Nope, nor could I. Show how Canada becomes a “Republique”. Never mind Québèc in reality. How do you overcome the Constitution of our country? It isn’t just Quebec’s or Alberta, or Ontario…. Yes, it’s a Confederation, but tell me, will Quebec, or Alberta actually make enough GDP or GNP to make a go of being a country without being swallowed by the US? Be real. Negotiate, and quit writing nonsense, because that, is exactly what this is. Though, I will concede Montreal has the St. Lawrence (but that access still has to be negotiated) and Alberta has none. You assume the rest of Canada will bow to demands from provinces, maybe other provinces have demands of you.
Well, we "overcame" the BNA in 1982 by patriating it from a foreign jurisdiction called the United Kingdom. We melded it into the Constitution Act 1982 and added a Charter of Rights. It took some back and forth for a few years but it was done on the strength of recognition that no self-respecting democracy can allow its constitution to be in the hands of foreigners.
The Irish Constitution of 1937, which was proclaimed in the name of the Holy Trinity and "humbly acknowledged" the obligations of all Irish people to "Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ," has been amended 38 times and bears very little resemblance to de Valera's document.
The 1937 constitution was itself a replacement for the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State, which still bore the heinous obligation to swear allegiance to the foreign King of the UK. (Heinous because people died in a civil war caused by that obscenely divisive obligation.) The point being that constitutions can, and do, change, sometimes radically over time.
To consider removal of the foreign-owned monarchy "radical" would be true only if we are using the word "radical" in its true sense of "root" - in order words, rooting out this un-Canadian pestilence.
It might interest you to know that Canada stopped having to make appeals on constitutional matters to the foreign Judicial Privy Council of the UK only in 1949, the exact year that Ireland was formally proclaimed a Republic. (You will know, of course, that according Canadian women legal status as Persons had to be referred to the foreign Judicial Privy Council.)
Stockland has made the argument that the King of Canada is not the King of Canada as well as anyone possibly could. But he might just as well argue, as Yves-Francois Blanchet recently did, that Canada is an artificial country. What the two arguments have in common is wishful thinking, and a refusal to believe things are not as they wish they were. The facts of the matter are that the King of Canada is the King of Canada, and Canada is a real country. But if people don't like that - which appears especially the case in Quebec - and prefer to live in a Republic then by all means they should make that case. The conditions for a referendum on Quebec independence seem ideal. So bring it on. Better that Quebecers live in the reality of an independent country with a real home-grown President, than continue with arguments and statements - no matter how well crafted or formed - that deny reality.
But don't you think your argument is just a wee but circular? "The reality is that Charles is King of Canada. Therefore, the reality is that he is Canada's King. So, accept reality." Except the reality could as easily really be that Charles is no one's King (that's not only a reality but will be an inevitability on the day he lies toes up in the Royal graveyard). At least, he could be no Canadian's King. George V was the King of Ireland until 1933 when he...well...wasn't. Nothing in reality says we must break Canada apart before we pat Chuckles on his aristocratic keester and wish him God's speed righting England's ship.
Reality "could be" something other than what it is? No. I don't think so. But change is possible ... though I am hard-pressed to think of an example where a country has changed from a monarchy to republic merely by the act of wishful thinking.
Not entirely true your statement about Ireland, try again. You’re playing free and loose with respect to Eire from 1922 to 1937. You also ass u me that all Quebecoise will accept your view, never mind all Canadians. This isn’t the same, not even close.
I don't read or watch government funded media. This decision followed the 1 billion to cbc to become the advertising branch of the state.
Now saved from any nonsense they utter. Alternative media covers everything without Coynism and other diseases of disinterest to the truth. Coyne is one of many that are formed entirely to buttress a hateful destructive Government.
My book WORLD ON MUTE by LISA MIRON is out. That's the pitch.
Yes the fawning over Charles by the Cartel media, as I like to call them was over the top. One must remember it is the same media that seemed to have no issue with the toppling of the statues of Queen Victoria and other offshoots of the monarchy in the aftermath of the hoax of unmarked graves of indigenous children 'killed' at residential schools. It is strange to see Mark Carney, a Liberal paying such homage to King Charles given that it is the Liberals that have historically been opposed to the monarchy and its vestiges.
