NationStates Jolt Archive


Should Australia Become a Republic?

The Lightning Star
02-01-2005, 06:47
Well, seeing how im not an aussie, my opinion means didley-squat but i'll say it anyhoo.

I think that Australia should become a republic. Why? Well, I say why NOT? I mean, there are plenty of members of the commonwealth that are Republics! The most progressive, advanced, and most powerful Muslim nation(Pakistan) is an Islamic Republic and is still a member of the commonwealth. India is the worlds largest democracy and it's a Republic that's a member of the commonwealth.

When it comes down to it, I think it would be good for Australia to become a republic because that way it's really a COUNTRY. If Australia becomes a commonwealth, the head of state won't be the queen back in England, on the other side of the world! It would solidify the fact that Australia IS a country.

Besides, it would still be a member of the commonwealth! The only thing that would change is that there wouldn't be any coins with queens on them baisically.

Now of course, I may be wrong on a few things seeing how ive never been to Australia, so if i screwed up on a few facts (Not opinions) please tell me.
Lunatic Goofballs
02-01-2005, 06:49
I think that Australian males are too fond of speedos. Other than that, I remain neutral on Australian culture.
The Cumburger
02-01-2005, 06:59
The most progressive, advanced, and most powerful Muslim nation(Pakistan) is an Islamic Republic and is still a member of the commonwealth.

You're kidding me right? Pakistan is the most powerful muslim nation? The most progressive, the most advanced?

The Holy Empire of the Cumburger wonders what planet you're from.

India is the worlds largest democracy and it's a Republic that's a member of the commonwealth.

If you think Australia should be like Pakistan and India then go for it. I on the other hand, think Australia's fine as it is.
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 06:59
You mean it's not a Republic? And here I was thinking that the entire British Empire had been eliminated and that all of the former British colonies were already completely independent.
But yes, it should be.
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 07:00
You're kidding me right? Pakistan is the most powerful muslim nation? The most progressive, the most advanced?

The Holy Empire of the Cumburger wonders what planet you're from.



If you think Australia should be like Pakistan and India then go for it. I on the other hand, think Australia's fine as it is.
He doesn't mean that it should be like Pakistan and India; he just wants it to be separate from the UK. Basically, the highest leader in Australia would be the Prime Minister of Australia, not the Queen of England.
Lunatic Goofballs
02-01-2005, 07:01
You're kidding me right? Pakistan is the most powerful muslim nation? The most progressive, the most advanced?

The Holy Empire of the Cumburger wonders what planet you're from.



If you think Australia should be like Pakistan and India then go for it. I on the other hand, think Australia's fine as it is.

Name a more progressive and advanced one. :)
Sarzonia
02-01-2005, 07:02
I'm an American so my opinion means squat, but I think being "part" of the British Empire is only ceremonial and has no useful purpose for Australia. In a real sense, the Queen probably has better things to do than even spend much time even considering Australian day-to-day issues.

I think Australia, New Zealand and Canada all should be republics.
Glinde Nessroe
02-01-2005, 07:07
We just gotta wait til all the oldies of this generation die off. Trust me we'll be a generation then. No one else wants to be a commonwealth, we would've been already if John Howard hadn't have twisted the wording of the vote in the 90's. Retard said that he had to be President or nothing. A my way or the high way kinda thing. Oh wow, what a surprise a manipulater still in power! Go get em ya big gnome...
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 07:08
I'm an American so my opinion means squat, but I think being "part" of the British Empire is only ceremonial and has no useful purpose for Australia. In a real sense, the Queen probably has better things to do than even spend much time even considering Australian day-to-day issues.

I think Australia, New Zealand and Canada all should be republics.
You know what would be interesting? If the "North American Treaty" in that one Dirk Pitt book were a reality.
Basically, for those of you who don't know, in the book, at the beginning of World War One, Britain sold Canada to the U.S. for a billion dollars. The treaty was lost, however, until recovered in 1989 by Dirk Pitt from the train stuck in a mountain side. I forgot how it got there. >_>
Anyway, it would allow Canadians to help change the spectrum of our politics; had we had the Canadians in the election, Kerry would have won handily.
Findecano Calaelen
02-01-2005, 07:21
as a young Aussie I would like to see a republic, yet I would like to see the union jack left on the flag
The Lightning Star
02-01-2005, 07:29
You're kidding me right? Pakistan is the most powerful muslim nation? The most progressive, the most advanced?

The Holy Empire of the Cumburger wonders what planet you're from.


I LIVED There, Mr. Cumburger. For YEARS.

Also, Pakistan is the ONLY Muslim country with nukes. It is the most progressive because it has extensive rights for women, people of all faiths, and people from all classes. It's the most advanced because, i mean, you HAVE to be advanced to get nukes.

And if it's not all of those things, what IS the most Power, Progressive, and advanced muslim nation?
Patra Caesar
02-01-2005, 07:37
We just gotta wait til all the oldies of this generation die off. Trust me we'll be a generation then. No one else wants to be a commonwealth, we would've been already if John Howard hadn't have twisted the wording of the vote in the 90's. Retard said that he had to be President or nothing. A my way or the high way kinda thing. Oh wow, what a surprise a manipulater still in power! Go get em ya big gnome...

J. Ho is a bastard, let us hope they never put his head on a coin (but if they did it could be life sized;)).

I'm an American so my opinion means squat, but I think being "part" of the British Empire is only ceremonial and has no useful purpose for Australia. In a real sense, the Queen probably has better things to do than even spend much time even considering Australian day-to-day issues.

That's why the only power the queen has in Australia is to appoint a representitive.

He doesn't mean that it should be like Pakistan and India; he just wants it to be separate from the UK. Basically, the highest leader in Australia would be the Prime Minister of Australia, not the Queen of England.

Actually with the seperation of powers it would be a president...

I used to strongly support Republicanism, however I must be mellowing in my old age because I think now if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Vaughan_the_evil_sod
02-01-2005, 07:57
How long ago did it become illegal to shoot the natives of australia for sport?
I say sink the darn place.
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 08:02
How long ago did it become illegal to shoot the natives of australia for sport?
I say sink the darn place.
Wait, what? Shoot the natives for sport...what the hell are you talking about? Australia was originally a prison colony for the British.
Fugee-La
02-01-2005, 08:05
Wait, what? Shoot the natives for sport...what the hell are you talking about? Australia was originally a prison colony for the British.


...Who shot the natives...
Pacitalia
02-01-2005, 08:05
And I haven't trusted my cousins since. ;)
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 08:09
...Who shot the natives...
And that was two centuries ago. What, you want to pull them from their graves and try them for murder? Might as well find Nero and try him for all of his crimes while you're at it... :rolleyes:
Grenval
02-01-2005, 08:15
Also, Pakistan is the ONLY Muslim country with nukes.

Don't kid yourself. Isreal has nukes whether they will admit it or not.
Vaughan_the_evil_sod
02-01-2005, 08:16
Wait, what? Shoot the natives for sport...what the hell are you talking about? Australia was originally a prison colony for the British.

read your history, the natives of australia were not considered to be humans (I think it has something to do with their skin colour) untill sometime last centery.
PIcaRDMPCia
02-01-2005, 08:20
read your history, the natives of australia were not considered to be humans (I think it has something to do with their skin colour) untill sometime last centery.
Exactly; all of the people who would shoot them have long since been dead. Trust me, I know history better than you think. And above all I know that to persecute a country's current population for the crimes of a century ago is immoral.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 08:25
I am an Australian, and I support Constitutional Monarchy.

Let me tell you why:

Australia has one of the oldest continuous constitutional systems in the world. It has been tested in war and peace, in depression and economic booms.



Sven oldest continuous democracies are the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. Five of them have British origins and five of them are constitutional monarchies.



The most free, tolerant and stable societies in the world today tend to be constitutional monarchies - including The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.



Of the 24 advanced economies in the Organisation For Economic Cooperation and Development, half are constitutional monarchies - so the system is by no means unusual.



Constitutional Monarchy means that the highest office in the land is beyond politics.It denies ultimate power to politicians and helps to keep political power under check. Our impartial umpires, the Governor-General and State Governors, keep the politicians honest. They provide leadership above politics. The heart of our constitutional system should be beyond political capture.
New Southampton
02-01-2005, 08:40
I'd like to see Australia stay the way it is, but that's just because I don't like a lot of change.

And no, I don't mean I want bad things to stay the way they are. I don't see anything wrong with Australia the way it is, but that could just be ignorance. Oh well.

And...I have no way of knowing what country the person that started the "shooting natives" thing, but if he's from the Americas, you know...We sorta did that too.

I'm just saying!
Ravenclaws
02-01-2005, 08:41
Constitutional Monarchy means that the highest office in the land is beyond politics.It denies ultimate power to politicians and helps to keep political power under check. Our impartial umpires, the Governor-General and State Governors, keep the politicians honest. They provide leadership above politics. The heart of our constitutional system should be beyond political capture.

What leadership? The G-G is a figurehead, no more, no less. The politicians have all the power. I know that the Constitution says otherwise, but in practice, the Governor-General pretty much does what he's told by the Government of the day (unless his name is John Kerr). I do not believe that a Governor-General has ever disallowed a piece of legislation. Half of the people in this country probably don't even know who he is, and don't care, because the role is no more than ceremonial.
Winter-een-Mas
02-01-2005, 08:46
He doesn't mean that it should be like Pakistan and India; he just wants it to be separate from the UK. Basically, the highest leader in Australia would be the Prime Minister of Australia, not the Queen of England.

if we were a republic then the the prime minister would not be the head of the country it would be the President who would NOT be john howard because we would have to elect a new person.
Winter-een-Mas
02-01-2005, 08:48
Don't kid yourself. Isreal has nukes whether they will admit it or not.

israle is Jewish isnt it?
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 08:57
Crikey!

Of course, Australia should be a republic.

Who wants to be represented by the Queen of England? Too far away, too removed from Australian ways and concerns, too out of touch. And God help us when she pegs it and we cop Charles. Charles 1 was enough to spark a republic in England. Charles 11 would be enough to do that anywhere.

We only missed a republic last time around because the referendum question was cunningly phrased by Little Johnny Howard to get the result he wanted, as he has always been a monarchist.

But he won't be around forever (although it already seems that way). His almost-certain successor, Costello, is an avowed republican, and one of the more recent MPs elected for the Liberals was Malcolm Turnbull, who was the head of the Republican Movement.

So, it looks like only a matter of time.

Flag? Southern Cross variant, or Eureka flag would do nicely.

Speedos? Your just jealous, mate :-)
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 09:04
What leadership? The G-G is a figurehead, no more, no less. The politicians have all the power. I know that the Constitution says otherwise, but in practice, the Governor-General pretty much does what he's told by the Government of the day (unless his name is John Kerr). I do not believe that a Governor-General has ever disallowed a piece of legislation. Half of the people in this country probably don't even know who he is, and don't care, because the role is no more than ceremonial.


You are correct. His Exellencey, the Governer General of Australia, appointed as the Queens Representative, posses absolute legislative power in accordance with the Australian Constitution. His role is more than cerimonial, an as you have so kindly pointed out, his powers have been exercised, regarding the dismissal of Hon. John Kerr, Prime Minister of Australia.

The Constitutional Powers of Her Majest the Queen, or the reigning monarch of the Commonwealth of Australia, is absolute -

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.

The article stipulates that the Sovereign has, and will maintain absolute authority over the Commonwealth of Australia.

Besides, even if the Governer General was completley powerless, that would only reinforce the agurment for Constitutional monarchy.
A republic cannot make us more independent because we are as independent as we can possibly be. If the Monarch possesses no power, than why must we remove the monarch in favour of a constitutional system that would vest ulimited power in the President?

nobody will know for sure what power the president has

clashes between president and Prime Minister will be frequent, intractable and destabilize government

there will be no body able to enforce the exercise of the powers or compliance with them if they are unresolved and unwritten. Presidents will have a blank cheque and no one sensible will vote for such a system; and

combined with a long presidential fixed term of office, longer than any House of Representatives or government taken from it, constitutional struggles between president and Parliament may go on for a long period (totally unlike the present very effective, quick and responsive system).


Also, an Australian Republic would result in many problems.

For example:
Each Australian State is an independent monarchy under the Constitution. Thus one aspect of the debate is about whether we have one republic or seven.

Also, Seven new Constitutions in all would need to be to be drafted and all enacted simultaneously. Some States have 'entrenched' Constitutions, some of which only the people can alter, while others can be altered merely by Act of Parliament. The Australia Acts confirmed that the Queen is represented in each State by a Governor. Amendment of the Australia Act may be made by the federal Parliament but only at the request and approval of all State Parliaments .
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 09:07
Crikey!

Of course, Australia should be a republic.

Who wants to be represented by the Queen of England?

Just a side note- there is no Queen of England.

The Kingdom of England ceased to exist when it was replaced with the unification of Scotland, and later became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.

There is only the Queen of the United Kingdom.

Also, the Queen of the United Kingdom is a seperate entity to the Queen of Australia.

The Queen is constitutionally bound to the representation of the Queen of whatever Commonwealth Realm or British dependency she may represent.
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 09:58
You are correct. His Exellencey, the Governer General of Australia, appointed as the Queens Representative, posses absolute legislative power in accordance with the Australian Constitution. His role is more than cerimonial, an as you have so kindly pointed out, his powers have been exercised, regarding the dismissal of Hon. John Kerr, Prime Minister of Australia.

Let's just get he facts right - the Prime Minister was E.G. ("Gough") Whitlam. The Governor General was John Kerr. How a foreign queen's representative, appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister (duly elected by the people, and accountable to them) has the "right" to dismiss such a duly elected Prime Minister is a joke. This was, and remains, a constitutional crisis, and needs to be resolved.

nobody will know for sure what power the president has
clashes between president and Prime Minister will be frequent, intractable and destabilize government...there will be no body able to enforce the exercise of the powers or compliance with them if they are unresolved and unwritten. Presidents will have a blank cheque and no one sensible will vote for such a system; and combined with a long presidential fixed term of office, longer than any House of Representatives or government taken from it, constitutional struggles between president and Parliament may go on for a long period (totally unlike the present very effective, quick and responsive system).


