Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scottish people.
Considering they recently publicly decided to be British, they're about as British as you can be.
[deleted]
Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
71–80 of 140 posts
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Unelected head of states are a slap in the face of equality.
Yeah. Choosing your head of state should be opt-in, rather than opt-out at best (or, more realistically, no opt at all).
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is part of the reason why I'm agnostic towards the royal family: I simply have no faith that the process to replace the monarchy would result in something better. I guess I'm claiming my membership of the "better things aren't possible" party here but I'm imagining such a vacuum at the head of state level would be filled with something politically motivated that would be to the detriment of most.
> the "better things aren't possible" party Very popular in the UK. We don't like to imagine that things could be different, let alone better. The monarchy represents the eternal status quo, which is deemed "apolitical" because it's always been like that. I'm a soft republican on this: the monarchy obviously has no place in a truly egalitarian society, but on the other hand its practical impact, positive or negative,…
The same revolutionary movement resulting in workers gaining state power is necessary for any of those changes. In practice it is the same struggle and it's useful to build as large an alliance as possible.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scottish people.
Scots aren’t British? That’s great news, I’m gonna go update my passport!
1. "Let's take a look a look at what humans think about communism: "
2. "That's just north koreans"
3. "North koreans aren't humans?"
Comment #3 is not a valid counterargument to comment #2. The point is that Scots may not be a representative sample of "all Brits", even if Scots are Brits.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
The Monarch has no power to force an opinion but that is not the point. Having a safe and secret place for a PM to discuss difficult situations with somebody who has probably seen most of them before is immensely powerful. I know some believe that all government should be open/public but I suspect in many cases that means that real discussions don't take place out of fear of offence or backlash from the public. If yo…
> Having a safe and secret place for a PM to discuss difficult situations with somebody who has probably seen most of them before is immensely powerful.
If the monarch is competent. History shows that it happens, but is far from being the norm. Blood lines do not guarantee anything in that respect.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
I would like to point that the Spanish ex-monarch practically _betrayed_ Spain to the Saudis (he's currently self-exiled there) and he still has a non-negligible amount of support in the population. I find "support of a monarchy" an indefensible position. Bonus points if your only argument is "well the current monarch is kind of nice and therefore we're not in a hurry to remove him" because that's literally one rotte…
Exactly. At the very least you need strong constitutional provisions to get rid of the current one, assuming that the next in line could be better.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 throug…
Its not just checks and balances though. You have to pledge allegiance to these arbitrary people. No self-respecting individual would do that. > I know this sounds floaty, but we live in a relatively stable country where transitions of power have traditionally been without great anxiety Yeah... but that happens in many Republics too. It is not unique to Canada and is not a reason to have a monarchy. > the Queen has b…
Society functions precisely because we have collectively agreed to acknowledge that the individual is not the highest and only form of authority. Formally, we agree to follow the laws in place. Informally, we agree to act with respect to each other. This requires some form of self sacrifice on our part. By swearing allegiance to the King, or a President, we are saying "I am willing to follow the rules which result from your exercise of power". These laws are the ones delegated through our legislative and judicial systems - the King in our case does not exercise it himself in Canada. Sure it's symbolic, but so is making a promise to a friend. Keeping our word is important to us. We could swear it to someone further down the line, like to "all police officers", but I think that would be far less self-respecting than forging that agreement with the highest level of power directly.
Don't get me wrong, I am not some rabid anti-republican, republics absolutely do work! But I think monarchies also work, and each have different benefits. A republic is more representative demographically speaking, for example, whereas a monarchy is more impartial and has a stronger line of succesion to name a few distinct traits. I don't feel like our system is broken, nor do I feel that a republic would solve any problems (and it may come with its own fresh ones).
The "In modern times" argument comes up a lot, but I'm not sure it applies. Just because something is old, even anachronistic, does not mean it is invalid. In fact, such things are more valuable precisely because they are no longer found today. However, I think you are right in that there is a disconnect between these rituals and symbols and our modern conception of society, and that is why I think Canada has poorly managed the relationship between monarch and everyday people, and let the institution decay. One solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up with a republic, and its not going to be the end of the world, but I am personally in favour of renewing our longstanding existing commitment.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#78As 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…
>I suspect there are benefits to having the monarchy as head of state
Genuinely curious what those would be?
I think it's far from the most urgent issue our country is facing right now, but most of my objections to the monarchy would be moral or philosophical.
For one, in moral terms there is a lot of... let's say "historical baggage" that comes with the monarchy. For another, I don't think a hereditary system of governance is compatible with modern Canadian society (or at least what we would like to think it should be).
Not something that keeps me up at night, I don't think it will be removed any time soon mostly due to inertia, but I would definitely not be opposed to removing it.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#79I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. I live in a country where we have a PM and president too which is elected by the parliament (which means it's just another random career politician so it might as well be Joe from the corner shop). At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy. There is a reason you find them in the rich western European countries like Denmark, Sweden,…
> At least to me European constitutional monarchy always symbolized stable democracy.
I'd say you have the correlation backwards: the current European monarchies only exist because they were smart enough to largely defer governance to democratic processes. The ones that didn't no longer exist.
Re: Antigua and Barbuda may vote to remove King Charles III as its head of state
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scottish people.
Considering they recently publicly decided to be British, they're about as British as you can be.
Heh touché, but I think we can all agree that’s maybe not really reflective of popular regional attitudes towards “British”-ness.
And I suppose we will see as the parade travels south and crossese the border, but I don’t think you will see the same sort of anti-Charles sentiment in Manchester or London.