Bush, Queen Elizabeth toast alliance

[Kuciwalker]

Personally I'm glad our government can't write bills of attainder.

[notyoueither]

We have different systems.

The Canadian Parliament could vote death to the monarch. That's that. Soon as Charles comes for a visit, zip, off with his head.

Well, there could be a fallen government in the meantime, and maybe a small war or two. Also a reluctance of Charles to come for a visit. But we could, damnit!

****, I'm giving ideas to the BQ.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The same Margeret Thatcher who ruled with an iron fist for 11 years?

yes. that one. The same one who was deposed by the MPs of her own party.

Can you do that with your presidents? Didn't think so.

The same Tony Blair who is leaving only of his own accord after 10 years? 10 years that included leading his country into an amazingly unpopular war? I'd consider that to be quite "badass", myself . At least when Bush led the US into war, support for it was hovering around 50%.

And if he tried to stay any longer, he'd be in the Maggie heap. I think he has measured this.

The difference is he had to navigate that prospect from day one. Meanwhile you're stuck with your lame duck having a hold on the button till the last day of his term and the swearing in of his successor.

Obviously a much better system to leave the obviously mentally imbalanced in power, yes?

Hell, Blair's approval ratings a YEAR AGO were lower than Bush's currently... and Blair is just leaving now. Nothing has changed since then. Tamed indeed.

At least Bush has to get out after 8 years and gets to be a lame duck executive as his own party can and will vote against his policies (immigration being one obvious example).

And any PM can have his position shredded from day 1. No reelection required. A **** can be turfed at any time.

Whose system is superior?

[Ben Kenobi]

And you realize the President has such 'extra' executive power only so long as Congress, the Courts, and public opinion allow them to, yes?

The president isn't responsible to Congress. That whole checks and balances thing. Neither is he a figurehead. He has real decision making powers, as the Queen does but does not exercise.

Because you've decided to keep your head of state as a hereditary position, where those who step into it have no further qualifications than being born to the right parents before the rest of their siblings.

It's a lifetime of preparation for most of them. The average politician won't have their entire life devoted to preparing for being a queen, as does the monarchy.

If you really want a 'final check on insanity', why not commit to republicanism and elect your final check? Hey, the Queen can run too if she wants .

It gives a sense of perpetuity. To put it in perspective, the Queen has been around since Truman. That cumulative experience is not something you will see in a republican system of government.

Because if the monarchy was abolished, folks wouldn't visit Windsor castle? Silly arguments there... people don't visit royal lands because they may see the monarch, but because of their historical significance. Getting rid of the monarchy would allow them to save more money... while still getting all that historical tourism.

It's tradition. This is why you get folks like Harry Tudor marrying Elisabeth of York, to quell accusations of usurpation.

It gives a young nation like Canada a sense of historical connection to England that she would not otherwise have on her own. What traditions would we borrow in a Republican system? Those of the Americans, or the French? As it is we have our own unique combination of Westminster and Philadelphia, something particular to Canada, with nearly 150 years to work out the kinks. Switching to a republic would force us to start from scratch.

I do love how the monarchists get all these strange ideas that there are only two possible systems, constitutional monarchy or American style republicanism with a powerful President. Obviously, for instance, the Israeli President has great power and delusions of grandeur . I wonder if most could even name the President of Israel, actually. Though everyone up on the news knows the PM of Israel. Another example is Germany.

That brings us back to the question as to where we will find our own ideals. Historically we are a blend of two English traditions, it is unlikely that we would pick the German system over Westminster or Philadelphia. Just not in our nature.

Hey if you want a strong Parliament system, that's up to you... but why exactly can't you elect your "final check"? Why exactly do you have to gift it to some family who only claim to fame is that they had a powerful ancestor a few centuries back?

For a significant proporition, my family included, we have far more ties to the Queen and to England than we do to Canada. I have only visited Ottawa once, yet the Queen we see everyday.

[Kuciwalker]

yes. that one. The same one who was deposed by the MPs of her own party.

Can you do that with your presidents? Didn't think so.

Yes, we could.

[notyoueither]

Sure you could.

Here's a pat on the head.

[notyoueither]

Let us know when a simple majority vote in the House leads to a change in the presidency. OK?

[C0ckney]

the US isn't a monarchy?

1988 - bush
1992 - clinton
2000 - bush
2008 - clinton?

could of fooled me...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wouldn't that be a Duo-archy?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because you get all sorts of wingnuts running for it, like Bush, Putin, Le Pen, and sometimes the lunatics win. Then you're in a real pickle.

And when the wingnuts are head of the majority party, what then? President Clinton was a far better option than Prime Minister Gingrich.