Not at all difficult - the role, responsibilities, tenure, and metod of selection of the President are codified in the new constitution. Problem goes away. The worst clash since Federation was between the Governor General and the elected Prime Minister - that is an argument against the damn monarchy, not for it!


Each Australian State is an independent monarchy under the Constitution. Thus one aspect of the debate is about whether we have one republic or seven. Also, Seven new Constitutions in all would need to be to be drafted and all enacted simultaneously. Some States have 'entrenched' Constitutions, some of which only the people can alter, while others can be altered merely by Act of Parliament. The Australia Acts confirmed that the Queen is represented in each State by a Governor. Amendment of the Australia Act may be made by the federal Parliament but only at the request and approval of all State Parliaments .

What unmitigated twaddle.
Australia is a federation of states (known as the Copmmonwealth of Australia) and has been since 1901, when the former colonies became states in the Commonwealth.

If you are going to argue a case, at least get the basics right (who was P.M., what the role of the states is).
Canad a
02-01-2005, 09:59
The Republic is an interesting part of political intrigue for a nation's political platform of government. I am all in favour for Australia to become among the Republic nations of the world and leave the British Commonwealth since it holds no political meaning but tradition by historical values of the British Empire.

I am not Australian, I am Canadian and also believe that Canada should take this route for a strong grasp of the future of further Canadian involvement in the world.

The creation of a Republic not only in Australia but as well Canada would create a stronger sense of nationalism between the Australian/Canadian people. Yes, to a certain degree nationalism creates patriotism, which sometimes increases problems like superiority/inferiority like in Nazi Germany and ethnic groups. Though sometimes a low level of nationalism is something very wrong for a nation to have and I fear that Canada especially has this issue.
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 10:06
Just a side note- there is no Queen of England.

The Kingdom of England ceased to exist when it was replaced with the unification of Scotland, and later became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.

There is only the Queen of the United Kingdom.

Give it time - Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all seeking, or have recently obtained, greater autonomy.

Also, the Queen of the United Kingdom is a seperate entity to the Queen of Australia.

Damn, I could have sworn it was the same person!!! If (when) the English (Oh, alright United Kingdom if you prefer) monarch changes (death or abdication) surely the so-called "Monarch (lets not be sexist) of Australia" will change at the precise same time, and for the same reason. Lets not split heirs (deliberate pun - oh, please yourself!).
Canad a
02-01-2005, 10:09
The Governor General represents the Queen of Great Britain/United Kingdom. The Head of State of the Australian Government, is Queen Elizabeth the II.
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 10:16
The Governor General represents the Queen of Great Britain/United Kingdom. The Head of State of the Australian Government, is Queen Elizabeth the II.

Correct on both counts.

And to the untrained observer, they appear to be one and the same.

Let's just hope we Aussies get to change that ASAP.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 10:17
How a foreign queen's representative, appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister (duly elected by the people, and accountable to them) has the "right" to dismiss such a duly elected Prime Minister is a joke. This was, and remains, a constitutional crisis, and needs to be resolved.

It is you who needs to get your facts right.

Why do you insist on labelling her a foreign?

a) The Queen is not only the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland, she is also the Queen of Australia.

b) Are you saying this because Is it because the Queen resides overseas-as do many Australians at present? Are they not one of us? Dame Joan Sutherland, David Malouf, Robert Hughes, Clive James, Germain Greer, Greg Norman, Arthur Boyd (six months of the year) even Thomas Kenneally when they are away?

c) Is it because she is Queen of 16 different countries-Where will that leave those with dual nationality in our country-aren't they 'one of us'?

d) The Queen is by law (the Constitution) an essential part of our Federal Parliament just as she is of every State Parliament. She is also by law, reaffirmed by our Parliaments as recently as 1986, 'Queen of Australia'. She is certainly not 'foreign' to our Constitution. Every valid executive act in Australia since 1788 (and since 1901) has been done in the name of and by the lawful authority of the Queen or her predecessors-how much more integral to a country can one be?

Is it suggested that Elizabeth 11 is British and thus 'foreign' to Australia? If so, what of the two million British migrants and residents who have lived here (some nearly all their lives), who vote and pay taxes. Are they, too, 'foreigners'?

In a 'global village' with a 'global' market, isn't it being rather childish to divide the world into 'us' and 'them' or 'us' and 'foreigners'. Where does it leave our vaunted multicultural policies -do they apply to everyone except the Queen

e) If you are trying to convince me that the Queen is foreign becuase she is not an Australian citizen, The Queen is certainly not an Australian citizen.

Monarchs are not citizens of any country. The Queen is no more or less than our country's Queen. Elizabeth H is not a citizen of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada or the United Kingdom either. The Monarch forgoes many privileges, such as the right to vote, the right to a passport, the right to take part in politics, so that the Queen is kept out of the day to day political battle. Ironically nobody is or can be a citizen of Australia except by an Act of Parliament which only gained its effect when the Queen of Australia's assent was granted.


Not at all difficult - the role, responsibilities, tenure, and metod of selection of the President are codified in the new constitution. Problem goes away. The worst clash since Federation was between the Governor General and the elected Prime Minister - that is an argument against the damn monarchy, not for it!

Unless we are appointed another Queen, the entire constitution would have to be torn up. All references to a "Head of State" reffer to a sovreign or Monarch.

It would otherwise require over 76 alterations to the current constitution to only remove referrences to the monarch.


What unmitigated twaddle.
Australia is a federation of states (known as the Copmmonwealth of Australia) and has been since 1901, when the former colonies became states in the Commonwealth.

Partially. Official referrences to the "Commonwealth of Australia" are infact tied to the nations relationship with the United Kingdom. The word "Commonwealth" also reffers to our position as a British realm.

If you are going to argue a case, at least get the basics right (who was P.M., what the role of the states is).

It appears that you are the one who needs to get their facts right.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 10:21
The Governor General represents the Queen of Great Britain/United Kingdom. The Head of State of the Australian Government, is Queen Elizabeth the II.

A correction.

Once the Sovereign has appointed a Governor-General, the Governor-General assumes the total authority of The Crown and carries on the business of a Constitutional Head of State without any reference to The Queen.

It can therefore be safely said that The Queen, as Queen of Australia, is Australia’s Sovereign and that the Governor-General is Australia’s Head of State.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 10:25
Damn, I could have sworn it was the same person!!! If (when) the English (Oh, alright United Kingdom if you prefer) monarch changes (death or abdication) surely the so-called "Monarch (lets not be sexist) of Australia" will change at the precise same time, and for the same reason. Lets not split heirs (deliberate pun - oh, please yourself!).

I'm terribly sorry. I didn't realise that I would have to phrase such an otherwise understandable statement for the clarity of those who do not understand Australias constitutional system.

Let me rephrase.
The Queen of the United Kingdom, and the Queen of Australia are seperate LEGAL entities.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
02-01-2005, 10:31
israle is Jewish isnt it?

That has got to be the stupidest question I have ever heard.
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 10:32
It is you who needs to get your facts right.

Why do you insist on labelling her a foreign?

She is British, not an Australian citizen.
Australia deserves an Australian as Head of State - quite simple really.
Why not an Australian as Australian Head of State?

The Queen is not only the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland, she is also the Queen of Australia.


How did she get that then - I never voted for her.
The Australian Head of State should be democratically elected by the people of Australia - again, quite simple really. A President could have his (or her) powers defined by the Constitution and be elected by the Australian people. Too democratic for you? Do you still believe in the "divine right" of monarchs?

The Queen is by law (the Constitution) an essential part of our Federal Parliament just as she is of every State Parliament. She is also by law, reaffirmed by our Parliaments as recently as 1986, 'Queen of Australia'. She is certainly not 'foreign' to our Constitution. Every valid executive act in Australia since 1788 (and since 1901) has been done in the name of and by the lawful authority of the Queen or her predecessors-how much more integral to a country can one be?

You change the Constitution - again, quite simple, and something many other nations have managed to do without too much drama. Surely Australia can as well.

Unless we are appointed another Queen, the entire constitution would have to be torn up. All references to a "Head of State" reffer to a sovreign or Monarch. It would otherwise require over 76 alterations to the current constitution to only remove referrences to the monarch.

Yes, yes, - you change the Constitution - that is what it is about. No need to labour the point.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
02-01-2005, 10:35
For all you americans out there, let me give you a bit of advice: If there is one thing that pisses off us Aussies, it is Americans telling us how to run our political system. Your tool of a President had the brains to tell off our opposition leader for doubting our PM over Iraq, and it would of lost him the election HAD BLOODY LATHAM DECIDED TO RUN A DECENT BLOODY CAMPAIGN AND MENTIONED IT!!!

sorry...
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 10:38
She is British, not an Australian citizen.
Ausatralia deserves an Australian as Head of State - quite simple really.
Why not an Australian as Ausdtralian Head of State?

You are quite correct. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is not an Australia citizen.
However, nor is she a British Citizen. Once again, Monarchs are not citizens of any country. The Queen is no more or less than our country's Queen. Elizabeth H is not a citizen of Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Canada or the United Kingdom either

Claims for an Australian head of state are invalid. It can truly be said that the Governor-General: is an Australian citizen ('One of us' - in that sense);

b) is appointed by Australians (he is nominated to the Queen by the Prime Minister for appointment by her and is invariably so appointed on his or her advice);
C)is and must be a resident during such term in office; and
represents only the nation of Australia.

How did she get that then - I never voted for her.
The Australian Head of State should be democratically elected by the people of Australia - again, quite simple really. A President could have his (or her) powers defined by the Constitution and be elected by the Australian people. Too democratic for you? Do you still believe in the "divine right" of monarchs?

Constitutional Monarchy is a democratic system of government whereby the monarch role and legislative powers are significantly reduced according to the constitution.

Constitutional Monarchy ensure that the absolute power is vested in the citizens.

I do not believe in divine right. The advantages of our symbolic Head of State becoming so by inheritance places the monarch entirely beyond political interference or inclination - it ensures that our symbolic Head of State is always 'a politican - free zone' and this is reflected in the conduct of the local Head of State (Governors and Governors-General) who also remain above politics.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
02-01-2005, 10:39
The Constitutional Monarchy system works, ergo there is no need to change it. The Queen doesn't really weild any substantial power over the Australian Legal System, and niether does the Governor General.

The moment they abuse any privilage and interfere with our politics, we'll call for a referendum and become a republic. Until then, however, the system works: don't change it.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 10:49
The Republic is an interesting part of political intrigue for a nation's political platform of government. I am all in favour for Australia to become among the Republic nations of the world and leave the British Commonwealth since it holds no political meaning but tradition by historical values of the British Empire.

There is no such thing as the British Commonwealth either.

It is now know as the Commonwealth of Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
Aksuparvia
02-01-2005, 10:49
Yes, I think we should become a republic, but before we embark on that route lets first sort out the problems with our senate. It seems that its initial purpose has been forgotten and is becoming merely a rubber stamp for the government of the day. This is where the real power lies.
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 10:49
Claims for an Australian head of state are invalid.

Why "invalid"???

Why not an Australian as Australian head of state?


Constitutional Monarchy ensure that the absolute power is vested in the citizens.

No, a democratic republic ensures that absolute power is vested in the citizens. A consttutional monarchy attempts to divide that power between the citizens and the monarch. Quite simple, really. What part of that can you not comprehend?
One Many
02-01-2005, 10:50
I think that Australian males are too fond of speedos. Other than that, I remain neutral on Australian culture.

As an Australian, I have to say that (fortunatly) I have not seen too many Aussie guys in Speedos!

Most tend to wear boardshorts :)
Einsteinian Big-Heads
02-01-2005, 10:52
As an Australian, I have to say that (fortunatly) I have not seen too many Aussie guys in Speedos!

Most tend to wear boardshorts :)

I wear speedos...
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 10:55
Excuse my ignorance.

But what is the actual point of changing to a republic?
What would it achieve?
Would it make the Australias more stuckup than they already are?
Why change things that are working?

"This game says I need a 32mb Graphics card. Give me money to buy a 256mb Graphics card or I'll cry"

I am from New Zealand and we here, certainly are not interested in a change.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 10:57
Why "invalid"???

Why not an Australian as Australian head of state?

Your argument is invalid. Not the claim for an Australian Head of State.
Why must you weaken your argument with the employment of perpetual stereotypes and over exaggerated claims against the monarch?


A consttutional monarchy attempts to divide that power between the citizens and the monarch. Quite simple, really. What part of that can you not comprehend?

Constitutional Monarchy - A monarchy in which the powers of the ruler are restricted to those granted under the constitution and laws of the nation - A political system in which the monarch acts on the advice of politicians elected by the people.

What is so difficult for you to comprehend? CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy ensures that the monarch can act, and act ONLY on the advice of Politicians (whom are elected by the people)
Einsteinian Big-Heads
02-01-2005, 10:58
Excuse my ignorance.

But what is the actual point of changing to a republic?
What would it achieve?
Would it make the Australias more stuckup than they already are?
Why change things that are working?

"This game says I need a 32mb Graphics card. Give me money to buy a 256mb Graphics card or I'll cry"

I am from New Zealand and we here, certainly are not interested in a change.

Before I said that the thing that pisses off us Aussies most is Yanks telling us what to do. I was incorrect, its BLOODY KIWIS TELLING US WHAT TO DO!
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:00
Before I said that the thing that pisses off us Aussies most is Yanks telling us what to do. I was incorrect, its BLOODY KIWIS TELLING US WHAT TO DO!

Questions were asked, and therefor no actual statement was made.

He was not telling you what to do.
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:00
Would it make the Australias more stuckup than they already are?

I am always correct.

