Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kranar | Hacker News Reader

As has been pointed out, there are copies of it that contain the unprintable sections.

With that said it's worth mentioning that many laws, even in the U.S., aren't exactly printed or documented per say. Plenty of countries have unwritten constitutions; for example in Canada there is no mention of the Prime Minister in any constitutional document, it exists by legal convention.

View on HN

I think it would be more accurate to state that the Prime Minister's power and authority exist at the pleasure of the British Monarchy. Legally, the British Monarch, and by extension, the Governor General of Canada has ultimate authority over the Canadian government.

I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long.

This is the case in almost all Commonwealth countries no?

The system works because the country is still relatively healthy. Nobody really cares at the end of the day what leadership style the country has, as long as the leadership ensures that the laws represent the ethics, that there is some concept of justice, and general healthy HDI (whether it's safety, work opportunities, housing, education, whatever).

Democracy is usually seen as some way to achieve this, but there is also a sharp difference between healthy democracies and democracies that start and end at the ballot. You can equally have dictatorships that are just as healthy, if not healthier, than many democracies (for example the UAE or Oman).

Canada has it's own monarchy, legally separate from the British one. Except the monarch is the same person and the rules of succession are the same. But King of Canada is a separate title.

I thought Canada was legally distinct, and only the person Charles III is shared with the UK? I.e. he's the King of Canada. It seems like it's primarily tradition at this point which makes this happen, rather than a hard requirement.

This is sort of misleading.

First off its the king of canada, which technically is a separate position that just happens to be held by the same person (personal union), with same succession rules, and also a treaty where everyond is supposed to agree before changing succession rules.

More importantly it is a constitutional monarchy. The crown can't just do what it pleases but is bound by the constitution.

A big part of that is the king must listen to the advice of the prime minister/the privy council, and that the prime minister must have the confidence of the legeslative branch.

In practise the king lacks pretty much all power. There are a couple edge cases (fire the governor general maybe) and still a lot of soft power, but he is essentially a distant figurehead.

Except that the Governor General actually does have some power and it's come up in practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional.... So the ability to hire and fire the Governor General at will is actually a pretty major power, even if it's only been used that one time.

I wouldn't say just that one time - well it didn't get to the level of the australia one, there have been recent times where governor general has mattered in canada.

E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_Rideau_Hal... when it was unclear if payette would resign willingly or have to be fired.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p...

Still nonetheless i would consider these edge cases that only happen rarely.

I guess whether Canada or Australia want to be constitutional monarchies or not is up to them, and not my business being neither Canadian nor Australian, but it just seems strange to me for them to allow the monarch anything more than symbolic power.

Then again, I live in Massachusetts, and historically we're...not huge on kings here.

I mean, personally i kind of like it because it helps stop cults of personalities a little bit - when everything is done in the name of the (absent) king, people are less likely to form a cult around the PM who has real power.

However i think most canadians just dont really care and it would be a big fuss to remove the king. Anytime anyone tries to change the canadian constitution everyone tries to get their interests in so its easier to just let sleeping dogs lie. See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord

>I'm amazed Canada has retained this system of government for so long.

Why? What current problems would changing this fix?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com