Also tell us how Versailles is outdrawing Buckingham.

I'm being wooshed here, aren't I? Versailles easily outdraws Buckingham Palace.

Versailles draws over 3 million visitors a year:

http://www.forbestraveler.com/2007/04/07042401_slide_45.html?thisSpeed=15000

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/country_2004/tourism-in-france_5501/france-is-the-world-number-one-tourist-destination_8732.html

While Buckingham Palace gets a little about 300,000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/433171.stm

Though Trafalgar Square draws a good deal more than both.

And we should replace centuries of law and tradition that has led to a powerless head of state for another system with a powerless head of state because?

Because voting for your head of state in a democratic form of governance is far preferable than handing it over to some tart who's only qualification is that she had the good fortune to be born to the right people.

Because politicians often prove themselves to be completely unfit to occupy a position such as the monarch currently holds. They want too much.

Yes, I can see how Germany has fallen prey to runaway Presidents recently .

[q=Ben]It gives a sense of perpetuity. To put it in perspective, the Queen has been around since Truman. That cumulative experience is not something you will see in a republican system of government. [/q]

Why do you need that? You afraid Canada is going to collapse soon and need constant reassurances that it has been around for a while, so it is unlikely it will?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Wouldn't that be a Duo-archy?

i see it more as two competing royal houses.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Oh, and ask a Brit about ole' Prime Minister Blair and abuses of executive power will you?

How about 'King' Richard (III) Nixon and J. Edgar Whozits ?





Nixon enjoys some crispy fried Cambodian:

[Wezil]

Originally posted by notyoueither

There are people, take Wezil for example (but he hates just about everything) who think having a monarch is somehow uncool. I suppose they worry about what the Yanks may think. For many others it's no skin off our noses and the alternatives could be a lot worse.

Yes, I am Randal from Clerks.

Actually, Wezil is just fed up with the pervasive and ever rising level of BS he has to put up with.

edit - As to the topic, Canada can't get rid of the Monarchy. We would have no place for CBC reporters to continue leaching off the public purse if we couln't appoint them Governors-General. No wait, there's always the Senate.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because you get all sorts of wingnuts running for it, like Bush, Putin, Le Pen, and sometimes the lunatics win. Then you're in a real pickle.

And when the wingnuts are head of the majority party, what then? President Clinton was a far better option than Prime Minister Gingrich.

They can be deposed by a single vote that doesn't have to have anything to do with wrong doing. It can as simple as 'you're an idiot, buh-bye.'

It is trivially easy to change a bad government in a Parliament. It is not so when you elect the ******* in a seperate election.

Also tell us how Versailles is outdrawing Buckingham.

I'm being wooshed here, aren't I? Versailles easily outdraws Buckingham Palace.

Versailles draws over 3 million visitors a year:

http://www.forbestraveler.com/2007/04/07042401_slide_45.html?thisSpeed=15000

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france_159/discovering-france_2005/france-from-to-z_1978/country_2004/tourism-in-france_5501/france-is-the-world-number-one-tourist-destination_8732.html

While Buckingham Palace gets a little about 300,000:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/433171.stm

Though Trafalgar Square draws a good deal more than both.

Consider yourself whooshed, and really dumb as a bonus.

Read your link. Windsor Castle, a burned out secondary residence of the royals got 1.5mil visitors.

People paying to take a tour of Buckingham is but a fraction of the people who travel to London every year to see things like the Changing of the Guard, the outside of Buckingham Palace, and other sights connected with the history and the present of a living, breathing monarchy.

Do you think 5 times as many people went to England to see a castle well outside of London, that the Queen sometimes stays in when it isn't a smoking ruin?

You should think a bit about 1.5mil visitors to that castle.

And we should replace centuries of law and tradition that has led to a powerless head of state for another system with a powerless head of state because?

Because voting for your head of state in a democratic form of governance is far preferable than handing it over to some tart who's only qualification is that she had the good fortune to be born to the right people.

Says who?

Why is it better to elect people to a position that is unsuitable to many or most people who would seek the office?

It seems all you can do is scream that it is unelected. So what? Unelected monarchs have suited us more than fine for well over 100 years. Can you say the same for the twits who have been elected under other systems?

Because politicians often prove themselves to be completely unfit to occupy a position such as the monarch currently holds. They want too much.

Yes, I can see how Germany has fallen prey to runaway Presidents recently .

Uhm, they have had some very grand **** ups in their top positions the last hundred years, no?

Changing focus, a Jacobin democracy that after over 200 years of trying has puked up Bush as the commander in chief is less than an overwhelming endorsement of a school of thought that first gave the world the Terror.