Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Down
I can only speak for Canada, but I'm pretty sure that the relationship between the UK and Australia is similar. The Queen's only involvement in our government is through the Governor-General, who has the power to suspend and dissolve Parliament, and whose signature is required to permit amendments to any part of the constitution, because the Queen is the head of state. The Prime Minister has very little power - he is only the head of government. The PM needs permission from the GG in order to call an election and send the country to war. I think that it's time that we GROW UP and take care of ourselves. We can still have a government based off of the Westminster model, but we don't need a Governor General or the Queen, whose role is strictly ceremonial. Most people here (and probably in Aus as well) don't really care for the monarchy or what it stands for.
A comedic take on Prince Charles' visit last month:
|
Rick Mercer is awesome, that's where we stop agreeing
i don't want to derail this discussion too much so i'll keep it short, plus Barnard's post is necessary reading for anyone in this thread.
while the PM and GG roles are more or less as you describe 'on paper', they're essentially reversed in practice. the GG role
is ceremonial, their actions usually follow the popular vote and their input comes from requests, not from will. the GG can't just step in and declare Parliament dissolved, the acting PM has to approach the GG's office and make the request.
plus any move to ditch the Monarchy will likely result in another rise of secessionist movements in Quebec and Alberta. Quebec for obvious reasons, Alberta so long as they're booming. YAY! the country splits into a half dozen chunks
