ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 


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.
Tags Canada issues , Canada politics , monarchy

Reply
Old 8th December 2018, 10:12 PM   #241
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I wasn't talking about the president. I meant any issue of constitutional hard ball.
Man! You have been slippery in the past but this is just plain weird!
__________________
"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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 10:19 PM   #242
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Man! You have been slippery in the past but this is just plain weird!
What do you mean?
ETA: the only American I mentioned here so far was spotted eagle.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 12:02 AM   #243
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,335
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why would they boot her while the US accepts any similar constitutional hard ball?
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.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 02:01 AM   #244
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So how can she use her power without leaving a trail?
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.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 02:14 AM   #245
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
....
So it pretty much is all a conspiracy theory then?
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 02:15 AM   #246
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why would they boot her while the US accepts any similar constitutional hard ball?
Not sure what you mean. or how the US is in any way similar?
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 03:43 AM   #247
Planigale
Illuminator
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,022
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
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.)
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:21 AM   #248
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,954
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I ask for the third time, would you kindly explain the difference to us and provide an example or two?
Inquiring minds want to know.
What are you hard of reading? Did you miss the post about world courts?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:54 AM   #249
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:53 AM   #250
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
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.
But this doesn't seem right. Everyone here seems to be concluding that the Canada does give the queen the power, but saying that the part is simply ignored.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 10:18 AM   #251
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But this doesn't seem right. Everyone here seems to be concluding that the Canada does give the queen the power, but saying that the part is simply ignored.
It isn't ignored but she exercises her powers strictly in accordance with the wishes of the governing party. There is almost zero risk that she would ever do otherwise.

It is the Prime Minister that holds all the power (at the pleasure of his party).
__________________
"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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:09 AM   #252
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,958
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It isn't ignored but she exercises her powers strictly in accordance with the wishes of the governing party. There is almost zero risk that she would ever do otherwise.

It is the Prime Minister that holds all the power (at the pleasure of his party).
This sums up reality quite nicely and completely. All the other speculation in this thread is a waste of bandwidth.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:31 AM   #253
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It isn't ignored but she exercises her powers strictly in accordance with the wishes of the governing party. There is almost zero risk that she would ever do otherwise.

It is the Prime Minister that holds all the power (at the pleasure of his party).
But why call it a risk? Why is that a constitutional crisis?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:38 AM   #254
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why is that a constitutional crisis?
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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 12:17 PM   #255
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
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.
Why is not granting assent untoward and wrong?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 12:22 PM   #256
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 12:33 PM   #257
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Because Canada is a self governing nation. Do you think otherwise?
I don't follow.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 12:34 PM   #258
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
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.
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.
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 12:48 PM   #259
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
...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 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
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 01:14 PM   #260
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
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.)
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?
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 01:24 PM   #261
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
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.
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?"
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 01:31 PM   #262
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Because Canada is a self governing nation. Do you think otherwise?
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?
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 01:36 PM   #263
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
It isn't ignored but she exercises her powers strictly in accordance with the wishes of the governing party. There is almost zero risk that she would ever do otherwise.

It is the Prime Minister that holds all the power (at the pleasure of his party).
So are you saying the underlings (non-permanent governing party) can tell the (permanent) monarchy what to do? And the monarch virtually always obeys. Is that what you're saying?
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 01:57 PM   #264
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So are you saying the underlings (non-permanent governing party) can tell the (permanent) monarchy what to do? And the monarch virtually always obeys. Is that what you're saying?
That's what happens in this reality.

Seems like a cushy job to me, wave at the cameras and sign what you are asked to.

Last edited by The Moog; 9th December 2018 at 02:05 PM.
The Moog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 02:38 PM   #265
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,486
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You're the first.
Bet you a dollar.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:18 PM   #266
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,196
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
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:
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?"
Let me see...

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

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 9th December 2018 at 04:49 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:31 PM   #267
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,530
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So are you saying the underlings (non-permanent governing party) can tell the (permanent) monarchy what to do? And the monarch virtually always obeys. Is that what you're saying?
Yes this is precisely how it works. I know this doesn’t fit your world wide conspiracy theory, but reality prevails.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 05:47 PM   #268
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
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

Let me see...

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.
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
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:24 PM   #269
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
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

Let me see...

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.
You know, Norman, if you were honest you would either produce a sample of what you claimed was so clear in the Con, or you would admit that you can't. It's as simple as that.
__________________
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
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:35 PM   #270
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.
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:
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.
First Charles and James were defeated in war and the first Chuck was executed for his defiance of Parliament.

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:
Is there an example from modern times, say the 1700's onwards, where Parliament has 'gotten rid of' a Sovereign?
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate in 1936 due to his dislike of constitutional conventions. Parliament forced the abdication.

Quote:
Can Parliament order the royal family to select a new Sovereign?
Yes, parliament most certainly can. The Act of Settlement bars anyone from ascending the throne if they are Roman Catholic, or have other traits. The laws have recently been amended (after consultation with the Commonwealth) to change the succession laws so that the crown goes to the eldest child regardless of gender, rather than to males first, then to females in order of birth.

