[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Sheilbh]

I would not want to move to that sort of model.  But the other problem is that the crown and more particularly the honour of the crown is an integral part of some of our law.  I am not sure how practical it would be to swap that out for some other placeholder.

Interesting - you'd want a full presidential system with them as either equal (like Italy) or even more of a role (the US, France)?

[crazy canuck]

I would not want to move to that sort of model.  But the other problem is that the crown and more particularly the honour of the crown is an integral part of some of our law.  I am not sure how practical it would be to swap that out for some other placeholder.

Interesting - you'd want a full presidential system with them as either equal (like Italy) or even more of a role (the US, France)?

No, the other way around, I don't think it is possible in the context of Canadian law to move away from having the crown as the head of state.  Too much of our constitutional law and regulatory law is bound up in that structure.  The uncertainty which would result from trying to unwind and recreate the basic underpinnings of that structure would be significant.

[viper37]

Besides he's way out of the running. The worst that would happen is a tragedy would befall us and we'd be stuck with a dumbass stablboys son.

We will soon have King Charles who seems to have the same level of judgement.

The point is bad monarchs happen, and they are there for life.  Even if they no longer have real, tangible power like the kings of old, we're still stuck with a dimwit for life as our representative.

[viper37]

Philosophically I'm a republican, but I'm also a small-c conservative in many cases. Sure abolish the monarchy. What do we do with the gaps it leaves in our system, and how will it be better? Will it be the same? Or worse?

Much as the institution of royalty is morally bankrupt, politically it's pretty inoffensive in our current system.

An elected president and an elected Senate to counter-weight the popular vote of the commons.

It has flaws, but it's much better than the current system.

[Valmy]

Besides he's way out of the running. The worst that would happen is a tragedy would befall us and we'd be stuck with a dumbass stablboys son.

We will soon have King Charles who seems to have the same level of judgement.

The point is bad monarchs happen, and they are there for life.  Even if they no longer have real, tangible power like the kings of old, we're still stuck with a dimwit for life as our representative.

Eh Chuck will be like 80 when he finally becomes king.

[viper37]

Would the monarch need to give royal assent to a bill abolishing the monarchy?

Yes - but in the UK the convention is that the monarch has no discretion in granting royal assent.

Although that's been recently discussed in the context of whether the Queen could refuse royal assent to a backbench bill on the advice of her PM, because that was a possibility during the 2017-19 Brexit parliament. The conclusion in academic circles (and apparently supported by the royal household) was that she couldn't and it would be unconstitutional for her to follow the PM's advice.

Understandable that the British monarchy might be willing to risk getting on the wrong side of the government of the day but is chary of crossing parliament

But that'[s exactly what I mean by saying the monarch has great power and zero legitimacy.

It absolutely is the convention that the monarch must give royal assent.  It would be massive news if the monarch refused to do so.  Which is why the monarch would only do so in the most clearest of clear cases.

But it's still useful to have that kind of safety valve in the system.  Let's say the government of the day passes an absolutely insane law.  There are riots in the streets, public opinion polls are running 90% against.  This is where King Andrew feels secure enough to refuse assent and call for new elections.

So it's essentially totally fine for countries to pay for rubber stampers.

[Malthus]

Would the monarch need to give royal assent to a bill abolishing the monarchy?

Yes - but in the UK the convention is that the monarch has no discretion in granting royal assent.

Although that's been recently discussed in the context of whether the Queen could refuse royal assent to a backbench bill on the advice of her PM, because that was a possibility during the 2017-19 Brexit parliament. The conclusion in academic circles (and apparently supported by the royal household) was that she couldn't and it would be unconstitutional for her to follow the PM's advice.

Understandable that the British monarchy might be willing to risk getting on the wrong side of the government of the day but is chary of crossing parliament

But that'[s exactly what I mean by saying the monarch has great power and zero legitimacy.

It absolutely is the convention that the monarch must give royal assent.  It would be massive news if the monarch refused to do so.  Which is why the monarch would only do so in the most clearest of clear cases.

But it's still useful to have that kind of safety valve in the system.  Let's say the government of the day passes an absolutely insane law.  There are riots in the streets, public opinion polls are running 90% against.  This is where King Andrew feels secure enough to refuse assent and call for new elections.

