@DaphneD all you seem to do are ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you are the one that needs to have her head examined?
All I initially said is one sentence and you created this nonsense? And who directly is your (British?) Lord Marmalade? Please try to stick to the facts if it is possible for you to do so and try to keep up.
Perhaps you are losing your mind? If that's the case I won't need to reply to any further irrationality from you.
The Brit Monarchy would never want to give up control of it's territory especially after taking so much centuries to steal...um acquire their territories. The only exception that got away with it, that did come back like Pakistan, or planning to come back like Gambia, or had their economy destroyed to punish Zimbabwe for leaving the Commonwealth is Ireland and maybe the Maldives. You can see it for yourself here and be sure to note the commentary on the far right side!
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations )
Canada did get some measure of independence from Britain, but we are still a Commonwealth nation, and we have their crony...um Governor General as their figurehead here. And that will not change. Their role is merely ceremonial and as I said from my prior link it is rare that they would ever intervene with no precedent of doing so EVER in Canada. As another reference to illustrate my point:
"Although
responsible government had existed in Canada since 1848, Britain continued to set its foreign and defence policies after the end of the
First World War. With the passing of the
Statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada became co-equal with the United Kingdom. After the
Constitution was
repatriated in 1982
, the final vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament were removed.
Canada currently consists of ten provinces and three territories and is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state."
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canada )
If Canada was never ruled by Britain, then why is the Queen our Head of State? Like the Governor General it is a ceremonial position, however as head of state the monarch could technically seize control whenever he/she wanted.
And if you recall your history it was a bloody affair for Ireland to separate from Britain and of course the IRA even killed a Mountbatten to achieve their goals. And they stated:
"The IRA claim responsibility for the execution of Lord Louis Mountbatten. This operation is one of the discriminate ways we can bring to the attention of the English people the continuing occupation of our country...."
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Mountbatten,_1st_Earl_Mountbatten_of_Burma )
Even with the hostile relations Ireland had with Britain it puzzles me as to why they let them go? Perhaps it was due to the fact the terrorism from the IRA was too great? But I suspect it's a gambit to let them get what they want and like Pakistan and Gambia they will be back in their clutches at some point in the future or right this second running back begging to go back to the Commonwealth. This contradicts someone you might know
@DaphneD:
I guess it's apparent as to how is speaking falsehoods when one simply looks at those countries plus the commentary besides it from this link:
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations )
With regard to the Letters Patent reference that you kindly provided perhaps you missed the fact that:
"While the letters patent allow the governor general to use most of the 'powers and authorities' lawfully belonging to the
Canadian sovereign,
[2] this permission can be revoked, altered, or amended by the sovereign at any time and these powers and authorities thus remain with the monarch and are carried out by the governor general on his or her behalf.[3][4][5][6]"
So even after a such a separation should take place Queen or possible future King could technically renege and reverse the process of separation and ******* such a country to remain in the Commonwealth ( perhaps even after the exercise of separation was completed ) after all of the Constitutional amendments a nation can send or referendums a nation can perform?
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_Patent,_1947 )
After all if a Parliament has the power to prorogue and make all current legislation void:
"
8. THE PARLIAMENTARY CYCLE
Print this section | Open/print full chapter
PROROGATION AND DISSOLUTION
PROROGATION
Prorogation of a Parliament results in the termination of a session. Parliament then stands prorogued until the opening of the next session. Like the summoning and dissolution of Parliament, prorogation is a prerogative act of the Crown, taken on the advice of the Prime Minister. [105] Parliament is actually prorogued either by the Governor General (or Deputy of the Governor General) in the Senate Chamber, or by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette. When Parliament stands prorogued to a certain day, a subsequent proclamation (or proclamations) may be issued to advance or defer the date. [106]
Effects of Prorogation
The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to terminate business. Members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is next summoned.
All unfinished business is dropped from or “dies” on the Order Paper and all committees lose their power to transact business, providing a fresh start for the next session. No committee can sit during a prorogation. [107] Bills which have not received Royal Assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated” and, in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed. [108]"
(
http://www.ourcommons.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch08&Seq=7 )
Certainly the monarch ( who extended such powers to a Parliament ) can change their mind at anytime for a country to be removed from the Commonwealth as well. AAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNND I'M DONE! Q.E.D.
If you wish to maintain your ad hominem attacks upon me feel free to do so on my other posts and try to find fault with them. I suggest you start with the post where I provided a faulty proof of 2=1 where I said it was wrong. By your logic, especially if you find fault in anything I say, you would have to determine that 2=1. And by all means try to do so!
(
https://www.blacktowhite.net/thread...ump-gets-impeached.92341/page-23#post-1401468 )