PS> We are New Zealanders. Please do not refer to us as 'Kiwis'. And why is it that all the Australians I have had the displeasure to encounter are prats like that person?
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:02
Thanks for the comment - I'm an Australian.
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:04
A non-pathetic Australian? XD I never though I'd see the day.
*sacrafices Kangaroo for Athene*
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 11:04
What is so difficult for you to comprehend? CONSTITUTIONAL Monarchy ensures that the monarch can act, and act ONLY on the advice of Politicians (whom are elected by the people)

Then, quite simply, if the position has no real power, and what the monarch can do is limited to acting on the advice of elected politicians, then why not have a President with the same restrictions?

The advantages are twofold - Firstly, an Australian is the Head of State, and represents only Australia, not a collection of 16 or more states.

Secondly, the President can come to that position via an election. A monarch comes to the postion by "birthright". Which is the better system?
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:06
Do you know what?
A perfect world would be pathetic and nobody would really like it.
Why all this bitching about something that is not going to happen anytime soon? and may never at all.
Then again maybe Australia will become a republic and then invade New Zealand. They are already doing a good job of it. XD
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 11:08
Excuse my ignorance.

But what is the actual point of changing to a republic?
What would it achieve?
Would it make the Australias more stuckup than they already are?
Why change things that are working?

"This game says I need a 32mb Graphics card. Give me money to buy a 256mb Graphics card or I'll cry"

I am from New Zealand and we here, certainly are not interested in a change.

Your ignorance is not only excused, it is expected. A Kiwi complaining about Australians? Hahaha.
Oh, and I hardly know how to tell you, but a 256mb graphics card performs much better than a 32mb graphics card.
But, I guess the sheep wouldn't notice.
Nazbeckistan
02-01-2005, 11:08
When New Zealand fields a decent cricket team, we might think about taking some of your advice ;)

As for republic...i would only say yes if we can sort out what form the new head of state would take. Its the uncertainty that puts us off. I'd like a directly elected, non-political prominent citizen (so not like US head of state) that can review the govt of the day to some extent. And come up with an interesting name, this world has too many presidents (someone i know said head of state should be Australian Captain...and they can have a slick Green and Gold outfit :) )

Flag is a no-brainer: Stick with the deep blue field and just wack a white southern cross on it. BTW New Zealand guy, i would really like to know what is with the red stars on the flag? Is there are reason?
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:09
Golly gosh! A reference to sheep. Athene please come down and smite this fool.

It is idiots like you who make this world worth living in - so I have something to laugh at.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:10
Then, quite simply, if the position has no real power, and what the monarch can do is limited to acting on the advice of elected politicians, then why not have a President with the same restrictions?

The advantages are twofold - Firstly, an Australian is the Head of State, and represents only Australia, not a collection of 16 or more states.

Secondly, the President can come to that position via an election. A monarch comes to the postion by "birthright". Which is the better system?

Regardless of the power of the monarch, the political system is inherintly similar.
The Prime Minster is elected by the people - Democratic

The Prime Minister advises the Governer General in the name of the people - Democratic

The Governer General advises the Queen in the name of the people - Democratic

The Queen acts on the advice of the representatives of the people - Democratic.

Democratically, the systems are almost identicle, but Constitutional Monarchy posses the obvious benifeits of our symbolic Head of State becoming so by inheritance places the monarch entirely beyond political interference or inclination - it ensures that our symbolic Head of State is always 'a politican - free zone' and this is reflected in the conduct of the local Head of State (Governors and Governors-General) who also remain above politics.
One Many
02-01-2005, 11:12
I wear speedos...

My apologies.. but I have only ever seen one guy in Speedos, and that was enough to put me off them on anyone :p
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:12
Please, I will let those of intellegence call me Tim.
I do not know why the person who made both of our flags chose red stars for New Zealand. Though I have seen some very good replacement ideas.

Please - do not let us get into a cricket debate. We all know who has the best one day team ;) and as for tests pfft: Pakistan is making us look good!
Nazbeckistan
02-01-2005, 11:13
Just seen some of the more vicious N.Z bashing responses and want to clear something up.
AM NOT BASHING ON NEW ZEALAND...been there...nice place...was asking a real question re: the flag. Never knew that being called kiwis was annoying. We just use short names cos we are lazy (Poms, Yanks, Kiwis, Aussies).
Stay cool.
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:15
My point with the graphics card analogy (for those who could not see it) was: Why bitch about having something that you do not need, especially when the system that is currently running is fine.
Chocolate is Yummier
02-01-2005, 11:17
[QUOTE=Then again maybe Australia will become a republic and then invade New Zealand. They are already doing a good job of it. XD[/QUOTE]

Why the heck would we want to invade New Zealand, to get MORE sheep? it's not like we have a lack of them.
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:19
From what I've heard your sheep are getting used to the sound of your flies unzipping.
Nazbeckistan
02-01-2005, 11:22
Have only heard briefly from other Commonwealth nations on this...is there any significant debate in New Zealand, Canada to become republics? I've not heard of any but that doesnt mean squat...
Is there any reaction at all (i would bet not) from the British people about calls for an Australian Republic? Does anyone but us (or some of us) really care?
May sound off topic but it just seems to me that the only people who really care either way are a couple of Australian republicans...
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:23
Are you serious?
We (New Zealand) would not waste our time on drivvel like that.
We debate more important things such as Civil Union and the like.
I do not know about any other countries however.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:25
Have only heard briefly from other Commonwealth nations on this...is there any significant debate in New Zealand, Canada to become republics? I've not heard of any but that doesnt mean squat...
Is there any reaction at all (i would bet not) from the British people about calls for an Australian Republic? Does anyone but us (or some of us) really care?
May sound off topic but it just seems to me that the only people who really care either way are a couple of Australian republicans...

A refferendum was held a fews years ago regarding the issue, and it was voted down.

The majority of Australians are therefor monarchists.

Of course the Monarch cares.

The only real debates regarding the issues have been in Australia.
Dyelli Beybi
02-01-2005, 11:26
I think that Australia should become a republic....

Besides, it would still be a member of the commonwealth! The only thing that would change is that there wouldn't be any coins with queens on them baisically.


I think thats the whole reason Australia isn't a Republic and voted not to become one. The Queen doesn't actually do anything, she just looks nice on the coins. It's a bit of sentimental traditionalism.

Sorry you can all go back to your trans-Tasman bickerings now.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:30
This System doesn't need to change, because it works.
Cooranbong
02-01-2005, 11:31
Kudos on raising the Civil Unions issue BTW...none of our politicians have the balls. :headbang:
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:31
*claps* Words of wisdom.

</topic>
Yuch
02-01-2005, 11:37
Australia is already independant - so why not take it a little bit further, and cut the final apron string, and become a republic?!

And for that matter, I think that MY country New Zealand should follow suit.

And for the record, I don't think that Pakistan is the most (something) Islamic nation in the world. I THINK THAT TITLE BELONGS TO MALAYSIA, but they too are in the commonwealth. If not them, it would be somewhere cool like Dubai, not Pakistan.
Cooranbong
02-01-2005, 11:38
The issue wasnt whether the Monarch cares (Liz is a nice woman in a hard place and im sure she does care). It seems a lot of non-commonwealth people think this has something to do with the long lost days of Empire. Now i know as an Australian that we dont give two shits anymore about Britain as a "master". I wanted to find out if there is any reaction in Britain about...i dunno...losing more ground in the world or something.
Yuch
02-01-2005, 11:40
[QUOTE=Then again maybe Australia will become a republic and then invade New Zealand. They are already doing a good job of it. XD

Why the heck would we want to invade New Zealand, to get MORE sheep? it's not like we have a lack of them.[/QUOTE]

You guys really need to get over that joke. Seriously, it's wrong, not the least bit true or the least bit funny.

let it go.

Just leeeet gooooo.

Most Aussies are pretty cool - incidentally they're the ones who have LET GO of this joke
Nuadh Albainn
02-01-2005, 11:41
</topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic>

hmmm... looks like this thing is not working.. (Australia> this is a good time to change something)
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:42
Australia is already independant

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Australia is already fully independent, so why spend millions of dollars, and sacrifice both international and domestic popularity for the sake of some outrages vanity?
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 11:45
</topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic></topic>

hmmm... looks like this thing is not working.. (Australia> this is a good time to change something)


It only fails to work if you first state what it is intended to do.

Constitutional Monarchy does everything it was intended to do, and more.
Stormwarz
02-01-2005, 12:10
Just a side note- there is no Queen of England.

The Kingdom of England ceased to exist when it was replaced with the unification of Scotland, and later became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland.

There is only the Queen of the United Kingdom.

Not quite true in fact. In SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND, she is formally recognised as Queen Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. In England and Wales, she is formally recognised as Queen Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are still three distinct kingdoms within the Union. (Poor old Wales on the other hand is merely a principality of England.)

Trying to stick to the issue, Oz may as well stay the way it is. Electing a President every few years is very expensive and time-consuming, and as a President can't remain politically impartial, he/she will spend an awful lot of time treading on the Prime Minister's toes. Or alternatively, if the President will be a replacement for both the Monarch and the PM, you'll have the same problem the USA has of a Government's character being irredeemably intertwined with its structure, which does enormous damage to its reputation abroad.

I'm not saying I'm in favour of Australia retaining the Monarchy, mind, just that I doubt it'll make any important difference at all.

As for the wider British perspective on an Aussie Republic, trust me, no one here will mind in the slightest. Indeed I doubt many here will even notice, as it just hasn't got any bearing on our lives at all.

In the end, it's up to the Aussies entirely.
Biercanistan
02-01-2005, 12:31
I hate to be the one to point this out, since so many people seem to think it wrecks any argument for a republican Australia...

But Constitutional Monarchy in Australia, in it's current form, does NOT work flawlessly. Kerr's sacking of Good Ole Gough in '75 was called a Constitutional Crisis for a reason - theoretically, Jeffery could pull a similar stunt these days. (And if Latham's leadership wasn't such a trainwreck, it wouldn't be a bad thing, but that's another topic.) The crisis demonstrated the underlying instability of a convention-based system like the Westminster (or the Australian "Washminster").

Also, regarding the failure of the previous republic referendum. Kambrya, in his misguided Monarchist attempt to misrepresent reality, neglected to mention the mechanics behind that referendum. Firstly, the referendum process in Australia is arguably unworkable (popular essay topic for first-year polsci students) - of the 44 proposed constitutional amendments that have gone to referendum, only eight have been passed, half of which are "technical or minor." Menzies got it right when he said "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."

Even ignoring that issue, it's unfair to say that the referendum clearly and finally demonstrated that "a majority of Australians are republican." If you remember correctly, you'll know that the referendum was swung on the lack of clarity over the method of appointing a President/Head of State. Even the most monarchist lecturers at my uni will admit that (grudgingly).
JujenDanq
02-01-2005, 12:42
You mean it's not a Republic? And here I was thinking that the entire British Empire had been eliminated and that all of the former British colonies were already completely independent.
But yes, it should be.

LOL no way we still have the British Commonwealth of nations www.thecommonwealth.org and we still have these territories:

Anguilla, British Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St Helena and Dependencies (Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), Turk and Caicos Islands, Pitcairn Island, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus.
imported_Jako
02-01-2005, 12:48
[QUOTE=Stormwarz]As for the wider British perspective on an Aussie Republic, trust me, no one here will mind in the slightest. Indeed I doubt many here will even notice, as it just hasn't got any bearing on our lives at all. [QUOTE]

I think Australia voting out the British monarchy to become a republic would slightly damage the Royalist cause over here in the UK. Ok, many people won't notice but as Australia elects its own head-of-state I'm sure more people will sit up and think "Hmm, why can't we do the same?".

So in the long term Australia dumping the monarchy could inspire increased Republicanism in Britain. Wa-heyyy! Roll on the Republic!
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 13:49
Regardless of the power of the monarch, the political system is inherintly similar.
The Prime Minster is elected by the people - Democratic

The Prime Minister advises the Governer General in the name of the people - Democratic

The Governer General advises the Queen in the name of the people - Democratic

The Queen acts on the advice of the representatives of the people - Democratic.

Democratically, the systems are almost identicle, but Constitutional Monarchy posses the obvious benifeits of our symbolic Head of State becoming so by inheritance places the monarch entirely beyond political interference or inclination - it ensures that our symbolic Head of State is always 'a politican - free zone' and this is reflected in the conduct of the local Head of State (Governors and Governors-General) who also remain above politics.


The Governor General and the State Governors are appointed by the Prime Minister in the case of the Governor General or by the State premiers in the case of the State Governors. This is a direct appointment by the leading politician - the people are not consulted and do not vote. How is this democratic????

The monarch inherits the throne. Again, no consultation or election. How is this democratic??? Or "beyond political interference" ???

If the Governor Generral remains "above politics" then how can he summarily dismiss an elected Prime Minister? Is that democratic???
imported_Jako
02-01-2005, 13:52
LOL - if you hate "political interference" so much why not make all government positions hereditary? Who cares about consulting the people or electoral accountability - God save the Queen etc
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 13:59
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Australia is already fully independent, so why spend millions of dollars, and sacrifice both international and domestic popularity for the sake of some outrages vanity?

Costings please. And compared to the current costings of keeping the monarchists.

And why would we lose any international popularity - there are more republics than constitutional monarchies(and with good reason).

Domestic popularity - the Australian republic will come as a result of an Australian referendum, when the questions and issues are posed in a fair and realistic manner. The choice of the people will be just that - their choice. Sorry, this dain democracy ideal keeps getting in the way of your monarchy, doesn't it?
Ironlock
02-01-2005, 14:15
Seems to me that it's ok as it is. Australia as part of the commonwealth is hardly living under oppression and the resulting improved trade, tourism, and diplomacy is a good thing.

In my opinion countries should not shrug off their heritage just for the sake of a new flag.

I'm not particularly knowledgable about Australian politics, but do they not get to make their own laws and do their own thing at the moment anyway?
Greedy Pig
02-01-2005, 14:33
My opinion to this is more like a "If it's not broken, don't fix it".

Doesn't seem like the Queen of England is such a evil tyrant taxing the people is she?

Plus, IMO, it's fun to have some heritage. I enjoy the ad's where Australia makes fun of the Queen. :p *Searches for Martyn Maloy cds*
Biercanistan
02-01-2005, 14:43
Seems to me that it's ok as it is. Australia as part of the commonwealth is hardly living under oppression and the resulting improved trade, tourism, and diplomacy is a good thing.

In my opinion countries should not shrug off their heritage just for the sake of a new flag.

I'm not particularly knowledgable about Australian politics, but do they not get to make their own laws and do their own thing at the moment anyway?

The particular Australian debate about a republic versus a constitutional monarchy is pretty in depth, and a basic understanding of the Australian system is needed to understand any of the arguments.

With regards to law-making (simplified and possibly a bit inaccurate because of that): a bill (proposed legislation) is proposed by the government in the House of Representatives (the Lower House). It will usually be passed because conventionally, a government has a majority in the Lower House. It then goes to the Senate, where it again must be passed. Thus far in the process, the bill has only been subject to scrutiny by elected representatives - thus, democratic. Having passed both Houses, it goes to the Governor-General, who in his/her role as Viceroy can sign it into law. This is the important bit - although a GG conventionally (that word again) will always pass legislation, there's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing it. So ultimately, a piece of democratically suggested and passed legislation can be thwarted by a vice-regal whim. Hence, not entirely democracy.

With regards to other things, I'll direct you to a Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975) on the 1975 Constitutional Crisis. This could (theoretically) happen again.
Draconical
02-01-2005, 14:55
to all of you yanks put there.. get out of our backyard.

There is only one reason that you all want us to become a Republic. That is so there is no-one to stop your President (and I use the term VERY loosely) can exert more influence over Us. Basically, the Americans got peeved whe the Australian Gov reminded them that ANSUS was a MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY, and now they figure that when we change to a Republic we will hace to renegotiate a lot of treaties and that will let them make a better deal.

And why would we want to emulate a system that is so obviously open to graft and corruption as the US Democracy (GAG, CHOKE, did I say Democracy, oh well I supposed totalitarian dictatorship would be inaccurate, and they do have elections, of a sort, I mean if you look at both side of the First time GW Bush was elected, that result was nothing short of fraudulent and just plain manipulated in my humble opinion)

And for the Information of all you budding Constitutional Lawyers out there. Yes the Monarch can only act after being advised buy the Australian Government, but that advice is only to make sure that the aforementioned Monarch is properly informed about the matter being acted upon. I think you will find that nowhere does it say that he/she has to follow that advice. That is why it is called advice. It is up to the Monarch, as REPRESENTED BY the GG ( I don't know where you guys got the Idea that the GG is our Head of state.. he is now and always been, the person RECOMENDED TO the Monarch.) to make up his/her own mind based on that advice. It is simply good luck as far as I am concerned, that the wishes of our Monarch and Our Government tend to coincided. Probably because the queen is an Intelligent Person who considers all sides of an issue and gives more weight to the advice of our Government because they are on the spot and She is not. I don't know.

But the fact remains that no matter what we advise the queen to do, if she doesn't agree that is best for the COMONWEATH of Australia the she could, if she so wished, go against that advise. Probably not a smart thing to do, but she could if she wanted to. And so it seems that this non-existant power of the Queen is actually very real even if it is almost never exercised.


Oh.. an BTW.. I am in favor of staying just the way we are.. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The reason the referendum went down is because the Gov wanted to appoint their own Pres and we the people said F U very much but no thank you.. if we gotta have a republic, then make it one where every person is equally represented at the ballot box to choose our Leader whatever he/she may be named, Polititions and Non Pollies alike. I mean we almost never like the gov we get now so how could we trust them to choose a pres.
Ironlock
02-01-2005, 15:26
Having passed both Houses, it goes to the Governor-General, who in his/her role as Viceroy can sign it into law. This is the important bit - although a GG conventionally (that word again) will always pass legislation, there's nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing it. So ultimately, a piece of democratically suggested and passed legislation can be thwarted by a vice-regal whim. Hence, not entirely democracy.

We have the same thing in the UK where several layers of unelected officials could, in theory, veto a law. These are mostly house of lords and the monarch. However they do not outright veto laws which parliament puts forward because the law would be changed to remove that ability.

In my opinion removing part of your heritage for the sake of 100% pure democracy is unnecessay. At the worst these officials may slow down a particularly objectionable bill, and a lot of people would agree that elected officials often rush through legislation which the populace may not agree with.

In the long run I don't think it's something commonwealth countries have to worry about. The British Monarchy is hardly imposing itself on anyone nowadays and it looks like the general move away from Monarchial power will continue.

Ofcourse if you read on the news that our new king has just locked the Prime-Minister away in the Tower of London and executed the other members of Parliament, you may want to think about this republic thing more :)
Jeruselem
02-01-2005, 15:41
An Australian republic doesn't mean we'll be independent of the influence of other nations. Sure, the UK will no longer be our master but then it seems the shadowy hand of US is always there. If we do, we'll end up being "Little America" the way we are going.
Biercanistan
02-01-2005, 15:44
to all of you yanks put there.. get out of our backyard.

There is only one reason that you all want us to become a Republic. That is so there is no-one to stop your President (and I use the term VERY loosely) can exert more influence over Us. Basically, the Americans got peeved whe the Australian Gov reminded them that ANSUS was a MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY, and now they figure that when we change to a Republic we will hace to renegotiate a lot of treaties and that will let them make a better deal.

Go and actually read the ANZUS treaty. Nowhere in the treaty is there a so-called "All for One" clause such as can be found in the NATO charter. As it happens, whether we are a republic or a monarchy has sod-all effect on our treaty obligations. Idiot.

And why would we want to emulate a system that is so obviously open to graft and corruption as the US Democracy (GAG, CHOKE, did I say Democracy, oh well I supposed totalitarian dictatorship would be inaccurate, and they do have elections, of a sort, I mean if you look at both side of the First time GW Bush was elected, that result was nothing short of fraudulent and just plain manipulated in my humble opinion)

We already have emulated the American system. Where do you think the idea for the Senate came from? The Australian parliamentary system is a combination of the Washington system and the Westminster - hence, it gets called "Washminster."

And for the Information of all you budding Constitutional Lawyers out there. Yes the Monarch can only act after being advised buy the Australian Government, but that advice is only to make sure that the aforementioned Monarch is properly informed about the matter being acted upon. I think you will find that nowhere does it say that he/she has to follow that advice. That is why it is called advice. It is up to the Monarch, as REPRESENTED BY the GG ( I don't know where you guys got the Idea that the GG is our Head of state.. he is now and always been, the person RECOMENDED TO the Monarch.) to make up his/her own mind based on that advice.

This has already been clarified. Several times.

It is simply good luck as far as I am concerned, that the wishes of our Monarch and Our Government tend to coincided. Probably because the queen is an Intelligent Person who considers all sides of an issue and gives more weight to the advice of our Government because they are on the spot and She is not. I don't know.

The Queen may be an "Intelligent Person," but you're obviously not. The Queen doesn't actually have any input AT ALL in the legislative process - although she retains the right to intercede. It is the vice-roy, ie the Governor-General, who represents her power here and makes appropriate decisions. I'm glad you find this dodgy, but read up on it before you make sweeping statements.

But the fact remains that no matter what we advise the queen to do, if she doesn't agree that is best for the COMONWEATH of Australia the she could, if she so wished, go against that advise. Probably not a smart thing to do, but she could if she wanted to. And so it seems that this non-existant power of the Queen is actually very real even if it is almost never exercised.

"And so it seems" that I already outlined this about five posts ago. The power you speak of has been explicitly exercised only once - in 1975.

Oh.. an BTW.. I am in favor of staying just the way we are.. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The reason the referendum went down is because the Gov wanted to appoint their own Pres and we the people said F U very much but no thank you.. if we gotta have a republic, then make it one where every person is equally represented at the ballot box to choose our Leader whatever he/she may be named, Polititions and Non Pollies alike. I mean we almost never like the gov we get now so how could we trust them to choose a pres.

Eloquent, and accurate. Except that it is broke - for the reasons you already stated.
Biercanistan
02-01-2005, 15:49
We have the same thing in the UK where several layers of unelected officials could, in theory, veto a law. These are mostly house of lords and the monarch. However they do not outright veto laws which parliament puts forward because the law would be changed to remove that ability.

In my opinion removing part of your heritage for the sake of 100% pure democracy is unnecessay. At the worst these officials may slow down a particularly objectionable bill, and a lot of people would agree that elected officials often rush through legislation which the populace may not agree with.

In the long run I don't think it's something commonwealth countries have to worry about. The British Monarchy is hardly imposing itself on anyone nowadays and it looks like the general move away from Monarchial power will continue.

You're right, in that it's most probably never going to cause outright problems for the people of Australia. However, there's an element of nationalism behind the republican cause, similar to that which you guys are finding in the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. I, as an Australian, would like my country (Australia) to be ultimately represented by an Australian head of state.

Look at it this way: as a Briton, would you be entirely comfortable if, say, a Danish monarch retained ultimate executive power over any legislative decisions in the UK, even though the chances of them ever exercising that power were slim to none?

Losing the monarchy doesn't mean we need to abandon our heritage. Australia's connection with Britain has been overwhelmingly positive (except when Churchill asked us to abandon our northern borders and fight in Europe - nice one chump), but it's time to cut the apron strings and move out on our own.
Patra Caesar
02-01-2005, 15:57
Go and actually read the ANZUS treaty. Nowhere in the treaty is there a so-called "All for One" clause such as can be found in the NATO charter. As it happens, whether we are a republic or a monarchy has sod-all effect on our treaty obligations.


As I understand it there is a clause, but it says we must support the US, they may support us...

Let's just get he facts right - the Prime Minister was E.G. ("Gough") Whitlam. The Governor General was John Kerr. How a foreign queen's representative, appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister (duly elected by the people, and accountable to them) has the "right" to dismiss such a duly elected Prime Minister is a joke. This was, and remains, a constitutional crisis, and needs to be resolved.

[QUOTE=Ravenclaws]What leadership? The G-G is a figurehead, no more, no less. The politicians have all the power. I know that the Constitution says otherwise, but in practice, the Governor-General pretty much does what he's told by the Government of the day (unless his name is John Kerr). I do not believe that a Governor-General has ever disallowed a piece of legislation. Half of the people in this country probably don't even know who he is, and don't care, because the role is no more than ceremonial.

That was only because the government couldn't pass a budget, it had taken months and the economy was going to grind to a halt, something had to be done and for the first, and only time (that I know of anyway) the GG stepped in and did something. It was an extra-ordinary act for an extra-ordinary time, all quite legal.

For all you americans out there, let me give you a bit of advice: If there is one thing that pisses off us Aussies, it is Americans telling us how to run our political system. Your tool of a President had the brains to tell off our opposition leader for doubting our PM over Iraq, and it would of lost him the election HAD BLOODY LATHAM DECIDED TO RUN A DECENT BLOODY CAMPAIGN AND MENTIONED IT!!!

sorry...

I feel sorry for Simon Crean, him for PM and Costello as treasurer! :D
Ironlock
02-01-2005, 16:02
We in the UK may find our head of state is not British fairly soon. With increased involvement in the EU, our legislative power is drifting towards the continent.

I'm an idealist however and do not think in the long run it's such a bad thing. Long after I'm gone I hope that much of Europe lives in peace and unity. Sure there will always be the corrupt politicians and regional rivalries, but unification of states done in a benevolent way is not a bad thing.

The trend with a lot of countries recently has been to withdraw from world-wide and more local cooperation, towards insularism and exclusory foreign policy.

I feel that a large government that provides equal opportunities to all member states while allowing these regions to address their own most pressing issues, would be ideal. An element of compromise is needed by all nations to achieve future security and freedom for all people.

That said, legislation that overides local custom that hurts no-one is saddening, diluting peoples history and culture.
Biercanistan
02-01-2005, 16:05
No, the closest thing is Article III, which states that, if one Party considers there to be a threat to any Party, all Parties must "consult together." Which is a polite way of saying "No-one's under any obligation at all, unless they're a unpleasant little man with unruly eyebrows and a wish to suck Bush's cock."
Biercanistan
02-01-2005, 16:08
We in the UK may find our head of state is not British fairly soon. With increased involvement in the EU, our legislative power is drifting towards the continent.

I'm an idealist however and do not think in the long run it's such a bad thing. Long after I'm gone I hope that much of Europe lives in peace and unity. Sure there will always be the corrupt politicians and regional rivalries, but unification of states done in a benevolent way is not a bad thing.

While the EU is a separate topic, I for one wish it the best of luck. As far as social experiments go, it's massive, and I hope it works out positively. Unfortunately, it's not particularly relevant to Australia. :)

The trend with a lot of countries recently has been to withdraw from world-wide and more local cooperation, towards insularism and exclusory foreign policy.

In the European community, true. Not necessarily in the ASEAN community.
Un-governable People
02-01-2005, 16:30
Wait, what? Shoot the natives for sport...what the hell are you talking about? Australia was originally a prison colony for the British.

Actually Australia was ‘originally’ the land of over 200 nations, and some 1500 clans or extended family groups, long before the British had ever stepped upon it’s shore.

..Who shot the natives...

Do you realize how patronizing the term ‘native’s is for an Indigenous Australian? Please show some respect.

And that was two centuries ago. What, you want to pull them from their graves and try them for murder? Might as well find Nero and try him for all of his crimes while you're at it...

The Australian genocide was two-hundred years ago? The early 1800s? What history books have you been reading? The last recorded, and I stress, recorded, massacre of Aboriginal people in Australia was 1928, at Coniston Station in the Northern Territory. Somewhere between 30 and 100 people, including women and children, were killed.

Exactly; all of the people who would shoot them have long since been dead. Trust me, I know history better than you think. And above all I know that to persecute a country's current population for the crimes of a century ago is immoral.

