.

That said though, I didn't say it would be constitutionally difficult. It would however be politically tricky. A lot of people have sworn an oath to the monarchy, a lot of high ups and influential people in society are connected to royalty or supported by royalty. The monarchy is still pretty respected by people in England. Any political party risks loosing a lot of votes in supporting such a constitutional change.

To be honest, a lot of people would be in uproar about it. It would be incredibly devisive for the country in order to achieve... I'm not sure what it would achieve that would actually be beneficial.