Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

happyColoradoDave t1_iu1lw59 wrote

It's that the nature of separatist is to want to separate.

90

haixin t1_iu1m3jh wrote

Let's ask Brexiteers how that's going...

8

PunchFox t1_iu3dgou wrote

Not really sure that finally realizing it's time to ditch your shitty, archaic monarchy is the equivalent to leaving one of the most powerful and prosperous economic zones in the world

3

vonindyatwork t1_iu4vzkt wrote

No, but Quebec separatism in general is.

2

PunchFox t1_iu57jcu wrote

I might have misunderstood, but I thought this was just the Quebec party saying Canada should tell the monarchy to fuck off, not saying they should split from Canada. I know they do that too, but not here.

2

vonindyatwork t1_iu5oke3 wrote

Yes, but also no. It's a bit deeper then just the monarchy.

This sentiment is coming from two political parties/sources: the federal Bloc Quebeqois, and the provincial Parti Quebecois. Both of them are Quebec Separatist parties that want an independent Quebec.

The issue is they don't want to swear allegiance to the head of state of Canada, who now happens to be King Charles. It isn't really so much an anti-monarchy statement so much as it an anti-confederation statement, coming from them.

The brexit joke is that Canada dropping the monarchy would open a massive unknown can of worms similar to what Brexit did, while actual Quebec separation would be a boondoggle for them that would make Brexit look like a picnic.

1

PunchFox t1_iu5qb4o wrote

Thanks for the explanation. I know Quebec separatism is a joke, didn't realize the complexities and how it relates to this statement

1

[deleted] t1_iu1pe4j wrote

[deleted]

4

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu1xuz6 wrote

Anyone who thinks ditching the Crown makes sense for Canada is profoundly ignorant of our political system. They have no real authority here and it would cause the biggest inter-provincial clusterfuck in decades as provinces tried to extract concessions for providing their assent. That's not even getting the mess it would cause with indigenous tribes who have signed treaties with the Crown.

22

Anon_throwawayacc20 t1_iu2f2jl wrote

Solution: pass an amendment making the oath optional.

Alternatively: pass an amendment clarifying that the monarch of canada is a fictional entity, and change how the governor general is chosen.

Done.

It's like swapping one variable in X for another variable in X. You can keep the same general formula otherwise. Or in legal terms, you won't have to rewrite the constitution.

Would that not be a viable solution?

2

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu2j9e9 wrote

That would require the assent of every province due to the ay our constitution is structured, and every indigenous tribe with a treaty signed by the Crown because one party to a treaty can't unilaterally alter the terms like that. That would make it every bit the shitshow that totally removing the Crown would be.

The only way something like this could happen would be if the monarchy tried to pull some bullshit like they did in Australia. That would cause a constitutional crisis of epic proportions and create the political will to remove them entirely. I don't think it's a realistic thing, though. The monarchy know damned well that we're only content to leave this can of worms unopened because they don't interfere with us.

9

doiwinaprize t1_iu5ywz2 wrote

Not to be that guy but technically if they didn't have any power why would getting rid of them be so detrimental? I don't understand this logic...

1

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu5zipv wrote

If you don't understand how opening up the constitution could turn into a massive clusterfuck then I'd suggest you do a little research into the controversies surrounding the Constitution Act of 1982 and its passage without the assent of Quebec.

1

doiwinaprize t1_iu61z02 wrote

No I understand that, I just don't understand how you can say the monarchy has no power when you obviously understand how intrinsically woven into our political system they are.

1

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu62vg2 wrote

What power do you think they have? What real, tangible things do you think they can they do?

1

doiwinaprize t1_iu68ec6 wrote

I mean, we literally print their face on our currency. There was a federal holiday for the queen's funeral. Just because they don't have any involvement in immediate decision making doesn't mean they don't have a big influence on Canadian society that is beneficial to them, it's certainly not by accident.

1

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu68zfp wrote

What I'm taking away from that response is that you know quite well that the monarchy have no real power in Canada.

1

mais_de_mort_lente t1_iu241hi wrote

If your country can't even consider the possibility of changing its constitution for fear it would lead to its implosion, maybe your country is just not working.

−14

VedsDeadBaby t1_iu24e4e wrote

It's unlikely that it would cause the country to collapse, the issue is that it would be a massive boondoggle, cost a fortune, and inevitably fail, all for the sake of making a pointless statement. Why on earth would we want that?

11

Oil_slick941611 t1_iu2k2f4 wrote

The actual monarch has as close 0% percent effect on our country as you can get. I agree its more of a hassle to remove it than it is to keep it.