If only that were true, the descendants of the people murdered at Coniston are alive today, it was only 77 years ago after all, and who knows if there were unrecorded massacres after this date. I’m not suggesting anyone should be prosecuted, but the impression you give is that these events are dead and buried, whilst the victims of white-violence in ‘colonial’ Australia may be, the legacy of such events is far from dead, that’s not ‘history’, that’s the present, life, now. Australia as a nation, still has a lot of healing, a lot of reconciliation to do, there’s no doubt about that.


And...I have no way of knowing what country the person that started the "shooting natives" thing, but if he's from the Americas, you know...We sorta did that too.

Urgh, ‘sorta did that too’, yeah, I suppose, genocide, just kind of happens, how flippantly insulting of you, thanks.

I am from New Zealand and we here, certainly are not interested in a change.

Really? You’re the countries elected spokesperson?

PS> We are New Zealanders. Please do not refer to us as 'Kiwis'. And why is it that all the Australians I have had the displeasure to encounter are prats like that person?

You do realize that your own disdain for Australia and Australians, and the arrogance weaved within, is making you look the prat, right? I’m not trying to ‘insult’ you, i’m just saying, the impression your giving is not good, and that may have something to do with the fact you don’t seem to get on well with Australians you meet? Because of your bitter resentment?

And of course, your spite was returned with spite from Australian members, was their a point to your posts? Other than to illicit a response like that?

Kudos on raising the Civil Unions issue BTW...none of our politicians have the balls.

Your mistaking a lack of balls, for a lack of a compassion, why would either major party float an idea they both oppose?

Doesn't seem like the Queen of England is such a evil tyrant taxing the people is she?

Well except she probably costs more than she brings in as tourist dollars, and failing that, selling all her luxury estates, assets and so forth, could fund the public sector for…. a very long time.

And finally to the purpose of this thread, of course Australia should be a republic, it’s almost embarrassing that as of yet we aren’t. The logic in opposing the change, or at least one of the arguments put forward, ie. that it’s so cosmetic it’s meaningless, why do it? Spun back on itself, if it wont do any harm, why not? I just don’t see the attraction of living in the shadow of the ‘motherland’ any longer.
Unaha-Closp
02-01-2005, 16:51
It is not like the Queen can actually tell Australia to do anything. So Australia becoming a republic would just be colossal rebranding exercise changing the title Governor General to President and redoing all the stationary.
The Lightning Star
02-01-2005, 17:32
Wow! This has gone far-fast!

Bump!
Smeagol-Gollum
02-01-2005, 19:48
It is not like the Queen can actually tell Australia to do anything. So Australia becoming a republic would just be colossal rebranding exercise changing the title Governor General to President and redoing all the stationary.

The Constitutional Crisis of 1975 proved conclusively that the existing system is broken.

An unelected "Queen's representative" was able to dismiss the elected Prime Minister. This was permitted without reference to the Queen, to the Prime Minister, to the Parliament, or to the people.

Obviously, the powers of the Governor General need to be codified properly so as to prevent a recurrence.

And, if that is going to happen, why not use the opportunity to amend the Constitution to allow the Australian Head of State to be both an Australian, and elected to the position.

Its a simple enough choice - an elected Australian or a British monarch.
Kambrya
02-01-2005, 22:21
The Constitutional Crisis of 1975 proved conclusively that the existing system is broken.

An unelected "Queen's representative" was able to dismiss the elected Prime Minister. This was permitted without reference to the Queen, to the Prime Minister, to the Parliament, or to the people.

Obviously, the powers of the Governor General need to be codified properly so as to prevent a recurrence.

And, if that is going to happen, why not use the opportunity to amend the Constitution to allow the Australian Head of State to be both an Australian, and elected to the position.

Its a simple enough choice - an elected Australian or a British monarch.


Let me referr you to an article so kindly pointed out by my Republican opposition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975

For your convienience, I will highlight the important sections.

The crisis began when the upper house of the Australian Federal Parliament, the Senate, in which the opposition Liberal-Country Party coalition had a majority, deferred voting on a bill that appropriated funds for government expenditure, conditional on the Prime Minister dissolving the House of Representatives and calling an election. Although Labor had voted against money bills many times in the past, success in such an action was unprecedented in Australian Federal politics, and has not been attempted since. The government, led by Labor's Gough Whitlam, ignored such calls, and attempted to pressure Liberal senators to support the bill while also exploring alternative means to fund government expenditure.

The impasse continued for some weeks, during which the threat of the government being unable to meet its financial obligations hung over the country. The crisis was resolved on 11 November 1975 when the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Labor Prime Minister Whitlam and his government, and appointed his Liberal opponent Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. Kerr did so having secured an undertaking from Fraser that he would seek a dissolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, thus precipitating a general election.
Shizzle Nizzle
02-01-2005, 22:26
I LIVED There, Mr. Cumburger. For YEARS.

Also, Pakistan is the ONLY Muslim country with nukes. It is the most progressive because it has extensive rights for women, people of all faiths, and people from all classes. It's the most advanced because, i mean, you HAVE to be advanced to get nukes.

And if it's not all of those things, what IS the most Power, Progressive, and advanced muslim nation?

Nukes makes you more advanced? If you say so. I would have thought tech and politics etc would, but sure, whatever.

I myself have lived in the Middle East for 4 years, and in the UAE and most other Middle Eastern countries Pakistan is merely a source of cheap labour.

I don't know if it's *the* most advanced, but the UAE is a hell of a lot better than Pakistan.
Biercanistan
03-01-2005, 05:55
The crisis began when the upper house of the Australian Federal Parliament, the Senate, in which the opposition Liberal-Country Party coalition had a majority, deferred voting on a bill that appropriated funds for government expenditure, conditional on the Prime Minister dissolving the House of Representatives and calling an election. Although Labor had voted against money bills many times in the past, success in such an action was unprecedented in Australian Federal politics, and has not been attempted since. The government, led by Labor's Gough Whitlam, ignored such calls, and attempted to pressure Liberal senators to support the bill while also exploring alternative means to fund government expenditure.

The impasse continued for some weeks, during which the threat of the government being unable to meet its financial obligations hung over the country. The crisis was resolved on 11 November 1975 when the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the Labor Prime Minister Whitlam and his government, and appointed his Liberal opponent Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. Kerr did so having secured an undertaking from Fraser that he would seek a dissolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, thus precipitating a general election.

Oh gosh, I guess I didn't read or understand the material I recommended to you. That's me shafted! ... Oh wait, no, I did understand it. Damn.

Fact is, you're missing the point, and you're trying very hard to misrepresent the issue. What's significant for this argument is how the Crisis ended, not how it started. The causes of the Crisis were many and varied, primarily including problems in the Senate that were sparked by the replacement of dead/resigned Senators by politicians not of their own party, which lead to majority issues within the Upper House (interestingly, one of the eight successful referendum issues I mentioned was a change to the Constitution that made it impossible for this to happen again).

The only serious concern to be raised by the Constitutional Crisis that hasn't been dealt with is the power held by the Governor-General. The fact is that the power was used inappropriately and prematurely - I don't have time to go over the Constitution with you, let alone try and explain parliamentary conventions, but there are safeguards in place to ensure that supply bills can be passed and life will go on.

Thanks for making my point for me.
The Lightning Star
03-01-2005, 06:04
Nukes makes you more advanced? If you say so. I would have thought tech and politics etc would, but sure, whatever.

I myself have lived in the Middle East for 4 years, and in the UAE and most other Middle Eastern countries Pakistan is merely a source of cheap labour.

I don't know if it's *the* most advanced, but the UAE is a hell of a lot better than Pakistan.

Tell me, Mr. Nizzle, have you ever been to Pakistan yourself?

What's that? No? WEll, oh dear! Your claim holds up didley-squat!

Mine, on the other hand, holds, because i have been to Dubai many times. Dubai is all fun and good, but it's just a city state. The U.A.E. is a confederacy of city-states. Not much of a country, eh?

Pakistan, on the other hand, is a NATION of over 150,000,000. It has an oil industry, a mining industry, a textile industry, as well as the largest military in the Islamic world. It also has nukes(which need a high level of technology to reach). It's full of a fiercly patriotic people. Not loyal to one Emir or another, but to the greater good of the Pakistani people(and most of the time any people that doesn't like India).

You may think Pakistan is full of slums, but in fact Islamabad is one of the most modern cities in the world. It's full of beautiful park's, it has a reasonable population, it has the world's largest mosque, it has a very low poverty rate, and it has many high-tech industries. Sure, Pakistan may not be like the U.K. or the U.S., but it Is advanced. Lahore is full of park's as well. It also has some very advanced places too. Karachi is also one of the largest cities in the Islamic world(if not THE largest.)

Also, the U.A.E is TINY compared to Pakistan. The U.A.E. may look nicer because it's made up of rich oil tycoons, but it lacks a true democracy(i mean, Emir's arent exactly elected, are they?) Pakistan, on the other hand, has a large parliament, and the Prime Minister DOES have power! Now, Musharraf may be a dictator, but at least he's a kind and benevolent dictator(and he's promised to step down by the end of the decade. At least he let's democracy WORK.)

All in all, The U.A.E. may seem nicer, but after all, it's a small country run by a bunch of oil-rich emir's. That's not saying the U.A.E. is bad, (I absolutely LOVE Dubai), but your claim that it is "better" than Pakistan is baisically without foundation.

Also, who would win in a war? Pakistan! So you'd better hope the U.A.E. doesn't get Pakistan mad (which would be bad, since the Islamabad-Dubai flights are SO much fun!)
Biercanistan
03-01-2005, 06:34
I find it amusing that you use the words "Musharraf" and "democracy" in the same sentence, without also using "rape."
The Lightning Star
03-01-2005, 06:43
I find it amusing that you use the words "Musharraf" and "democracy" in the same sentence, without also using "rape."

...

Ignorance. Pure, pure ignorance.

Think of it this way. In the roman Republic, when there was a threat to the Republic a person chosen by the people would take control of the government to protect the people. Now in Pakistan's case, the people backed Musharraf because the guy he overthrew was just plain evil and wasn't good to the people. Musharraf is good to the people. He has brought job's and money and allies. He has also retained alot of democracy(yes, the Pakistani Parliament DOES have power), instead of just giving himself complete power.

Before the 60's the president could overrule parliament in times of danger. Now, Musharraf wasn''t democratically elected, but at least he isn't mean. And he doesn't "rape" the Pakistani people. Isn't it better that Pakistan is following a pre-60's almost-democracy instead of being an Islamic Monarchy like most other muslim states?

The only more democratic Islamic state would hafta be Indonesia.
Upitatanium
03-01-2005, 07:29
Australia is fine the way it is. Being a part of the commonwealth is just for show anyway and it adds a rich cultural background to boot. The Queen isn't going to start slapping people around.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with Australia that becoming a republic will solve. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Smeagol-Gollum
03-01-2005, 07:31
Oh gosh, I guess I didn't read or understand the material I recommended to you. That's me shafted! ... Oh wait, no, I did understand it. Damn.

Fact is, you're missing the point, and you're trying very hard to misrepresent the issue. What's significant for this argument is how the Crisis ended, not how it started. The causes of the Crisis were many and varied, primarily including problems in the Senate that were sparked by the replacement of dead/resigned Senators by politicians not of their own party, which lead to majority issues within the Upper House (interestingly, one of the eight successful referendum issues I mentioned was a change to the Constitution that made it impossible for this to happen again).

The only serious concern to be raised by the Constitutional Crisis that hasn't been dealt with is the power held by the Governor-General. The fact is that the power was used inappropriately and prematurely - I don't have time to go over the Constitution with you, let alone try and explain parliamentary conventions, but there are safeguards in place to ensure that supply bills can be passed and life will go on.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Well said.
The crux of the problem, of course, is that the Governor General is accountable to whom?
The Prime Minister who appointed him - obviously not, as he "sacked" Whitlam, when Whitlam could have just as easily 'sacked" him.
The Queen - at no time was she ever consulted, as has been pointed she is supposedly "above" politics.
The Parliament - obviously not.
The people - again, no, as he/she does not face election.
So you have a role that is supposedly a figurhead cermonial type role, representing a foreign monarch (yes, foreign as she is not Australian), unanswerable to anybody, weilding considerable power.
And this, supposedly, is the situation described as "not broken".
Shizzle Nizzle
03-01-2005, 07:35
Wow I appreciate you answering for me Miss Lightning but your assumption is incorrect. I've been to Pakistan several times on business trips and I abhor the place. My personal opinion, so there you go.

I'm thrilled to be back in the civilized world.
Down System
03-01-2005, 07:48
As an Australian, I'd like to comment on the republic issue. I think Australia should have a republic, but the last system put foward for a republic was horribly flawed. However our system at the present time is not infallible either. There is the problem of senate blockage, the uneccessarily large power of the governer general and the somewhat unfair party alliances. I think we could use a change. The Queen is simply a figurehead in my view as she does not play any real part in our politics, she just listens to the Govenor General and 99.99999% of the time, she agrees with the GG. We could survive without her.

Also I'm glad to see a yank who can distinguish the difference between an Austrian and an Australian. Doesn't happen very often.
The Lightning Star
03-01-2005, 08:29
As an Australian, I'd like to comment on the republic issue. I think Australia should have a republic, but the last system put foward for a republic was horribly flawed. However our system at the present time is not infallible either. There is the problem of senate blockage, the uneccessarily large power of the governer general and the somewhat unfair party alliances. I think we could use a change. The Queen is simply a figurehead in my view as she does not play any real part in our politics, she just listens to the Govenor General and 99.99999% of the time, she agrees with the GG. We could survive without her.

Also I'm glad to see a yank who can distinguish the difference between an Austrian and an Australian. Doesn't happen very often.

Please, I prefer the term "New Englander" :D

Yank sounds like yankee, and the Yankee's are a baseball team, the arch-rival of the Boston Red-Sox.

Anyhoo, how could someone get Austria and Australia confused?!?!?
Biercanistan
03-01-2005, 08:59
Oh, you'd be surprised. :)
Helennia
03-01-2005, 10:03
Yep, it's fairly common. I often get asked what the snow's like here - there isn't much of it, that's for sure.
Now here's the problem with the republic issue. It's been thirty years since the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, and the documents came into the public domain only a few days ago. What Whitlam was proposing to do appears to have been very, very bad indeed - and in retrospect I'm glad that there was someone with the power to step in. However, that power does not need to be confined to one person appointed by the Queen - it could be equally well served by a committee of elected Australians.
It is not like the Queen can actually tell Australia to do anything. So Australia becoming a republic would just be colossal rebranding exercise changing the title Governor General to President and redoing all the stationary.
Actually, if Australia were a republic, the 'President' would be our elected Prime Minister, NOT the Governor-General. The G-G is essentially a figurehead with little purpose except for diplomatic ties with the Commonwealth.
Biercanistan
03-01-2005, 13:17
It's been thirty years since the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, and the documents came into the public domain only a few days ago.

Really? I'd be very very interested to see/read those... Do you have a link? :)
Von Witzleben
03-01-2005, 13:36
God save the Queen!!!
Biercanistan
03-01-2005, 13:40
God save the Queen!!!

Because nothing can save the Governor-General.


... ZING!
Helennia
03-01-2005, 15:45
Really? I'd be very very interested to see/read those... Do you have a link? :)
Original documents are a pain! but I've dug up the best article from the Sydney Morning Herald for you - go to
http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/01/1104345030246.html
You may find it's only for members but don't worry, membership is free and just needs an email address :)
Pershikia
03-01-2005, 16:02
Besides, it would still be a member of the commonwealth! The only thing that would change is that there wouldn't be any coins with queens on them baisically.


What's wrong with the coins with queens?
Aligned Planets
03-01-2005, 16:44
As a Royalist here in good old England, I fully support the current monarchy, and Queen Elizabeth II :-)

Sorry, but I had to vote 'no' in the poll!
Smeagol-Gollum
03-01-2005, 19:57
It's been thirty years since the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, and the documents came into the public domain only a few days ago. What Whitlam was proposing to do appears to have been very, very bad indeed - and in retrospect I'm glad that there was someone with the power to step in.

The problem, quite simply, was not of the Government's making. The Opposition parties had obtained control of the Senate by devious means - replacing dead or retired senators with people nominated by the State Premiers, not of the original party.

In February 1975 NSW Labor Senator Lionel Murphy resigned to take a
position on the High Court. According to convention he should have been
replaced by a Labor Senator, however, the Premier of NSW nominated an
independent, Cleaver Bunton. In September 1975, Qld Labor Senator Bert
Millner died and the Qld Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, broke with
convention and replaced the Senator with Albert Field, a nominee who was
a member of the ALP, but not selected by the ALP to take the vacancy.

This made it unlikely the Whitlam government would have the support in
the Senate it needed to gets its legislation passed because Field did
not support Whitlam.

This provided the Liberal Country Party coalition parties with the
opportunity to block supply (i.e. refuse to pass the Government Budget).

In October 1975, the Senate deferred the government's supply bills. This
meant that the government was left in a situation where it was unsure
about whether it would be able to fund its activities and executive
responsibilities. The deadlock on the supply bills continued until 11
November 1975. On that day, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, took
the unprecedented step of intervening to sack the Whitlam government,
asking the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, to form a caretaker
government. The move was referred to by some as "Kerr's King Hit!".

Quite simply, a series of "dirty tricks" of questionable legality, some of which have since been blocked.

And an extremely questionable decision by the Governor General. It is this unelected and unaccountable person removing a duly elected Prime Minister that is at the heart of the Constitutional Crisis. This is what is "broken" about the system.

However, that power does not need to be confined to one person appointed by the Queen - it could be equally well served by a committee of elected Australians. Actually, if Australia were a republic, the 'President' would be our elected Prime Minister, NOT the Governor-General. The G-G is essentially a figurehead with little purpose except for diplomatic ties with the Commonwealth.

If, as you state "the G-G is essentially a figurehead with little purpose", then how is this G-G able to dismiss a Government????

The Governor General, while "appointed" by the Queen, is the nominee of the Prime Minister. That is the ironic part - Whitlam nominated Kerr. If Australia were a republic, the Governor General's role, representing the Monarch, would be obsolete. It would be replaced by a President, not by the Prime Minister.

The last Australian referendum failed quite simply because the only option presented to the Australian people was that the President be appointed by Parliament, instead of directly elected.

This was designed to fail, as it was known that it was an unpopular model.

In other words, the referendum "question" was "rigged".
Helennia
04-01-2005, 02:00
I was a little unclear. What I meant to say was that we would follow much the same process of electing our leader, except instead of being called Prime Minister he/she would be called President.
I was also referring to the current situation when I stated that the G-G was a figurehead - keep in mind that in recent times the G-G has had a declining role in Australian politics as our ties and obligations to the British monarchy diminish.
And yes, the question was rigged. It offered the Australian public no real choice but to continue with the monarchy, since the only other option was to have a leader that was not directly elected by the people.
Zwange
04-01-2005, 02:13
Australia should stay the way it is, becoming a republic will not make it any better. -_-
Smeagol-Gollum
04-01-2005, 02:38
Australia should stay the way it is, becoming a republic will not make it any better. -_-

Except of course that it will remove the potential for a future constitutional crisis, reaffirm our national identity as independent of Britain, and enable an Australian to be the Australian head of state selected for that role in a democratic manner.

All of which are considerably better.

The system is broken, and requires fixing.

An Australian should be the Australian Head of State - why would a non-Australian be preferable?????
Kieristania
04-01-2005, 02:39
Im British, and think Australia should stay as it is.

The system has worked for so long why change it, and you won't gain any more freedom or independence that you already have now.

A Presidential government is something that the Australian people are not used to and are sure you find it very strong and more powerful that the Queen. The PM and President would argue, and it would cause all sorts of problems in government which you don't have at the moment. Thats was constitutional monarchys are the best froms of government, the Head of State has no de facto politcal role. It would also cost more to the tax payer, as the British pay for your Head of State, not you.

Plus, why are Australians so keen to forget their past. They can't deny that the Commenwealth of Australia would not exist as it does without the British Imperialists. Why not stay true to your roots.

The British have nothing but admiration and pride for the Australian nation. It is the greatest thing to come out of the Empire, real democratic countries where the people are free and live a comfortable life. I fact, Austrlia, NZ and Canada are the best thing that came out of the Empire, liberal democracys. So why not keep the Queen, if not for old times sake. BUt of course its up to what the people want, and in the end they should choose.
Zwange
04-01-2005, 02:46
I'd rather Australia stay a monarchy, there are a few reasons why I prefer it, one being it's part of my country's heritage.
Smeagol-Gollum
04-01-2005, 02:59
I'd rather Australia stay a monarchy, there are a few reasons why I prefer it, one being it's part of my country's heritage.

Being a British penal colony is part of our country's heritage - that doen't mean that we stay frozen in time.

Time to move on. Time to be more independent. Time for an Australian to be Head of State.

Do you really want Charles 11 to be the Australian Head of State??
North Island
04-01-2005, 04:21
I think that Australia can and should become a republic nation. How can a big nation like that with two times or more th population of england still be under the english crown?
I also think that the following nations should be free,

Scotland (Alba)
Wales (Cymru)
Canada
New Zealand
Isle of Man (Manx)
and northern Ireland should be given back to the Irish people and republic.

Just get ridd of that old queen in england and all of her wierd family.
Smeagol-Gollum
04-01-2005, 05:50
Im British, and think Australia should stay as it is.

And I am Australian, and think it requires change.

The system has worked for so long why change it, and you won't gain any more freedom or independence that you already have now.

The current system has serious flaws, and makes it impossible for an Australiam to be the Australian Head of State.

A Presidential government is something that the Australian people are not used to and are sure you find it very strong and more powerful that the Queen. The PM and President would argue, and it would cause all sorts of problems in government which you don't have at the moment.

We would manage to get used to it, fear not. The role of the President would be determined and recorded in the Constitution. Many other nations manage quite well with both a Prime Minister and a President, and we therefore have many successful models to choose from.

Thats was constitutional monarchys are the best froms of government, the Head of State has no de facto politcal role. It would also cost more to the tax payer, as the British pay for your Head of State, not you.

How very generous of you. Mind you, we do pay for the Governor General. Fear not, we would return the monarch in an undamaged, if slightly shop-soiled, condition.

Plus, why are Australians so keen to forget their past. They can't deny that the Commenwealth of Australia would not exist as it does without the British Imperialists. Why not stay true to your roots.

Or why not move on from our past into our future?

The British have nothing but admiration and pride for the Australian nation. It is the greatest thing to come out of the Empire,....So why not keep the Queen, if not for old times sake. BUt of course its up to what the people want, and in the end they should choose.

Thank you for not being patronising.

Yes, it is up to us, and yes, we shall choose.
Glinde Nessroe
04-01-2005, 05:54
Before I said that the thing that pisses off us Aussies most is Yanks telling us what to do. I was incorrect, its BLOODY KIWIS TELLING US WHAT TO DO!

As an Australian i would like to personally say: Shut the hell up you sound like a fundamentalist American!
Gurnee
04-01-2005, 06:27
You mean it's not a Republic? And here I was thinking that the entire British Empire had been eliminated and that all of the former British colonies were already completely independent.
But yes, it should be.

What is it now? And what exacly is the commonwealth, and what does it do? Also, what does Australia having some other political system different from a republic make it still part of the British Empire, instead of it's own sovereign nation? I know the answers to all of these questions may be obvious to some of you, but not me, so please, someone help me out here.
Biercanistan
04-01-2005, 06:33
Im British, and think Australia should stay as it is.

The system has worked for so long why change it, and you won't gain any more freedom or independence that you already have now.

A Presidential government is something that the Australian people are not used to and are sure you find it very strong and more powerful that the Queen. The PM and President would argue, and it would cause all sorts of problems in government which you don't have at the moment. Thats was constitutional monarchys are the best froms of government, the Head of State has no de facto politcal role. It would also cost more to the tax payer, as the British pay for your Head of State, not you.

Plus, why are Australians so keen to forget their past. They can't deny that the Commenwealth of Australia would not exist as it does without the British Imperialists. Why not stay true to your roots.

The British have nothing but admiration and pride for the Australian nation. It is the greatest thing to come out of the Empire, real democratic countries where the people are free and live a comfortable life. I fact, Austrlia, NZ and Canada are the best thing that came out of the Empire, liberal democracys. So why not keep the Queen, if not for old times sake. BUt of course its up to what the people want, and in the end they should choose.

I respect your opinion. But a few points:

1) We Australian Republicans aren't suggesting that England should abandon the monarchy. (I deliberately said "England.") You're welcome to keep an anachronistic reminder of the good old feudal days if you want - hell, you've somehow managed to justify the continued existance of the House of Lords.

2) As Smeagol already pointed out, while we don't (directly) pay for the upkeep of the Monarchy, we do pay (a lot) for the Governor-General. I live in Canberra (the capital of Australia, for all you U.S.Asians out there), and the GGs residence is not a small money-sink.

3) As a country, I like to think that Australians aren't afraid of change (regardless of our embarassing white-Australia redneck turnout at the polls). I think we could deal with the change in government that a President would cause.

4) The only part of your post I found offensive was the paragraph about "staying true to our roots." Why don't YOU stay true to YOUR roots - ie animal sacrifices on big rocks, and internecine clan warfare. The fact that Australia was founded by Britain (looking for somewhere to dump the proletariat who were getting shafted by a substantially smaller aristocracy) is definitely part of our heritage, but that in no way compels us to retain the Monarchy. The strongest example I can give is that of two countries that were also founded by Britain, but saw no need to stay under their yoke: India and the USA. Go to New York or Mumbai and start trying to explain that the populace should feel loyal to your queen because of their heritage - I dare ya.
Biercanistan
04-01-2005, 06:45
What is it now? And what exacly is the commonwealth, and what does it do? Also, what does Australia having some other political system different from a republic make it still part of the British Empire, instead of it's own sovereign nation? I know the answers to all of these questions may be obvious to some of you, but not me, so please, someone help me out here.

These are fair questions, and it doesn't reflect poorly on you that you don't know the answers - hell, I'd love to understand the Electoral College and the logic behind the two-party system. :) What follows is a seriously cut-down version of what you'd cover in your first month in an Australian Politics 1001 course.

Australia is, technically, a Federation. After the British established settlements here, there were several States, each with separate spheres of influence, judicial systems, taxation systems, and in some cases railway gauges. (Over-simplified.) If you look at a map of Australia, the modern states roughly correspond to these settlements - New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria, etc.

In 1901, the States voted by referendum to become a Federation. There were a lot of reasons for this, including things such as free trade. A Federation basically meant a centralised Federal government, abolishment of border duties, and (importantly) the establishment of a national Parliament and the drawing up of a Constitution (since Australia operates under the system of Constitutional Monarchy). Thus, Australia is a separate, liberal democratic nation for all intents and purposes, but with the catch that any legislation must be signed by the Governor-General, a unelected vice-regal figure who operates in the capital (Canberra), performs largely ceremonial duties, but retains executive power. This is probably the most divisive issue in Australian politics, and one of the main reasons given for Australian republicanism.

Now, the British Commonwealth of Nations is a conglomeration of countries that are technically under British rule. All this means (in practical terms) is the ability to enter the Commonwealth Games, and to sit and discuss impotently the evils of Commonwealth members such as Zimbabwe.

I'm tired, hungover, and probably didn't answer that well. If you've got any questions, ask and I'll try and clear them up.
The Lightning Star
04-01-2005, 06:45
What's wrong with the coins with queens?

Having the same old lady on the coins gets boring after a while.

I also wanna change Americas currency too. Good bye Abe Lincoln, hello Lyndon B Johnson!
Smeagol-Gollum
04-01-2005, 06:57
4) The only part of your post I found offensive was the paragraph about "staying true to our roots." Why don't YOU stay true to YOUR roots - ie animal sacrifices on big rocks, and internecine clan warfare. The fact that Australia was founded by Britain (looking for somewhere to dump the proletariat who were getting shafted by a substantially smaller aristocracy) is definitely part of our heritage, but that in no way compels us to retain the Monarchy. The strongest example I can give is that of two countries that were also founded by Britain, but saw no need to stay under their yoke: India and the USA. Go to New York or Mumbai and start trying to explain that the populace should feel loyal to your queen because of their heritage - I dare ya.

Well put, mate.

Of course, if the English were really interested in "staying true to their roots" they could do worse than return to their own republican model, under the rule of parliament, and with Cromwell as a de-facto President.

Or, indeed, bring back the Plantagenets. Now that was a proper royal family, that. Or the Stuarts. I've always thought there was something romantic about "Bonnie Prince Charlie" in his failed endeavour at Culloden.

The present crop of royals hardly measure up to the past.

But, I would not seriously suggest what the English should do.

But I do expect that they would refrain from telling us what to do as well.
The Lightning Star
04-01-2005, 07:01
I wish the Kings and princes of England(or of any nation for that matter) would lead men into combat like days of old. Now THOSE were Kings and Princes! Not these modern-day popular culture icons. I mean, seriously, who cares if your a pretty boy when you can't fight for beans.

I also think the president of the U.S. should fly a fighter jet into battle. We have the best AirForce, so our president should at least know how to fly an F-16...
Smeagol-Gollum
04-01-2005, 07:09
I wish the Kings and princes of England(or of any nation for that matter) would lead men into combat like days of old. Now THOSE were Kings and Princes! Not these modern-day popular culture icons. I mean, seriously, who cares if your a pretty boy when you can't fight for beans.

I also think the president of the U.S. should fly a fighter jet into battle. We have the best AirForce, so our president should at least know how to fly an F-16...

Richard 111, last of the Plantagenets, was the last English monarch to die in battle, at Bosworth.

I consider that sets a wonderful example for all monarchs.

Richard is so admired to this day (despite the bad press of Shakespear, writing for the Tudors) that a society still exists "In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history"

Their web site is at http://www.richardiii.net/

Today, I believe that wars would probably be less frequent, less bloody, and shorter if the leaders were truly expected to take part.
Gurnee
04-01-2005, 07:34
I'm tired, hungover, and probably didn't answer that well. If you've got any questions, ask and I'll try and clear them up.

You answered all of my questions quite well, and if you're serious about the electoral college (you obviously already know the basics) I could give you an in-depth answer as to why it is still used and how/why it first came into being.
Helennia
04-01-2005, 10:51
I have to question the purpose of paying taxes for the upkeep of a non-Australian head of state. I'd rather see it spent on education and health.
And is the only reason we're still in the Commonwealth so we can participate in the Games? We are a nation obsessed with sport.
Thankyou for leaving us the choice - I've made mine.
Findecano Calaelen
04-01-2005, 10:54
the only reason we're still in the Commonwealth so we can participate in the Games? We are a nation obsessed with sport.
and we are so good at them
Helennia
04-01-2005, 10:56
We're losing in the netball :P
Findecano Calaelen
04-01-2005, 11:20
We're losing in the netball :P
check out the cricket
Patra Caesar
04-01-2005, 13:53
I think that Australia can and should become a republic nation. How can a big nation like that with two times or more th population of england still be under the english crown?

Just a note, the population of London is 24 million I think, Australia is just over 20 million.
Helennia
05-01-2005, 09:39
check out the cricket
It's too depressing - there's no competition. It's like watching a murder mystery movie when someone has already told you who the killer is.
Pencil Suckers
05-01-2005, 09:46
It's too depressing - there's no competition. It's like watching a murder mystery movie when someone has already told you who the killer is.

Ha! New Zealand vs Aussie test series was some very high quality cricket ;)
Tekania
05-01-2005, 09:56
If you are a Republic, you are a Commonwealth... the two terms are synonyms of one another... and based from the same root.... Commonwealth (from ME 'Common Weal') is merely descended from the translation of the latin term 'res publica' while, Republic is a transliteration of 'res publica'... Both terms litterally mean "thing of the people"...

The issue is not whether you are a Republic or a Commonwealth (Australia is already a Commonwealth/Republic), The issue is whether you want to remain membership in the body existing under the title, "Commonwealth of Nations".
Helennia
05-01-2005, 09:58
Just a note, the population of London is 24 million I think, Australia is just over 20 million.
Umm. Actually London had just over 7 million people in the 2001 census and is currently quoted at 7.2 million by several tourism websites ... The population of England, however, was 49.1 million people in 2001 so yes, there are fewer people in Australia.
You're correct about Australia though :D
Helennia
05-01-2005, 09:59
Ha! New Zealand vs Aussie test series was some very high quality cricket ;)
New Zealand -> Daniel Vittori -> ...
*slaps self*
Sorry.
*wipes drool from keyboard*
Both terms litterally[sic] mean "thing of the people"...
The issue is not whether you are a Republic or a Commonwealth (Australia is already a Commonwealth/Republic), The issue is whether you want to remain[sic] membership in the body existing under the title, "Commonwealth of Nations". (emphasis added)
You appear to have missed the point. The emphasised part is indeed true, but not really anything to do with derivations of the word, since the Commonwealth is confined to the English monarchy and Republic is an independent system of governance. Please try to recognise the nuances associated with the two words.
Pencil Suckers
05-01-2005, 10:03
haha. He is my hero :)
I'm a spinner aswell and he is best NZ has had for ages... I idolise him.
I'm from NZ aswell obviously.
EDIT: Ahem, getting off topic here. Yes, I think Australia should become a republic.. Because if you do then Helen Clark (NZ Prime Minister) would be inclined to think about it more as an option for NZ.
Helennia
05-01-2005, 10:09
He just unfortunately happens to be from New Zealand. Never mind, we can claim him as we do all notable NZers. :p
Ahem. Off topic ...
I am pro-republic, despite the loss of winning all those medals at the Commonwealth Games.
The cynical part of me says that John Howard will then apply to become the 52nd state of the US.
Smeagol-Gollum
05-01-2005, 10:17
If you are a Republic, you are a Commonwealth... the two terms are synonyms of one another... and based from the same root.... Commonwealth (from ME 'Common Weal') is merely descended from the translation of the latin term 'res publica' while, Republic is a transliteration of 'res publica'... Both terms litterally mean "thing of the people"...

The issue is not whether you are a Republic or a Commonwealth (Australia is already a Commonwealth/Republic), The issue is whether you want to remain membership in the body existing under the title, "Commonwealth of Nations".

The "Commonwealth of Australia" refers to the federal system of which the states are members (similar in meaning to "United Kingdom" or "United States").

It does not reflect the system of government.

Australia, at present, is a constitutional monarchy, with an elected parliament and Prime Minister, but where the Head of State is Queen Elizabeth 11 of England (or United Kingdom if you prefer). The Queen is "represented" by the Governor General, who is appointed by the Prime Minister.

The position of Givernor General "should" be a merely ceremonial one, but is does carry real powers, and a Governor General in 1975 dismissed the elected government.

It is this situation which would change if (or more probably, when) Australia becomes a republic.

Membership of "The Commonwealth of Nations" ( former British colonies) is not dependent or related to whether Australia becomes a republic. The "Commonwealth of Nations" is really little used except for sporting purposes
or for heads of government meetings (usually with little real impact).
Artallion
05-01-2005, 10:19
The most progressive, advanced, and most powerful Muslim nation(Pakistan) is an Islamic Republic and is still a member of the commonwealth.
Pakistan doesn't even have the slightest notion of how many people there is in the country. It's not a republic in anything but name. And if this is the cremé de la cremé of the muslim world, I do pity them.

To answer your question though; no. "Never change a winning team" a wise man once said.
Tekania
05-01-2005, 10:33
New Zealand -> Daniel Vittori -> ...
*slaps self*
Sorry.
*wipes drool from keyboard*

You appear to have missed the point. The emphasised part is indeed true, but not really anything to do with derivations of the word, since the Commonwealth is confined to the English monarcy and Republic is an independent system of governance. Please try to recognise the nuances associated with the two words.

"Commonwealth" is not confined to the English Monarchy... It is a synonym of republic... Four US states are commonwealths (Virginia, Massachusettes, Pensylvania and Kentuky), and the relation between the US and her territories is "The Commonwealth of United States and Insular Areas".

Virginia, has been a "Commonwealth" since 1776, when power was transfered from the House of Burgesses, to the present House of Delegates and Senate of the Commonwealth of Virginia....

The "Commonwealth of Nations", formerly "The British Commonwealth" was formed from mutual agreement by the colonies of the British Empire, after WW2....

Commonwealth itself is a term synonymous with republic... Whether you are the "Republic of Australia" or the "Commonwealth of Australia"... the meaning is the same, you are an autonomous state...

The idea is whether or not you want to be a member of "The Commonwealth of Nations", or an Independent Republic or Commonwealth.
Helennia
05-01-2005, 10:41
Commonwealth itself is a term synonymous with republic... Whether you are the "Republic of Australia" or the "Commonwealth of Australia"... the meaning is the same, you are an autonomous state....
Autonomously explain 1975 then ...
and I apologise, but in Australia the situation is as I have described it.
Commonwealth automatically means the Commonwealth of Nations.
Smeagol-Gollum
05-01-2005, 10:44
Commonwealth itself is a term synonymous with republic... Whether you are the "Republic of Australia" or the "Commonwealth of Australia"... the meaning is the same, you are an autonomous state...

The idea is whether or not you want to be a member of "The Commonwealth of Nations", or an Independent Republic or Commonwealth.

Not quite.

Australia, like the United Kingdom, and several other nations, is currently a constitutional monarchy. This means that while we are democratic, and have an elected parliament and Prime Minister, the Head of State is the monarch, in Australia's case Queen Elizabeth 11. This, of course, means that it is not possible for an Australian to be the Australian Head of State.

It is this situation that many Australians, myself included, believe should change.

Under a republic, the Head of State could also be the Head of Government (like the American president). Alternatively, the Head of State and the Head of Government could be different (like in Ireland, which has both a President and a Prime Minister).
Helennia
05-01-2005, 10:48
Ah. I think you may be confusing Commonwealth with commonwealth.
From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
commonwealth
Body politic founded on law for the common “weal,” or good. The term was often used by 17th-century writers to signify an organized political community, its meaning thus being similar to the modern meaning of state or nation. Today it primarily refers to the Commonwealth. Four U.S. states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) call themselves commonwealths, a distinction in name only.
Commonwealth
Free association of sovereign states consisting of Britain and many of its former dependencies who have chosen to maintain ties of friendship and cooperation.
Smeagol-Gollum
05-01-2005, 11:08
Ah. I think you may be confusing Commonwealth with commonwealth.
From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
commonwealth
Body politic founded on law for the common “weal,” or good. The term was often used by 17th-century writers to signify an organized political community, its meaning thus being similar to the modern meaning of state or nation. Today it primarily refers to the Commonwealth. Four U.S. states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) call themselves commonwealths, a distinction in name only.
Commonwealth
Free association of sovereign states consisting of Britain and many of its former dependencies who have chosen to maintain ties of friendship and cooperation.

Thanks, a "weally" good post.
Tekania
05-01-2005, 11:10
Ah. I think you may be confusing Commonwealth with commonwealth.
From Encyclopaedia Britannica:
commonwealth
Body politic founded on law for the common “weal,” or good. The term was often used by 17th-century writers to signify an organized political community, its meaning thus being similar to the modern meaning of state or nation. Today it primarily refers to the Commonwealth. Four U.S. states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) call themselves commonwealths, a distinction in name only.
Commonwealth
Free association of sovereign states consisting of Britain and many of its former dependencies who have chosen to maintain ties of friendship and cooperation.

"Commonwealth" is a proper noun, "commonwealth" is a noun... Once the title is applied to a proper name (such as that of a state) it becomes proper "The Commonwealth of Virginia"... much as "republic" becomes proper when added to titleship of a state "The Republic of Kenya"... "The Commonwealth" is a shortening of "The Commonwealth of Nations"... making the idea of distinction in nouns by capitalization is incorrect in the english language, and thus reffering "Commonwealth" as being only that which exists by the English Monarchy, is incorrect usage of language... "Commonwealth" as in "Commonwealth of Nations" is therefore a slang...

I often reffer to my NationState, "The Constitutional Republic of Tekania"... as "The Republic"... This does not mean I exclude all others from being a republic... nor does it mean I make idiotic language differentiations beween "Republic" and "republic", contrary to all proper language usage...

As such, I could care less about an invalid, unfounded distinction of "Commonwealth" and "commonwealth" by someone who appearantly does not understand the rules of the language they are using... As such, there is no distinction... The issue is in pre-eminence (English Crown, or the Common people), and not in whether the nation is titled "Commonwealth" or "Republic" (both are synonyms)...

*** Makes note to send Britanica some course materials on the English Language ****
Smeagol-Gollum
05-01-2005, 11:24
"Commonwealth" is a proper noun, "commonwealth" is a noun... Once the title is applied to a proper name (such as that of a state) it becomes proper "The Commonwealth of Virginia"... much as "republic" becomes proper The issue is in pre-eminence (English Crown, or the Common people), and not in whether the nation is titled "Commonwealth" or "Republic" (both are synonyms)...

*** Makes note to send Britanica some course materials on the English Language ****

The "Commonwealth of Nations" is a grouping of ex British colonies. It has a quite specific meaning when used in that context. Australia could remain a member of the "Commonwealth of Nations" if it decided to become a republic.

Virginia is not a republic, it is a state. I understand you people had a rather nasty falling out about states joining or leaving republics.

Becoming a republic...that is the title of the thread. With particular reference to Australia.

