Barbados ditches Britain's Queen Elizabeth to become a republic

[exchemist]

It didn't omit it. It's right there in the link I posted. There are 19 more short paragraph's that I didn't post. All a person has to do is open the link and read it.

Yes, that's what I did. But it wasn't in your report of what was in the link. So I thought I would add it, just in case any readers formed the impression, from the portion you did report, that the Royal Family was in a sulk over it.

 

[Hold]

I'm not English but I don't think I would use the word "ditches" ,unless you intend insult, in the same sentence as 'Queen Elizabeth'. More to my liking, Barbados breaks it's accepted British relationship to establish the beginning of a new history as a republic....imo

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My remark on "legal guardian" was, as I'm sure you realized, something of a red herring and totally silly.

It's an interesting fact, though, that while 36% of Canadians really think we should get rid of the monarchy, another 33% would prefer to keep it -- and that's within the statistical margin of error. Everybody else doesn't care or doesn't know.

Therefore, I think what's keeping us where we are might well be apathy...plain and simple.

More than that, I think there are plenty of Canadians who just don't want to touch the Constitution for fear of riling up Quebec sovereigntists... and now Albertans complaining about transfer payments.

That being said, I generally find it interesting when monarchists pull out stats from polls to support their argument. I take it as their concession that popular support is what confers legitimacy for a head of state.

 

[Hold]

More than that, I think there are plenty of Canadians who just don't want to touch the Constitution for fear of riling up Quebec sovereigntists... and now Albertans complaining about transfer payments.

That being said, I generally find it interesting when monarchists pull out stats from polls to support their argument. I take it as their concession that popular support is what confers legitimacy for a head of state.

For an uninformed yank, what are transfer payments?

 

[Shadow11]

The Federal Government supports the provincial Governments with federal money they are called transfer payments usually connected to Federal programs such as health care. There are provincial and federal taxes transfer payments are the provinces share of the federal tax determined by the Federal Government.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For an uninformed yank, what are transfer payments?

Money transferred from the federal government to the provinces, basically.

Canadian transfer payments - Wikipedia

The federal government oversees a program where payments are paid out to provinces with lower fiscal capacity (the "have not" provinces) and not the ones with higher fiscal capacity (the "have" provinces). Some of the payments have to be used for specific purposes (e.g. ensuring that the national standard for health care is met nationwide); others are unfettered cash for provincial government general revenue.

A fair number of Albertans are upset that their province basically never gets transfer payments, and Albertan taxpayers pay a fair bit into the program, but this is because:

• individual incomes in Alberta are, on average, quite a bit higher than the Canadian average (so they pay more federal tax than average, generally)
• Alberta as a province is doing better than the Canadian average because of all its oil and gas revenue, so it never qualifies as a "have not" province.

Still, some Albertans are annoyed, and there was a referendum earlier this year where a majority of Alberta voters voted in favour of getting the Constitution changed to eliminate equalization payments from the feds to the provinces.

Even in past years, the major federal parties would generally respond to Quebec's calls to amend the Constitution by just ignoring the issue. Now, we have some Albertans calling for even more constitutional changes, so even more reason for the feds to not want to touch the Constitution to get rid of the monarchy (or to get rid of our taxpayer-funded religious schools, or anything else).

 

[Shadow11]

Basically what he is saying the money will go where they can get the most votes which in Canada is Quebec and Ontario.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically what he is saying the money will go where they can get the most votes which in Canada is Quebec and Ontario.

Nope. Didn't say that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

More than that, I think there are plenty of Canadians who just don't want to touch the Constitution for fear of riling up Quebec sovereigntists... and now Albertans complaining about transfer payments.

That being said, I generally find it interesting when monarchists pull out stats from polls to support their argument. I take it as their concession that popular support is what confers legitimacy for a head of state.

Well, perhaps it is popular support that confers legitimacy -- on pretty much anything.

Our present constitution was codified at a time when the majority of Canadians did, in fact, wish to keep the crown as our legitimate head of state. Yes, constitutions can be amended, again usually at the popular demand of the people. And I've no doubt that if enough Canadians decide that they wish to become a kind of republic with our own, home-grown head of state, then we have the ability to amend our own constitution to make it so.

The demand doesn't seem to have reached that level yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, perhaps it is popular support that confers legitimacy -- on pretty much anything.

Our present constitution was codified at a time when the majority of Canadians did, in fact, wish to keep the crown as our legitimate head of state.

I find that hard to believe.

In 1867, Canada was mostly French-speaking, mostly Catholic. Not exactly the British monarchy's main base of support.

In any case, I'm not sure anyone bothered to ask Canadians at that point. It was a given that Canada would be under the British crown. This was still several decades before the Statue of Westminster; our laws were still subject to the approval of the British Parliament.

Yes, constitutions can be amended, again usually at the popular demand of the people. And I've no doubt that if enough Canadians decide that they wish to become a kind of republic with our own, home-grown head of state, then we have the ability to amend our own constitution to make it so.

The demand doesn't seem to have reached that level yet.

IANAL and all that, but it has occurred to me that there may be a workaround that doesn't involve a constitutional amendment.

Back in 2013 when Harper's government passed legislation changing the order of succession to the Canadian throne, the Supreme Court upheld the government's argument that "changes to the laws of succession do not constitute a change to the 'office of The Queen' under the Constitution Act."

Harper's proposed (and luckily defeated) restrictions on non-resident citizens voting could be adapted to be criteria for Canada's head of state... and for generally the same reasons Harper gave for wanting to prevent non-residents from voting. The rules of succession - which, remember, don't need a constitutional amendment - could be adapted to add a requirement: anyone who has not lived in Canada within the past 5 years is ineligible for the Canadian monarchy.

If nobody in line from Queen Elizabeth meets this requirement, then the office of monarch could simply sit vacant until such a person comes forward... and in the meantime, any powers of the monarch would be vested in the Governor-General.

I'm not sure if this will ever happen, though.