198
submitted 1 year ago by grte@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 year ago

Queen Elizabeth was a good place to stop.

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

What seems likely to me is slowly changing things bit by bit. I don't think the UK would mind either, it's just a matter of spending time and effort (and money) making those legal changes.

The final constitutional change seems unlikely anytime soon. It's very unlikely that all the provinces will agree to play ball and get it done unless there was an urgent need to get rid of it.

[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

unless there was an urgent need to get rid of it

Darn it the wrong royal went to Epstein's Island.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Greetings from the UK.
Please go for this. The more of you leave the "common" wealth, the less grasp they have, and hopefully they become easier to eventually completely be rid of.

Anyone claiming they have no influence is being wilfully ignorant at this point
https://theconversation.com/the-queens-gambit-new-evidence-shows-how-her-majesty-wields-influence-on-legislation-154818 (yes, she's dead, but what applied to her will apply to him)

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

Changing our relationship with the UK in this climate of increasingly grabby fringe groups is a huge risk.

We have bigger fish to fry.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The monarchy does not affect my life in any way.

[-] JesseoftheNorth@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago

Then you should have no problem if it was abolished.

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

I don't care either way. Literally don't care.

I'm smart enough, though, to know that it's being used as a dog whistle to whip up populist nationalism which is never a good thing for a country.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

That goes both ways though. Wouldn't the effort and cost to remove them be wasted if they don't actually do anything. Lots of people struggling right now and I'd be pretty pissed if the government went around spending time and money on this

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

Don't look up how much the gold throne king charles III sits on is worth

[-] baconisaveg@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

It doesn't affect us day-to-day no, but honestly I like being part of a 'Commonwealth'. I like feeling like I have something in common with Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, even if I've only ever been to the UK for a few hours.

Your family name (for most people, unless you're George Hitler) has no impact on your day-to-day, this to me seems like saying "We should just get rid of family names!"

[-] MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

The people who are being manipulated with this nationalist dog whistle see no value in being a member of the Commonwealth. Canada First and MCGA and all.

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is a mistake to assume that those of us who oppose monarchy are Canadian nationalists.

Some people simply hate outdated hereditary titles. They have no place in a democracy.

[-] TheZoltan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You don't need to keep the Royal Family to stay in the Commonwealth. Take a look at the current members of the commonwealth.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Indigenous person here .... the monarchy is a complicated thing in Native Canada

On one hand most of us absolutely hate and despise the idea of a monarchy, kings and queens and all that garbage (personally I would love to see them removed from anything to do with government)

On the other hand, the monarchy is our linchpin on the government where many of our original agreements and treaties start and originate from. Many believe that in doing away with the monarchy ... it would give the government an opportunity to do away with many historic treaties and agreements from the past that were made with the monarch and not with the country. It's a whole legal debate that would be a huge headache for government/Native people/monarchists/anti-monarchists/etc

So in Native Canada ... it's split ... we would love to see the King leave ... but we also don't want to give the government a chance to step away from legal responsibilities. Argue what you want but whenever dramatic changes happen to laws regarding Native people .. historically, it's never been good for us .. and Indigenous Canada knows that by heart now ... we don't trust the Canadian government of any stripe to do anything beneficial for us ... we have to fight for ourselves all the time.

[-] LostWon@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago

All for it, but only after proper negotiations with indigenous peoples of these lands, so it doesn't just become an excuse for further land grabs.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 year ago
[-] schmidtster@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I don’t think most of those people who were questioned realize the monarchy is nothing but a figure and holds essentially no power, even though they do need to ratify stuff.

[-] grte@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago

I imagine they do realize that but then follow that thought up with, "So why are we continuing with this...?"

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Okay I know that "I'm smarter than everybody" is popular on sites like this but you can't be serious in thinking that the average person thinks the King of England has real practical usable political power in Canada.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] anachronist@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

You really want the Monarchy to go out on a high note rather than continue until everyone is just sick of it. QEII was The Office season 6. Charles is The Office Season 7. You don't want to see what Season 8 brings.

[-] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Reconsider if they want, but the position is locked into the constitution.

[-] JesseoftheNorth@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Constitutions can be changed.

[-] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

In theory? Sure. In reality, nope. No one is going to spend the political capital on this.

We'd still need an executive, even if only ceremonial. Getting consensus on that would be almost impossible.

IF we somehow managed to get to some sort of negotiating framework, we'd still need agreement from the feds and all of the premiers. You can bet that each of them will bring a laundry list of things they want to change in the constitution, and at least some of them will be 'poison pills' to kill the proceedings.

[-] CraigeryTheKid@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

isn't largely just ceremonial at this point? I was unaware the monarchy was actually "involved". (dumb USA here)

[-] lingh0e@lemmy.film 2 points 1 year ago
[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I think we have more important things to do then to change the name of an official. Cause ultimately we well still need a head of state. Governor General or President who really cares.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
198 points (97.1% liked)

Canada

7188 readers
312 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS