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 14th December 2018, 07:02 PM   #561
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What is the 'unwritten limit' of power? Who decides if it's been breached and by what criteria? It's nonsense. There's no legal basis for what you describe.

It probably is a moving target which has evolved for 100's of years, and is still evolving to this day. For example, the sacking of the Australian Government by the Governor General in 1975 could, in practical terms, never happen again, even though theoretically the power to do so has not changed. It is still there, it just wont be used.




Quote:
Furthermore, how could The Crown legally lose it's power? By Con Amendment?Who must issue a proclamation before any amendment can be undertaken? The Queen. There are no loopholes in the Con by which the gov't or anyone can legally strip her of any power.

The only way would be by violent insurrection, which I think we can safely rule out. So there's absolutely no fear of The Crown losing its power.[

Yes, I recall the War in Nauru in 1968 when it became a Republic, and stripped the Queen of her power. Oh, wait, there was no War. It happened purely through what we call a Democracy. Of course to you, this does not count as a precedent because... not Canada.


And how do you explain the Queen's acceptance of a referendum in Australia in 1999 which would have allowed Australia to become a Republic had it passed? Or do you seriously think she would (or could) say no?


Quote:
The argument does NOT 'require unwritten, unspoken agreement by millions of people over centuries'. All those millions of people for centuries believed what they were told. They were fooled, just as they are today. They simply believe that, "...under the Conventions, the Queen always..[fill in the blank]".

I believe that the last time Royal Assent to a proposed Law was rejected by Queen Anne in 1707. That is 311 years of unspoken agreement (precedent) right there.



Quote:
In this thread I've shown multiple proofs that the Queen is at the pinnacle of power in Canada. Yet, the majority here STILL believe that is not true. A classic example of clinging to a belief in the face of contradicting facts. The truth will never budge them.

No, you have shown one proof multiple times. There is a difference. What we have shown that the Royal in charge does not defy convention which is well understood by those who practice it.


Quote:
A few know she possesses the power, but don't believe she uses it.
It's not reported on so it never happens. Fair enough.


These people believe the gov't and Queen obey vague unwritten rules that they all 'just know', rather than the legal written laws.


There's no evidence to prove otherwise, but does that mean it's true?
All we have to go by is a balance of probability.


Everybody who can read knows what is in the Canadian Constitution and it really does show that she does not wield any power in Canada. She does however own and wield all the power in the World over all the Swans in the Thames River and its estuaries.


Quote:
So this family, bloodline that goes back a long way:
- dictates the rules (Constitution) their satellite gov't (Canada) must obey
- keeps legal executive power of and over Canada under their control
- keeps legal control of the Canadian Armed Forces
- must approve, by proclamation, any proposed Amendment
- makes everyone who works for them swear an Oath of Allegiance
- owns all the land in Canada
...you know, THAT family. What is the likelihood of such a family being the government's lapdog?

The Royal Family has not used its power over any of these things for hundreds of years. They could not even get Canada to involve itself directly in the Falklands War in 1982. For all we know, Thatcher (not the Queen) may have asked Canada for help, and they might have told her to go jump in the lake. In any event, it is evidence that Britain could not control the Canadian forces.



You left out the word nominally in front of each of your points, and to be quite honest I doubt that the Queen even thinks much about what is going on in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, or anywhere else in the Commonwealth, or anything else much now and she is beginning to delegate many of her day to day activities to Charles and other Royals.



She really has better things to do than try to control things in Canada. For example there is a minor Political issue going on right now in her home country which would certainly have her attention more than who said what in Canada. I hate to tell you this, but like Australia and New Zealand, you are not that important.



Or maybe she could gather all the troops from her Dominions to storm Parliament and do something about Brexit.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 14th December 2018, 07:33 PM   #562
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What is the 'unwritten limit' of power? Who decides if it's been breached and by what criteria? It's nonsense. There's no legal basis for what you describe.
This is known as a strawman argument and a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with what you quoted.