6

elpajaroquemamais t1_iu3mndc wrote

They don’t actually have any power any more. It’s a tourism draw. Abolishing it would be a net loss for British tourism.

5

InternalEagle5200 t1_iu3q3ut wrote

Is it the royal family that's the draw, or is it the buildings? I'm always happy to see grand architecture but I don't really give a fuck who owns it.

3

elpajaroquemamais t1_iu455hk wrote

That’s fine and that’s you but a lot of people go to buckingham to try to get a glimpse. Maybe not as popular with Charles but with Elizabeth it was.

1

InoyouS2 t1_iu1rs28 wrote

Is anyone really surprised that French Canadians aren't too keen on the British monarchy?

40

Kevundoe t1_iu2d6d7 wrote

Honestly, I’m surprise the rest of Canada is

17

ritabook84 t1_iu2ytc8 wrote

We aren’t. It’s just extremely complicated to get rid of them and would mean opening up a whole bunch of constitutional issues that make it not worth trying

7

LostNewfie t1_iu35r5v wrote

And the whole issue with treaty land. Overall, getting rid of them is more trouble than it's worth for the average person.

2

vonindyatwork t1_iu1wmvp wrote

If they had real commitment they'd abstain from parliament like Sinn Féin does in Northern Ireland.

But they don't, they just want to make noise and push the 'oh woe is us' narrative that riles up their base.

10

mydogisanassholeama t1_iu26a4b wrote

Yeah, this is basically just Quebecois populism. Empty rhetoric to get their voters worked up. While I also want to get rid of the monarchy in Canada, it isn't like Quebec separatists, who by virtue of their own platform want to leave Canada, should get to choose such an important step for the entire country (we would basically have to re-do our entire constitution.

7

Jormakalevi t1_iu1org6 wrote

In a way that is sad, because the British commonwealth and especially its core The UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand is such a glorious brand.

7

dvd_man t1_iu2v5v8 wrote

Right only the white nations? The commonwealth consists of 56 nations. Many of them do not have the king as head of state.

−7

DaSauceBawss t1_iu1nyu9 wrote

Bro they tried it already...its not gonna happen....

4

DonDove t1_iu1q74o wrote

One time only 1% stood between staying or leaving

Edit: Why the f*** am I being downvoted it's true. Here you go.

2

Qlawen t1_iu26f3w wrote

Even if that 1% tipped in the other direction Quebec could still not separate. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed and made a ruling on separation of the provinces in Canada. It is almost impossible for provinces to leave Canada. Keyword almost.

4

supershutze t1_iu1v7w0 wrote

The only time that vote ever came anywhere near close was the time the question was deliberately obfuscating to the point where people didn't understand what was being asked.

Every single time the question was presented in a way people could actually understand the answer has been a resounding NO.

3

Kevundoe t1_iu2csvw wrote

Yeah I remember 1995… all those confused people roaming the street… is Jean Chretien a separatist? What am I voting for?

8

ashtraygirl t1_iu6l8ug wrote

I remember that day well… ‘’my 13 year old teenage girl self wore a t-shirt on the day of the referendum that said: « what part of NO don’t you understand »

1

barriekansai t1_iu37ooj wrote

I was a child living on Île des Sœurs in Montreal during the 1980 referendum. I remember seeing as many Oui (Yes to separation) signs as Non (remain in Canada). My non-French-speaking parents were shitting themselves.

2

halfabrandybuck t1_iu21wof wrote

I respect the crown as a unifying symbol of national sovereignty and authority - and importantly, not as a personage. I personally dislike King Charles but I respect the office of the crown as a symbol. Every nation has these symbols and they’re profoundly important because they sort of centre you in a common national identity.

3

InternalEagle5200 t1_iu3q96j wrote

I don't respect any position that is granted due to nepotism. Fuck the crown.

−1

A-Perfect_Tool t1_iu1uc2v wrote

It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for him

1

Kunaak t1_iu2oiv0 wrote

It is rather absurd that a king or queen that have virtually no purpose, are still tolerated. This something that should have been gone from the Canadian system 100 years ago.

1

therocketofpoop t1_iu1m3u8 wrote

A separatist uprising needs quelling, you say?

0

3dio t1_iu3hmh1 wrote

A quexit?

0

Xodarkcloud t1_iu482yb wrote

none of them can tell you the point of seperating other than trying to conserve a french identity. No economic benefit or legal benefit.. no benefit whatsoever.

−1

surfingNerd t1_iu1mlxb wrote

I call for a rebellion. Throw those Dr. Martens, Burberry, rolls Royce, minis off to the sea. That will show if Charles really is in charge.

−5

DonDove t1_iu1q4zw wrote

Only if Scotland joins the fray

−2