The campaign by former Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson to replace the Canada's flag, which was the Canadian Red Ensign which included a replica of the British Union Jack within it, to the Maple Leaf was a push back against the monarchy by Pearson. As one might recall former PM John Diefenbaker, opposed the changing of the flag. So it is rather ironic to to see all these Liberals rallying around the King as he professes Canada's sovereignty to the evil Donald Trump.
I was always rather ambiguous about the monarchy during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. As boomer, being born in the 1950's, the Queen was pretty much a fixture on the walls of our classrooms at school while we were still singing God Save the Queen to open our days. She had an quite elegance about her, and seemed to clearly understand the apolitical role of the monarchy in the modern world. Charles, on the other hand, never seemed to get that and or that reason, I think the monarchy should have died with his mother. His involvement in such things as the WEF, the climate change agenda and immigration, is out of place, and he should know better. Even his trip to Canada is political. He came because Carney, who obviously has influence he wanted to demonstrate, asked him to. Asked him to come to send a message to Trump, but also to endorse him as Canada's PM, in other words, His Majesty approves of the election results. Again, not his place. In the same circumstances I suspect the Queen would have turned down the request recognizing the political agenda behind it.
Brilliants points, especially about the mute response to the toppling of statues. And I say that as someone who would dance an Irish jig if aliens descended and cleansed the earth of every statue of "The Famine Queen" Victoria. Frankly, I think the British monarchy should have died when Henry Tudor stole the throne or, at the latest when Henry VIII sacked the monasteries in a fit of anti-Catholic syphilitic rage. But you're right that wanton vandalism of public property is as intolerable as the hypocrisy of slavering over Victoria's descendants to make cheap political gains. I think you're right, too, that Elizabeth would 't have been caught dead being used as a Liberal party prop.
I agree with many of your points on when the monarchy should have died and it probably should have with Henry VIII but then Elizabeth I came along. Funny how it is the women, perhaps with the exception of Victoria who you seem to not be fond of, that seem to manage the throne better than the men. That said, I do have a funny story to tell. A friend of mine, who is a staunch Catholic just returned from the UK surprised, she said, to discover it was not the royals that had ultimate rule in their kingdoms, but the pope in Rome. She had never apparently heard how the royals take their right to rule by being anointed or chosen by God to do so. She had also I guess never heard of the row Henry VIII had with the Pope, who refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. A row that ultimately led to him breaking with Rome, establishing the Church of England and looting the Catholic monasteries. I learned all that in grade 9 history. But this woman has a masters degree, and she voted for Carney.
Andrew Coyne, fawning over the King, may be entering an advanced state of schizophrenia. He recently described the Canadian system as, "Our parliamentary system is in a state of disrepair so advanced that it has lost much of its relevance".
True, but apparently as long as long we've got the King, everythin's all right, inn'it? I think Andrew sometimes feels the pressure of speaking for the entire Laurentian elite.
Now there is a worthy journalistic project. Define the Laurentian Elite! To date, it appears to be this powerful, amorphous group who controls the country for their own benefit. Who are they precisely and what are their objectives? I would love to know if they are simply a group of wealthy people with common interests or engaged in an active conspiracy. It sure feels like the latter but I don't want to advocate an unbased theory. Not yet anyway.
Yes, but apparently as long as we've got the King, everythin's all right, inn'it? I think Andrew sometimes feels the pressure of speaking for the Laurentian elite.
And yet even though we give pots of money to the cbc and Carney promised another pot, on my Monday flight to Toronto there was Coyne flying in the back of the bus with us deplorables.
I think it’s time we all went our own way. Sever the Atlantic region, Quebec is already gone, Ontario runs its own show, the west with Saskatchewan Alberta, maybe northern BC and Manitoba. Make Canada a republic. For the first time in my life I am sorry the US didn’t win the war of 1812. Would rather be a part of the US than China which is where the liberals have been taking us.
The Irish have made a cracking good Republic in the south after 800 years of British oppression. Surely Canada could manage something reasonably comparable after only 80-plus years of Liberal party, ummm, rule. Come on, Canucks. Up your elbows.
To many Canadians, giving up their favourite bourbon carries the moral equivalency of joining the French resistance. The last time we had our elbows up and meant it, federal emergency measures crushed the movement into dust, while the majority cheered. Face it, a huge swath of the country reflexively and uncritically adopt the official narrative, however flawed or dishonest. For complacent and compliant Canada, punishing dissenters, is the national pastime, not revolution.
Precisely Peter. It’s certainly worth a try. I am proud of the provinces that are standing up. And yes Canada has primarily been under Liberal rule… we are too closely tied to the monarchy to have any real say in our country. They are our overseers. I would feel better if we could have the odd referendum on significant issues (like immigration), as it seems most politicians lie to get in and then do the opposite when elected.
Apologies in advance, as I'm one of those anti royalists from down south, but if Canada isn't for sale, then why is its regime so eager to admit the whole joint was stolen in the first place?
Pro- tip: do not send mixed messages to Trump (or really any US president.) They have way of believing the part that works best for their agenda.
Me dost think that Carney, apparently caught up in the rapture of royalty during his less than illustrious term as Governor of the Bank of England, seriously believed his Canadian subjects might have somehow come to the same conclusion. Sadly for our monarchist PM, watching the majestic performance of those two foreign senior citizens in our upper chamber (normally reserved for appointed party hacks), one reading a prepared speech there, the other sporting her famous Rottweiler smile, did not achieve the desired results. Two swings and a miss.
Rene, I give Carney marks for trying something different. Well, marginally different.
Where he fell down, in my view, is that he simply recycled his campaign promises without adding any specificity.
There are rumors that he will discuss prompt project approval laws next week with the premiers so some specificity might be forthcoming. Having said that, we will see if he can a) get such laws passed; b) actually start to do something about projects that meet the criteria that we in Alberta expect; c) actually make it happen.
So, perhaps he will need to call upon the senior citizens again to try to save his (Canadian) bacon. Time will tell. I am not optimistic about success.
Given his technocratic background and track record - both here and overseas - I too am not optimistic he has the attributes to turn around the mess his predecessor made of this federation over the last ten years in this, our lost decade.
And, I agree with your comment elsewhere in this thread about a series of republics within our federation. Something has to change...
That is why, when we hear about separatism in Alberta (oh, it would be hard, much harder than proponents tell us), my response is to ask for details of how it would work, you know, specifics. Without believable specifics I don't see myself voting to leave; at least at this time.
But, if I am right on Carney - i.e. that he is simply hot air, etc. - well, we will see.
KING CHUCKLES IS NOT MY KING. I HAVE NO KING. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE SELF SERVING MONEY MONGERS ELECTED TO AN OFFICE THAT STEAL RAPE AND PILLAGE THE COUNTRY I LIVE IN.
IT IS TREASON TO CAUSE POVERTY, DISEASE INJURY AND DEATH AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.
WHY ARE THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS NOT CLEANING THE AIR, WATER AND FOOD? WHO IS KILLING THE SNAKES?
Thank you for saying what many think, and we are not Quebecers. It’s a tired, irrelevant institution long past its best before date. And what’s with that ridiculous governor general, for gods sake, who obviously wasn’t properly trained? It’s a waste of time and tax dollars.
Well, Quebecers care what they think, and not long ago everyone’s Canada purportedly including Quebec. At least that’s what the bumper stickers and tee-shirts all said.
Charles is the King of the Commonwealth, and Canada is a commonwealth country. I don’t remember anyone calling his mum the Queen of Canada. She was just the Queen. Yes, I’m probably splitting hairs here, but the phrase King of Canada doesn’t sit right. Although that might be because he’s a gormless relic who is no longer relevant. It would’ve been better to skip over him and make William king.
Yeah, so - the Quebeckers really, really don't like the federation's history and ties with Great Britain and gosh, it costs MONEY to have a head of state in a constitutional monarchy! Gosh, colour me surprised. Gee, great piece.