The Queen's greatest asset is her good name. She isn't going to taint it by butting into Canadian politics and probably creating a crisis for herself even in England itself.
__________________
"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 14th December 2018, 08:12 PM   #563
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So this family, bloodline that goes back a long way:
- dictates the rules (Constitution) their satellite gov't (Canada) must obey
- keeps legal executive power of and over Canada under their control
- keeps legal control of the Canadian Armed Forces
- must approve, by proclamation, any proposed Amendment
- makes everyone who works for them swear an Oath of Allegiance
- owns all the land in Canada
...you know, THAT family. What is the likelihood of such a family being the government's lapdog?

You all say it's 100%.

I say it's zero.

Oh, one more thing. You have already been told that the loss of real day to day power goes back many, many years and was already effectively gone by Queen Victoria's time after being whittled away by termites for many years before that. (You know, the ones that you don't believe in - precedent and convention) So THAT family bloodline has not, in practical terms, known any real power for at least 180 years. The recent, present and future incumbents of the throne have not missed it because they have never had it.

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 14th December 2018 at 08:13 PM.
fromdownunder 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 14th December 2018, 09:03 PM   #564
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
Oh, one more thing. You have already been told that the loss of real day to day power goes back many, many years and was already effectively gone by Queen Victoria's time after being whittled away by termites for many years before that. (You know, the ones that you don't believe in - precedent and convention) So THAT family bloodline has not, in practical terms, known any real power for at least 180 years. The recent, present and future incumbents of the throne have not missed it because they have never had it.

Norm
I don't believe unwritten precedent and convention can trump written law.
While there's no proof the Queen uses her power, there's no proof she doesn't. What she does under Conventions is hearsay. It's what those in power tell us. You have no way to prove she doesn't use her power the same as I have no way to prove she does. That she does use it is simple common sense in my view. But not constantly, like the CEO of a company, but more like the board of directors. The Crown, I think, is mainly interested in setting long term goals which may take place over decades.

If what you folks say about the Conventions is real, why wouldn't they write the rules down and avoid any ambiguity? They've had long enough to do so.

If the power had been whittled away even before Victoria's time, why would all those provisions be written into the supreme law that was handed down from Victoria to Canada? There would be no reason for it. Are justiciable laws written but meant to be ignored? You know it doesn't work that way. There would be no reason for the Constitution as it stands. Why not a simple half-page letter that says, "OK, Canada...you're on your own now. We, the royal family and Britain are giving you complete independence. Good Luck!"?

So simple logic and common sense tell me that one who has the power doesn't just lay back and let things happen on their own. And to see how that power can be used in a way that's invisible to the public, you have only to know a little about the Conventions, who's #1 purpose is to keep the pretence of no power for decade after decade after decade.

It's all right in our faces, yet so many can't see 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
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 14th December 2018, 09:49 PM   #565
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
"For example, the sacking of the Australian Government by the Governor General in 1975 could, in practical terms, never happen again, even though theoretically the power to do so has not changed. It is still there, it just wont be used."

You don't see the contradiction there? Power is meant to be used. That is it's prime purpose.
If 'the power to do so' didn't change, then the power to do so is still there and can be exercised. That is fact. That it could never happen again is conjecture.

"Everybody who can read knows what is in the Canadian Constitution and it really does show that she does not wield any power in Canada."

Any major financial bills must be approved by The Crown before going to Parliament, and like all bills, must receive Royal Assent before becoming law.
And also written into each and every law is the fact that the Queen is enacting it. Yes she listened to advice, but it's still her, not the gov't enacting the law.
Does that not qualify for 'wielding power'?

But maybe it's more realistic to think she just bends over for Justin.
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 14th December 2018 at 09:51 PM. Reason: colour
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 14th December 2018, 10:06 PM   #566
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Here is what you all say happens in reality.

JUSTIN: Hey Liz, we just passed a bill through final reading and we need your John Henry to make it law.

