|
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. |
8th December 2018, 10:12 PM | #241 |
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 |
|
8th December 2018, 10:19 PM | #242 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
9th December 2018, 12:02 AM | #243 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
Impeachment?
And the difference is that in a constitutional monarchy the monarch is a figurehead with the executive power resting with elected officials, whereas the US has written their constitution in a way to give the head of state actual power. For instance the president of Germany has about the same power as a constitutional monarch, whereas the french president is more along the lines of the US version. |
9th December 2018, 02:01 AM | #244 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
You realize, of course, since there's no evidence, my answer will be speculative.
I think the Queen would issue broad directives from time to time. The directives might be decided by her immediate advisors and might apply to multiple countries. They don't necessarily come from her head. Maybe none of them do, for all I know. But she is the embodiment of the power to implement the directives and so they are issued through her. I imagine top people from her staff relay the directives to the appropriate Governors General. If done by phone, there would be no paper trail. The Gov Gen, in turn would have meetings with various high level officials and make known the Queen's wishes. Those officials swore allegiance to the Queen when they took office. They know full well who they're working for. The officials then begin to implement the directives as they see fit. It's important to note that none of this precludes policy deriving from other sources. Organizations like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives write up policy suggestions and they go through the normal process. The Gov Gen would probably phone her Queen contact and apprise them of the proposed legislation and if there was no objection, it would succeed or fail on it's own merits through the normal Parliamentary process. There's no suggestion that the Queen dictates all policy. The implementation of the directive may or may not involve legislation. The directive could be something like a 'public education' campaign to promote awareness of...whatever. Again, this is all speculation, and I don't know if this is how it goes down. But I see no reason why it couldn't go down that way and leave no trail. |
9th December 2018, 02:14 AM | #245 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
|
|
9th December 2018, 02:15 AM | #246 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
|
|
9th December 2018, 03:43 AM | #247 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 49 North
Posts: 6,753
|
You are just so ignorant; the Queen using a phone!
Every week the Queen summons the prime minister to an audience; during which time the Queen makes clear her instructions for the week ahead. Royal messengers will carry her instructions to the dominions. Occasionally if there seems a little drift she will have to visit and have a personal word with prime ministers outwith of the UK. They just need reminding that the armed man who accompanies them owes allegiance to the Queen and not the prime minister. (On the other hand you could argue that parliament has been willing enough to get rid of sovereigns they do not like, Charles, James, Edward come to mind; empirical evidence suggests the power lies with parliament not vice versa.) |
9th December 2018, 04:21 AM | #248 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
9th December 2018, 04:54 AM | #249 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
The nicest thing that I can say about this speculative answer is that it is unconvincing.
You have already established that the Governor General does the Queen's bidding. You have also ruled out the Queen skulking behind the scenes to install a puppet Prime Minister (something she doesn't need the constitution to enable her to do so). So now we have an independent Prime Minister and a Governor General. Tell me how the Governor General (Queen) can defy the Prime Minister without anybody knowing about it. |
__________________
"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 |
|
9th December 2018, 05:53 AM | #250 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
9th December 2018, 10:18 AM | #251 |
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 |
|
9th December 2018, 11:09 AM | #252 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
9th December 2018, 11:31 AM | #253 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
9th December 2018, 11:38 AM | #254 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
It isn't.
I have entertained Itchy Boy and given him an opportunity to explain his viewpoint but in spite of my unease of Canada's constitution, I have no fear that the Queen will do anything untoward in Canadian (or Australian) affairs. This is one of the reasons why republican movements don't quite reach the line. We can be sure that the Queen won't do anything wrong but that assurance would not be there if she was removed from the picture. |
__________________
"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 |
|
9th December 2018, 12:17 PM | #255 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
9th December 2018, 12:22 PM | #256 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
Because Canada is a self governing nation. Do you think otherwise?
|
__________________
"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 |
|
9th December 2018, 12:33 PM | #257 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
9th December 2018, 12:34 PM | #258 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
If the facts can't convince anyone that the Queen HAS the power, then speculation is certainly not going to convince them she uses it.
It is extremely rare for anyone to defy the Queen. High officials swear an oath the Queen. They know who's boss. Whether they swear with fingers crossed or not, they are a cog in a machine owned by the Queen. They know their place. The PM has been a company man for his entire career, or he wouldn't be nominated for party leader. It's in everone's interest to keep disagreements quiet. But if it should go public, so what? It will be spun so as to mitigate any damage. The system doesn't fall apart because of a disagreement. |
9th December 2018, 12:48 PM | #259 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
|
The Queen going rogue with reserve powers is not the prime motivator for Australian republicanism. It's almost no motive at all, really. It's far more to do with national maturity and ownership of governance. More simply put, an adult finally moving out of our parents' home.