The entire sorry event was total kabuki theater with the depraved British monarchy at the center. Canada itself is the product of the British imperialist regime to blockade the growth of the US republic. Canada has no purpose or reason to exist other than it’s sad “we’re not American” subtitle. The foundational documents passed by the British parliament in the 19th century still state that the purpose of Canada is to serve the monarchy. And yet the oligarchy still goes on about “sovereignty”. It’s a complete psy op. Canada is a neo colonial vassal state within the Anglo American empire and the spectacle that occurred last month in the colonial capital city cemented that status. It will never change.
In the debate on Treaty ratification in the Irish Dail between Dec. 1921 and January 1922, an anti-Treaty TD said that the clause requiring swearing allegiance to the King would leave the Irish people as “slaves.” A pro-Treaty member retorted rhetorically: “The Canadians swear allegiance to the King. Are they slaves?” Well, it took 123 years, but I think we have the answer. :)
God Save the King
Just couldn't resist, could you?
Nope, nor could I. Show how Canada becomes a “Republique”. Never mind Québèc in reality. How do you overcome the Constitution of our country? It isn’t just Quebec’s or Alberta, or Ontario…. Yes, it’s a Confederation, but tell me, will Quebec, or Alberta actually make enough GDP or GNP to make a go of being a country without being swallowed by the US? Be real. Negotiate, and quit writing nonsense, because that, is exactly what this is. Though, I will concede Montreal has the St. Lawrence (but that access still has to be negotiated) and Alberta has none. You assume the rest of Canada will bow to demands from provinces, maybe other provinces have demands of you.
Well, we "overcame" the BNA in 1982 by patriating it from a foreign jurisdiction called the United Kingdom. We melded it into the Constitution Act 1982 and added a Charter of Rights. It took some back and forth for a few years but it was done on the strength of recognition that no self-respecting democracy can allow its constitution to be in the hands of foreigners.
The Irish Constitution of 1937, which was proclaimed in the name of the Holy Trinity and "humbly acknowledged" the obligations of all Irish people to "Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ," has been amended 38 times and bears very little resemblance to de Valera's document.
The 1937 constitution was itself a replacement for the 1922 Constitution of the Irish Free State, which still bore the heinous obligation to swear allegiance to the foreign King of the UK. (Heinous because people died in a civil war caused by that obscenely divisive obligation.) The point being that constitutions can, and do, change, sometimes radically over time.
To consider removal of the foreign-owned monarchy "radical" would be true only if we are using the word "radical" in its true sense of "root" - in order words, rooting out this un-Canadian pestilence.
It might interest you to know that Canada stopped having to make appeals on constitutional matters to the foreign Judicial Privy Council of the UK only in 1949, the exact year that Ireland was formally proclaimed a Republic. (You will know, of course, that according Canadian women legal status as Persons had to be referred to the foreign Judicial Privy Council.)
Stockland has made the argument that the King of Canada is not the King of Canada as well as anyone possibly could. But he might just as well argue, as Yves-Francois Blanchet recently did, that Canada is an artificial country. What the two arguments have in common is wishful thinking, and a refusal to believe things are not as they wish they were. The facts of the matter are that the King of Canada is the King of Canada, and Canada is a real country. But if people don't like that - which appears especially the case in Quebec - and prefer to live in a Republic then by all means they should make that case. The conditions for a referendum on Quebec independence seem ideal. So bring it on. Better that Quebecers live in the reality of an independent country with a real home-grown President, than continue with arguments and statements - no matter how well crafted or formed - that deny reality.
But don't you think your argument is just a wee but circular? "The reality is that Charles is King of Canada. Therefore, the reality is that he is Canada's King. So, accept reality." Except the reality could as easily really be that Charles is no one's King (that's not only a reality but will be an inevitability on the day he lies toes up in the Royal graveyard). At least, he could be no Canadian's King. George V was the King of Ireland until 1933 when he...well...wasn't. Nothing in reality says we must break Canada apart before we pat Chuckles on his aristocratic keester and wish him God's speed righting England's ship.
Reality "could be" something other than what it is? No. I don't think so. But change is possible ... though I am hard-pressed to think of an example where a country has changed from a monarchy to republic merely by the act of wishful thinking.
Well, if we’d listened to the Fenians, or even Louis-Joseph Papineau and Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan, our wishes might have long ago come true.
Wishful thinking, just like the poster above said. Try again.
Didn't Jiminy Crickett tell us "when you wish upon a star/ that foreign king will soon depart?" Listen to Jiminy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKh6XxYbbIc
Not entirely true your statement about Ireland, try again. You’re playing free and loose with respect to Eire from 1922 to 1937. You also ass u me that all Quebecoise will accept your view, never mind all Canadians. This isn’t the same, not even close.
I don't read or watch government funded media. This decision followed the 1 billion to cbc to become the advertising branch of the state.
Now saved from any nonsense they utter. Alternative media covers everything without Coynism and other diseases of disinterest to the truth. Coyne is one of many that are formed entirely to buttress a hateful destructive Government.
My book WORLD ON MUTE by LISA MIRON is out. That's the pitch.
https://youtu.be/DU7XL8kmHxQ?si=ZO2f4ZTKQR85Hsku
Yes the fawning over Charles by the Cartel media, as I like to call them was over the top. One must remember it is the same media that seemed to have no issue with the toppling of the statues of Queen Victoria and other offshoots of the monarchy in the aftermath of the hoax of unmarked graves of indigenous children 'killed' at residential schools. It is strange to see Mark Carney, a Liberal paying such homage to King Charles given that it is the Liberals that have historically been opposed to the monarchy and its vestiges.
The campaign by former Liberal Prime Minister Lester Pearson to replace the Canada's flag, which was the Canadian Red Ensign which included a replica of the British Union Jack within it, to the Maple Leaf was a push back against the monarchy by Pearson. As one might recall former PM John Diefenbaker, opposed the changing of the flag. So it is rather ironic to to see all these Liberals rallying around the King as he professes Canada's sovereignty to the evil Donald Trump.
I was always rather ambiguous about the monarchy during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. As boomer, being born in the 1950's, the Queen was pretty much a fixture on the walls of our classrooms at school while we were still singing God Save the Queen to open our days. She had an quite elegance about her, and seemed to clearly understand the apolitical role of the monarchy in the modern world. Charles, on the other hand, never seemed to get that and or that reason, I think the monarchy should have died with his mother. His involvement in such things as the WEF, the climate change agenda and immigration, is out of place, and he should know better. Even his trip to Canada is political. He came because Carney, who obviously has influence he wanted to demonstrate, asked him to. Asked him to come to send a message to Trump, but also to endorse him as Canada's PM, in other words, His Majesty approves of the election results. Again, not his place. In the same circumstances I suspect the Queen would have turned down the request recognizing the political agenda behind it.
Brilliants points, especially about the mute response to the toppling of statues. And I say that as someone who would dance an Irish jig if aliens descended and cleansed the earth of every statue of "The Famine Queen" Victoria. Frankly, I think the British monarchy should have died when Henry Tudor stole the throne or, at the latest when Henry VIII sacked the monasteries in a fit of anti-Catholic syphilitic rage. But you're right that wanton vandalism of public property is as intolerable as the hypocrisy of slavering over Victoria's descendants to make cheap political gains. I think you're right, too, that Elizabeth would 't have been caught dead being used as a Liberal party prop.
I agree with many of your points on when the monarchy should have died and it probably should have with Henry VIII but then Elizabeth I came along. Funny how it is the women, perhaps with the exception of Victoria who you seem to not be fond of, that seem to manage the throne better than the men. That said, I do have a funny story to tell. A friend of mine, who is a staunch Catholic just returned from the UK surprised, she said, to discover it was not the royals that had ultimate rule in their kingdoms, but the pope in Rome. She had never apparently heard how the royals take their right to rule by being anointed or chosen by God to do so. She had also I guess never heard of the row Henry VIII had with the Pope, who refused to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. A row that ultimately led to him breaking with Rome, establishing the Church of England and looting the Catholic monasteries. I learned all that in grade 9 history. But this woman has a masters degree, and she voted for Carney.
