Queen Elizabeth was a good place to stop.
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.
unless there was an urgent need to get rid of it
Darn it the wrong royal went to Epstein's Island.
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)
Changing our relationship with the UK in this climate of increasingly grabby fringe groups is a huge risk.
We have bigger fish to fry.
The monarchy does not affect my life in any way.
Then you should have no problem if it was abolished.
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.
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
Don't look up how much the gold throne king charles III sits on is worth
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!"
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.
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Some people simply hate outdated hereditary titles.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.
You don't need to keep the Royal Family to stay in the Commonwealth. Take a look at the current members of the commonwealth.
What happens when or if a monarch refuses to rubber stamp?
They won't. We live in a constitutional monarchy. Their role is ceremonial.
That's what Australia thought until they elected a socialist and suddenly the Queen's representative was running the country.
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.
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.
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.
I imagine they do realize that but then follow that thought up with, "So why are we continuing with this...?"
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.
Reconsider if they want, but the position is locked into the constitution.
Constitutions can be changed.
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.
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.
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.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Regions
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL)
unknownFootball (CFL)
unknownBaseball
unknownBasketball
unknownSoccer
unknown💻 Universities
💵 Finance / Shopping
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social & Culture
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: