|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th December 2018, 02:53 AM | #681 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
17th December 2018, 02:58 AM | #682 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,808
|
|
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015 |
|
17th December 2018, 03:21 AM | #683 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
17th December 2018, 06:01 AM | #684 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
It is not that the scenario is impossible - it is that it is so improbable that the likelihood of it being true is so close to zero that I'd wager actual money on it.
The scenario you propose is that "The Crown", either directly from the monarch, or through intermediaries, proposes legislation or amendments to legislation under the threat of withholding Royal Assent. And you are further proposing that at no time has any Parliament or provincial legislature offered any pushback on this infringement of their role in government. It's bollocks. You may not have noticed, but here in Canada at least one of the provinces has often passed legislation that is at odds with the rest of the provinces - and is rather unsympathetic to the relationship with the British Crown. Are you holding out that Rene Levesque, Lucien Bouchard, et al would have taken advice from the Crown on their legislation from someone they perceived as a foreign power? You're holding out that the same people who were set to create a Republique du Quebec, sans la Majeste would be quiet about that? Remembering that Lucien was a federal politician long before he went into separatist politics, worked on multiple bills and would have known about such input. In addition, if HMTQ or her ancestors wanted to effectively control The Great White North, this would not have been a federal country with a division of powers between the provinces and federal government - it would have had one level of government (which was what Johnny MacDonald wanted, but had to give up if he actually wanted New Brunswick and Nova Scotia on board) to minimize the shenanigans that do happen - the split in powers is the reason that it's easier to get beer brewed in Britain here in Ontario than it is to get beer brewed in Quebec.) Essentially, such the "secret process" is alleged to have gone on for too long with far too many people who had no reason to not shout from the roof tops that the Queen was interfering with Parliament for me to concede that it is plausible - I'd have greater chance of believing that Maxime Bernier is going to be the next PM. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
17th December 2018, 06:03 AM | #685 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Yeah just "Quebec" is an argument against Itchy Boy's ridiculous theory.
|
17th December 2018, 06:55 AM | #686 |
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 7,599
|
|
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French) |
|
17th December 2018, 11:16 AM | #687 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
17th December 2018, 11:18 AM | #688 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
17th December 2018, 11:24 AM | #689 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
17th December 2018, 11:26 AM | #690 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I do not say The Crown proposes legislation. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I don't know. I'm saying they can, if they wish, threaten to withhold RA unless things they object to in a bill are changed.
This is a fact. I don't know of any 'push back' but if you cite an incident, I'll look into it. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
17th December 2018, 11:28 AM | #691 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
17th December 2018, 11:41 AM | #692 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
There's a widely held misconception here that something is 'secret'. It's not a 'secret' if it's written in the Con, which RA is. The provinces have a certain amount of autonomy but RA is a brick wall, even for Quebec. They can't get past it anymore than any other province. Everyone has to play by the same rules.
The only way to change the situation is to take RA out of the Con. The scenario I described is such a simple and practical way to ensure RA that, in my opinion, it's most likely true. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
17th December 2018, 11:43 AM | #693 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
So Itchy Boy. It looks like people are willing to admit that your theory is not impossible, but have given ample feedback as to why it is improbable in the extreme. Is there any further purpose in continuing this thread?
|
17th December 2018, 11:44 AM | #694 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
17th December 2018, 11:49 AM | #695 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
17th December 2018, 12:55 PM | #696 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
First, are those goalposts heavy? Remember to lift with your legs and not your back to avoid strain. I was addressing the idea you had that the Crown influenced the drafting bills at some stage pre-Assent to conform with their goals or some such, not the requirement for Royal Assent.
You do realize that Quebec has held two referendums to withdraw from Confederation in the last 45 years, don't you? And that the withholding of Royal Assent from a Bill put forward by the Quebec Legislature for said assent until changes were made to satisfy the monarch would have been a wonderful boost to the separatist cause? Hells, that would have been a boost to a republican cause in Canada as a whole, not just Quebec. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
17th December 2018, 09:57 PM | #697 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
In my view, 'conform with their goals' and 'requirement for RA' amount to the same thing - approval. But if you think I'm moving goal posts, please put the posts back where you think they belong and we can go from there.
Since nothing came of the Quebec situation, I'm not sure what relevance it has here. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
17th December 2018, 10:30 PM | #698 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Let's say some MP whistle blower goes to the media and says, "The monarchy is forcing us to submit bills to them for pre-approval before being submitted to Parliament."
What evidence could he present? His motives are going to be scrutinized. The media may ignore the story for lack of evidence, or they may bury it on a back page. Remember, some people, the Monarchist Society for example, know the Queen has the power to step in if the need arises and they fully support this state of affairs. So not everyone will be sympathetic to the 'whistle blower's' allegations. ETA: Without evidence, or a way to prove the allegation, it's not likely to be a big story. I imagine the PR narrative might go something like this... "The Queen, by the Constitution, has the legal authority to withhold RA. For that reason, proposed bills may be voluntarily presented to the monarchy to assure the bill will become law if it passes the House. This is an informal courtesy to the Queen under the Conventions and is not mandatory." They may or may not add that major financial bills MUST be pre-approved according to the Constitution. My guess is they would leave that detail out. None of the above PR is a lie. And indeed, since this falls under the non judiciable Conventions, there is no way to 'force' the submission of bills for pre-approval. And no way for a whistle blower to prove force. The Conventions are essentially a 'gentlemen's agreement' between the gov't and the monarchy and nothing that happens under the Conventions is provable. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 12:09 AM | #699 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Recently, 10 members of the sovereignist Quebec solidaire refused to swear allegiance to the Queen publicly. Instead, they chose to swear the oath behind closed doors, away from the view of family and friends attending the ceremony.
In public, they declared their loyalty to the Quebec people, the second part of the oath required of all members of the national assembly of Quebec. Manon Masse, spokesperson, called the oath to the Queen "an archaic and, frankly unpleasant ritual." Sol Zanetti said it was "humiliating" to swear an oath that clashed with his personal convictions. It's pretty safe to assume these people feel no loyalty to the Queen. Nevertheless, they must take the oath as prescribed by the Constitution and sign the Test Roll, a book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath or affirmation. Regardless of how distasteful it may be, if they want to play, they have to play by the rules. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 12:15 AM | #700 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 12:19 AM | #701 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
18th December 2018, 12:56 AM | #702 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I'm not sure what the 'bluff' is here. In the post linked below, I explained why neither party wants a confrontation.
If the House passed a bill without pre-approval: If there was nothing objectionable in the bill, it would get RA despite not having pre-approval. If there is something objectionable in it, RA would be legally refused. The MPs don't get their bill passed, and we would be told this is a Constitutional Crisis. A light will be shone on the part of the Constitution that deals with RA. So, what is the secret being exposed? Something that's written in the Constitution? ETA: And when the dust settles, nothing will have changed, unless there was an amendment. If the monarchy's power has truly eroded since even before Victoria's time, RA would not be in the Constitution. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=673 |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 01:27 AM | #703 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Remember, unlike the Americans who forged their own Constitution, Canada's was given ours by The Crown.
All the Constitution is, is a set of LAWS handed down by The Crown that the Canadian government must obey. There are no laws in it governing the people. That has been delegated to Canadian gov't. It was as recent as 1982 that Canada was given the right to amend the Constitution, but only by proclamation of the Queen, by way of the Gov Gen. Does that sound like Canada is truly independent with the Queen as a powerless figurehead? |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 01:56 AM | #704 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
|
Yep.
|
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
18th December 2018, 03:18 AM | #705 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
You slept through the classes where the teacher discussed the conferences where they wrote the Constitution Acts, didn't you? Pro tip, none of them were in Britain, and none involved Representatives from Britain or the monarchy.
The Constitution was not given to us, we wrote it. We put the monarchy in its position and if we choose, we'll remove it. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 04:18 AM | #706 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
18th December 2018, 06:25 AM | #707 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
18th December 2018, 06:33 AM | #708 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Okay dumb question.
Why "Queen of Canada" instead of the more generic "Queen of the Commonwealth Realms" or whatever? Does the standing Monarch of the United Kingdom have some... thing (be it purely symbolic 'figurehead' power or something more tangible) over Canada they don't have over Australia or Papua New Guinea? Basically even beyond... everything I don't get the Canada-centricness of the title. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
18th December 2018, 07:38 AM | #709 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
If for nothing else than "Queen of Canada" is one of her titles and IB seems all bent around the axles about her role as stated in the Constitution Act, but without all the rest of the other stuff about how the Crown actually goes about doing what it is it does.
Besides, her proper title would be "Queen Elizabeth the Second of Canada, Captain General of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, some lesser units and some other countries." |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 07:52 AM | #711 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Well yeah I know. But that's also true of Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu (and of course the whole United Kingdom thing.)
Is the Queen's relationship to Canada really any different then her relationship to Australia? |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
18th December 2018, 08:11 AM | #712 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Short answer, not really.
IB is posting his location as "Canada" so I'm going out on a limb and presuming that he's only concerned about the Great White North. The other presumption is that IB is ignorant (in the sense of not being aware) that HMTQ is also the sovereign of those other states and/or cannot be chuffed enough about the whole deal to do anything other than search of his favourite conspiracy sites to feed his "the Queen secretly controls the world" idea. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
18th December 2018, 08:44 AM | #713 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
|
Let's assume the Queen of England does secretly control the politics of all the commonwealth realms where she is head of state. Is that such a bad thing? Compare the commonwealth realms - Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom - to all the other countries in the world. Their politics are relatively stable and democratic. Human rights are respected. None are at war. Crime rates are relatively low. Most have nice climates (Canadian winters excepted ). None have violent religious conflicts. Any of those countries would be a pleasant place to live. The queen seems to be doing a good job. Let her continue, I say.
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
18th December 2018, 11:08 AM | #714 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
|
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975 |
|
18th December 2018, 12:21 PM | #715 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Not a dumb question.
"In 1953, a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act formally conferred upon Elizabeth II the title of Queen of Canada." https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-he...ily/queen.html Wiki: "Although the person of the sovereign is equally shared with 15 other independent countries within the Commonwealth of Nations, each country's monarchy is separate and legally distinct.[23] As a result, the current monarch is officially titled Queen of Canada[...]" I'm not sure exactly why they did this except to add a little more smoke and mirrors. Especially mirrors, since the one Queen is now many. The distinction was relevant in the case of Conrad Black vs Jean Cretien. |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 12:38 PM | #716 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Wiki:
On April 17, 1982, Queen Elizabeth II and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, as well as the Minister of Justice, Jean Chrétien, and André Ouellet, the Registrar General, signed the Proclamation which brought the Constitution Act, 1982 into force.[4][5][6][7] The proclamation confirmed that Canada had formally assumed authority over its constitution, the final step to full sovereignty. Pre 1982, Canada did not have formal authority over its Constitution. Doesn't that necessarily mean that somebody else had formal authority over Canada's Constitution? |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 12:53 PM | #717 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
"Formally", "Legally", "On paper", "by law".
How about "actually", "in reality", "in practice" or even "likely to happen at all"? |
18th December 2018, 12:59 PM | #718 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
In the post about the imaginary whistle blower I outlined what might happen if pre-approval was called attention to.
You said my example was naive and suggested another scenario. I explained what might happen in your scenario - where pre-approval didn't necessarily come up. If it did come up in your scenario, I refer you to the whistle blower post. Pre-approval, if it exists, is under the Conventions. They would rather it not be widely known because it taints the "we rubber stamp everything" image. More people might start questioning that. But as was pointed out in the whistle blower post, any damage is easily mitigated because pre-approval is characterized as a strictly voluntary courtesy under the Conventions. So, if the big 'secret' of pre-approval got out, what damage would it do? ETA: It might mildly taint the 'rubber stamper' image, but that would soon be forgotten. What catastrophe do you envision? |
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan |
|
18th December 2018, 01:02 PM | #719 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Because there is no Kingdom of the Commonwealth Realms for her to be monarch of.
There are several separate, independent, sovereign nations. She's Queen of Canada. Independently of that, she's Queen of Australia. She isn't Queen of Australia and Canada, because "Australia and Canada" isn't actually a nation for her to be queen of. |
18th December 2018, 01:04 PM | #720 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Actually, that wasn't the distinction that was relevant.
What was relevant was that Conrad Black was also a citizen of the United Kingdom and as such was nominated for the peerage. The Canadian PM stated that, in accordance with the Nickle Resolutions, that a peerage should not be confirmed on Canadian citizens. The British PM didn't back down claiming that it was his right to nominate British citizens for British honours. Conrad took the high road and went to court so that he could be called "My Lord" and not have to pay for the privilege. Ultimately, the Ontario courts ruled that the Canadian Courts could not bind the government of Great Britain. The ruling of the court did not confirm that HMTQ in Right of Canada could act against the wishes of the Canadian Privy Council with respect to honours and awards for Canadians, it ruled that the Canadian Privy Council had no authority to advise HMTQ in Right of the United Kingdom with respect to the honours and awards recommended the by the Privy Council of the United Kingdom for citizens of the United Kingdom. In the end, Conrad renounced his Canadian citizenship to avoid any issues that might prevent him from receiving the peerage. What you've ignored is that the Queen stayed out of the dispute. This would have been the perfect vehicle for Her to have exercised her right to grant honours and awards to a Canadian based on her own judgement, rather than on the advice of her Canadian Privy Council. Instead, she did nothing. This is the person you are trying to maintain tells people preparing legislation, "This is not something I will assent to, send me something else." This is a person unable to decide which of her councillors to listen to. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|