ℬête Noire
Active Member
If there's no King George to tilt against is it really all that pressing? It's been a largely amicable path (internal head butting more than anything), different from the US - UK history (and even Australia - UK history) for a number of reasons. After all there's always the potential for outside forces messing with a government (there's been talk of such in the US for a couple years, maybe you've heard about it?
). So, again, in practice Canada has been de facto sovereign nation for all of living memory, more-so than some countries that on paper are more sovereign. The GG role is a piece that makes things work, for transitions. It'd kinda be a PITA to figure out the specifics of the replacement and not particularly clear there'd be any actual benefit.Really the process of the Constitution was, as much as anything, having an explicit Constitution at all rather than relying on a labyrinth of implications from very old laws cobbled together with tradition and jus commune. It sealed off some old legal paths that we didn't really want open (look up War Measures Act, for a mind blow) and solidified explicitly what's the equivalent of US Bill of Rights and the basic ground rules of the relationship of the Federation (Federal gov to Provincial govs). There was some important centuries overdue reconciliation between Quebec and the rest of the country to work out, and that was part of it.
Combo of the first two, just how it things happened worked out. Indefinite ex-pat. You'll find Canadians in a lot of places around the world like that.
Frankly I'm a human of the world, I'm not so big on borders and tribes.....which is somewhat at odds with the views of some of the locals when they're in fist pumping mode. But at the end of the day the number of people that never remember they're human, even when reminded, is thankfully less than appears at times.
Anyway, enough derail from me.