But we digress from the main topic here, which is barking conspiracy theories and shape-shifting lizards. |
__________________
...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 |
|
9th December 2018, 01:14 PM | #260 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
I never said the Queen used the phone. And we're talking about her role in Canada, not England or anywhere else.
Doesn't the fact that SHE summons the PM and "makes clear her instructions for the week ahead" itself tell you who's boss? I'm guessing it wasn't your intention, but your post confirms what i've been saying all along. The Queen is top dog. Aside from the fact that the examples you gave are ancient history, wasn't Charles defeated in war? Didn't Edward abdicate? Not sure about James. In those days, an angry public would take arms and there would be bloodshed. This is never going to happen in modern times where, for one thing, the public has been disarmed. The public has also been made far more dependent on gov't and docile than previous generations were. Is there an example from modern times, say the 1700's onwards, where Parliament has 'gotten rid of' a Sovereign? Can Parliament order the royal family to select a new Sovereign? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the answer is 'no'. At best they could abolish the monarchy entirely, but as far as I know the conditions required to do that are virtually impossible to come about. If I'm not mistaken, in Canada it takes the unanimous vote of federal and provincial parliaments. If they have all sworn allegiance to the Queen, how many are likely to vote for abolition? All of them? One last thing...do you think the Queen never uses a phone? |
9th December 2018, 01:24 PM | #261 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
No, the topic is whether or not the Queen is a figurehead. I have argued that she's not. The rest of you, unable to show any legal evidence to the contrary, have to twist my words, accuse me of lying, and introduce lizards to the conversation. Because you have no real evidence.
Norman, aren't you even embarrassed by the fact you still haven't provided one iota of evidence to back your assertions? Is there no little voice in the back of your mind saying, "Hey Norm, you have nothing to offer as counter argument. Could this Itchy guy possibly be right?" |
9th December 2018, 01:31 PM | #262 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
How is Canada self governing when it says this in the Constitution?
"The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." Is it because what's written in the Con is frivolous, has no legitimacy and cannot be enforced. That's what many here seem to think. Do you agree? |
9th December 2018, 01:36 PM | #263 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
|
9th December 2018, 01:57 PM | #264 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 299
|
|
9th December 2018, 02:38 PM | #265 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
9th December 2018, 04:18 PM | #266 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
|
Being wrong does not make you a liar. It makes you simply wrong. And the reason lizards are mentioned is that your co-conspirators who subscribe to this theory as to how the "New World Order", e.g. the Queen having full control of the world, have shape-shifting lizards is one of their core beliefs.
Or did you not happen to notice this in your "15 years of research"?? Here, let me help you with a few select references. See if any of these sound familiar. https://punkee.com.au/celebrity-rept...d-people/52752 https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...hifting-lizard https://www.theatlantic.com/national...rnment/354496/ http://content.time.com/time/special...861029,00.html https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/lat...Angelina-Jolie
Quote:
Nope! The little voice in my mind says you are seriously uneducated on your "expert subject", and are determined to stay that way by simply ignoring any evidence put up to show you that your point of view is thoroughly mistaken. |
__________________
...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 |
|
9th December 2018, 05:31 PM | #267 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 54,892
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
9th December 2018, 05:47 PM | #268 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
Norman, I'm getting close to cutting you off. I've asked to back your claim several time. Nothing. I've asked the peanut gallery several times to back their claims with something in law. Nothing.
Then you (and others) employ the tactic known as 'discredit by associaton' where you try to link me with the lizard theory. Then some here think people with great power don't use it. They think the monarchy, which gave Canada a measure of independence is going to relinquish their control despite the Con stipulating that control shall continue. The longer this thread goes on, the more transparent all your excuses become. I talking to all of you here. It only shows how desperate you all are to cling to your beliefs. (It was someone else that accused me of lying.) And, I'm not an 'expert' in this subject. Anybody can figure this out quite easily. It's only their preconceived beliefs that prevent them from seeing the reality. |
__________________
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 |
|
9th December 2018, 06:24 PM | #269 |
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 |
|
9th December 2018, 06:35 PM | #270 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Alternately, it allows the PM an opportunity to remind HMTQ who actually controls things and to give her the courtesy of some advance notice of what she'll need to do in the upcoming week.