Andrew Coyne, fawning over the King, may be entering an advanced state of schizophrenia. He recently described the Canadian system as, "Our parliamentary system is in a state of disrepair so advanced that it has lost much of its relevance".
Its not schizo, he's a barking seal looking for an ambassadorship or senate seat.
But always a Royal seal.
I think of him like the old Starkist Tuna commercial or perhaps Madge in the Palmolive commercial "You're soaking in it."
True, but apparently as long as long we've got the King, everythin's all right, inn'it? I think Andrew sometimes feels the pressure of speaking for the entire Laurentian elite.
Now there is a worthy journalistic project. Define the Laurentian Elite! To date, it appears to be this powerful, amorphous group who controls the country for their own benefit. Who are they precisely and what are their objectives? I would love to know if they are simply a group of wealthy people with common interests or engaged in an active conspiracy. It sure feels like the latter but I don't want to advocate an unbased theory. Not yet anyway.
Yes, but apparently as long as we've got the King, everythin's all right, inn'it? I think Andrew sometimes feels the pressure of speaking for the Laurentian elite.
And yet even though we give pots of money to the cbc and Carney promised another pot, on my Monday flight to Toronto there was Coyne flying in the back of the bus with us deplorables.
Such a sad state.
The Globe imagines itself in the avant-garde of the proletarian elite, aka the vanguard of the stayvolution.
Or advanced senility?
I think it’s time we all went our own way. Sever the Atlantic region, Quebec is already gone, Ontario runs its own show, the west with Saskatchewan Alberta, maybe northern BC and Manitoba. Make Canada a republic. For the first time in my life I am sorry the US didn’t win the war of 1812. Would rather be a part of the US than China which is where the liberals have been taking us.
Nancy, I am pretty much agreed on all except "Make Canada a republic." I would substitute that sentence with, "Make Canada a series of republics."
The Irish have made a cracking good Republic in the south after 800 years of British oppression. Surely Canada could manage something reasonably comparable after only 80-plus years of Liberal party, ummm, rule. Come on, Canucks. Up your elbows.
To many Canadians, giving up their favourite bourbon carries the moral equivalency of joining the French resistance. The last time we had our elbows up and meant it, federal emergency measures crushed the movement into dust, while the majority cheered. Face it, a huge swath of the country reflexively and uncritically adopt the official narrative, however flawed or dishonest. For complacent and compliant Canada, punishing dissenters, is the national pastime, not revolution.
In Canada, as we all know, “the peasants are revolting” is an insult not a warning.
Precisely Peter. It’s certainly worth a try. I am proud of the provinces that are standing up. And yes Canada has primarily been under Liberal rule… we are too closely tied to the monarchy to have any real say in our country. They are our overseers. I would feel better if we could have the odd referendum on significant issues (like immigration), as it seems most politicians lie to get in and then do the opposite when elected.
That’s definitely a more accurate way to say it. That’s what I meant
Apologies in advance, as I'm one of those anti royalists from down south, but if Canada isn't for sale, then why is its regime so eager to admit the whole joint was stolen in the first place?
Pro- tip: do not send mixed messages to Trump (or really any US president.) They have way of believing the part that works best for their agenda.
Me dost think that Carney, apparently caught up in the rapture of royalty during his less than illustrious term as Governor of the Bank of England, seriously believed his Canadian subjects might have somehow come to the same conclusion. Sadly for our monarchist PM, watching the majestic performance of those two foreign senior citizens in our upper chamber (normally reserved for appointed party hacks), one reading a prepared speech there, the other sporting her famous Rottweiler smile, did not achieve the desired results. Two swings and a miss.
Back to the drawing board, Mark...
Yet it's Charles who had, once upon a time, a reputation for being barking mad. Turns out he might have married into it.
Rene, I give Carney marks for trying something different. Well, marginally different.
Where he fell down, in my view, is that he simply recycled his campaign promises without adding any specificity.
There are rumors that he will discuss prompt project approval laws next week with the premiers so some specificity might be forthcoming. Having said that, we will see if he can a) get such laws passed; b) actually start to do something about projects that meet the criteria that we in Alberta expect; c) actually make it happen.