THE SOVEREIGN: Oh, what's the bill about?

JUSTIN: Don't worry your pretty little head about it, Liz. It's just, you know, government stuff.
Just sign it.

THE SOVEREIGN: But Justin, you know I have authority of and over Canada, so I'd kind of like to know what's in the bill.

JUSTIN: Well, it's too hard to explain. Be a good girl now, and sign.

THE SOVEREIGN: OK, I'm happy to do whatever you say, Justin. You're so cute, just like your father.
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 14th December 2018 at 10:27 PM. Reason: grammar
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 14th December 2018, 10:09 PM   #567
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So simple logic and common sense tell me that one who has the power doesn't just lay back and let things happen on their own. And to see how that power can be used in a way that's invisible to the public, you have only to know a little about the Conventions, who's #1 purpose is to keep the pretence of no power for decade after decade after decade.

It's all right in our faces, yet so many can't see it.

So it really is a Conspiracy theory played my Millions of Government Officials, Royals and Politicians which I kinda think we all knew anyway. Does it have a purpose, or is it just, in your mind, a few Countries for Her Maj. to play with?


Try to find something real to do. Really. I'll stay in the real world.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 14th December 2018, 10:15 PM   #568
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't believe unwritten precedent and convention can trump written law.
Who says it does? They don't stick to convention for legal reasons.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So simple logic and common sense tell me that one who has the power doesn't just lay back and let things happen on their own. And to see how that power can be used in a way that's invisible to the public, you have only to know a little about the Conventions, who's #1 purpose is to keep the pretence of no power for decade after decade after decade.

It's all right in our faces, yet so many can't see it.
Yep, pure CT.

Either that or a poster who would rather look more ridiculous with each passing post than back down from an incorrect position.
__________________
"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 14th December 2018, 10:23 PM   #569
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here is what you all say happens in reality.

JUSTIN: Hey Liz, we just passed a bill through final reading and we need your John Henry to make it law.

LIZ: Oh, what's the bill about?

JUSTIN: Don't worry your pretty little head about it, Liz. It's just, you know, government stuff.
Just sign it.

LIZ: But Justin, you know I have authority of and over Canada, so I'd kind of like to know what's in the bill.

JUSTIN: Well, it's too hard to explain. Be a good girl now, and sign.

LIZ: OK, I'm happy to do whatever you say, Justin. You're so cute, just like your father.

No, here is what happens in reality:


Quote:
ROYAL ASSENT

DEFINITION AND PURPOSE

Royal Assent is the approval by the Sovereign of a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament in identical form. It is the process by which a bill becomes an act of Parliament and part of the law of Canada. In Canada, Royal Assent is given by the Governor General or one of the Governor General’s deputies (a Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada or a senior official such as the Secretary to the Governor General).

The legislative process by which a bill becomes part of the law of the land requires the participation and approval of the three components of Parliament: the Sovereign, the Senate and the House of Commons. Royal Assent and the accompanying ceremony, where all three institutions are present, are the visible manifestation of the Sovereign sanctioning the work of Parliament.


While an act may come into force on the day on which Royal Assent is given, it should be noted that some bills contain provisions that the act (or part of the act) will come into force on a specific day or on a day to be fixed by proclamation. The determination of when such an act will be proclaimed is made by the government on the recommendation of the minister responsible for the act.


This procedural note describes the two forms of Royal Assent: the traditional ceremony, which takes place in the Senate, and the procedure by written declaration.

https://sencanada.ca/en/about/proced...ences/notes/n6
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 14th December 2018, 10:34 PM   #570
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
No, here is what happens in reality:

https://sencanada.ca/en/about/proced...ences/notes/n6
You're just splitting hairs. What you quoted begins with:
Royal Assent is the approval by the Sovereign of a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament in identical form.

The mechanics are delegated to the GG. That's all. In essence, my little dramatization illustrates what you all refer to as the Queen 'rubber stamping' everything. For me, it's way off the believability scale.
__________________
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 14th December 2018, 10:36 PM   #571
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
"For example, the sacking of the Australian Government by the Governor General in 1975 could, in practical terms, never happen again, even though theoretically the power to do so has not changed. It is still there, it just wont be used."

You don't see the contradiction there? Power is meant to be used. That is it's prime purpose.
If 'the power to do so' didn't change, then the power to do so is still there and can be exercised. That is fact. That it could never happen again is conjecture.

John Kerr, the Governor-General sacked the Whitlam Government after consultation with the Solicitor-General, and the Queen knew nothing about it at the time of the event. He did step outside of the convention, and caused a crisis which split the Country in half for years afterwards.



When the Queen was advised of this, and asked to intervene, she did nothing. I suppose you would argue that it was part of her super sekret power, but the truth of the matter was she sat back and refused to interfere and had no power to interfere with local Politics.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 14th December 2018, 10:41 PM   #572
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
You're just splitting hairs. What you quoted begins with:
Royal Assent is the approval by the Sovereign of a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament in identical form.

The mechanics are delegated to the GG. That's all. In essence, my little dramatization illustrates what you all refer to as the Queen 'rubber stamping' everything. For me, it's way off the believability scale.

How am I splitting hairs? From my reading of this, Canadian Bills put for assent do not go anywhere near the Queen - which is what you said we claim - , and some of them are even signed off by somebody delegated by the Parliament, not the Queen and not even the Governor- General.


I think it is fair to say, unlike what you claim, that the Queen would not even know what Laws are being passed by the Canadian Parliament much less have a veto over them.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain


fromdownunder 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 14th December 2018, 11:39 PM   #573
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here is what you all say happens in reality.

JUSTIN: Hey Liz, we just passed a bill through final reading and we need your John Henry to make it law.

THE SOVEREIGN: OK
ftfy.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
In essence, my little dramatization illustrates what you all refer to as the Queen 'rubber stamping' everything. For me, it's way off the believability scale.
Anything you have to say about "what really happens" is far less believable. There is no way that a monarch would subvert the democratic process in this day and age.
__________________
"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

Last edited by psionl0; 14th December 2018 at 11:42 PM.
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 14th December 2018, 11:57 PM   #574
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,714
Christ, this thread jumped the shark ages ago.

Itchy you seem now to acknowledge that the Queen doesn’t actually approve bills. It’s the Governor in Council. We are making progress. Does the Queen even know of the bills passed in her name? **** no.

Please, just walk away.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 12:37 AM   #575
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
So it really is a Conspiracy theory played my Millions of Government Officials, Royals and Politicians which I kinda think we all knew anyway. Does it have a purpose, or is it just, in your mind, a few Countries for Her Maj. to play with?

Try to find something real to do. Really. I'll stay in the real world.

Norm
Anyone can figure this out if they approach it with an open mind instead of blinded by belief. We, the great unwashed, are led to believe The Crown has no power and is there only by tradition. I'm sure the great washed know The Crown's power, and they're on board with it. They're part of the system and if they want to advance, have to play by the rules and they know who's boss.

The purpose? Royalty had a bad name for raping and plundering and cutting off heads and other unspeakable things they used to do quite openly. This led to may revolts, insurrections, etc, which besides being a nuisance, were costly to put down.

They needed a way to maintain their wealth and power and exercise it discreetly so as not to be the target of discontent. They needed a way to keep the masses from uprising. So they came up with what evolved into today's Parliament. The public, by choosing their leaders, now psychologically feel partly responsible for whatever happens. They can blame the politicians and throw them out at the next election. The politicians go to cushy jobs in the private sector or high level bureaucratic position, or the lecture circuit. They know they're in office to take the heat.

Meanwhile the true holder of power is portrayed as a sweet old lady everyone adores and who spends most of her time watching Native dancers and waving to crowds. And of course, obeying the Conventions and rubber stamping everything put in front of her.