Quote:
Second, Canada is far from disarmed. There are 44 firearms for every 100 Canadians. Most of those with these weapons are hunters who are required to know how to use them. This, coupled with the lack of a registry of the most effective weapons for an armed resistance, and the general skill of those who have weapons is hardly indicative of a disarmed populace. Third, if the government continues the programs that are widely used in Canadian society, but no longer listen to HMTQ - do you think the people will care?
Quote:
Quote:
And provided Parliament passes the law, it is law once assented to and as pointed out, if HMTQ refuses to sign she's defying the will of the people, which is what got Charles I beheaded and James II deposed.
Quote:
Quote:
For someone whining about our constitutional arrangements, you sure don't know the source documents or the practicalities of constitutional practice and custom. The last part is a political question that can only be answered by the politicians of the day when and if that happens. Essentially if enough Canadians want that to happen, it'll happen. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
9th December 2018, 06:37 PM | #271 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
|
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
9th December 2018, 07:00 PM | #272 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
I was going to post this example. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward...ication_crisis
Quote:
Note that bit about his brother, George VI? Guess who his daughter is? That's right, it's Queen Elizabeth II. She literally would not be on the throne today if the UK Parliament had not made her uncle Edward give up the throne. And she knows that. Aside from her own father, she's probably the one person who knows best the exact limits of her "power". More of the story:
Quote:
The "third option" there being abdication, for clarity. Yes, definitely sounds like a bunch of guys who would never, ever, question their loyalty to the King due to their oath. Nope, not never. |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
9th December 2018, 07:09 PM | #273 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
From a quick search - seems to contradict the conditions you outlined, but you may provide a source for your info.
"But if half of Canadians did get their wish and the country chose to abolish the monarchy, it would be a “nearly impossible” task, according to Emmett Macfarlane, assistant professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. The monarchy is written into the constitution so it would have to be removed. “Any change we made of that nature that would really disrupt if not abolish the office of the Queen requires a constitutional amendment with unanimous support of the provinces. So all provinces would have to agree in addition to the federal Parliament,” he said. https://globalnews.ca/news/3559289/h...-the-monarchy/ |
__________________
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 |
|
9th December 2018, 07:20 PM | #274 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
9th December 2018, 07:26 PM | #275 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
That it would be difficult to enact this change says nothing about who has the power to make the change. As has been seen with Donald Trump, it is difficult to get Congress to act to impeach him. Does that mean that Congress doesn't have the power to impeach him? No, of course not. Yes, it would require a broad consensus across all of Canada to remove the Queen. And that's actually a good thing; important changes such as removing a President or a Queen shouldn't be easy; if they were, it would happen far too often, to the detriment of the orderly workings of the Government. But should a situation arise in which the Queen or the President so enrages the people that this broad consensus does emerge, then we will of course have the power to carry it out. |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
9th December 2018, 07:29 PM | #276 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
|
He abdicated because that was his best CHOICE. You could say he was 'forced' to abdicate, but he still had to abdicate - he wasn't fired.
And all this was about marrying a commoner, not any state business. By marrying a commoner, he was 'breaking the royal rules' so to speak and was pressured from all sides for doing so. In the end, it was still his decision to make, not Parliament's. The monarch cannot be fired except perhaps by the royal family itself. Of course it can always be made to look like Parliament was responsible. The whole point of all this is to keep the monarch's power hidden and maintain the illusion that elected officials represent the will of the people. |
__________________
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 |
|
9th December 2018, 07:48 PM | #277 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
And with that, you've proven that nothing will convince you. Once you start dismissing clear-cut evidence with "it can always be made to look like" and "maintain the illusion", there's literally nothing we can say that can overcome that. So, congratulations, you've played a stupid game, and won a stupid prize! Go, you! |
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
9th December 2018, 07:52 PM | #278 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
That would surprise a lot of monarchs.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
9th December 2018, 07:54 PM | #279 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,726
|
Yes, it was Edward's choice to make - abdicate, or see if he could weather the ensuing crisis. Given the precedents, he determined he could not.
And since the best precedent was to be an exile dependant on the charity of others, he made the right one. |
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks? |
|
9th December 2018, 08:03 PM | #280 |
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
|
You read it backwards. The Queen not going rogue provides a lack of motive for a republic.
Back in the 1990's when Charles was proving remarkably incompetent, the motivation for a republic was much higher. The momentum has cooled considerably now that his two sons haven't done anything wrong. In fact, Harry (who's circumstances would have made him a prime candidate for a black sheep) has managed to attract quite a lot of favourable publicity and popularity. |
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|