So it's essentially totally fine for countries to pay for rubber stampers.

This is where we will disagree - I think there is some value in forms and ceremonies, even though they come from a dubious place (heriditary monarchs).

Of course no-one here thinks the monarchs, as people, have anything special about them, or that there is something mystical about the blood of kings. That makes about as much sense as believing in Valhalla these days.

What monarchs represent, is a concept of tradition and order that supports other traditions - and support of traditions is important for the orderly function of government. Throw out traditions, and you can get a political free-for-all where anything goes and winning is the only thing that is important - where things like honour and loyalty become meaningless. The political shenanigans in the United States are an example of where things can go, where all those little traditions that make up the actual practice of government are discarded.

The monarch him or herself may be an inbred degenerate (they have often been), and that would be unfortunate, but the concept for which the monarch stands is important, regardless of the actual occupant of the office of monarch. Tear out the monarch and replace it with something else, and it may work - but then, it may not; and why fix something that isn't broken? 

[Zoupa]

Pour le principe.

[viper37]

1) Of course no-one here thinks the monarchs, as people, have anything special about them, or that there is something mystical about the blood of kings. That makes about as much sense as believing in Valhalla these days.

2) What monarchs represent, is a concept of tradition and order that supports other traditions - and support of traditions is important for the orderly function of government. Throw out traditions, and you can get a political free-for-all where anything goes and winning is the only thing that is important - where things like honour and loyalty become meaningless. The political shenanigans in the United States are an example of where things can go, where all those little traditions that make up the actual practice of government are discarded.

3) The monarch him or herself may be an inbred degenerate (they have often been), and that would be unfortunate, but the concept for which the monarch stands is important, regardless of the actual occupant of the office of monarch. Tear out the monarch and replace it with something else, and it may work - but then, it may not; and why fix something that isn't broken?

1) I'm not sure you're right on that one.  We should confirm with BB here first

2) Traditions are easily discarded in Canada too.  See Quebec's veto right.  "Not written, does not exist".  Lots of parliamentary traditions are like that too, they exist so long as the majority govt wants it to exist.  Not by special divine right inherited from the monarchy. Our democracy would work just as weel without a Governor General, or without being tied to the British monarchy.

3) It's called "evolution".

[Malthus]

1) Of course no-one here thinks the monarchs, as people, have anything special about them, or that there is something mystical about the blood of kings. That makes about as much sense as believing in Valhalla these days.

2) What monarchs represent, is a concept of tradition and order that supports other traditions - and support of traditions is important for the orderly function of government. Throw out traditions, and you can get a political free-for-all where anything goes and winning is the only thing that is important - where things like honour and loyalty become meaningless. The political shenanigans in the United States are an example of where things can go, where all those little traditions that make up the actual practice of government are discarded.

3) The monarch him or herself may be an inbred degenerate (they have often been), and that would be unfortunate, but the concept for which the monarch stands is important, regardless of the actual occupant of the office of monarch. Tear out the monarch and replace it with something else, and it may work - but then, it may not; and why fix something that isn't broken?

1) I'm not sure you're right on that one.  We should confirm with BB here first

2) Traditions are easily discarded in Canada too.  See Quebec's veto right.  "Not written, does not exist".  Lots of parliamentary traditions are like that too, they exist so long as the majority govt wants it to exist.  Not by special divine right inherited from the monarchy. Our democracy would work just as weel without a Governor General, or without being tied to the British monarchy.

3) It's called "evolution".

Folks use the term "evolution" when they really mean "progress". But Evolution is actually caused by random mutations that have proved "fit" because they have survived. It isn't neat and orderly - something evolved may be awkward and cause problems, like humans with their upright gait creates endless spine troubles.

Monarchy is an institution that has "evolved" over time, and has proven relatively "fit".  Ripping it out of our system and replacing it with something else may work (or it may not), who knows? The human body could be designed a lot better than "evolution" had done so, but I'd be hesitant to trust someone with that redesign decision, just because the designer is unhappy with all the troubles humans are prone to having. The new design may well be subject to worse problems, as it has not withstood the test of time.

[viper37]

1) Of course no-one here thinks the monarchs, as people, have anything special about them, or that there is something mystical about the blood of kings. That makes about as much sense as believing in Valhalla these days.

