Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!hogg From: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: The Commonwealth Message-ID: <3145@utcsri.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 18:17:57 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsri.3145 Posted: Mon Jul 21 18:17:57 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jul-86 18:44:10 EDT References: <8091@watrose.UUCP> <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> Reply-To: hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) Distribution: can Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 69 Summary: In article <2354@hcrvx2.UUCP> jimr@hcrvx2.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: > >When I think of the Commonwealth I think of the monarchy, and when I >think of the monarchy I think of an archaic institution that has >about as much relevance to the 20th century as does the buggy whip. > >I find it truly amazing that not only do the citizens of this *democratic* >country owe allegiance to a queen, but to a foreign queen to boot. Shades >of colonialism! If we are so bent on living in the Dark Ages the very >least we could do is grow our own. > >So, as can be easily inferred from the above I would lose not a >microsecond of sleep if the Commonwealth were to break up. You may associate these two issues in your own mind, but they're really separate. ======================================================================= I agree that we should have our own monarch. I've felt for a long time that Prince Andrew should become King Andrew I. I realize that this view is not widely held; in particular there are a large number of people out there (I suppose this includes you, Jim) whom I vaguely categorize as "damn republicans". You may have your own opinions, but our head of state is a non-political professional who has done an excellent job over her entire life of being a dignified yet human head of state. The closest republic to us has for a head of state an actor who is totally inarticulate when his teleprompter shuts down, reflecting his utter lack of understanding of concepts more complex than a large club. He has had more intelligent predecessors, for instance the one who was impeached for being a crook. You're welcome to your republic; just please put it in some other country. By the way, the Americans feel this lack of a leader whom they can look up to, and manifest this in a strange rag fixation. Do you know that it is normal practice for American schoolchildren to swear allegience to their flag each morning? I find the Queen to be a far more human symbol, and I am quite capable of understanding the difference between a monarch as a symbol and as a despot. This may be why I don't seem to find her as threatening as republicans appear to. ======================================================================== The question of the Commonwealth is something else again. The Queen comes into it as a visible sign of our common heritage, but she is not central to the matter. If the United Kingdom became the United People's Republic, the Commonwealth could still remain. This world is presently divided in far too many ways, and from the world viewpoint we need far more communication and cooperation. British intransigence notwithstanding, the Commonwealth is playing a very important role right now in the South African situation. Forty-eight countries represent a strong voice urging the abolishment of apartheid, and the views of the forty-ninth do nothing to diminish this. From the Canadian perspective, we live next to the proverbial elephant. Trudeau's "third option" (do you remember what that was?) seems to have sunk utterly, but we should strive to maintain and strengthen as many different ties as we can with other countries and economic blocks. We have in place a large network of good relationships which can help us not just economically but politically. If you wish to throw these away, you should state what is to take their place. "Insularity" is not a valid reply. Today's world doesn't work that way. "Monarchy is the best policy" -- John Hogg ...utzoo!utcsri!hogg