It didn't pass in Australia because the monarchist conservative prime minister joined the two referendum questions together to make a Yes vote impossible. So, to paraphrase, "do you want to be a republic" and "do you want the new president to be elected by the politicians rather than the people" were tied into one question.

The pre-poll majority republic vote was split in two (half of the republic supporters wanted the president elected by the people) and the status quo prevailed.

Maybe the French Canadian question introduces different dynamics into the equation in Canada?

Do you really want the Prime Minister to have MORE power?

I would prefer an elected head of state over an unelected head of state, as I imagine every sane person would.

It would make no difference as the GG (who represents royalty) is only ceremonial and wields no power.

In theory perhaps, but in practice no.

Because it's not purely an "emotional/historic attachment to the UK" that leads a country to join the Commonwealth. The Queen is the constitutional head of state of Canada, there are actual practical legal implications. I suppose you could keep the Queen and not be in the Commonwealth, but that seems stupid seeing as half the members of the Commonwealth don't have the Queen as head of state. No country with the Queen as head of state isn't in the Commonwealth.

So I am back to basics.

Why do we need a Queen?

And what good does it do us?

I don't agree or disagree, but that doesn't make me sane nor insane.

I can see both sides of the discussion, but will say that in recent years there seems to have been a concerted effort (whether planned or not) to try and get people away from Canadian connections to the Royal Family. There's this story and the one about new Canadians not wanting to swear allegiance to the Queen.

I get that not everyone is a Royalist, or wants to be in the Commonwealth. I think that the best way to resolve this is to have a referendum. Ask the country what they want to see happen. Ask these 3 questions;

1. Do you want the Queen to remain Head of State in Canada?

2. Do you want Canada to remain in the Commonwealth?

3. Being a member of the Commonwealth costs Canada CAD$xx per year. If we remain in the Commonwealth, would you be happy for the Government of Canada to Reduce Foreign Aid by that amount to pay for it. Foreign Aid is currently CAD$xxx.

If we leave the Commonwealth, does the Queen automatically cease to be our Head of State?

I'm a fence-sitter. I don't care whether any country is in the Commonwealth or not, neither do I care whether the Queen is Head of State or not. But the public should be given the facts and allowed to decide.

ITT people with no appreciation of shared heritage and history pining for America Lite.

We need a Queen, because she has no 'power' per se but is a Uniting force who is greatly respected. I think our Queen has given her life to make trade between the colonies better.

Trade needs to be facilitated...the ten fastest growing countries in the world are in Africa...Britain needs to be represented there. People have an enormous amount of respect for Britain here this should be used and celebrated.

Aye, we can send that old moronic racist member of the family Prince Phillip to embarrass us on the world stage.

Trade can be facilitated by people who have actually been democratically elected, not born into some sponging family.

1. unifying force? I just do not see it. I could even argue the contrary

2. greatly respected .. I agree here with you

3. as to what she has devoted her life to, well she was born into the position so this is no surprise here

4. and the UK is well represented in Africa, Queen or no Queen, commonwealth or no commonwealth

I can't remember what your view was. Are you for leaving the Commonwealth, losing the Queen as Head of State, or both?

Do you agree with me that there should be a referendum on this so that the electorate can decide, do you want a Parliamentary debate, or are you happy for Harper to decide this without either referendum or debate. If he's really serious, he'd make it an election issue.

1. Both, although I feel less bothered about the commonwealth issue

2. A parliamentary debate would be futile

3. Ottawa has enough scandals right now and needs house cleaning, especially the (useless) senate

4. A binding referendum would be logical but Harper would have to call it and he is unlikely to do so; he will not make it an election issue, it is a nonstarter

5. Canadians are largely complacent about the Queen and the commonwealth and probably will be remain content with the status quo

So if a Parliamentary debate is futile, and the electorate complacent and content with the status quo, is Harper the one who decides?

Yes, a Parliamentary debate would be futile, and the electorate is complacent and is content with the status quo, so it is Harper who decides.


1. The Queen is unlikely to wake up one fine morning and decide to relinquish her role as sovereign of Canada

2. No one in the Commonwealth has asked Canada to forsake the Commonwealth

3. The GG is sitting pretty in Ottawa, plus the entire collection of provincial counterparts (lieutenant governors), well they are not about to write themselves out of jobs

4 Most Canadians do not care one way or another

5. Harper has other pressing concerns and his comment is by now history