So, perhaps he will need to call upon the senior citizens again to try to save his (Canadian) bacon. Time will tell. I am not optimistic about success.
Given his technocratic background and track record - both here and overseas - I too am not optimistic he has the attributes to turn around the mess his predecessor made of this federation over the last ten years in this, our lost decade.
And, I agree with your comment elsewhere in this thread about a series of republics within our federation. Something has to change...
"Something has to change ..."
Will it? Again, I am not at all optimistic.
That is why, when we hear about separatism in Alberta (oh, it would be hard, much harder than proponents tell us), my response is to ask for details of how it would work, you know, specifics. Without believable specifics I don't see myself voting to leave; at least at this time.
But, if I am right on Carney - i.e. that he is simply hot air, etc. - well, we will see.
KING CHUCKLES IS NOT MY KING. I HAVE NO KING. HOWEVER, I DO HAVE SELF SERVING MONEY MONGERS ELECTED TO AN OFFICE THAT STEAL RAPE AND PILLAGE THE COUNTRY I LIVE IN.
IT IS TREASON TO CAUSE POVERTY, DISEASE INJURY AND DEATH AMONG THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED THEM TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.
WHY ARE THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS NOT CLEANING THE AIR, WATER AND FOOD? WHO IS KILLING THE SNAKES?
We need a new St. Patrick.
Thank you for saying what many think, and we are not Quebecers. It’s a tired, irrelevant institution long past its best before date. And what’s with that ridiculous governor general, for gods sake, who obviously wasn’t properly trained? It’s a waste of time and tax dollars.
Who gives a rat’s @ss what Montreal and Quebec think about the monarchy? Oh, wait it takes one parasite to recognize another…
Well, Quebecers care what they think, and not long ago everyone’s Canada purportedly including Quebec. At least that’s what the bumper stickers and tee-shirts all said.
Times have changed. Last time around I supported Quebec, but now I’m ready to hold the door open and hand them their hat.
You'd have a lot of helping hands handing over that hat. Maybe it's why sovereignty isn't such a hot topic these days.
"Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"
In Pete Townsend's immortal words...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfAdHBtK_Q
The Wee Free Men - Terry Pratchett
CRIVENS!
Charles is the King of the Commonwealth, and Canada is a commonwealth country. I don’t remember anyone calling his mum the Queen of Canada. She was just the Queen. Yes, I’m probably splitting hairs here, but the phrase King of Canada doesn’t sit right. Although that might be because he’s a gormless relic who is no longer relevant. It would’ve been better to skip over him and make William king.
As long as he doesn't turn out to be a replica William of Orange. We've had enough of him .
Even better was Charles should have been left to tend his turnip patch and Anne made Queen a decade ago or more.
Liz held on as long as she could hoping for a better result.
Quit your bitching. 🤣
But...but...but...why?
🤣
Yeah, so - the Quebeckers really, really don't like the federation's history and ties with Great Britain and gosh, it costs MONEY to have a head of state in a constitutional monarchy! Gosh, colour me surprised. Gee, great piece.
They do represent 23.6 per cent of Canada’s population. Nine in 10 out of 23.6 per cent…that’s not nothing.
The entire sorry event was total kabuki theater with the depraved British monarchy at the center. Canada itself is the product of the British imperialist regime to blockade the growth of the US republic. Canada has no purpose or reason to exist other than it’s sad “we’re not American” subtitle. The foundational documents passed by the British parliament in the 19th century still state that the purpose of Canada is to serve the monarchy. And yet the oligarchy still goes on about “sovereignty”. It’s a complete psy op. Canada is a neo colonial vassal state within the Anglo American empire and the spectacle that occurred last month in the colonial capital city cemented that status. It will never change.
In the debate on Treaty ratification in the Irish Dail between Dec. 1921 and January 1922, an anti-Treaty TD said that the clause requiring swearing allegiance to the King would leave the Irish people as “slaves.” A pro-Treaty member retorted rhetorically: “The Canadians swear allegiance to the King. Are they slaves?” Well, it took 123 years, but I think we have the answer. :)