2) What monarchs represent, is a concept of tradition and order that supports other traditions - and support of traditions is important for the orderly function of government. Throw out traditions, and you can get a political free-for-all where anything goes and winning is the only thing that is important - where things like honour and loyalty become meaningless. The political shenanigans in the United States are an example of where things can go, where all those little traditions that make up the actual practice of government are discarded.

3) The monarch him or herself may be an inbred degenerate (they have often been), and that would be unfortunate, but the concept for which the monarch stands is important, regardless of the actual occupant of the office of monarch. Tear out the monarch and replace it with something else, and it may work - but then, it may not; and why fix something that isn't broken?

1) I'm not sure you're right on that one.  We should confirm with BB here first

2) Traditions are easily discarded in Canada too.  See Quebec's veto right.  "Not written, does not exist".  Lots of parliamentary traditions are like that too, they exist so long as the majority govt wants it to exist.  Not by special divine right inherited from the monarchy. Our democracy would work just as weel without a Governor General, or without being tied to the British monarchy.

3) It's called "evolution".

Folks use the term "evolution" when they really mean "progress". But Evolution is actually caused by random mutations that have proved "fit" because they have survived. It isn't neat and orderly - something evolved may be awkward and cause problems, like humans with their upright gait creates endless spine troubles.

Monarchy is an institution that has "evolved" over time, and has proven relatively "fit".  Ripping it out of our system and replacing it with something else may work (or it may not), who knows? The human body could be designed a lot better than "evolution" had done so, but I'd be hesitant to trust someone with that redesign decision, just because the designer is unhappy with all the troubles humans are prone to having. The new design may well be subject to worse problems, as it has not withstood the test of time.

I'll grant you the first point, because we're talking of a controlled environment here.  However, evolution in nature is simply making use of the environment.  A creature living in a desert has adapted to the heat while a polar bear has evolved into what we know today to survive the cold.  Along the way, many experiments proved unviable and disapeared.

We have the benefit of a controlled environment, so of course we should use it to research first the best remedy to the problematic: a lack of democracy, a lack of real power to the people, without going overboard like our Southern friends, without centralizing too much like some of our European friends.

The Governor general is the head of State.  There is a part that is a rubber stamper: giving royal sanction to a bill.  It could refuse to sign a bill, I believe it happened during Mackenzie King's terms, but it won't in modern days, for various reasons.  And if there was a legal challenge to force the GG to sign the bill, I am unsure what the courts would say.  Anyway, this is theoritical, like I said, it's rubber stamping.  It has no use.  If a law is judged illegal, it will be challenged in courts after it becomes effective, it's not up to the GG or LGs to decide what is appropriate or not.

The part that is useful: discharging the Prime Minister and Premiers from official duties with foreign dignataries, like welcoming them when they arrive in the country, opening ceromonies and such.  This could easily be achieved by another position, less costly, les pompous, less risks of inapropriate spending, and more representartive of our society.  The minister of foreign affairs will always be involved in such things, so why not let the Minister do the introductions, than the PM steps in.

[garbon]

Would the monarch need to give royal assent to a bill abolishing the monarchy?

Yes - but in the UK the convention is that the monarch has no discretion in granting royal assent.

Although that's been recently discussed in the context of whether the Queen could refuse royal assent to a backbench bill on the advice of her PM, because that was a possibility during the 2017-19 Brexit parliament. The conclusion in academic circles (and apparently supported by the royal household) was that she couldn't and it would be unconstitutional for her to follow the PM's advice.

Understandable that the British monarchy might be willing to risk getting on the wrong side of the government of the day but is chary of crossing parliament

But that'[s exactly what I mean by saying the monarch has great power and zero legitimacy.

It absolutely is the convention that the monarch must give royal assent.  It would be massive news if the monarch refused to do so.  Which is why the monarch would only do so in the most clearest of clear cases.

But it's still useful to have that kind of safety valve in the system.  Let's say the government of the day passes an absolutely insane law.  There are riots in the streets, public opinion polls are running 90% against.  This is where King Andrew feels secure enough to refuse assent and call for new elections.

So it's essentially totally fine for countries to pay for rubber stampers.

