Originally posted by anti-baphomet
What part of Commonwealth do people not understand???
There is no part of Commonwealth that I do not understand. Let me refresh for those who might have problems with that term:
The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, most of
which are former British colonies, or dependencies of these colonies (the exceptions being the United Kingdom itself and Mozambique).
No single government in the Commonwealth, British or otherwise, exercises power over the others, as in a political union. Rather, the
relationship is one of an international organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds are regarded as
equal in status, and co-operate within a framework of common values and goals, as outlined in the Singapore Declaration.[1] These include the
promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world
peace,[2] and are carried out through multilateral projects and meetings, as well as the quadrennial Commonwealth Games. The symbol of this free
association is Queen Elizabeth II, known for this purpose as Head of the Commonwealth. This position, however, does not imbue her with any
political or executive power over any Commonwealth member states; the position is purely symbolic, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General
who is the chief executive of the organization.
en.wikipedia.org...
We are not subject to the British Crown. Anyone that has told you otherwise is misinformed.
On to the gang on the Hill -
Nobody is to blame for this but Harper. He got so used to the opposition rolling over and playing dead, he tried to introduce a motion to kill them
by cutting funding and the other thing nobody seems to care about, removing public servants right to strike. I'm OK with making Canada Post an
essential service, but not with extending that to every public servant in Canada.
While I can understand that folks don't like the idea of taxpayer money going to the parties, there is a reason it's done that way. That taxpayer
funding was set up when the rules changed and it became illegal for corporations and unions to donate to the parties. Up until then, the parties were
funded by special interest groups and now they raise funds from individual donations and get their taxpayer subsidy based on number of votes received.
I'd much rather see taxpayer funding instead of corporate and union funding.
Not that I'm giving the other parties a free ride, but I'm not upset with them either. They played a damn good game and it was by the book. But
honestly, how could they back right off after Harper changed his tune and said the funding would stay? That's like saying 'yes, we only care about
the money'. They probably are, but they will never admit it. The end result is they put the government on notice that they can't act like they
have a majority and that is what is best for this country right now. Restraint and cooperation.
If Harper does present a reasonable and not politically motivated budget in January and the coalition still votes it down, then I will be annoyed with
them. But not until then.
Another thought - after Harper's address to the country, he can kiss goodbye to the seats in Quebec, the ones that would have given him his majority
govt. All the gains he made in Quebec over the past two years - gone in less time than it takes me to do a load of laundry.