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:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the answer is 'no'.
You may consider yourself corrected.

Quote:
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?
All that it would take is a Constitutional amendment - 2/3rds of the provinces comprising 1/2 of the population (s.38 of the Constitution Act 1982). Unanimity is not a requirement.

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?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:37 PM   #271
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So are you saying the underlings (non-permanent governing party) can tell the (permanent) monarchy what to do? And the monarch virtually always obeys. Is that what you're saying?
Yes that is what we are saying.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:00 PM   #272
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,076
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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?
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate in 1936 due to his dislike of constitutional conventions. Parliament forced the abdication.


I was going to post this example. More details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward...ication_crisis

Quote:
In 1936, a constitutional crisis in the British Empire arose when King-Emperor Edward VIII proposed to marry Wallis Simpson, an American socialite who was divorced from her first husband and was pursuing the divorce of her second.

The marriage was opposed by the governments of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth. Religious, legal, political and moral objections were raised. As British monarch, Edward was the nominal head of the Church of England, which did not then allow divorced people to remarry in church if their ex-spouses were still alive. For this reason, it was widely believed that Edward could not marry Simpson and remain on the throne.[a] Simpson was perceived to be politically and socially unsuitable as a prospective queen consort because of her two failed marriages. It was widely assumed by the Establishment that she was driven by love of money or position rather than love for the King. Despite the opposition, Edward declared that he loved Simpson and intended to marry her as soon as her second divorce was finalised.

The widespread unwillingness to accept Simpson as the King's consort and Edward's refusal to give her up led to his abdication in December 1936.[b] He was succeeded by his brother George VI. Edward was given the title His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor following his abdication, and he married Simpson the following year. They remained married until his death 35 years later.

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:
On 3 December, Edward had a "tense" meeting with Baldwin.[68] Backed by Churchill and Beaverbrook, Edward proposed to broadcast a speech via the BBC. The proposed text invoked the "ancient custom" for a King to "address his public utterances to his people".[68] Edward proposed to remind his listeners: "I am still the same man whose motto was 'Ich Dien', I serve."[68] In the proposed speech, Edward indicated his desire to remain on the throne or to be recalled to it if forced to abdicate, while marrying Simpson morganatically. In one section, Edward proposed to say:

Neither Mrs. Simpson nor I have ever sought to insist that she should be queen. All we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and dignity for her, befitting my wife. Now that I have at last been able to take you into my confidence, I feel it is best to go away for a while, so that you may reflect calmly and quietly, but without undue delay, on what I have said.[69]

Baldwin blocked the speech, saying that it would shock many people and would be a grave breach of constitutional principles.[68] By modern convention, the sovereign could only act with the advice and counsel of ministers. In seeking the people's support against the government, Edward was opting to oppose binding ministerial advice and instead act as a private individual. Edward's British ministers felt that, in proposing the speech, Edward had revealed his disdainful attitude towards constitutional conventions and threatened the political neutrality of the Crown.[70]

Cabinet Office files released in 2013 show that on or before 5 December 1936, the Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, had ordered the General Post Office (which controlled British telephone services) to intercept "telephone communications between Fort Belvedere and Buckingham Palace on the one hand and the continent of Europe on the other".[71]

On 5 December, having in effect been told that he could not keep the throne and marry Simpson, and having had his request to broadcast to the Empire to explain "his side of the story" blocked on constitutional grounds,[72] Edward chose the third option.[73]

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
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:09 PM   #273
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
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.



First Charles and James were defeated in war and the first Chuck was executed for his defiance of Parliament.

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?



Edward VIII was forced to abdicate in 1936 due to his dislike of constitutional conventions. Parliament forced the abdication.



Yes, parliament most certainly can. The Act of Settlement bars anyone from ascending the throne if they are Roman Catholic, or have other traits. The laws have recently been amended (after consultation with the Commonwealth) to change the succession laws so that the crown goes to the eldest child regardless of gender, rather than to males first, then to females in order of birth.

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.



You may consider yourself corrected.



All that it would take is a Constitutional amendment - 2/3rds of the provinces comprising 1/2 of the population (s.38 of the Constitution Act 1982). Unanimity is not a requirement.

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.
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
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:20 PM   #274
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If they have all sworn allegiance to the Queen, how many are likely to vote for abolition?
Why on earth do you think that their sworn allegiance means anything?
__________________
"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
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:26 PM   #275
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,076
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
“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/


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
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:29 PM   #276
Itchy Boy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 419
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I was going to post this example. More details:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward...ication_crisis




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:




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.
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
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:48 PM   #277
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,076
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
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.


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
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:52 PM   #278
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,068
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The monarch cannot be fired except perhaps by the royal family itself.
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
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 07:54 PM   #279
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,597
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?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 08:03 PM   #280
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,310
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
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.
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
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.