NationStates Jolt Archive

Australia has been a part of the Brittish empire and then the commonwealth, a few years ago there was a refurendum to become a republic and it was defeated.
now the idea is being raised again.

i dont think australia should break away, i like the idea of having a royal family (even if its full of screw ups) and the sense of history and belonging it gives to the country.

anyone have any ideas?

i dont think australia should break away, i like the idea of having a royal family (even if its full of screw ups) and the sense of history and belonging it gives to the country.

anyone have any ideas?

Yes. I think we should ship them over to Australia. That way you can support them, and feel the sense of history and belonging closer to home.

I think we should have a republic... but I must admit, I was tempted to vote 'don't give a damn'.

I don't really mind the Royal Family, but seriously, we have more direct links with the Danish royal family than the British.

Perhaps we could join the Danish Commonwealth - much more cosy, just Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland.

We could have a steady stream of container ships bringing ice from Antarctica so our climates could all match ;)

thats cool with me

No to Labor's Republic for the following reasons:

A simple yes or no vote for a Republic. Well suppose we all said yes, sure why not. Then the second phase which follows that is the type of republic. Now at the next ballot we are given 4 types of republics to choose from...but...

what if we don't like the choice before us?

...too bad, the most popular of the four wins by majority vote!

Bang, Australia has a Republic none of us really want in that form, but too bad because we voted "yes" in the first place.

Also, there are better things I can think of to spend billions of dollars on than a Republic.

Aye for a republic. The royal family is redundant.

I for one, have absolutely no problem with our current system of the thriving constitutional monarchy that we are. The Queen has served us well for many years and who really needs a republic? Definately not the taxpayer with the money that would be spent. Besides if we were to become a republic, Australia would simply be dissolved into Asia and we would lose our heritage and traditional ties with England. Who would be president and how would they be elected? What's the difference between a governor general or a president? Nothing! They would both just sign acts of parliaments, except one would do it the traditional way with honour under a constitution that has made our country the one it is today, whereas the other simply wouldn't.

What's wrong with a republic?
Plenty.

If the Aussies were to become a republic that would leave their fun lil neighbours (New Zealand) all alone in alot of things when in comes to dealing with things in the south pacific though. I for one couldnt care less but if they did, should New Zealand follow their lead?

No, frankly New Zealand should become a state of Australia and they can legally under the constitution. Did you know, that when the founding fathers of the Australian federation sat down, representatives from New Zealand were present?

However, New Zealand decided they were a little too different to the mainland and decided against federation - although constitutional provisions are there in case they do.

Western Australia too felt like New Zealand except the Eastern colonies promised them a railway line and WA said "yes" to federation.

But I say NO to a republic. There is nothing wrong with the current Westminster system and we have bigger issues to deal with than paying a lot of money for something that will do nothing for us.

What could be possibly gain from slapping "Republic of" in front of Australia? Perhaps a whopping big debt!

Australia has been a part of the Brittish empire and then the commonwealth, a few years ago there was a refurendum to become a republic and it was defeated.
now the idea is being raised again.

i dont think australia should break away, i like the idea of having a royal family (even if its full of screw ups) and the sense of history and belonging it gives to the country.

anyone have any ideas?Time and time agian the referendum comes up, but poor wordy always gets it defeated. Like the idea of a figure head President, as if we need more figureheads. And how does a Royal Family provide history? It provides England with history, the Eurika Stockade, Federation, Gallipoli, that's Australiam history. The Royal Family is not only an over glorified outdated system based on accident-of-birth they do not respect the position, I see no reason to perpetuate a system based on ignorance and inequality.

I am all for a republic, but the model is what gets me. I like the fact we have two guys (the PM and Governer-General) who can fire each other. I like the fact that technically the Queen is our head of state, that she's nothing more than a figure head with no real power.

If we can retain similar features as a republic, without giving too much power to one individual (such as the US President has in my opinion, that's just my opinion and I can't bothered backing it up if someone wants to argue, it's to bloody hot today), I'm all for a republic. As long as he/she who wields excutive power has someone to keep them in check, I'm happy.

History/culture, I'm of Irish Catholic decent on my fathers so the Royal family really dose nothing for me.

Australia has been a part of the Brittish empire and then the commonwealth, a few years ago there was a refurendum to become a republic and it was defeated.
now the idea is being raised again.

i dont think australia should break away, i like the idea of having a royal family (even if its full of screw ups) and the sense of history and belonging it gives to the country.

anyone have any ideas?Time and time agian the referendum comes up, but poor wordy always gets it defeated. Like the idea of a figure head President, as if we need more figureheads. And how does a Royal Family provide history? It provides England with history, the Eurika Stockade, Federation, Gallipoli, that's Australiam history. The Royal Family is not only an over glorified outdated system based on accident-of-birth they do not respect the position, I see no reason to perpetuate a system based on ignorance and inequality.

Australian history is more than a stockade and gallipoli...but you are right there. The Royal family means nothing to me...except that the Queens doesn't cost me a cent as head of state.

She is above politics and believe me an Australian President would not be! Also, you can bet political hopefuls would have their snouts in the trough with the President being paid a very generous salary, probably higher than the current Governor General.

A Republic will do nothing but cost us money...why bother? It is not like Elizabeth is telling us what to do!

I am all for a republic, but the model is what gets me. I like the fact we have two guys (the PM and Governer-General) who can fire each other. I like the fact that technically the Queen is our head of state, that she's nothing more than a figure head with no real power.

If we can retain similar features as a republic, without giving too much power to one individual (such as the US President has in my opinion, that's just my opinion and I can't bothered backing it up if someone wants to argue, it's to bloody hot today), I'm all for a republic. As long as he/she who wields excutive power has someone to keep them in check, I'm happy.

So what you are saying is you want everything to be the same as it is now, but under a different name...that makes little sense.

Spend billions and billions of dollars to merely change a name. Whoever founded such a republic would most definately be demonised in history for generations to come.

Quite simply, the Australian head of state should be an Australian.

Well personally I hate the concept of a monarchy, and all that it stands for.

However Australia voted in a referendum only a few years ago to keep the queen as head of state, that if nothing else should be respected. The will of the people was that the queen stays, so she should. Otherwise you're arguing that the people got the wrong anser in the referendum, sure in a few more years, 10, 20 or maybe when the Queen dies or abdicates then offer the question to the people again it is too soon since the last referendum.

It's that people deserve more power that I am for abolishing the monarchy, it makes no sence to then argue that those people when given the power should a couple of years later be told that they got it wrong, now try again.

Australia has been a part of the Brittish empire and then the commonwealth, a few years ago there was a refurendum to become a republic and it was defeated.
now the idea is being raised again.

i dont think australia should break away, i like the idea of having a royal family (even if its full of screw ups) and the sense of history and belonging it gives to the country.

anyone have any ideas?Time and time agian the referendum comes up, but poor wordy always gets it defeated. Like the idea of a figure head President, as if we need more figureheads. And how does a Royal Family provide history? It provides England with history, the Eurika Stockade, Federation, Gallipoli, that's Australiam history. The Royal Family is not only an over glorified outdated system based on accident-of-birth they do not respect the position, I see no reason to perpetuate a system based on ignorance and inequality.

Australian history is more than a stockade and gallipoli...but you are right there. The Royal family means nothing to me...except that the Queens doesn't cost me a cent as head of state.

She is above politics and believe me an Australian President would not be! Also, you can bet political hopefuls would have their snouts in the trough with the President being paid a very generous salary, probably higher than the current Governor General.

A Republic will do nothing but cost us money...why bother? It is not like Elizabeth is telling us what to do!However we remain constantly free by the will of the Queen, just look at the Wiltam incident to see that we need to have a truly democratic system. As for the pay of the President, it would be the same as the Prime Minister, whenever the Constuition is amended it is done with the least possible changes. We simply transfer Governor-General powers to the PM (President) and Governor power to the Premiers.

I am all for a republic, but the model is what gets me. I like the fact we have two guys (the PM and Governer-General) who can fire each other. I like the fact that technically the Queen is our head of state, that she's nothing more than a figure head with no real power.

If we can retain similar features as a republic, without giving too much power to one individual (such as the US President has in my opinion, that's just my opinion and I can't bothered backing it up if someone wants to argue, it's to bloody hot today), I'm all for a republic. As long as he/she who wields excutive power has someone to keep them in check, I'm happy.

History/culture, I'm of Irish Catholic decent on my fathers so the Royal family really dose nothing for me.


Have a cerimonial presidency. Little power, and cheap. Changing a country to a Republic will not cost billions, that is a completely unsubstansiated claim.

No, frankly New Zealand should become a state of Australia and they can legally under the constitution. Did you know, that when the founding fathers of the Australian federation sat down, representatives from New Zealand were present?

However, New Zealand decided they were a little too different to the mainland and decided against federation - although constitutional provisions are there in case they do.

Western Australia too felt like New Zealand except the Eastern colonies promised them a railway line and WA said "yes" to federation.

But I say NO to a republic. There is nothing wrong with the current Westminster system and we have bigger issues to deal with than paying a lot of money for something that will do nothing for us.

What could be possibly gain from slapping "Republic of" in front of Australia? Perhaps a whopping big debt!The Westminster System is the most antiquated non-function system of government, it does not work in this day and age and is a huge waste of space in the Constituion. Ever wonder why it's the only part that makes absolutely no sense and is worded so poorly that learn scholars comment that there is no logical way to explain it.

i dont think australia should break away, i like the idea of having a royal family (even if its full of screw ups) and the sense of history and belonging it gives to the country.

anyone have any ideas?

Yes. I think we should ship them over to Australia. That way you can support them, and feel the sense of history and belonging closer to home.

Listen mate, your lot started all this by sending your convicts out here.

We've managed to get over that, please do not send dysfunctional scroungers, they are unwanted.

No to a republic! Ugh just think...high taxes :x

Why change it now it's better to be part of something greater then be all alone even if the British Royal family is ugly least we get to go the common wealth games.

However we remain constantly free by the will of the Queen, just look at the Wiltam incident to see that we need to have a truly democratic system. As for the pay of the President, it would be the same as the Prime Minister, whenever the Constuition is amended it is done with the least possible changes. We simply transfer Governor-General powers to the PM (President) and Governor power to the Premiers.

Yes let us look at the Whitlam incident...the Queen refused to get involved and Sir John Kerr had the final say. She is as I have said, above politics. When written to, the Queen replied that she would not get involved. This left the decision of Whitlam's dismissal in the hands of Sir John Kerr.

Now, Sir John Kerr amazingly was born in Balmain (for those of you unaware, Balmain is a suburb of Sydney Australia).

Interesting how an Australian sacked the PM in 1975 and not as some would say the Brits.

And who says a President will be paid the same as the Prime Minister? You do, but I doubt you get to decide upon the 3 or 4 choices which will be given to Australians. No we shall leave that up to the politicians...the most trustworthy of people...right?

As for "We simply transfer Governor-General powers to the PM (President)" you are suggesting we pass powers from one Australian to another? (perhaps the same man even). Isn't that a waste of time and money for a simple title change.

Seriously, is there any proper argument for spending billions on a republic?

No to a republic! Ugh just think...high taxes :x

How does Republic = High Taxes?

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

Yes let us look at the Whitlam incident...the Queen refused to get involved and Sir John Kerr had the final say. She is as I have said, above politics.

She is not, at least if we believe a common Monarchist arguement "The Queen advises the Prime Minister."
As for "We simply transfer Governor-General powers to the PM (President)" you are suggesting we pass powers from one Australian to another? (perhaps the same man even). Isn't that a waste of time and money for a simple title change.

Seriously, is there any proper argument for spending billions on a republic?

I fail to see how a title change can cost billions. Could you please explain this?

However we remain constantly free by the will of the Queen, just look at the Wiltam incident to see that we need to have a truly democratic system. As for the pay of the President, it would be the same as the Prime Minister, whenever the Constuition is amended it is done with the least possible changes. We simply transfer Governor-General powers to the PM (President) and Governor power to the Premiers.

Yes let us look at the Whitlam incident...the Queen refused to get involved and Sir John Kerr had the final say. She is as I have said, above politics. When written to, the Queen replied that she would not get involved. This left the decision of Whitlam's dismissal in the hands of Sir John Kerr.

Now, Sir John Kerr amazingly was born in Balmain (for those of you unaware, Balmain is a suburb of Sydney Australia).

Interesting how an Australian sacked the PM in 1975 and not as some would say the Brits.

And who says a President will be paid the same as the Prime Minister? You do, but I doubt you get to decide upon the 3 or 4 choices which will be given to Australians. No we shall leave that up to the politicians...the most trustworthy of people...right?

As for "We simply transfer Governor-General powers to the PM (President)" you are suggesting we pass powers from one Australian to another? (perhaps the same man even). Isn't that a waste of time and money for a simple title change.

Seriously, is there any proper argument for spending billions on a republic?Yes, the aristocracy is stupid and outdated. The same reason I have been founding the council to repair the pothole outside my house and authorise me to "use any means nessacary" to stop people hooning around my round-about.

Changing a country to a Republic will not cost billions, that is a completely unsubstansiated claim.

Ok...

1. Change the coat of arms
2. Change government /ministerial/public sector documents, papers, stationary, name tags, etc etc (you know the rest of paper stuff) - all have commonwealth sigs on em
3. Our embassies overseas...must change all documents, titles etc etc
4. Companies re-registering under a republic rather than commonwealth of australia through business documents - esp international
5. passports all need to be reworked - not a commonwealth, but Republic of Australia (a few billion in its own right)
6. textbooks on civics and citizenship - all rewritten.
7. official seals of office changed
8. registration of organisations in Australia change
9. Defence force...all titles RAN and RAAF etc, ship manefests, offices etc etc etc
10. rewriting of constitution
11. holding three referendums ($200 million already gone)

...well i can think of many many more...but already we have reached a grand total in the double digit billions.

So much for that...wonder what new taxes we will get slugged with...

maybe the Republic Levy (of course levies rnt taxes we are told) or the You Will Thank Us Later Tax will help pay for this?

No, Labor will just borrow overseas and let generations to come pay off.

Changing a country to a Republic will not cost billions, that is a completely unsubstansiated claim.

Ok...

1. Change the coat of arms
2. Change government /ministerial/public sector documents, papers, stationary, name tags, etc etc (you know the rest of paper stuff) - all have commonwealth sigs on em
3. Our embassies overseas...must change all documents, titles etc etc
4. Companies re-registering under a republic rather than commonwealth of australia through business documents - esp international
5. passports all need to be reworked - not a commonwealth, but Republic of Australia (a few billion in its own right)
6. textbooks on civics and citizenship - all rewritten.
7. official seals of office changed
8. registration of organisations in Australia change
9. Defence force...all titles RAN and RAAF etc, ship manefests, offices etc etc etc
10. rewriting of constitution
11. holding three referendums ($200 million already gone)

...well i can think of many many more...but already we have reached a grand total in the double digit billions.

So much for that...wonder what new taxes we will get slugged with...

maybe the Republic Levy (of course levies rnt taxes we are told) or the You Will Thank Us Later Tax will help pay for this?

No, Labor will just borrow overseas and let generations to come pay off.

Aye for a republic. The royal family is redundant.

Excuse me....traditional ties???...Australia was began as a Penal colony, the wretched refuse from all corners of the Empire..

You have nothing to lose..throw off those shackles of past obsession with a decaying relic, once the Queen Mother dies...none of her progeny are worthy of the honor of the Crown anyway..only Princess Diana was found in my opinion to be the only stable person in that family...well..now we have her sons..but William and Harry are decades away from gaining the Throne at any rate.

Be proud of a person you Choose to head your government..not one merely used as a figurehead..

Aye for a republic. The royal family is redundant.

Excuse me....traditional ties???...Australia was began as a Penal colony, the wretched refuse from all corners of the Empire..

You have nothing to lose..throw off those shackles of past obsession with a decaying relic, once the Queen Mother dies...none of her progeny are worthy of the honor of the Crown anyway..only Princess Diana was found in my opinion to be the only stable person in that family...well..now we have her sons..but William and Harry are decades away from gaining the Throne at any rate.

Be proud of a person you Choose to head your government..not one merely used as a figurehead..

Aye for a republic. The royal family is redundant.

Excuse me....traditional ties???...Australia was began as a Penal colony, the wretched refuse from all corners of the Empire..

You have nothing to lose..throw off those shackles of past obsession with a decaying relic, once the Queen Mother dies...none of her progeny are worthy of the honor of the Crown anyway..only Princess Diana was found in my opinion to be the only stable person in that family...well..now we have her sons..but William and Harry are decades away from gaining the Throne at any rate.

Be proud of a person you Choose to head your government..not one merely used as a figurehead..

Are you being sarcastic? Because you got me confused there. :? maybe im just tired lol

If not, As a descendant of foreign immigrants like a huge percentage of Australia's population, I feel no attachment to the royal family or Great Britain whatsoever. So ditch them IMHO.

No to a republic! Ugh just think...high taxes :x

How does Republic = High Taxes?

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

It's bad enough now with this **** GST under Howard.

No to a republic! Ugh just think...high taxes :x

How does Republic = High Taxes?

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

It's bad enough now with this **** GST under Howard.

Labor would have put in the GST too...they are all the same.

But, if Latham wins, all states and the federal govt will be Labor...if they wanted, they could raise the GST as much as they wanted.

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

I thought yes, but then I remembered Brunei, which is ruled by a Sultan and is also part of the commonwealth. Being a monarchial system, I assume he is head of state also. But that's the only example I can think of.

No to a republic! Ugh just think...high taxes :x

How does Republic = High Taxes?

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

It's bad enough now with this **** GST under Howard.

Labor would have put in the GST too...they are all the same.

But, if Latham wins, all states and the federal govt will be Labor...if they wanted, they could raise the GST as much as they wanted.

Not necessarily. It would most likely have to go through Senate (Depending on how the initial bill stated how to change levels of the GST), and the odds are overwhelming that Labor will not hold a complete majority in the Senate. Nats and Liberals will oppose the bill, just for popularity points, the Democrats probably will, and the Greens will almost definitely oppose it also.

No to a republic! Ugh just think...high taxes :x

How does Republic = High Taxes?

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

It's bad enough now with this **** GST under Howard.

Labor would have put in the GST too...they are all the same.

But, if Latham wins, all states and the federal govt will be Labor...if they wanted, they could raise the GST as much as they wanted.

Not necessarily. It would most likely have to go through Senate (Depending on how the initial bill stated how to change levels of the GST), and the odds are overwhelming that Labor will not hold a complete majority in the Senate. Nats and Liberals will oppose the bill, just for popularity points, the Democrats probably will, and the Greens will almost definitely oppose it also.

How very mistaken you are...Labor could easily gain a majority in both houses...but I doubt it will win this year.

Also, do all the commonwealth countries have the queen or the queens representative as the head of state?

I thought yes, but then I remembered Brunei, which is ruled by a Sultan and is also part of the commonwealth. Being a monarchial system, I assume he is head of state also. But that's the only example I can think of.

Bangladesh (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html)
Botswana (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html)
Cameroon (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cm.html)
Cyprus (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cy.html)
Pakistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html)
Zimbabwe (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html)
South Africa (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html)


Sources:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
http://www.rcs-nsw.com.au/commonwlth_nations.htm.

My point being that it is not nessacary to have the Queen as head of state to be in the commonwealth.

PS. They're probably more, but I guessed the most likely suspects.

Quite simply, the Australian head of state should be an Australian.

Yes, constitutional monarchies are superior to corrupt/boring republics. There should continue to be a royal family, but why can't that family today be Australian rather than the distant and foreign British one? Serious consideration should also be given to having the Australian King and/or Queen be from the Aboriginal community.

Here in Canada we should make this same change to our head-of-state.

Quite simply, the Australian head of state should be an Australian.

Yes, constitutional monarchies are superior to corrupt/boring republics. There should continue to be a royal family, but why can't that family today be Australian rather than the distant and foreign British one? Serious consideration should also be given to having the Australian King and/or Queen be from the Aboriginal community.

Here in Canada we should make this same change to our head-of-state.

I was certainly not implying for even a moment that I believe in any supposed virtues of a constitutional monarchy.

The major problem with any form of monarchy is that if the incumbent/s begin to look a bit flaky then they become damned difficult to get rid of. A president would be far more easily removed.

Look at the history of the British monarchy - a pretty sad collection really, particularly the "House of Windsor" (having changed their namde from the original German).

As for the argument that it would cost billions and increase taxes etc, one can only wonder how all the other nations that have been through this process ever decided that it was worthwhile.

Away with foreign monarchs, lets have an Australian, an elected Australian, as our head of state.

The last referendum was a set-up designed to fail under the leadership of an openly monarchist Prime Minister, which only offered Australians the choice of continuing with the foreign manarch or adopting the worst possible and known unpopular model for a republic.

The Labor plan for plebiscite is far more honest and realistic.

Quite simply, the Australian head of state should be an Australian.

Yes, constitutional monarchies are superior to corrupt/boring republics. There should continue to be a royal family, but why can't that family today be Australian rather than the distant and foreign British one? Serious consideration should also be given to having the Australian King and/or Queen be from the Aboriginal community.

Here in Canada we should make this same change to our head-of-state.

I was certainly not implying for even a moment that I believe in any supposed virtues of a constitutional monarchy.

The major problem with any form of monarchy is that if the incumbent/s begin to look a bit flaky then they become damned difficult to get rid of. A president would be far more easily removed.

Look at the history of the British monarchy - a pretty sad collection really, particularly the "House of Windsor" (having changed their name from the original German).

As for the argument that it would cost billions and increase taxes etc, one can only wonder how all the other nations that have been through this process ever decided that it was worthwhile.

Away with foreign monarchs, lets have an Australian, an elected Australian, as our head of state.

The last referendum was a set-up designed to fail under the leadership of an openly monarchist Prime Minister, which only offered Australians the choice of continuing with the foreign manarch or adopting the worst possible and known unpopular model for a republic.

The Labor plan for plebiscite is far more honest and realistic.

The Labor plan for plebiscite is far more honest and realistic.

No its a trick.

Suppose we say YES to a republic (out of a YES or NO answer - 1st pleb)

Then at the next one...for the type...we will be given 3 or 4 options.

And when we dont like any of the four...

We get a Republic nobody really wants.

Labor is sneeky and if it ushers in its $100 billion Republic not only will history condemn Mark Latham, but the Liberals will govern Australia for at least 50 years following Labor being thrown from office when the country is plunged into heavy debt - again!

Bangladesh (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html)
Botswana (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html)
Cameroon (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cm.html)
Cyprus (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cy.html)
Pakistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html)
Zimbabwe (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html)
South Africa (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html)


Sources:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
http://www.rcs-nsw.com.au/commonwlth_nations.htm.

My point being that it is not nessacary to have the Queen as head of state to be in the commonwealth.

Great examples...nations which are suffering extreme poverty, social injustice and tyrannical leaderships. I think if that is what its like to be a Republic, we won't be changing anytime soon haha. :D :D :D

Bangladesh (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bg.html)
Botswana (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bc.html)
Cameroon (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cm.html)
Cyprus (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cy.html)
Pakistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html)
Zimbabwe (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html)
South Africa (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html)


Sources:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
http://www.rcs-nsw.com.au/commonwlth_nations.htm.

My point being that it is not nessacary to have the Queen as head of state to be in the commonwealth.

Great examples...nations which are suffering extreme poverty, social injustice and tyrannical leaderships. I think if that is what its like to be a Republic, we won't be changing anytime soon haha. :D :D :D

Right, so if I give examples that it is possible to be a Republic and remain in the commonwealth. The arguement is changed to [insert above quote]?

I can also give examples of commonwealth countries that are constitutional monarchies that also have extreme poverty, social injustice et al. I can even name a few that aren't in the commonwealth. I can also name Republics that do not have these things.

The Labor plan for plebiscite is far more honest and realistic.

No its a trick.

Suppose we say YES to a republic (out of a YES or NO answer - 1st pleb)

Then at the next one...for the type...we will be given 3 or 4 options.

And when we dont like any of the four...

We get a Republic nobody really wants.

Labor is sneeky and if it ushers in its $100 billion Republic not only will history condemn Mark Latham, but the Liberals will govern Australia for at least 50 years following Labor being thrown from office when the country is plunged into heavy debt - again!

I don't know if you are Australian, but assume you are. I am. The only "trick" referendum was the last one, where we were offered the "choice" of a republican model that was well-recognised as being unpopular, or remaining with the constitutional monarchy. Thus, we got the constitutional monarchy the the majority (check any of the polls) didn't really want.

If you are convinced that we should remain a constitutional monarchy, simply vote "no" at the initial plebiscite. You obviously, however, realise that that will be the minority position, and are therefore rightfully beginning to panic already.

The "$100 billion republic" you quote is obviously ridiculous - otherwise could you kindly provide a source to back up your assertion.

The question of constitutional monarchy verus republic also does not determine economic policy!

If a republic was such a bad choice, please point to a country that has reverted to being a monarchy after being a republic.

The Labor plan for plebiscite is far more honest and realistic.

No its a trick.

Suppose we say YES to a republic (out of a YES or NO answer - 1st pleb)

Then at the next one...for the type...we will be given 3 or 4 options.

And when we dont like any of the four...

We get a Republic nobody really wants.

Labor is sneeky and if it ushers in its $100 billion Republic not only will history condemn Mark Latham, but the Liberals will govern Australia for at least 50 years following Labor being thrown from office when the country is plunged into heavy debt - again!

I don't know if you are Australian, but assume you are. I am. The only "trick" referendum was the last one, where we were offered the "choice" of a republican model that was well-recognised as being unpopular, or remaining with the constitutional monarchy. Thus, we got the constitutional monarchy the the majority (check any of the polls) didn't really want.

If you are convinced that we should remain a constitutional monarchy, simply vote "no" at the initial plebiscite. You obviously, however, realise that that will be the minority position, and are therefore rightfully beginning to panic already.

The "$100 billion republic" you quote is obviously ridiculous - otherwise could you kindly provide a source to back up your assertion.

The question of constitutional monarchy verus republic also does not determine economic policy!

If a republic was such a bad choice, please point to a country that has reverted to being a monarchy after being a republic.

Smea kindly read page 2 of this thread where I listed some of many things which would need to be changed to accomodate a Republic. You will find many many billions of dollars in those points alone. Commonsense and a little economics tells you that this Republic is not worth the cost.

You obviously, however, realise that that will be the minority position, and are therefore rightfully beginning to panic already.

Minority? :lol: You are funny, really.

Since Mark Latham will fail to win the election this year I see no need to actually panic at all.

I am simply pointing out the facts.

Having said YES, we will likely be offered 3 models for a Republic that nobody wants yet we will have no choice but to select one.

That is a trick, and a dirty one at that. But its Labor, no surprises there.

You obviously, however, realise that that will be the minority position, and are therefore rightfully beginning to panic already.

Minority? :lol: You are funny, really.

Since Mark Latham will fail to win the election this year I see no need to actually panic at all.

I am simply pointing out the facts.

Having said YES, we will likely be offered 3 models for a Republic that nobody wants yet we will have no choice but to select one.

That is a trick, and a dirty one at that. But its Labor, no surprises there.

You obviously, however, realise that that will be the minority position, and are therefore rightfully beginning to panic already.

Minority? :lol: You are funny, really.

Since Mark Latham will fail to win the election this year I see no need to actually panic at all.

I am simply pointing out the facts.

Having said YES, we will likely be offered 3 models for a Republic that nobody wants yet we will have no choice but to select one.

That is a trick, and a dirty one at that. But its Labor, no surprises there.

Thank you for arguing my case for me.

The "Having said YES" is what we both know will happen.

Give the people the republic that they want, instead of the foreign head of state that is a mere relic of our colonial past.

Thank you for arguing my case for me.

The "Having said YES" is what we both know will happen.

Give the people the republic that they want, instead of the foreign head of state that is a mere relic of our colonial past.

I did not argue your case...I was of course speaking under the hypothetical situation of the development of a Republic (you really should read all the posts so far)

Ahhhh so that's what it is about...you don't like Australia's past...well no Republic can change history, but it can short change the electorate.

When told of the cost...you watch public opinion turn dramatically.

I notice you failed to reply on the issue of cost....cat got your tongue?

Thank you for arguing my case for me.

The "Having said YES" is what we both know will happen.

Give the people the republic that they want, instead of the foreign head of state that is a mere relic of our colonial past.

I did not argue your case...I was of course speaking under the hypothetical situation of the development of a Republic (you really should read all the posts so far)

Ahhhh so that's what it is about...you don't like Australia's past...well no Republic can change history, but it can short change the electorate.

When told of the cost...you watch public opinion turn dramatically.

I notice you failed to reply on the issue of cost....cat got your tongue?

You are the one who supplied "rubbery figures" on cost. You still have not provided anything except a list of what you consider would be required, absolutely none of which is costed. You provided your own cost estimate, I challenge you to justify it.

I also asked you to show any country that has decided to revert from a republic to a monarchy. Come, come, even I could name some. But we both know they are a very small minority.

You are the one who supplied "rubbery figures" on cost. You still have not provided anything except a list of what you consider would be required, absolutely none of which is costed. You provided your own cost estimate, I challenge you to justify it.

Item 1.

Recall of all passports, design a new type, have people resubmit details and documentation, produce them, send new ones out...

Grand total = $6 billion

That is just one item...and then add on the remaining 150 or so things requiring change and you easily reach $100 billion - perhaps not all paid through the government via taxes...but you get the point that it will be a cost we can ill afford.

You are the one who supplied "rubbery figures" on cost. You still have not provided anything except a list of what you consider would be required, absolutely none of which is costed. You provided your own cost estimate, I challenge you to justify it.

Item 1.

Recall of all passports, design a new type, have people resubmit details and documentation, produce them, send new ones out...

Grand total = $6 billion

That is just one item...and then add on the remaining 150 or so things requiring change and you easily reach $100 billion - perhaps not all paid through the government via taxes...but you get the point that it will be a cost we can ill afford.

How about a sane reason that you would do this?

Why not just start afresh with new passports if required?

If we had followed your line of "reasoning" we would still be six separate colonies, congratulating ourselves on the expense we had save by never becoming an independent (mostly) nation.

You are the one who supplied "rubbery figures" on cost. You still have not provided anything except a list of what you consider would be required, absolutely none of which is costed. You provided your own cost estimate, I challenge you to justify it.

Item 1.

Recall of all passports, design a new type, have people resubmit details and documentation, produce them, send new ones out...

Grand total = $6 billion

That is just one item...and then add on the remaining 150 or so things requiring change and you easily reach $100 billion - perhaps not all paid through the government via taxes...but you get the point that it will be a cost we can ill afford.

How about a sane reason that you would do this?

Why not just start afresh with new passports if required?

If we had followed your line of "reasoning" we would still be six separate colonies, congratulating ourselves on the expense we had save by never becoming an independent (mostly) nation.

Becoming a nation was something we were able to afford. Australia is independent, we decide what is best for ourselves...the Governor General is an Australian and approves government decisions and appoints ministers.

Effectively, we govern ourselves. So what is your reasoning? The Queen has never meddled in our affairs and the only expense is the Governor General's salary.

Why spend billions then? It is a waste of taxpayer funds. There are more important issues which require funding.

New passports you mentioned...what do you think I meant? Alter the current ones? :lol: Seriously, you are not reading my posts properly.

Of course new passports are required...at a cost of $6 billion.

Tell me, where do we find that kind of money?

If you can tell me where Australia will find up to $100 billion without going into debt and without raising a single tax or without cutting services...then I will support a Republic. But you cannot find the money, nobody can and that is why republicans love to avoid the "cost" issue.

When told they will be slugged with a whopping big bill, the public will vote NO to a republic.

I am all for a republic, but the model is what gets me. I like the fact we have two guys (the PM and Governer-General) who can fire each other. I like the fact that technically the Queen is our head of state, that she's nothing more than a figure head with no real power.

If we can retain similar features as a republic, without giving too much power to one individual (such as the US President has in my opinion, that's just my opinion and I can't bothered backing it up if someone wants to argue, it's to bloody hot today), I'm all for a republic. As long as he/she who wields excutive power has someone to keep them in check, I'm happy.

So what you are saying is you want everything to be the same as it is now, but under a different name...that makes little sense.

Spend billions and billions of dollars to merely change a name. Whoever founded such a republic would most definately be demonised in history for generations to come.

What up? What happened to simple 'Benicius'? Tried replying last night but the damn thing went all screwy.

I was trying to outline the model of republic I wanted, I don't want the same system they have in place in the US (no offence to Americans out there). I think the Australian head of state should be an Australian, not English, that's my main point. I was trying to point out that we should retain a similar system, just change who's at the top of it.

The Victorian state government has already begun phasing out the use of the Crown on its stationary etc and the state of Victoria is doing fine economically. If we do change to republic, I think we have enough smart economist in our country to minimise its financial repurcussions.

Admittedly, I have not really done much research into the republic models on offer, but the one from history I like technically speaking is the Weimar Republic model. If it hadn't been set up in such an unstable country like Germany was at the end of WWI I think it would have provided for a good system of governance. Too bad Hitler came along and screwed it up, but we can plug up the loop holes to stop a dictator and tailor it to suit our needs. That had a 'figure head' heads of state (the President) and an actual head of state (the Chancellor), just make the G-G the 'President' and the PM 'Chancellor' (ofcourse call them whatever, just give them the roles).

But an Australian Royal Family? I kind of like the idea, just as long as I get to be king! I don't think it would be very feasible, how would choose one? I suppose we could havbe an election on it, we could have the first 'elected' monarch in human history, I like the irony of that.

You are the one who supplied "rubbery figures" on cost. You still have not provided anything except a list of what you consider would be required, absolutely none of which is costed. You provided your own cost estimate, I challenge you to justify it.

Item 1.

Recall of all passports, design a new type, have people resubmit details and documentation, produce them, send new ones out...

Grand total = $6 billion

That is just one item...and then add on the remaining 150 or so things requiring change and you easily reach $100 billion - perhaps not all paid through the government via taxes...but you get the point that it will be a cost we can ill afford.

How about a sane reason that you would do this?

Why not just start afresh with new passports if required?

If we had followed your line of "reasoning" we would still be six separate colonies, congratulating ourselves on the expense we had save by never becoming an independent (mostly) nation.

Becoming a nation was something we were able to afford. Australia is independent, we decide what is best for ourselves...the Governor General is an Australian and approves government decisions and appoints ministers.

Effectively, we govern ourselves. So what is your reasoning? The Queen has never meddled in our affairs and the only expense is the Governor General's salary.

Why spend billions then? It is a waste of taxpayer funds. There are more important issues which require funding.

New passports you mentioned...what do you think I meant? Alter the current ones? :lol: Seriously, you are not reading my posts properly.

Of course new passports are required...at a cost of $6 billion.

Tell me, where do we find that kind of money?

If you can tell me where Australia will find up to $100 billion without going into debt and without raising a single tax or without cutting services...then I will support a Republic. But you cannot find the money, nobody can and that is why republicans love to avoid the "cost" issue.

When told they will be slugged with a whopping big bill, the public will vote NO to a republic.

Still do not understand why new passports would be required.

The nation would remain the "Commonwealth of Australia", with the "Commonwealth" referring to the union of the composite states. So why new passports?

And if any change is required, why not just "phase" it in?

Looks like you are trying to find obstacles where there are none.

And if any change is required, why not just "phase" it in?

Very difficult to phase in something that is of importance to national security.

I think you are resorting to idle complaints because you cannot argue against the costs.

Banana...sorry about the name change (was deleted unfairly oh well *shrugs shoulders*)...well England doesn't interfere and the top dog is the Governor General (he doesnt ask the Queen permission to approve a Senate Bill) - Australian by birth. Why change then?

The fact is, republican love to avoid the cost issue because they know this is where it hurts their cause.

And what do we get for all these billions? A token title...Repubic.

Big deal...being a republic costs, it does nothing else. We will still be Australia, just economically stuffed. :roll: (thank goodness for Howard)

The nation would remain the "Commonwealth of Australia", with the "Commonwealth" referring to the union of the composite states. So why new passports?

The proposal is to change us to The Republic of Australia...didn't you know that?

Honestly...you must read up little one!

The nation would remain the "Commonwealth of Australia", with the "Commonwealth" referring to the union of the composite states. So why new passports?

The proposal is to change us to The Republic of Australia...didn't you know that?

Honestly...you must read up little one!

No, the proposal is to change our head of state.

The name change is not required, and was not suggested at the last referendum.

The proposal is not to change the title of the Australian nation at all.
Get your facts straight.

The nation would remain the "Commonwealth of Australia", with the "Commonwealth" referring to the union of the composite states. So why new passports?

The proposal is to change us to The Republic of Australia...didn't you know that?

Honestly...you must read up little one!

No, the proposal is to change our head of state.

The name change is not required, and was not suggested at the last referendum.

The proposal is not to change the title of the Australian nation at all.
Get your facts straight.

facts are facts, so what you say makes no sense.

however, as you so eagerly pointed out, the last referrendum was a failure...this time they are proposing many changes...even some of the republicans are a bit concerned.

dear child, read up

The nation would remain the "Commonwealth of Australia", with the "Commonwealth" referring to the union of the composite states. So why new passports?

The proposal is to change us to The Republic of Australia...didn't you know that?

Honestly...you must read up little one!

No, the proposal is to change our head of state.

The name change is not required, and was not suggested at the last referendum.

The proposal is not to change the title of the Australian nation at all.
Get your facts straight.

facts are facts, so what you say makes no sense.

however, as you so eagerly pointed out, the last referrendum was a failure...this time they are proposing many changes...even some of the republicans are a bit concerned.

dear child, read up

The full proposals for the alteration to the Australian Constitution can be found here :
http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/1999referendum/constitution.shtml#chapter1

If you care to peruse it you will discover, undoubtedly to your surprise, that Australia would still be known as the Commonwealth of Australia, as I have previously stated. Australia was known as a Commonwealth from 1900, that "Commonwealth" referring to a "Coomonwealth" of the constituent states.

Even the arguemt for the "No" case on that occassion, which can be found here

http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/1999referendum/no-case-republic.pdf

makes no reference to a title change from "Commonwealth of Australia".

If you are going to make wild assertions, please attempt to back them up with some facts.

Also, I find your patronising attitude offensive. "Honestly...you must read up little one!" and "dear child, read up" are uncalled for.

I can understand why you have previously been deleted.

Also, I find your patronising attitude offensive. "Honestly...you must read up little one!" and "dear child, read up" are uncalled for.

I can understand why you have previously been deleted.

Haha it wasn't for that I assure you...patronising...not at all young one...merely speaking the truth.

You simply do not read the posts properly...you contradict yourself by first saying that the republic model in 1999 wasn't good and this time it will be different...then turn around and try and back yourself up with the same thing....weird.

Anyway, you're not making this interesting anymore...time to go from this well not a debate, cause its boring.

Also, I find your patronising attitude offensive. "Honestly...you must read up little one!" and "dear child, read up" are uncalled for.

I can understand why you have previously been deleted.

Haha it wasn't for that I assure you...patronising...not at all young one...merely speaking the truth.

You simply do not read the posts properly...you contradict yourself by first saying that the republic model in 1999 wasn't good and this time it will be different...then turn around and try and back yourself up with the same thing....weird.

Anyway, you're not making this interesting anymore...time to go from this well not a debate, cause its boring.

Yes, time to flee if presented with some real facts.

And you contuinue to be offensively patronising.

Find one document that proposes a name change associated with the change to a republic, and present it to this forum, if you can.

Lord Pheonix Benicius, knock it off.

You can make your point without being needlessly insulting.

I'm *really* confused here . . . isn't Australia a soveregin country already?? and what type of gov't does it have now? a parliamentary democracy??

I'm *really* confused here . . . isn't Australia a soveregin country already?? and what type of gov't does it have now? a parliamentary democracy??

We are our own soveriegn country, we make our decisions on foriegn policy (that can be argued though), domestic affairs and all the rest. We have a democratically elected government, we have an election this year. We have a Westminster system of government, the same as England but we have a Lower House and Upper House instead of Lords and Commons. Basically the PM is incharge (we elect him) but the Queen is the head of state (the only power she has though is to fire our PM through the Governer General). We have the same parlimentary system as Britain pretty much and our type of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

I personally think it's a good system, it ensures there is not too much power in the hands of one person, I'd rather have an Australian head of state though. Another thing I like about our system is that someone like George Bush wouldn't last ten seconds, he'd have to answer too many questions without his 'advisors' telling him what to say, he'd have to think on his feet (Question Time in parliment is a good show to watch) and his empty rhetoric would get him nowhere. A good ability to speak English is essential too.

I'm *really* confused here . . . isn't Australia a soveregin country already?? and what type of gov't does it have now? a parliamentary democracy??

We are our own soveriegn country, we make our decisions on foriegn policy (that can be argued though), domestic affairs and all the rest. We have a democratically elected government, we have an election this year. We have a Westminster system of government, the same as England but we have a Lower House and Upper House instead of Lords and Commons. Basically the PM is incharge (we elect him) but the Queen is the head of state (the only power she has though is to fire our PM through the Governer General). We have the same parlimentary system as Britain pretty much and our type of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

I personally think it's a good system, it ensures there is not too much power in the hands of one person, I'd rather have an Australian head of state though. Another thing I like about our system is that someone like George Bush wouldn't last ten seconds, he'd have to answer too many questions without his 'advisors' telling him what to say, he'd have to think on his feet (Question Time in parliment is a good show to watch) and his empty rhetoric would get him nowhere. A good ability to speak English is essential too.

Bascially, Australia, like the United Kingdom, is a constitutional monarchy with a monarch as its head of State. In 1901, Australia was constituted as a Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That single Crown was subsequently divided and evolved, and now at law the Queen in Australia is known as the Queen of Australia. Our legal and governmental systems are based on the proposition that Australia is a monarchy. The Queen is a part of the Parliament and the source of executive power. Justice is administered in the law courts in the name of the Queen. Our Parliamentarians swear allegiance to the Queen and defence forces swear to serve the Queen.

Although, the Prime Minister is called the head of government, the legal power of executive government is actually vested in the Queen under section 61 of the Australian Constitution. We can only describe the Prime Minister as the head of government because, under the Westminster conventions of responsible government, the Queen (and her representative the Governor-General) only exercise their powers with, and in accord with, the advice of the Prime Minister and the other Ministers of State. Nevertheless, legally and formally, the Queen sits at the pinnacle of Australia's constitutional arrangements.

Australian republicanism is concerned with replacing the hereditary monarch and her representative, the Governor-General, with a nominated or elected head of State (however that position might be titled). They are seking to remove the monarchical forms and symbols from our already republican system of government.

Australian republicanism is not about instituting representative parliamentary democracy nor responsible cabinet government. Australia had these before federation in 1901. Nor is Australian republicanism about achieving independence or sovereignty for the Australian nation; both have been long achieved.

The key argument in support of an Australia republic is the importance of appropriate national symbolism compared with the symbolic failure of the current arrangements:

The symbolism of Australia sharing its legal head of state with a number of other nations is no longer appropriate. The British monarch is the head of State of some 15 nations.

The notions of hereditary, primogeniture, sexual discrimination and religious discrimination inherent in the succession of the throne have no place in Australia's democratic and egalitarian society.

The monarchy in not an Australian institution and its retention is inconsistent with our status as a sovereign and independent nation. The Queen's successor will be chosen under the laws of the United Kingdom and not the laws of Australia.

The British monarchy is irrelevant to most Australians and can longer sustain national pride nor embody our national identity:

Most Australians are now embarrassed by Prime Minister Menzies' 1954 statement about the Queen, "I did but see her passing by, and yet I love her till I die".

They find it awkward when Parliamentarians are required to swear their true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

It is bizarre when foreign dignitaries toast the "Queen of Australia". This is especially so with other Commonwealth Countries. It is not unusual for us to toast (for example) the "Queen of New Zealand", and for them to respond with a toast to same person but styled as the "Queen of Australia".

Australians were horrified at the thought of the British monarch opening the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games as our head of State. The government ensured that the Queen was not invited so that the incongruity of her opening the Games does not arise. (Fortunately, the 14 other nations, to whom the Queen is the head of State, did not consider this a slight on their head of State).

In opinion polls, it is evident that most Australians would prefer an Australian head of State to the monarchy.

Despite the misinformation spread by some, the cost would be minimal.

Genrally, I believe that our system works well. Voting is compulsory, which I think is a good thing and our politicians do seem to be subject to more scrutiny than the US ones, and our electoral processes do not seem to have so many staged promotional "events".

The change to a republic, in my opinion, would complete our transformation from an English penal colony to an independent nation.

Sorry, DP.

bump

Australian republicanism is not about instituting representative parliamentary democracy nor responsible cabinet government. Australia had these before federation in 1901. Nor is Australian republicanism about achieving independence or sovereignty for the Australian nation; both have been long achieved.

and later...

The change to a republic, in my opinion, would complete our transformation from an English penal colony to an independent nation.

But you just said we had already achieved independence and sovereignty...then you say we are not. Can you explain your contradiction? Taking your first claim that we are independent and sovereign, why bother with a republic then? There is no need to change what is already working well.

Despite the misinformation spread by some, the cost would be minimal.

Minimal cost...then I would like to see a full costing written by you...right down to the last dollar. If what you say is true, then you must obviously have the full costings at hand. When stating something like that it is expected you provide evidence.

We are our own soveriegn country, we make our decisions on foriegn policy (that can be argued though), domestic affairs and all the rest. We have a democratically elected government, we have an election this year. We have a Westminster system of government, the same as England but we have a Lower House and Upper House instead of Lords and Commons. Basically the PM is incharge (we elect him) but the Queen is the head of state (the only power she has though is to fire our PM through the Governer General). We have the same parlimentary system as Britain pretty much and our type of government is a Constitutional Monarchy.

I personally think it's a good system, it ensures there is not too much power in the hands of one person, I'd rather have an Australian head of state though. Another thing I like about our system is that someone like George Bush wouldn't last ten seconds, he'd have to answer too many questions without his 'advisors' telling him what to say, he'd have to think on his feet (Question Time in parliment is a good show to watch) and his empty rhetoric would get him nowhere. A good ability to speak English is essential too.

Well Question Time as you would notice often has a lot of questions to Ministers asked from their own backbenches. However, I agree on the thinking on their feet rather than pre-prepared speeches in front of a podium.

With the Head of State, althought the G-G is the Queen's Representative, he is an Australian. It is a fact that the Monarch has never interfered in the politics of Australia once - not even in the Whitlam Dismissal when Kerr had the final say.

We are free, sovereign and independent - the queen costs us absolutely nothing. Why spend money for a change which is really not necessary?

Afterall, most Australians agree the Head of State should be above politics. The Queen is, but tell me what the chances of finding someone similar here in Australia are? Really. Take a look at America...the President is the Head of State, yet is extremely political.

I thought Australia was independent.

I thought Australia was independent.

Australia is...that is why many are baffled by calls for a Republic.

I thought Australia was independent.

Australia is...that is why many are baffled by calls for a Republic.

It's not really that confusing, even for one who once believed that we would no longer be called the Commonwealth of Australia if we were to become a republic. Do hope you checked the actual proposals for changes to the Constitution.

The issue quite simply is whether the Australian Head of State should be either
An Australian, whether appointed or elected

or

The reigning British monarch.

I can think of no real reason why an Australian should not be the Australian Head of State.

Avoids potential conflict of interest if nothing else.

Not stepping off the fence on any side.
But technically the Queen is both Australian and English, she is the queen of all these places rather than belonging to one. She does not as far as I know even have a passport.
I don't know if a US style president (or French style) and all the lseeze that involves is always a good move. But hey I'm British so you do what you want to do.
One question though, how many times do you have to have a vote on something before it is settled. Or do you just keep going with the minimum possible pause until the 'right' answer is given then stop?

Still awaiting your report on the costs of this Republic...

Still awaiting your report on the costs of this Republic...

Still awaiting your response. You were the one who produced rubbery figures, claiming that all passports would need to be changed because Australia would no longer be called the Commonwealth of Australia if it became a republic. You quoted a figure of $100 billion, which you have still not produced any sources for.

I pointed you to two separate websites, one of which was arguing the monarchists viewpoint. Neither of the two websites made this peculiar assumption re the "Commonwealth" title, nor supported your costing.

I had hope you may have learned from that experience.

I repeat, you are the one who made claims about cost. Please provide any supporting documentation for your outrageous claims. I have already shown, via the websites listed, what would occur in the process.

As the old Aussie saying goes, put up or shut up.

:roll:

Australia should be a republic.

Put simply, it is degrading for us to have a foreign Queen. If she were Australian, it would be an entirely different matter. She is simply inappropriate as our figurehead.

And Benicus, please provide support for that $100b...you said it was $10b last we discussed this.

[Barring another eeevil shipload of baby-throwing refugees, Latham can't lose.]

Barring another eeevil shipload of baby-throwing refugees, Latham can't lose.]

:D May 11th. Cannot wait. I just hope after he wins again, that Howard decides to stay on for maybe another term...or two :wink:

However...Gollum...You should present some evidence to support your minimal cost...I have already given you many examples (with individual costs) and a grand total.

Fil...I discovered 50 + other costs since posting to you so the amount had to change.

Latham's Republic is vastly different to the one the Republican Movement has been propounding. There seems to be a lot of disagreement between them too over it.

I should note that the 3 referrendums alone will cost $200 million. There are a lot better things to spend that initial amount on alone.

Barring another eeevil shipload of baby-throwing refugees, Latham can't lose.]

:D May 11th. Cannot wait. I just hope after he wins again, that Howard decides to stay on for maybe another term...or two :wink:

However...Gollum...You should present some evidence to support your minimal cost...I have already given you many examples (with individual costs) and a grand total.

Fil...I discovered 50 + other costs since posting to you so the amount had to change.

Latham's Republic is vastly different to the one the Republican Movement has been propounding. There seems to be a lot of disagreement between them too over it.

I should note that the 3 referrendums alone will cost $200 million. There are a lot better things to spend that initial amount on alone.

There's going to be another shipload of eeevil baby-throwing refugees, isn't there. :cry:

There's going to be another shipload of eeevil baby-throwing refugees, isn't there. :cry:

No no, something different :D :D :D (beams with happiness)

So the Republic will be put off another few terms.

There's going to be another shipload of eeevil baby-throwing refugees, isn't there. :cry:

No no, something different :D :D :D (beams with happiness)

So the Republic will be put off another few terms.

Since the Libs like the American socio-economic model so damn much, why can't they give us the two-term limit, too?

*pouts*

Since the Libs like the American socio-economic model so damn much, why can't they give us the two-term limit, too?

*pouts*

No, the Libs like the Australian model actually.

Well I put this to you on the two term model...what happens if you get a really great government (led by a great leader) and they are ousted after their two term limit? That is in my view a bad move.

If you get a bad government, you can get rid of them at the polls once every 3 years...and believe me 3 year terms are ample! A fourth year would only give politicians more time to do very little.

Since the Libs like the American socio-economic model so damn much, why can't they give us the two-term limit, too?

*pouts*

No, the Libs like the Australian model actually.

Well I put this to you on the two term model...what happens if you get a really great government (led by a great leader) and they are ousted after their two term limit? That is in my view a bad move.

If you get a bad government, you can get rid of them at the polls once every 3 years...and believe me 3 year terms are ample! A fourth year would only give politicians more time to do very little.

All of them have drawbacks, and after more than two terms those drawbacks come into sharp relief. Which has happened very extensively under the Howard regime. :P A bit of fresh air is almost always a good thing, and I agree on the three years.

But we're getting off topic.

Indeed...but just to say there will be no Republic in 2007.

Barring another eeevil shipload of baby-throwing refugees, Latham can't lose.]

:D May 11th. Cannot wait. I just hope after he wins again, that Howard decides to stay on for maybe another term...or two :wink:

However...Gollum...You should present some evidence to support your minimal cost...I have already given you many examples (with individual costs) and a grand total.

Fil...I discovered 50 + other costs since posting to you so the amount had to change.

Latham's Republic is vastly different to the one the Republican Movement has been propounding. There seems to be a lot of disagreement between them too over it.

I should note that the 3 referrendums alone will cost $200 million. There are a lot better things to spend that initial amount on alone.

Produce your figures.

Your claimed costings are ridiculous, and not even supported by the monarchists, whose website I have provided a link to, in the interests of fairness.

Where is your costing????????

And please, not something off the top of your head, at least provide a reference to sources, as I have done. Your ludicrous claims regarding the name change from Commonwealth of Australia give a pretty good summation of the quality of your research.

The "50+ other costs" you now claim can be verified where??????

I have provided sources, its your turn. I repeat, in the words of the old Aussie expression, put up or shut up.

Any reasonably independent source will do. No, any source other than your own flights of fancy would be acceptable.

Please insert source here ..........

:roll:

Well I won't run to moderation for your abuse "shut up" but I ask you remove that sentence as it is not something one says in civilised conversation.

I provided my costings for several major parts, yet all you have said is it will not cost much.

How much will it cost then since you claim I am wrong? I would like to see a list on this thread. Do not point to websites please.

Your continual avoidance of answering leads readers to only one solution...and that is you have no evidence in support.

Your finger is pointed towards a movement which recently expressed great concern at Latham's Republican vision - far removed from what was proposed in 1999.

Well good news...

In order to even have a referrendum...both houses of parliament have to pass a bill for Australia to become a republic.

First problem:

Labor will not get a majority in the Senate even if it won government.

Also...for a party having a whinge about public education, instead of that initial $200 million (and untold billions) going towards a republic vote...why doesn't Labor simply put it into education? A 3 year deadline is also unachievable.

The only reason we have this republican issue is because there are Australians out there who have a big fear of the "convict taint".

Well I won't run to moderation for your abuse "shut up" but I ask you remove that sentence as it is not something one says in civilised conversation.

I provided my costings for several major parts, yet all you have said is it will not cost much.

How much will it cost then since you claim I am wrong? I would like to see a list on this thread. Do not point to websites please.

Your continual avoidance of answering leads readers to only one solution...and that is you have no evidence in support.

Your finger is pointed towards a movement which recently expressed great concern at Latham's Republican vision - far removed from what was proposed in 1999.

You have only made two arguments against the idea of a republic.

One being that it would be Lathams or Labor's republic. This is obviously a
furphy as the republican model would be determined by a series of plebiscites and referenda. Thus, it would be the people's republic.

The other point you make is that the change would be expensive. You have quoted figures ranging up to $100 billion. I am not the only person to challenge you on these costings. Please produce some source, other than you overly-active imagination, for these costings, if you wish to have any credibility at all in this regards.

The excuse that your sources have been "thrown overboard" will not be acceptable.

If costs were such an over-riding factor, one can only wonder how so many nations have become republics within the last 50 to 60 years, without ruining their economies.

I challenge you yet again. Produce some source for your ludicrous costing claims.

DP

I already gave you the costings and did a full list quite a while back somewhere - can't be bothered finding it again.

Anyway Gollum, prove the minimal cost argument...you're beginning to sound a lot like Latham - all talk and no costings! You claim I am wrong, then prove it please.

I already gave you the costings and did a full list quite a while back somewhere - can't be bothered finding it again.

Anyway Gollum, prove the minimal cost argument...you're beginning to sound a lot like Latham - all talk and no costings! You claim I am wrong, then prove it please.

I tire of this constant refusal by Benicius to provide costings while insisting that others should, and claiming that a move to a repulican Australia should be avoided due to the high costs involved. Let's just review what has been posted to date.

The only list ever provided by Lord Pheonix Benicius was seemingly sourced from nowhere except his imagination.

It included the cost of replacing all passports, because they carry the description of "Commomwealth of Australia". He had somehow conceived the overly imaginative idea that a republican Australia would have to be known as the Republic of Australia, instead of retaining the title of the Commonwealth of Australia.

To counter this ludicrous suggestion, I provided a link to show that the constitiutional amendments required for a repulican Australia would in no way affect the title of the nation.

His comments so far include :

"Spend billions and billions of dollars to merely change a name "(Page 1.) Uncosted, and with little or no appreciation of the actual effects of the constitutional changes which would occur.

"Is there any proper argument for spending billions on a republic?" (Page 2). Uncosted.

His most amusing, if far-fetched, listing then read as follows:

"Ok...

1. Change the coat of arms
2. Change government /ministerial/public sector documents, papers, stationary, name tags, etc etc (you know the rest of paper stuff) - all have commonwealth sigs on em
3. Our embassies overseas...must change all documents, titles etc etc
4. Companies re-registering under a republic rather than commonwealth of australia through business documents - esp international
5. passports all need to be reworked - not a commonwealth, but Republic of Australia (a few billion in its own right)
6. textbooks on civics and citizenship - all rewritten.
7. official seals of office changed
8. registration of organisations in Australia change
9. Defence force...all titles RAN and RAAF etc, ship manefests, offices etc etc etc
10. rewriting of constitution
11. holding three referendums ($200 million already gone)

...well i can think of many many more...but already we have reached a grand total in the double digit billions." (Page 2)

The seeming justification for this particular flight of fancy is merely hisown idea that a republican Australia would no longer be called the Commonwealth of Australia. The vast majority of this listing, none of which is properly costed anyway, would not even be applicable. "Double digit billions" has suddenly been produced by summing the $200 million referendums and his own imagination. We therefore, logically, have a "double digit billions" imagination to contend with.

"Labor is sneeky and if it ushers in its $100 billion Republic " (Page 3). Totally uncosted, and we have somehow gone from "double digit billions" to "$100 billion" in the space of a page, but with no justification shown. Quite a "sneaky" move of itself. And ignores the fact that plebiscites and referenda can scarcely be described as "sneaky".

"Recall of all passports, design a new type, have people resubmit details and documentation, produce them, send new ones out...

Grand total = $6 billion " (Page 3)

I then specifically asked him "Still do not understand why new passports would be required. The nation would remain the "Commonwealth of Australia", with the "Commonwealth" referring to the union of the composite states. So why new passports?

His reply : "The proposal is to change us to The Republic of Australia...didn't you know that?" (Page 3). Simple misunderstanding or misinformation. That's why a provided the link to the actual proposals, to establish that no change to the title of the nation was proposed. The majority of his listing therefore evaporates at this point.

I then stated "Despite the misinformation spread by some, the cost would be minimal." (Page 4). His reply was : "Minimal cost...then I would like to see a full costing written by you...right down to the last dollar. " So, my statement of "minimal" requires full costing down to the last dollar, his $100 billion claim does not.

Filamai then posted "Benicus, please provide support for that $100b...you said it was $10b last we discussed this. " (Page 4).

His reply was "Fil...I discovered 50 + other costs since posting to you so the amount had to change. " No listing , no source, no costing.

I also asked him provide a source.

Nothing has been forthcoming.

In summation, Benicius has claimed a costing of $100 billion. My claim was for "minimal" in comparison. I really think that such apparently excessive figure of $100 billion claimed, along with a supposed list of over 50 costed items requires some justification.

For one whose sole argument is based upon the supposed costing of a republic, the "can't be bothered finding it " must ring very hollow.

I am happy to debate a republic based on facts. To argue against the imagination of Lord Pheonix Benicius, however, is a different matter entirely.

All your claims continue to damage your case for a Republic.

We are expected to pay under your claims for something which changes nothing for the better. Australians get no benefits.

Why change? Why not stay the same?

Your argument was the "convict taint"...you really must do some research because that issue has been dead for over 60 years.

So you would deny even the cost of holding the referrendums? This shows your lack of understanding of the issues involved.

If you post here from now on you should really do your research...instead of writing boring essays and failing to quote properly, try putting your nose into a few documents/policypapers etc. Please don't surf republican or monarchist websites whose agendas claim very different things.

All your claims continue to damage your case for a Republic.

We are expected to pay under your claims for something which changes nothing for the better. Australians get no benefits.

Why change? Why not stay the same?

Your argument was the "convict taint"...you really must do some research because that issue has been dead for over 60 years.

So you would deny even the cost of holding the referrendums? This shows your lack of understanding of the issues involved.

If you post here from now on you should really do your research...instead of writing boring essays and failing to quote properly, try putting your nose into a few documents/policypapers etc. Please don't surf republican or monarchist websites whose agendas claim very different things.

I have quoted both republican and monarchist websites in order to attempt to provide a balanced viewpoint, and to provide documentary support for my statements. Perhaps Lord Pheonix Benicius could attempt to find support from any websites for his claims, so that he can share his discoveries re costings with us all. If its "documents or policy papers" that one should refer to, perhaps Lord Pheonix Benicius could advise us of which particular documents or policy papers one should in fact check. Of course, if these only exist in the imagination of Lord Pheonix Benicius this could be an impossible exercise.

My argument is not "the convict taint", my argument, and the argument of all republicans is, quite simply that the Australian Head of State should be an Australian. That is the benefit.

The benefit of an Australian Head of State? I see no benefit...does having an Australian Head of state fix the following issues:

Health
Education
Drought
The ageing population
Need for water
Future employment prospects

No it does not.

Will an Australian Head of State give us:

Greater trading opportunities
Greater standing in world affairs
Protect us from harm's way anymore than the Queen

No it would not.

Also...websites are not always credible...it is like gleaning all your information from the media...not the most reliable source for facts...more opinion than anything.

And knowing politicians and their associates as we all do, can you honestly say you trust those who claim their Republic will cost little, that it will be a certain way, that the public will get to decide 100%?

All this from the likes of:

"no child shall be living in poverty by 1990";
"every student in NSW shall have a laptop by 2000";
"there will never be a GST in Australia"

Please, Australians are not going to fall for the Politician's Republic.

The benefit of an Australian Head of State? I see no benefit...does having an Australian Head of state fix the following issues:

Health
Education
Drought
The ageing population
Need for water
Future employment prospects

No it does not.

Will an Australian Head of State give us:

Greater trading opportunities
Greater standing in world affairs
Protect us from harm's way anymore than the Queen

No it would not.

Also...websites are not always credible...it is like gleaning all your information from the media...not the most reliable source for facts...more opinion than anything.

And knowing politicians and their associates as we all do, can you honestly say you trust those who claim their Republic will cost little, that it will be a certain way, that the public will get to decide 100%?

All this from the likes of:

"no child shall be living in poverty by 1990";
"every student in NSW shall have a laptop by 2000";
"there will never be a GST in Australia"

Please, Australians are not going to fall for the Politician's Republic.

No one is making any claims that an Australian as the Australian Head of State would fix any of the issues you list. Neither will it cure baldness nor flatulence. Curiously, of course, retaining the English monarch as the Australian Head of State does absolutely nothing to address any of these problems either.

Websites may not always be credible. That is the very reason that I was careful to include a link to both monarchist and republican websites, to prove that neither supported the ludicrous costings suggested by Lord Pheonix Benicius.

Neither website, supposed policy papers, or indeed any source at all has been quoted to support those ridiculous claims, despite frequent and repeated requests from several posters.

Neither websites even addressed the cost of a Republic.

Well, since there is nothing wrong with the current system, why change?

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Trying the fix something which is perfectly alright almost always leads to problems.

Though queens are undeniably evil, becoming a republic would be a marginal improvement. It would not deal with the root problems of hierarchy.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

To be honest I couldn't give a flying pygmies loincloth for what you do, although it would be quite amusing to see you all elect Steve 'blocker' Roach as your first president. Just imagine the inaugauration ceremony Little Johnny Howard trying ever so hard to reach over blockers neck to place the ceremonial chain or sash or whatever over blockers lovely chintz gown and six inch heels. whoa baby! :twisted:

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Speaking as a Brit who supports a constitutional monarchy I say that if Aussies voted to become a Republic, that's their affair.
My only comment would be why fix what's working perfectly well already. The arguments go back and forth, as they should in a free democracy but if anyone belives that a Republic would be 'fairer', more democratic, or cheaper, that's a delusion.
I might also say that most Brits are fond of Australia and would be saddened if that great tie between us was broken.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."
-- John Lennon

Neither websites even addressed the cost of a Republic.

Well, since there is nothing wrong with the current system, why change?

If it aint broke, don't fix it. Trying the fix something which is perfectly alright almost always leads to problems.

The websites, both republican and monarchist, both showed what would be invoved in the process of a change to a republic.

Both listed the exact changes to the constitution which would be required. This quite deliberately and specifically left the title "Commonwealth of Australia" in place, proving that Lord Pheonix Benicius's fantasy of having to make massive changes to accomodate a "Republic of Australia" title was at best mistaken, at worst misleading. It therefore, at a stroke, destroyed his bizarre costing assumptions.

He has never yet, despite frequent requests, ever attempted to justify these imaginary costing assumptions from any independent, or even biased, source.

The "why change" is that the majority of Australians no longer believe that an English monarch is the best symbol to represent Australia.

It is largely symbolic, but it is a symbolism that is important to Australians.

Another amusing claim by Lord Pheonix Benicius is that a move to a republic, having been determined by plebiscites and referenda, would then be blocked in the Senate. We are yet to be informed as to which of the minor parties, the Greens or the Democrats, would oppose the will of the Australian people so clearly expressed. Nor have we been advised how pro-republican Liberals (Costello for example) would not feel free to vote according to their conscience.

Gollum...you continue to avoid requests to prove my funding claims wrong. Since you have not and refuse to do so...I will rest the funding case as I have been proven correct by your failure to state otherwise.

Now...onto the poll...

Seems there is a 50:50 scenario. Bout the same as in Australia really.

Gollum...you continue to avoid requests to prove my funding claims wrong. Since you have not and refuse to do so...I will rest the funding case as I have been proven correct by your failure to state otherwise.

Now...onto the poll...

Seems there is a 50:50 scenario. Bout the same as in Australia really.

Lord Pheonix Benicius quoted $100 billion as the cost of establishing a republic in Australia.

Even pro-monarchist websites, as illustrated by me, would not entertain such ludicrous claims.

Repeated requests by several posters to have his bizarre costings justified in any way, or from any source other than his own imagination, have been ignored.

He is obviously unable to do so, and has now decided to "rest the funding case".

I see no point in continuing such a farce.

Another good reason for an Australian head of state - When the Queen or any member of the royal family visits another country they are representing British interest, not Australian, it's as simple as that. Why should our head of state advance another countries national interest and not ours?

Another good reason for an Australian head of state - When the Queen or any member of the royal family visits another country they are representing British interest, not Australian, it's as simple as that. Why should our head of state advance another countries national interest and not ours?

And when was the last time Lizzy came out here?

1988!

I see no point in continuing such a farce.

Good, glad to see you have accepted the truth.

how successful has former colonies who were dominions but then changed to republics been? [for ex-british that is]

how successful has former colonies who were dominions but then changed to republics been? [for ex-british that is]

I suspect that they have all gone bankrupt, due to the enormous costs involved in such a move. :roll:

Another good reason for an Australian head of state - When the Queen or any member of the royal family visits another country they are representing British interest, not Australian, it's as simple as that. Why should our head of state advance another countries national interest and not ours?

And when was the last time Lizzy came out here?

1988!

That dosen't counter my point, what do you mean by it? When has the Queen or any royal done anything to advance Australia's national interest abroad? Whenever she or a royal visits a country it's to help Britain, not Australia.

Another good reason for an Australian head of state - When the Queen or any member of the royal family visits another country they are representing British interest, not Australian, it's as simple as that. Why should our head of state advance another countries national interest and not ours?

And when was the last time Lizzy came out here?

1988!

That dosen't counter my point, what do you mean by it? When has the Queen or any royal done anything to advance Australia's national interest abroad? Whenever she or a royal visits a country it's to help Britain, not Australia.

The Australian Head of State should be an Australian citizen and resident, not an ocassional foreign tourist.
:lol:

61% of Commonwealth nations are Republics, there are 5 nations with their own monarchies and the remainder are constitutional monarchies.

If we were to change, we would become "The Republic of Australia". There is no legal way of remaining a constitutional monarchy when we would not be. The change inevitably opens up many many costs.

Unless we were to become a monarchy :wink:

Emperor of Australia sounds nice...why bother with elections...save us money and time.

We have also already forked out $124 million of taxpayers money on the Republic idea already! $124 million would have been better spent on education or health. The extra $200 million to hold the 3 plebiscites is further waste of taxpayer money.

And what of the estimated $352 million cost in replacing the currency? (probably more when the public sector mucks around).

Given Labor is already billions of dollars in the red on their campaign promises...even more so after May 11th, I wonder where Mark Latham will find the money for his costly Republic? Perhaps we could borrow like Keating and sacrifice our AAA credit rating, or tax everyone over $50,000 maybe?

Let us not forget having to re-apply to the Commonwealth of Nations following our becoming a Republic (as all previous nations have done).

Also...anything with "Royal" in it has to be replaced...how many Royal Navy Vessels do we have again? (not actually replacing the ships themselves) The ADF would cost the taxpayer a pretty penny for sure.

Of course an Australian monarchy sounds much more attractive...of course there is a minimal $5 billion expense in building a palace.

61% of Commonwealth nations are Republics, there are 5 nations with their own monarchies and the remainder are constitutional monarchies.

If we were to change, we would become "The Republic of Australia". There is no legal way of remaining a constitutional monarchy when we would not be. The change inevitably opens up many many costs.

We would remain the Commonwealth of Australia if or when we become a republic.

The "Commonwealth" refers to a "commonwealth" or the member states, previously separate colonies. There would be no need to change this. The constitution would need to change, that is all.

Please do so research into Australian history, and to the real proposals that are part of the constitutional changes required before you make such stupid statements.

I have already referred you, in this thread, to the precise changes required and proposed. I also referred you to the monarchists own website, so you could see for yourself that even they did not countenance such a stupid suggestion.

I know there is absolutely no point in asking you to offer any proof for your ridiculous assertions, as you just pretend that no such request exists, or that your foolish statements, once uttered without any form of proof, have some sort of inherent value as they have come from your overly fertile imagination.

Then again, I could be wrong, and you may well be able to offer some sort of proof for this one.

Over to you.

61% of Commonwealth nations are Republics, there are 5 nations with their own monarchies and the remainder are constitutional monarchies.

If we were to change, we would become "The Republic of Australia". There is no legal way of remaining a constitutional monarchy when we would not be. The change inevitably opens up many many costs.

We would remain the Commonwealth of Australia if or when we become a republic.

The "Commonwealth" refers to a "commonwealth" or the member states, previously separate colonies. There would be no need to change this. The constitution would need to change, that is all.

Please do so research into Australian history, and to the real proposals that are part of the constitutional changes required before you make such stupid statements.

I have already referred you, in this thread, to the precise changes required and proposed. I also referred you to the monarchists own website, so you could see for yourself that even they did not countenance such a stupid suggestion.

I know there is absolutely no point in asking you to offer any proof for your ridiculous assertions, as you just pretend that no such request exists, or that your foolish statements, once uttered without any form of proof, have some sort of inherent value as they have come from your overly fertile imagination.

Then again, I could be wrong, and you may well be able to offer some sort of proof for this one.

Over to you.

Unless we were to become a monarchy :wink:

Emperor of Australia sounds nice...why bother with elections...save us money and time.

Do you wish to become the new queen?


:lol:

And what is proof? The ACM or Republican Movement Website? They are hardly reliable sources and both groups are always criticising one another over claims. Let's look at the facts.

I am looking at commonsense economics and law. We cannot remain the Commonwealth of Australia. What happens legally is we remove ourselves from the Commonwealth of Nations in becoming a Republic. We then become The Republic of Australia and re-apply for Commonwealth membership. That is the system which has been applied to all nations before us in the same circumstance (granted many of these nations are dirt poor and their costs were minimal to begin with anyway as a result of their poverty).

We are not allowed to keep Royal pre-fixes and even the Coat of Arms features Royal symbols which would likely be altered. This impacts on many facets of government, including the ADF. Currency would need to be changed as well (head of state is featured on the back).

And what is proof? The ACM or Republican Movement Website? They are hardly reliable sources and both groups are always criticising one another over claims. Let's look at the facts.

I am looking at commonsense economics and law. We cannot remain the Commonwealth of Australia. What happens legally is we remove ourselves from the Commonwealth of Nations in becoming a Republic. We then become The Republic of Australia and re-apply for Commonwealth membership. That is the system which has been applied to all nations before us in the same circumstance (granted many of these nations are dirt poor and their costs were minimal to begin with anyway as a result of their poverty).

We are not allowed to keep Royal pre-fixes and even the Coat of Arms features Royal symbols which would likely be altered. This impacts on many facets of government, including the ADF. Currency would need to be changed as well (head of state is featured on the back).

Lets see any, repeat any proof for your follish claims.

I have provided links to websites, taken from both sides of the debate in the interests of impartiality and fairness. You dismiss their validity, but can offer nothing in their place.

Provide anything if you can. Your supposed "commensense economics and law" demonstrate nothing except your ignorance of either subject.

We can and would remain the Commonwealth of Australia.

If not provide some evidence to the contrary.

We do not have to even cease being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, although I cannot see many advantages in remaining.

Read up on your law books.

Read up on your law books.

Quote some constitutional law then.

It is pointless to attempt to debate someone like yourself who considers that their own uniformed opinion requires no supporting evidence in any way shape or form.

If you can ever provide any shred of independent support for your outrageously inacurrate statements, I may consider debating you.

If, as would appear more likely, you merely contine your repetitious regurgitation of your own unspported opinions, I will merely treat you as the troll you seemingly are.

Wow! What is with the aggression and accusations?

Gollum, please go and look up the definition of trolling in NS.

Meanwhile...how is explaining how membership of the Commonwealth of Nations trolling?

Article 7.24

The Committee understands that ‘public’ bodies whose titles include‘Royal’ (eg Royal Australian Navy) would cease using that title and associated symbols.

[http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/republic/report/Chap7.pdf.]

A very, very costly move indeed.

Article 7.24

The Committee understands that ‘public’ bodies whose titles include‘Royal’ (eg Royal Australian Navy) would cease using that title and associated symbols.

[http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/republic/report/Chap7.pdf.]

A very, very costly move indeed.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I know speaking as a Brit, my opinion may be resented but.
Australia now has a distinct and unique identity. Part of that 'specialness' is the 'Royal' in the navy and air force and other institutions. Also, when requested, the Queen does represent Australia and not another nation. I can't for the life of me see why us few nations that have a monarch as our technical head of government want to trade it for a Bush or a Chirac. Politicians have, by their trade, to get their hands dirty and bloody. It's much better that, when we choose, we can be represented by someone above all that. Just look at the lying in state right now of Reagan. Already the arguments are flowing about the Contra-Iran deal and other so-called dirty deeds he did, notwithstanding whatever good he did.

Article 7.24

The Committee understands that ‘public’ bodies whose titles include‘Royal’ (eg Royal Australian Navy) would cease using that title and associated symbols.

[http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/republic/report/Chap7.pdf.]

A very, very costly move indeed.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I know speaking as a Brit, my opinion may be resented but.
Australia now has a distinct and unique identity. Part of that 'specialness' is the 'Royal' in the navy and air force and other institutions. Also, when requested, the Queen does represent Australia and not another nation. I can't for the life of me see why us few nations that have a monarch as our technical head of government want to trade it for a Bush or a Chirac. Politicians have, by their trade, to get their hands dirty and bloody. It's much better that, when we choose, we can be represented by someone above all that. Just look at the lying in state right now of Reagan. Already the arguments are flowing about the Contra-Iran deal and other so-called dirty deeds he did, notwithstanding whatever good he did.

The Head of State must be above politics.

The Queen of England is the best person suited. She does not take sides or voice views on domestic issues.

An Australian President modelled off the US or France or Germany would be disasterous for democracy. Take Bush for example, as much as I like him, he is almost a dictator! He can veto Congress and he alone decides to go to war!

That sort of leader is bad for Australia. The Westminster System works. Let us not vote for an undemocratic Presidency!

I really dont Care becuase that would not Affect me the least....though i though it was its own country not part of britain..i guess i was wrong :?

I really dont Care becuase that would not Affect me the least....though i though it was its own country not part of britain..i guess i was wrong :?

Australia is an independent nation. We just chose to have the Queen of England as our Head of State. It is symbolic...and more importantly dirt cheap to keep it that way.

The cost of Australia remaining as is, totals $380,000 a year.

The cost of becoming a republic, totals (maximum) $100,000,000,000. That includes changes and the cost of introducing the position of the President ans all associated costs.

Basically..."It's cheaper to keep her" :wink:

if australia were a republic you could have your own flag
*innocent non-trolling look*

if australia were a republic you could have your own flag
*innocent non-trolling look*

We have a very nice flag with...

1. The Union Jack represents our nation's heritage and link with the British Empire.

2. The Southern Cross is symbolic of the Eureka Stockade of 1854 (freedom, liberty, justice - against punitive gold mining liscences) and of course symbolic of Australia's geographical position in the world.

Why change it? If it aint broke, don't fix it.

oh just break free
even the canadians have their own flag

Maybe Steve Irwen should become the royal family.

Yes, Australia should become a republic. Time for Britain to let go. And they can loosen their hold on Ireland, while they're at it.

There are two problems with the Republic debate:

1. Everyone asks "How much does it cost?"
2. Scaremongers abound

The last referendum was defeated, not because people were adverse to the idea of a republic, but because the monarchists spread a lot of lies to the Australian people. And I'm not saying all monarchists did this - but a lot of them severely bent the truth about the model of republic just so their side would win and we would retain the Queen.

Does anyone remember "We'll vote no in November, let the people have their say"? The mon(an)archists said that the model of republic would prevent the people from electing a head of state. The politicians would directly elect one. Of course, they neglected to mention that the voters would be able to vote for the political party which would then vote for the head-of-state of choice!

If another referrendum was held without anyone allowed to advertise for or against the republic, then the republicans would probably win.

The cost is too much! We have more important things to pay for than a symbolic republic!