This is where we will disagree - I think there is some value in forms and ceremonies, even though they come from a dubious place (heriditary monarchs).

Of course no-one here thinks the monarchs, as people, have anything special about them, or that there is something mystical about the blood of kings. That makes about as much sense as believing in Valhalla these days.

What monarchs represent, is a concept of tradition and order that supports other traditions - and support of traditions is important for the orderly function of government. Throw out traditions, and you can get a political free-for-all where anything goes and winning is the only thing that is important - where things like honour and loyalty become meaningless. The political shenanigans in the United States are an example of where things can go, where all those little traditions that make up the actual practice of government are discarded.

The monarch him or herself may be an inbred degenerate (they have often been), and that would be unfortunate, but the concept for which the monarch stands is important, regardless of the actual occupant of the office of monarch. Tear out the monarch and replace it with something else, and it may work - but then, it may not; and why fix something that isn't broken? 

True, the existance of the Queen has prevented shenanigans in the UK and adherence to norms of decency... oh wait.

[crazy canuck]

@Malthus I don't understand your argument. Are you suggesting that winning the political battle has not always been the preeminent goal in Canadian politics because we have a head of state which is a national crown?

Are you suggesting that the person who thought of the Robo call strategy had trouble sleeping at night because they were violating some honourable code?

[Malthus]

@Malthus I don't understand your argument. Are you suggesting that winning the political battle has not always been the preeminent goal in Canadian politics because we have a head of state which is a national crown?

Are you suggesting that the person who thought of the Robo call strategy had trouble sleeping at night because they were violating some honourable code?

I'm not making such an absolutist argument. Of course political parties have always wanted to win, and of course there has been corruption and excesses in every system.

Point is that certain places have preserved norms better than others, and the details of how the systems were established may have an effect on that.

Our particular system has evolved from a constitutional monarchy. If we were designing a system from scratch, we would probably not choose a constitutional monarchy ... but our system has evolved in this particular manner, and it has demonstrated, for whatever reason, better resilience against the populist disease afflicting democracies everywhere (and in particular, south of the border). I would suggest Changing  the fundamentals of our system now would have unknown and possibly detrimental effects, so unless significant benefits can be demonstrated, it should not be done.

In other words, don't try to fix what ain't particularly broke.

[Sheilbh]

An elected president and an elected Senate to counter-weight the popular vote of the commons.

It has flaws, but it's much better than the current system.

Yeah see this is where I disagree - I think the good bits of a constitutional monarchy are that it splits, as Bagehot, put it the efficient and the dignified bits of the state, and it doesn't set up competing institutions with equal claims to democratic legitimacy.

It's why, personally, my preference would be a system like Ireland or Germany. You have someone who is either non-partisan or basically getting the Presidency as a lifetime achievement award who does all of the symbolic stuff where they represent the country, technically they're supreme commander of the armed forces etc. That stuff is kept away from actual politics or people who are at the ambitious ends of their careers.

Similarly they don't set up a President and a Senate that has an equal democratic claim to block things - as is the case in, say, Italy or the US. Instead the Seanad or Bundesrat do not have a claim to be as representative as the Dail or Bundestag, they have a different electorate and a different more limited role so, unlike in the US, they cannot block a desire for change expressed democratically for long. I think gridlock/sclerosis is a problem with equal branches - and it's also normally one of the big reasons for coups in those sorts of systems, you know, the legislature has broken down so the president must assume emergency powers/politics has broken down so the military will step in to get things done.

On the monarch's role as a guarantor - I don't really buy that in general. I think there is a possibility in an extreme scenario when the monarch could play that role. But it would need to be in a very extreme situation, while a constitutional president even with limited powers could have a formal role acting as that guarantor - it's certainly part of the role of the President of Italy or Ireland, for example. But ultimately all of that stuff, like constitutions themselves or conventions come down to the point Sir Ivor Jennings made that one of the key factors is that the actors involved must believe themselves to be bound by a rule. You can have the best rules, the most comprehensive constitutions, incredible checks and balances or guarantors but it comes down to that political point - if the actors don't feel bound by it then none of it matters. That's what, I think, we're seeing in the US, it's also I think what we saw in Weimar Germany when you had at most one or two political parties that actually accepted the basis of the state. #