As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.
Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
21–30 of 140 posts
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#22I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.
I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…
I note that your head of state met 15 prime ministers and had them explain themselves. And not once found fault with them.
That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss)
By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obvious it doesn't.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…
I note that your head of state met 15 prime ministers and had them explain themselves. And not once found fault with them. That's statistically rather unlikely if she were to actually have a choice. (It's even more unlikely given that group includes Boris Johnson and Liz Truss) By all means, keep your pomp and circumstance. But don't pretend it has a useful function constraining politics when it's so blatantly obviou…
> And not once found fault with them.
How on earth could you possibly know that?
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#24I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.
Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of. France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.
I think Europe often had somewhat bad experience with overly strong heads of state. Reigning from relatively benign to pretty bad. Thus I think their roles have generally lessened and more power being moved to governments and parliaments.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#25I'm very curious, in all of these cases, what the replacement will be and even if there will be a replacement. I mentioned that to my wife (we're Canadian), and her response was why do we even need a head of state if we have a Prime Minister? And I'll be honest, I didn't have an answer.
I'm no expert, but I'll try to take a stab at your second paragraph! There is value in having someone there to remind the leader that they are a "Servant" and not the "Master" in a state. The King (and by extension his viceregal representatives in Canada) is the steward of the power, and lends it to whoever the people choose via democratic elections through our constitution. When a new Prime Minister is chosen through election, the transition of power is made safer in that the previous Prime Minister does not "own" that power. I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety - arguably because we have a head of state, but even assuming not, this is why we don't dwell on these kind of concerns.
Another reason is the relationship between the King with our Federal & Provincial governments as well as First Nations. With a head of state, all three are able to have a direct relationship with the head of state without being subservient to one. King Charles is the premiers' boss, not Trudeau. Indigenous people have a special relationship with the crown that similarly avoids placing them directly under the other two bodies entirely. It means all three have a certain sense (and reality) of being peers - Trudeau cannot sack Ford, and vice versa.
Sort of related to my first point, but while the King limits himself extraordinarily via the binds of a constitution, the relationship works both ways. It is his duty to make sure that the elected leaders are fulfilling their duties to form government and not violate the law just because they are the ones on top.
In theory, the head of state is also meant to represent the nation outside of party lines - someone that left, right, and everyone else can support. It would be impossible for a staunch conservative to truly count Trudeau as "his" Prime Minister, or a liberal to count on Harper as a leader he could possibly respect. Not everyone has to like the head of state, but everyone has the option without betraying their other beliefs. I think Canada has sadly in recent years done this poorly - while loved, the Queen has been largely seen as a novelty, a nice decoration on a shelf.
I hope this helps somewhat. It's a weird nebulous subject that deals with questions that often settled long before our time and so arent intuitive at times after living under them so long. Happy to elaborate further - I'm a boring plain-old constitutional monarchist, but I know I'm in the minority these days :)
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
I don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#27Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many republics have a president who is formally appointed, does not have any direct political power, and who often no one has heard of. France and the United States are the notable exceptions where the president is more important than the prime minister.
The US doesn't have a prime minister at all. The president is head of the cabinet, they get to appoint all the heads of the various departments, and then the senate confirms them. The cabinet heads are usually not even from congress, they're often just random governors and politicians who lost during the primary voting for the last election and whatnot.
That's because, in the US, the Executive Branch is vested in the singular person known as the President. The Cabinet is an optional body comprised of the heads of the various Departments of the Federal government. The Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate, but every other member of the Executive Branch serves at the pleasure of the President.
I don't think you can be a Cabinet member and a member of Congress. As Cabinet members are officers of the United States and you cannot hold another office while also being a member of Congress (Article 1, Section 6).
It's also why the Presidential Succession Act may be unconstitutional. As the Constitution specifies that only an officer may be designated a successor and members of Congress are explicitly excluded from being officers.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fact that our (Britain’s) prime minister has to go to someone else, someone well travelled with extensive contact with leaders around the world, ideally who’s seen prime ministers come and go, and explain themselves and answer for their actions is an incredibly good thing. If we ever end up with a head of state that loses the trust of the people, then fine. On that day let’s ditch the monarchy. If it’s no…
> explain themselves and answer for their actions Is that really what happens, though? And if so, what if the monarch isn't satisfied with the answer?
They get to tell them so. I don’t think a holder of sovereignty has to have active power. Weee human beings. Symbolic power matters. If it’s ever not enough, we’ll find another way.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#30As I Canadian I would strongly support removing the English monarchy as our head of state. I hope other countries do so as well.
As a fellow Canadian, I genuinely ask 'why'? I'm neither in favour or opposed to removing the monarchy but I'm wondering why we would? Is our country being held back in some way from having the monarchy? Is it just because of the cost, the pomp and circumstance? I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state, what happens when we lose them?
I'd love to see Jann Arden on the one dollar coin, but just wondering why? :)