If Canada was truly independent, if the royal family truly didn't care about power, why can't Canada simply replace the Constitution with one of it's own? One that doesn't recognize the authority of The Crown?
Alternatively, if The Crown truly wanted to relinquish power, why would a Constitutional amendment be a barrier? Surely all or most members of Parliament would favour making Canada more independent of The Crown.
The Queen could still be titular Head of State, but now truly titular, with no more power. Who would object? Except maybe those loyal to the Queen.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 12:46 AM   #576
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,714
Oh Christ, Lizard People CT 101.

Can this thread be moved please?
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 12:56 AM   #577
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
How am I splitting hairs? From my reading of this, Canadian Bills put for assent do not go anywhere near the Queen - which is what you said we claim - , and some of them are even signed off by somebody delegated by the Parliament, not the Queen and not even the Governor- General.

I think it is fair to say, unlike what you claim, that the Queen would not even know what Laws are being passed by the Canadian Parliament much less have a veto over them.

Norm
This is what you posted.
Royal Assent is the approval by the Sovereign of a bill that has passed both houses of Parliament in identical form.

Who is the Sovereign? The Gov Gen? It doesn't matter what the mechanics are. That tells you clearly where RA emanates from.
I've been using the term 'The Crown' more because that's mostly who we're really talking about.

I agree the Queen doesn't personally scrutinize every bill passed in the Commonwealth. Most probably none of them as you suggest. But The Crown, I'm sure, has the resources to do so and would do so. That's why Royal Assent is written into the laws the gov't must obey. If, by law, RA can be refused, which it can, is that not essentially a veto?
ETA: What does the unwritten Convention rule say? The Q MUST give RA? She MUST give RA in certain circumstances? She is STRONGLY ADVISED to give RA? Just what is that rule?

To be clear, I doubt the Queen personally makes any decisions. It's The Crown that does but the power still emanates from a single point - the monarch. The Queen was only 25 when she was crowned and I somehow doubt the family would let her wield such immense power any way she wished.

ETA: So in the above dramatization, replace 'THE SOVEREIGN' with 'GOV GEN'. If you're saying the Q rubber stamps everything, it's the same difference.
__________________
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

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 15th December 2018 at 01:10 AM. Reason: sp
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 15th December 2018, 01:01 AM   #578
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,714
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

To be clear, I doubt the Queen personally makes any decisions. .
Progress. You may have learnt something.

Doubt it though.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 02:06 AM   #579
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
There's a bit of a problem in the warfighting department, I'm afraid.
Both the nations warships have been sunk and both have dropped their one bomb on eachother.

There is a tank though. But unfortunately it is on a timeshare basis. It will be allocated on alternate days to each country.

But never fear. This war will continue until her Majesty will make up her mind.
OK, so far, so good. Although this time-share tank... What is its target? Can't be another tank, of course.
__________________
...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 15th December 2018, 02:21 AM   #580
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,773
How on earth could the queen use her power secretly without the entire political system being in the know and keeping her secret for her? What mechanisms do you suggest for the queen exercising supreme executive power?
Porpoise of Life 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 15th December 2018, 02:44 AM   #581
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Furthermore, how could The Crown legally lose it's power?
If you mean how could the country become a republic, then as several people have pointed out you have a referendum.
A good example is the Australian referendum in 1999.

Which seems to have failed because nobody trusted the politicians and the Queen did said nothing.
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 15th December 2018, 04:26 AM   #582
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by The Moog View Post
If you mean how could the country become a republic, then as several people have pointed out you have a referendum.
A good example is the Australian referendum in 1999.

Which seems to have failed because nobody trusted the politicians and the Queen did said nothing.
Actually, as an aside, the referendum failed because of cynical manipulation by the Prime Minister of the day, a raving monarchist. By formulating the referendum question, he got the outcome he personally desired.* But this had nothing to do with the Queen.



