• baconisaveg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It doesn’t affect us day-to-day no, but honestly I like being part of a ‘Commonwealth’. I like feeling like I have something in common with Australia, or New Zealand, or the UK, even if I’ve only ever been to the UK for a few hours.

      Your family name (for most people, unless you’re George Hitler) has no impact on your day-to-day, this to me seems like saying “We should just get rid of family names!”

      • MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The people who are being manipulated with this nationalist dog whistle see no value in being a member of the Commonwealth. Canada First and MCGA and all.

        • frostbiker@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is a mistake to assume that those of us who oppose monarchy are Canadian nationalists.

          Some people simply hate outdated hereditary titles. They have no place in a democracy.

      • TheZoltan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You don’t need to keep the Royal Family to stay in the Commonwealth. Take a look at the current members of the commonwealth.

        • anachronist@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s what Australia thought until they elected a socialist and suddenly the Queen’s representative was running the country.

        • grte@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sixty million a year could build multiple public housing projects, every year. And on the other side of the balance scale is Charles.

            • Splitdipless@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In fact, if Canada goes with a “President,” it would cost more. Just on the election alone, but then they will also need an enlarged staff for their political works. Also, electing a President has really been working out well elsewhere, like the USA, hasn’t it?

              • Auli@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We could have a President that is ceremonial like the Governor General now. Which means this hole thing would be pointless just to change the name of some position.

          • oʍʇǝuoǝnu@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s maybe enough for one 100 unit building a year, depending on where it’s built, which is something but so far from anything substantial.

            Building is fucking expensive right now even if the province uses paramountcy to bypass municipal zoning. Plus, the province sucks ass at building compared to private because its gov’t. That’s not too say I don’t support massive amounts of public housing being built because I do 100%, but gov’t is gov’t.

          • Auli@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            How is it costing us 60 million a year? Majority is Governor General. Well we still need that position it well just be named President of something. So don’t see how it well save any money.