As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them?
I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but just wondering why? :)
>I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state
Genuinely curious what those would be?
I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical.
For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of governance is compatible with modern Canadian society (or at least what we would like to think it should be).
Not something that keeps me up at night, I don't think it will be removed any time soon mostly due to inertia, but I would definitely not be opposed to removing it.
You don't have the highly polarized politics they've got in the US.
I'm a republican (not a US republican, but merely favour republics) but I don't see how relinquishing the British Crown would change anything for the better for Canada or Australia? Canada would probably need to become a parliamentary republic like Germany or Greece, where the president has a ceremonial role.
I think the main benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that you split the job of appearance of propriety away from the job of actual governance. Look at the US for example, the selection of a president is both trying to figure out who can do the best job for the country but also who can look the best at it.
Presumably, with a monarchy, the monarchy takes care of looking good, and the PM takes care of governing.
This works specially well for the UK since the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends (Due to mostly tourism) and you have a setup that works for most everyone.
The negative I see, is that you always have in the back of your mind the possibility that one of these monarchs might, from time to time, want to exceed the powers given to them.
Not saying I agree with the system, nor do I have a fight into this, I'm Brazilian living in the US so I've never been under such system, but this is my impartial, look at this system.
> the monarchy actually generates more revenue than it actually spends
Only with very creative accounting, typically favoured and repeated by pro-monarchists (including the government).
People would visit the palaces without the royal family in them, and we'd be able to charge £20 a ticket to look around inside. (See: Versailles, or the Tower of London.)
How would delegating any important job of a state (e.g. takes care of looking good) to a group of people you can't replace any good? Sure, there's always good kings and queens scattered in the history to be good or even great persons, but it's not guaranteed. When it's no longer the case, what's the plan then? I thought our civilization came this long way to realize the importance of being republic.
I wanted to disagree with you and say that is simply not a hereditary monarchy, but after a moment I think you are right.
Monarchy connotes the existence of some sort of elite class and even in cases the monarch was elected it was always from the aristocracy, founding families, or royal family.
The idea that a leader chosen randomly from the general population is a monarch feels like it would muddy the meaning of monarchy to the point of uselessness.
Also, since monarchs have to be politically neutral, which is another absurdity on top of an absurd situation, a monarchy lacks the powers that a President has in parliamentary republics, of dissolving the parliament and calling elections.
The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.
> The UK has been stuck in crisis mode more than once, because the Queen couldn’t say “fuck it, let’s have some elections because the current state of affairs is damaging the country”.
This is a feature. Let the politicians figure it out or go to the electorate and have them sort it out.
No thanks. To take the contrary example, Kuwait is a constitutional monarchy by definition, almost taking the playbook of the English monarchy verbatim. Except that the monarch has the conditional right to dissolve the parliament for any "valid" reasons. Monarch hates the PM secretly? Monarch doesn't like a new law being signed into place? Monarch feels a bit whimsical? Find a pretext, dissolve the parliament, rule in absolute until the next elections, by which time he will have devised another method to dissolve the next government.
Couple reasons come to mind:
1) The institutional apparatus required to maintain the monarch as head of state is reasonably complex and expensive, both from a legal point of view and in a financial sense. The governor general is an unelected official whose power technically exceeds any democratically selected person in our government, and they make almost $300k/yr to do essentially nothing but administrative ceremony. I know that in the big scheme of things, $300k (plus whatever other perks/bonuses they get, along with their staff) is just a drop in the bucket, but it feels a bit like theft from Canadians given this role doesn't need to exist at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_General_of_Canada
2) The royals do have a bit of a history of interfering in the politics of past colonies - the recent reveal a few years ago that Charles (I think...?) influenced the selection of high ranking Australian government officials in the 80's was a bit of a shock to many. Apologies, I can't find the right combination of phrases to yield anything in google except tabloid nonsense as a source. In any case, there is at least some evidence that the royals, either through wealth, old-school power politics, or direct action do play about with the politics of other countries, even when they explicitly should do not that. I detest this.
3) I really do not like what the royals stand for. Monarchism, colonialism, genocide, general crumminess. Spending £12 million to pay off one of the women Prince Andrew allegedly sexually assaulted as a minor, using public money, is an atrocious act and one I still cannot believe got so little media coverage here. Then there's all the general petty money issues: Prince Charles doesn't pay inheritance tax (why? Because, that's why). The royal family is except from all sorts of laws pertaining to wealth transfer actually, in some cases literally because it's coded into the laws themselves that Her Majesty is excluded. It's ridiculous. And here in the UK you still are not legally allowed to protest the monarchs. I mean - you can, but you can also be arrested for it. Just in the last 2 days there's been outcry as 2 people were arrested for anti-monarchist protest signs.
> I suspect the moment Canada loses protection of the King is the moment the US invades.
Lol. No offense to the memory of Queen Liz, but she could not have done a thing had the US decided to do something stupid like that. That said, just the notion is preposterous. The US would have lost much more than the Queen’s approbation, in the grand scheme of things.
To help spell it out for those who keep misunderstanding, when the Queen visited the USA in 2010, she did it as Queen of Canada, under the Canadian flag, with Canadian staff and security.
> Even though the crowns are distinct, the crown resides primarily in the UK, no?
Nope. Wholly domestic in Canadian law.
> This division is illustrated in a number of ways: The sovereign, for example, holds a unique Canadian title and,[82] when he and other members of the royal family are acting in public specifically as representatives of Canada, they use, where possible, Canadian symbols, including the country's national flag, unique royal symbols, armed forces uniforms,[87] and the like, as well as Canadian Forces aircraft or other Canadian-owned vehicles for travel.[88] Once in Canadian airspace, or arrived at a Canadian event taking place abroad, the Canadian Secretary to the King, officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and other Canadian officials will take over from whichever of their other realms' counterparts were previously escorting the King or other member of the royal family.[88][89]
Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.
The constitutional monarch is a figurehead without much of a day to day role, but who ensures that the demagogue we elect is not at the pinnacle of the political hierarchy.
That's more important than most people understand. A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.
> Not having a President is reason #1 to keep a constitutional monarch.
There are lots of republics in which the president has only a ceremonial role. Germany and Italy, for example. There are absolute monarchs as well. The title does not indicate the effective power of the role.
> A prime minister is always aware of the limits of the role.
So is the president, if you have an appropriate constitution. This is the key, not the fancy title you give to your head of state.
A monarchy has the downside that who gets to be the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic.
> A monarchy has the downside that who gets to be the monarch is fundamentally undemocratic.
So I get 1/20 millionth of the decision in which of 3 or 4 members of an exclusive elite get a patronage position, and it's all good?
I'd just as soon eliminate the risk of handing that role to a political climber and leave the position to someone whose power we all clearly understand is only formal.
That being said, I understand and appreciate your arguments around a properly framed constitutional role for a president. If we ever do make the change, I'd like a non-imperial presidency...
You don't need a monarch for that. If you're going to have an unaccountable position filled by someone without any demonstrable merit, then have a lottery once per year that draws a random citizen to fill the role.
Executive-branch head style presidents are a silly, bad idea. They only serve to give a single person a huge mandate that places them in a position to disregard the local mandates of the legislature, and at least in the US they appoint the judicial branch. So they pick the judges and can ignore the laws.
Prime ministers are representatives of the legislature, not above it, and presidents in a normal parliamentary system are like VPs in a US-style system - really just there for tiebreaking (and in that the responsibility for organizing government succession in ambiguous situations, but no real latitude.)
A monarch does nothing but make sure that a country always has race and rule by blood at the center of its constitution.
I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but just wondering why? :)