* Put simply, the referendum question was not posed as a basic yes/no choice, e.g. Should Australia have an Australian citizen as head of state?

Instead, it was posed as a choice between two options, but they were actually a false dilemma. There had been much debate beforehand about how a republican president might be chosen. A number of models had been proposed, and one model had become rather unpopular. So our sneaky PM gave us the choice between Australia remaining a monarchy and the least popular republican model.

NB. Even with this blatant rigging, it only just failed to pass.
__________________
...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 15th December 2018, 05:35 AM   #583
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,418
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
ETA: What does the unwritten Convention rule say? The Q MUST give RA? She MUST give RA in certain circumstances? She is STRONGLY ADVISED to give RA? Just what is that rule?

The answer has already been given twice in this thread. You refused to accept this simply worded oath made by the Queen in 1953 at her coronation. The words and meaning is crystal clear to anybody not trying to make more of it than it says.



Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?


Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of Canada according to their respective laws and customs?


Canada's laws and customs. Not the Queens. They make the rules, and convention and Canadian Law dictate that these Laws are signed off by the Governor-General or a Supreme Court Justice appointed by the Parliament. And as you now agree, the Queen does not know what Laws are being passed.


And please don't try to suggest that the Queen appoints the Governor-General, because you will be wrong again. She approves the nomination made by the Prime Minister under the same Convention that you do not believe in.



Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 15th December 2018 at 05:49 AM.
fromdownunder 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 15th December 2018, 07:40 AM   #584
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,605
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What is the 'unwritten limit' of power? Who decides if it's been breached and by what criteria? It's nonsense. There's no legal basis for what you describe.
Precedent.

This is a common law country, precedent is a perfectly legal basis on which to base a decision.

As for who makes such a determination? That would be the people of Canada.

Quote:
Furthermore, how could The Crown legally lose it's power? By Con Amendment? Who must issue a proclamation before any amendment can be undertaken? The Queen. There are no loopholes in the Con by which the gov't or anyone can legally strip her of any power.
There is precedent.

We can have armed insurrection, a la the ECW, Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution.
We can have a peaceful agreement such as happened in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Uganda, etc.
We can simply change the constitution, as South Africa did.

Lots of ways that the Crown has lost both de facto and de jure authority. And if the people of Canada really want to do so, there is not a lot short of armed force that could stop it.

Quote:
The only way would be by violent insurrection, which I think we can safely rule out. So there's absolutely no fear of The Crown losing its power.
This simply demonstrates a lack of imagination and history on your part.

Quote:
The argument does NOT 'require unwritten, unspoken agreement by millions of people over centuries'. All those millions of people for centuries believed what they were told. They were fooled, just as they are today. They simply believe that, "...under the Conventions, the Queen always..[fill in the blank]".
It absolutely does require that millions of people know of it and choose to remain silent. The Crown has not exercised the power you describe for centuries without the consent of Parliament.

Including those times when Parliament has intervened and delivered ultimatum to the sovereign - ie "Do what we're telling you and remain King, or you can abdicate. If you don't abdicate we will remove you."

It absolutely requires that the millions of people who have held elected office in the myriad countries of the Empire and Commonwealth, including countries that have left such as the US to remain silent

Quote:
In this thread I've shown multiple proofs that the Queen is at the pinnacle of power in Canada. Yet, the majority here STILL believe that is not true. A classic example of clinging to a belief in the face of contradicting facts. The truth will never budge them.
You've shown one proof - and absolutely no proof that she, or any monarch since James II has used this ultimate power to go against the will of Parliament.

Quote:
A few know she possesses the power, but don't believe she uses it.
It's not reported on so it never happens. Fair enough.

These people believe the gov't and Queen obey vague unwritten rules that they all 'just know', rather than the legal written laws.
We ALL know that the monarch has this formal power. We also ALL know why this de facto power is not exercised because we are taught why in school (seriously, I got this between grade 8 and 10 in history and civics classes).

Quote:
There's no evidence to prove otherwise, but does that mean it's true?
All we have to go by is a balance of probability.
I will agree that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That being said, there is about 300 years of time since Charles II was established as the monarch of England and Scotland and there is no evidence of this power being used, and at least two instances where in a conflict between the monarch and Parliament where the monarch came out second best.

I'm banking on the balance of probabilities falling more towards my interpretation than yours.

Quote:
So this family, bloodline that goes back a long way:
- dictates the rules (Constitution) their satellite gov't (Canada) must obey
- keeps legal executive power of and over Canada under their control
- keeps legal control of the Canadian Armed Forces
- must approve, by proclamation, any proposed Amendment
- makes everyone who works for them swear an Oath of Allegiance
- owns all the land in Canada
...you know, THAT family. What is the likelihood of such a family being the government's lapdog?

You all say it's 100%.

I say it's zero.
Yet with no evidence that the monarch actually exercises any of this power in anyway not approved of by Parliament.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 08:48 AM   #585
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,450
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Anyone can figure this out if they approach it with an open mind instead of blinded by belief.
Anyone except you apparently. Your mind is totally closed and you are blinded by a belief that you can provide no evidence for whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If Canada was truly independent, if the royal family truly didn't care about power, why can't Canada simply replace the Constitution with one of it's own? One that doesn't recognize the authority of The Crown?
Because there is no pressing need to. People can have confidence in the current system but don't know the consequences of a fundamental change like this.

Changing to an elected head of state would mean that the head of state would actually use his powers so they would have to be codified carefully. Get it wrong and there could be unintended consequences. This was one of the arguments against an elected head of state during Australia's republican debate.

If the head of state was appointed by parliament then this would mean that all of the power rests with the Prime Minister who would exercise them freely. The constitution would probably also be amended to ensure that the head of state could only act on the advice of the Prime Minister.

So better the devil you know . . .
__________________
"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 15th December 2018, 09:27 AM   #586
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,020
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't believe unwritten precedent and convention can trump written law.
Those are pretty much the only things that can trump written law. That, and naked force.
theprestige 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 15th December 2018, 09:44 AM   #587
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
You could have a Trump instead of a queen.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 15th December 2018, 09:58 AM   #588
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,618
Boring lizard CT

__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   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 15th December 2018, 09:59 AM   #589
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,618
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
You could have a Trump instead of a queen.
Trump trumps the tramp?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   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 15th December 2018, 10:36 AM   #590
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,476
Ha ha ha ha ha ha hee hee!

Originally Posted by fagin View Post
You could have a Trump instead of a queen.
Here's a groovy theme for a lampoon: a female Trumph. You could make her sexy, to help explain 1) how she appealed to so many male voters, and 2) how she could turn tricks to persuade the Russians/Saudis/others to subvert the election. As things get worse and worser, the Queen gradually awakens to her ancient power, and, rising in wrathful majesty, retakes her empire,* and condemns the dread Trumpress to a life of scrubbing toilets in Toronto. Or some damn thing. I'm not a detail man. Itchy can handle that.

* She could dramatically reveal that she (the villainess, not the queen) is a tranny.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett 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 15th December 2018, 12:21 PM   #591
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
How on earth could the queen use her power secretly without the entire political system being in the know and keeping her secret for her? What mechanisms do you suggest for the queen exercising supreme executive power?
Pretty much the entire political system IS in the know. Certainly at the provincial level and up. When they take the oath, whether they mean it or not, they're being told who's team they're playing on. If they later show themselves not to be a team player, they are ostracized. They're all on the Queen's team so there is very little conflict between The Crown and the gov't. The Crown CREATED the gov't, and those in high positions make sure the up-and-comers are of the right stuff and on board with the program. So a general, widespread loyalty to The Crown is maintained.

