• Otter@lemmy.caM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        unless there was an urgent need to get rid of it

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

        • Otter@lemmy.caM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          My point is that people aren’t opposed to ditching it, it’s the logistical issues

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    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.

  • anachronist@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    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.

  • CraigeryTheKid@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

  • LostWon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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)

  • iByteABit [he/him]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine living in a system so shit that people want to return to monarchy

    Maybe the free market is not so liberating after all, who would’ve guessed

  • jerkface@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ignoring issues it might cause with the commonwealth, it would be cool to just appoint our own monarch, like we do the GG. But I think that we enjoy privileges with the other commonwealth nations that we might lose if we did that.

      • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

    • baconisaveg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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!”

      • TheZoltan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.

      • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          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.

        • grte@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sixty million a year could build multiple public housing projects, every year. And on the other side of the balance scale is Charles.

            • Splitdipless@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In fact, if Canada goes with a “President,” it would cost more. Just on the election alone, but then they will also need an enlarged staff for their political works. Also, electing a President has really been working out well elsewhere, like the USA, hasn’t it?

              • Auli@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We could have a President that is ceremonial like the Governor General now. Which means this hole thing would be pointless just to change the name of some position.

          • oʍʇǝuoǝnu@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s maybe enough for one 100 unit building a year, depending on where it’s built, which is something but so far from anything substantial.

            Building is fucking expensive right now even if the province uses paramountcy to bypass municipal zoning. Plus, the province sucks ass at building compared to private because its gov’t. That’s not too say I don’t support massive amounts of public housing being built because I do 100%, but gov’t is gov’t.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.