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 Yesterday, 10:12 PM   #241
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,581
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 Yesterday, 10:19 PM   #242
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,861
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 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 Today, 12:02 AM   #243
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,225
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 Today, 02:01 AM   #244
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
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 Today, 02:14 AM   #245
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 190
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 Today, 02:15 AM   #246
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 190
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 Today, 03:43 AM   #247
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,937
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 Today, 04:21 AM   #248
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,448
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 Today, 04:54 AM   #249
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,581
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 Today, 05:53 AM   #250
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,861
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 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 Today, 10:18 AM   #251
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,581
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 Today, 11:09 AM   #252
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,123
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 Today, 11:31 AM   #253
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,861
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 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 Today, 11:38 AM   #254
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,581
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 Today, 12:17 PM   #255
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,861
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 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 Today, 12:22 PM   #256
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,581
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 Today, 12:33 PM   #257
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,861
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Because Canada is a self governing nation. Do you think otherwise?
I don't follow.
BobTheCoward 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 Today, 12:34 PM   #258
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
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 Today, 12:48 PM   #259
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,439
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 Today, 01:14 PM   #260
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
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 Today, 01:24 PM   #261
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
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 Today, 01:31 PM   #262
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
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 Today, 01:36 PM   #263
Itchy Boy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 97
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 Today, 01:57 PM   #264
The Moog
Thinker
 
The Moog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 190
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; Today 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 Today, 02:38 PM   #265
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,149
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 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
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 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.