The mechanism, as far as it can be explained, is the Conventions. Under the Conventions, anything goes. The written rules are not valid or obeyed. Only the vague, undefined unwritten rules are followed while the true law is ignored.

People that believe the world is governed by unwritten rules, have no trouble believing that one of the most powerful organizations in the world always obeys the gov't it created, because the unenforceable Conventions demand 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
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 15th December 2018, 12:24 PM   #592
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Those are pretty much the only things that can trump written law. That, and naked force.
Naked force, yes.

Aside from that, the courts are the final arbiters. The Conventions are unjudiciable, so how can they possible trump the written law which is judiciable?
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 12:48 PM   #593
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,618
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Naked force, yes.

Aside from that, the courts are the final arbiters. The Conventions are unjudiciable, so how can they possible trump the written law which is judiciable?
My country simply tossed out the queen, it isn't difficult.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   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 15th December 2018, 12:54 PM   #594
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Naked force, yes.

Aside from that, the courts are the final arbiters. The Conventions are unjudiciable, so how can they possible trump the written law which is judiciable?
You're not a law scholar, are you.
__________________
...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 15th December 2018, 12:55 PM   #595
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
My country simply tossed out the queen, it isn't difficult.
Which country is that? Did they toss her on the basis of unwritten law?
Did they just say "buh-bye" and that was it? What was the process?
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 01:00 PM   #596
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
You're not a law scholar, are you.
I guess you missed the post where I quoted the first sentence of the gov'ts description of the Conventions. Here it is again for you, with emphasis added so you can't miss the message.

"Conventions are rules of the Constitution; however, they are not enforced by the courts because they are not laws."
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/Teac...onventions.pdf

One doesn't have to be a law scholar to figure this stuff out. It's all right in front of you.
__________________
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 15th December 2018, 01:01 PM   #597
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,485
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Which country is that? Did they toss her on the basis of unwritten law?
Did they just say "buh-bye" and that was it? What was the process?
Seriously?? You've never heard of the USA?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...olutionary_War
Quote:
Massachusetts colonists responded with the Suffolk Resolves, and they established a shadow government which wrested control of the countryside from the Crown. Twelve colonies formed a Continental Congress to coordinate their resistance, establishing committees and conventions that effectively seized power.
__________________
...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 15th December 2018, 01:06 PM   #598
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,618
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Which country is that?
Ireland. Formerly a vassal state, then a commonwealth nation, then a republic. Liz got the big PFO by popular vote and is ignored by by our constitution. Because **** her.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Did they toss her on the basis of unwritten law?
Nope. By violent revolution because **** her.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Did they just say "buh-bye" and that was it? What was the process?
Nope. Violent revolution. Because **** her.

Understand, we simply told the brits and their royalty to simply get lost. End of.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   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 15th December 2018, 01:11 PM   #599
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,020
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Which country is that? Did they toss her on the basis of unwritten law?
Did they just say "buh-bye" and that was it? What was the process?
For my country, the process was we sent the monarch a Dear John letter; and when he didn't get the hint, we shot his people in the face until they figured it out.

ETA: A while later, some of our countrymen tried the same thing, but the face-shooting part broke the other way, and so they're still with us today.

Last edited by theprestige; 15th December 2018 at 01:15 PM.
theprestige 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 15th December 2018, 01:15 PM   #600
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 798
Maybe the word 'precedent' is causing some confusion.
Precedent can be set by the court when, for example, a law is challenged and found to be unconstitutional. The law may stay on the books and be ignored.

BUT - the law was formally ruled on to be unconstitutional and this act is what set the precedent. In other words, the precedent to ignore a law is based on a court decision regarding that particular law.

Were Articles 9 and 15 ever challenged? Were they ever ruled 'unconstitutional' or invalid for any reason? If not, then no precedent has been set regarding those laws. When it comes to the Con, judiciable definitely trumps unjudiciable.

If there's a conflict, how is the matter settled when it can't be settled in the courts?
__________________
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
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 03:10 AM.
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.