StuntmanMike StuntmanMike:
ShepardsDog makes a good point. We don't elect judges, yet they have more influence over national policy than almost anyone else in society.
There's also no pre-requisite for sitting on a jury, yet they are allowed to decide whether or not people spend the rest of their lives in prison.
But what you've said is interesting. It may be that an unaccountable, unelected figurehead, shouldn't be making decisions of such national import.
But what do you propose to replace it with?
I have no problem with the GG as a ceremonial figurehead. As someone of significant British ancestry myself, I appreciate the ties to our commonwealth brethren.
I think that
Parliament should have made the decision whether to prorogue, form an alternate government or have an election. Now I admit that could be a more unstable system (because, in this case, it likely would have led to the current government falling in a time of economic turmoil).
And you're correct, if the GG shed a few tears for fallen soldiers, it was pretty petty of me to point it out. She's not the Prime Minister. It's weird--if I am performing at a Remembrance Day ceremony (sometimes I play piano solo or accompaniment for pipers and such) I never get "verklempt", but if I'm in the crowd I usually get a little sting in my eye during the bugle's "Last Post."