I happen to be an Australian, and Australia happens to be a constitutional monarchy, and a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations. That will remain the case, for the present, irrespective of your attempts to define otherwise.

I presume you meant Britannica. They are English, and that is how they spell their name. The English language is rather too frequently mangled or misspelled by our American friends, wouldn't you agree?
Helennia
05-01-2005, 11:25
As such, I could care less about an invalid, unfounded distinction of "Commonwealth" and "commonwealth" by someone who appearantly does not understand the rules of the language they are using.
Whew! Some vitriol there. In particular I find the words invalid and unfounded particularly galling - I looked up five encyclopaedias and two dictionaries and they all concurred. I'm sorry for debasing the English language by using terms and technicalities particular to the region I like to call home. I hereby propose a motion for a new language "Australian" which shall be comprised of all the words, idioms, colourful phrases, spelling, and yes, that good old bastion of slang, particular to the Australian people or long-term residents thereof.
In short: Crikey, mate, you've got kangaroos in the top paddock. The real debate here is whether Australia should be an autonomous country in the true, dictionary-defined sense of the word. Oh, and I think it's being side-tracked by semantics.
Smeagol-Gollum
05-01-2005, 11:28
Whew! Some vitriol there. I'm sorry for debasing the English language by using terms and technicalities particular to the region I like to call home. I hereby propose a motion for a new language "Australian" which shall be comprised of all the words, idioms, colourful phrases, spelling, and yes, that good old bastion of slang, particular to the Australian people or long-term residents thereof.
In short: Crikey, mate, you've got kangaroos in the top paddock. The real debate here is whether Australia should be an autonomous country in the true, dictionary-defined sense of the word. Oh, and I think it's being side-tracked by semantics.

You're not wrong mate.

Wish I was a yank so I could be a bloody expert on everything.
Helennia
05-01-2005, 11:29
I'd rather be right than get bogged down in semantics.
Tekania
05-01-2005, 14:00
The "Commonwealth of Nations" is a grouping of ex British colonies. It has a quite specific meaning when used in that context. Australia could remain a member of the "Commonwealth of Nations" if it decided to become a republic.

Virginia is not a republic, it is a state. I understand you people had a rather nasty falling out about states joining or leaving republics.

Becoming a republic...that is the title of the thread. With particular reference to Australia.

I happen to be an Australian, and Australia happens to be a constitutional monarchy, and a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations. That will remain the case, for the present, irrespective of your attempts to define otherwise.

I presume you meant Britannica. They are English, and that is how they spell their name. The English language is rather too frequently mangled or misspelled by our American friends, wouldn't you agree?

Virginia is a Republic... Possessing, as per Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America, and Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Virginia, a Republican form of Government, composed of an executive, in the form of a Govenor and Lieutenant Govenor.... And legislative branches in the form of the Senate, and the House of Delegates, with all power vested in, and consequently deriving from the people (Virgina's constitution predates the US Constitution by 12 years, and was in effect a month prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence... And much of Article 1 of the Virginia Constituton was the basis in the 10 Amendments pushed into the US Constitution at ratification in 1788, and heavily based upon what is called the "Virginia Bill of Rights"). The present Constitution has altered since then, the Charges against George III were removed from Article II, as well as other alterations and additions... In any case, Virginia is a State Republic in a larger Federal Republic...

The former British colonies are Republic's, almost anyway... The only necessary requirement would be the delegation or transfer of powers of the "Head of State" to an elected or appointed office, and removal of the Govenor General office... vesting all state powers in the hands of parialment and the PM.

Likely this would be painless... At least in terms of transfer... Though likely there would be some heavy resistance to the effort by loyalists there and elsewhere...
Greater Landshut
05-01-2005, 14:17
No. Austrialia should instead become a united federation of beach states leaving the interior to become a landlocked independant nation for the indigenous population. :cool:
Jasonsworld
05-01-2005, 14:17
I wouldn't trust Aussies with there own Country most of them are related to Thieves and Murders. :rolleyes: :D

New Zealand is such a nicer place :fluffle:
Tekania
05-01-2005, 14:20
No. Austrialia should instead become a united federation of beach states leaving the interior to become a landlocked independant nation for the indigenous population. :cool:


Why?

The providences could divide, and then grant independence to the interior, presenting that as a seperate state. And part of the United Federation... There are already non-aboriginal australians living in that region, and aboriginal's taking part in the present Australian government...

Your idea is akin to Monrovian Doctine.
Tekania
05-01-2005, 14:22
I wouldn't trust Aussies with there own Country most of them are related to Thieves and Murders. :rolleyes: :D

New Zealand is such a nicer place :fluffle:

Since when was relation a crime?

And while parts of the colonies started as Penal colonies... Not all settlements were Penal
Smeagol-Gollum
05-01-2005, 23:24
Virginia is a Republic...

Kindly read the TITLE of the thread. The status of Virginia, as fascinating as it may be to you, is totally irrelevant

Your constant attempts at "hijacking" this thread regarding your pedantic interpretations of terms, and your ludicrous attempt to correct Brittanica's use of the English language is matched only by your seemingly total ignorance of the issues involved in the Australian republican movement.

Please have the courtesey to read the responses to your previous remarks.

Kindly desist from your attempts to "hijack" the thread.
Boonytopia
06-01-2005, 02:31
I hate to be the one to point this out, since so many people seem to think it wrecks any argument for a republican Australia...

But Constitutional Monarchy in Australia, in it's current form, does NOT work flawlessly. Kerr's sacking of Good Ole Gough in '75 was called a Constitutional Crisis for a reason - theoretically, Jeffery could pull a similar stunt these days. (And if Latham's leadership wasn't such a trainwreck, it wouldn't be a bad thing, but that's another topic.) The crisis demonstrated the underlying instability of a convention-based system like the Westminster (or the Australian "Washminster").

Also, regarding the failure of the previous republic referendum. Kambrya, in his misguided Monarchist attempt to misrepresent reality, neglected to mention the mechanics behind that referendum. Firstly, the referendum process in Australia is arguably unworkable (popular essay topic for first-year polsci students) - of the 44 proposed constitutional amendments that have gone to referendum, only eight have been passed, half of which are "technical or minor." Menzies got it right when he said "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."

Even ignoring that issue, it's unfair to say that the referendum clearly and finally demonstrated that "a majority of Australians are republican." If you remember correctly, you'll know that the referendum was swung on the lack of clarity over the method of appointing a President/Head of State. Even the most monarchist lecturers at my uni will admit that (grudgingly).

Excellent point & well made, I believe we should become a republic. Nothing against Lizzie at all, but I just don't think we need her anymore. It's time to let go & move on.

BTW I love your nation's name.
Boonytopia
06-01-2005, 06:55
I think we should become a republic, but instead of voting for the head of state, I have a novel idea. I think that the most recently retired Australian cricket captain should become head of state, until the next captain retires, at which point he would then become the new head of state.

The beauty of this is it avoids the political aspect of elections, nobody would be in the job for too long, it would ensure that we always get someone intelligent & we would get someone who is used to dealing different personalites & cultures.

The only drawback I can see is that it excludes women. This is a big disadvantage, but perhaps something could be worked out where the captain of the women's cricket team steps in. Perhaps one year a woman, the next a man.
Smeagol-Gollum
06-01-2005, 06:57
The future for the Australian Republican movement, I believe, is a rosy one.

All surveys show that the majority of Australians support the idea of a republic.

The last referendum failed quite simply because it only offered an extremely unpopular model of a republic. About what one would expect from a Howard government (we all remember the "never, ever" for GST).

Howard cannot last forever (although I can understand some thinking that he already has).

The most apparent successor to Howard is Costello, who is a republican.

Given time, I believe that a republican Australia is invetiable.
Tannelorn
06-01-2005, 07:07
One small problem mixing the word Democracy and republic...sorry we have PARLIAMENT and saying republic is better is saying like, Dictatorship is true democracy. Sorry Republic is what say ROME was not democratic for anyone but the wealthy...wow please dont post things like Australia shold be a republic before you speak and realise Republics arent as democratic as the parliamentary system, and in Fact REpublics arent Democracies [Peoples REpublic of China, PAkistani REpublic, U.S.A.] none of those nations are true democracies, PAkistan least of all so uhhh please dont think any commonwealth nation with a parliament is not democratic.
Smeagol-Gollum
06-01-2005, 07:25
One small problem mixing the word Democracy and republic...sorry we have PARLIAMENT and saying republic is better is saying like, Dictatorship is true democracy. Sorry Republic is what say ROME was not democratic for anyone but the wealthy...wow please dont post things like Australia shold be a republic before you speak and realise Republics arent as democratic as the parliamentary system, and in Fact REpublics arent Democracies [Peoples REpublic of China, PAkistani REpublic, U.S.A.] none of those nations are true democracies, PAkistan least of all so uhhh please dont think any commonwealth nation with a parliament is not democratic.

The republican model proposed for Australia merely means that we move from being a Constitutional Monarchy to a Democratic republic.

We would retain parliament, we would retain our existing rights, the prime Minister would remain the Head of Government, elected in the same manner.

The only change is that the Head of State would be an Australian, not the Queen of England.

Please do not confuse the issues.

There are many democratic republics. Democracy and republicanism are not oppossed concepts.

The very idea of a monarchy is opposed to democracy - who on earth gets to vote for a king or queen????
Boonytopia
06-01-2005, 08:14
The republican model proposed for Australia merely means that we move from being a Constitutional Monarchy to a Democratic republic.

We would retain parliament, we would retain our existing rights, the prime Minister would remain the Head of Government, elected in the same manner.

The only change is that the Head of State would be an Australian, not the Queen of England.

Please do not confuse the issues.

There are many democratic republics. Democracy and republicanism are not oppossed concepts.

The very idea of a monarchy is opposed to democracy - who on earth gets to vote for a king or queen????

I hear the American's vote for their prom queen.
Thelona
06-01-2005, 08:18
Exactly; all of the people who would shoot them have long since been dead. Trust me, I know history better than you think. And above all I know that to persecute a country's current population for the crimes of a century ago is immoral.

Not according to the drunk guy on the street the other night. If you trust his rantings at full volume, that's exactly what he wanted to do. In some detail.

If he stopped breathing the same air as the rest of us, I would have been bothered not one whit.
Boonytopia
06-01-2005, 08:18
The other good thing about having a ex cricketer as head of state is that John Howard would love him. Not that he'll be around forever (unless he is undead as some of us suspect) and not that I in any way, shape of form endorse him or his policies.
Thelona
06-01-2005, 08:23
The republican model proposed for Australia merely means that we move from being a Constitutional Monarchy to a Democratic republic.

We would retain parliament, we would retain our existing rights, the prime Minister would remain the Head of Government, elected in the same manner.

The only change is that the Head of State would be an Australian, not the Queen of England.

My objection last referendum was that we would be stuck with the model for the forseeable future. Sure, you can change the system after becoming a republic, but we all know that's not going to happen. We are going to get one chance to change the government because selling something as abstruse as a style of democracy to the population is far too difficult without a catalyst.

I still voted yes though.
Thelona
06-01-2005, 08:26
The only drawback I can see is that it excludes women. This is a big disadvantage, but perhaps something could be worked out where the captain of the women's cricket team steps in. Perhaps one year a woman, the next a man.

Probably netball would be a better choice.

Maybe we could cycle through all the major international team sports - basketball, hockey, cricket, soccer, and netball. That way we get a fair mix of useful skills.

Otherwise, I don't see any flaws at all.
Boonytopia
06-01-2005, 08:36
My objection last referendum was that we would be stuck with the model for the forseeable future. Sure, you can change the system after becoming a republic, but we all know that's not going to happen. We are going to get one chance to change the government because selling something as abstruse as a style of democracy to the population is far too difficult without a catalyst.

I still voted yes though.

That was my objection too. I felt obliged to vote yes though.
Thelona
06-01-2005, 08:42
That was my objection too. I felt obliged to vote yes though.

Do you opt for a second-rate form of government or support the Prime Miniature? Tough choice...
Boonytopia
06-01-2005, 08:59
Do you opt for a second-rate form of government or support the Prime Miniature? Tough choice...

I really don't think I could support the Prime Miniature in anything. I reckon I'd probably donkey vote if it came to that.
Helennia
07-01-2005, 02:59
Probably netball would be a better choice.Amen to that. Bring on Lis Ellis, Head of Government. You don't like anyone? *smack* They're unconscious now, no problem.
Do you opt for a second-rate form of government or support the Prime Miniature? Tough choice...If we leave him in, we're giving political cartoonists free rein with the eyebrow caricatures.

I was too young to vote at the last referendum, but I felt obliged to say no because I thought the proposed system was unworkable. I'm now undecided whether the public should decide who leads the country, or whether Parliament should elect whoever they see best. It's really an election by the people vs. election by peers debate - whether we uphold democracy in electing the leader, or let the people who really know them decide.

Glad to see that we've finally finished with the semantics dispute.
Kaptaingood
07-01-2005, 03:17
Roll on the republic

the PM will still be head honcho.

queen lizzie has more constitutional power in AUs than she does in the UK.

the parliament is sovereign in the UK and the house of lords can only delay legislation.

aus has two houses at the federal level, house of reps (similar to the UK parliament) and the senate (which can block or amend legislation and is tasked with protecting state rights) and is heavily swayed in favour of small states for representation (12 senators per state, so tassie with 1M gets 12 senators and Vic/NSW with 4 and 5 million people get 12 senators too).

the GG is required to sign any legislation before it becomes law.

I say ditch the GG and replace the possie with a popularly elected head of state with the same constitutional powers as the GG.

as for the Union Jack on our flag, its the pomme flag, its a good flag, but we need something to represent aus.

either the indiginious flag or something similar as the souther cross is represented on the other 1/4 of the flag with the federal star under the union jack.

the change to the GG won't be big as our constitution is hard to change and can only be changed with a referendum. (so no amendments like the uS).

THIS gives us stable govt, NOT the monarchy.

cheers

KG.
Boonytopia
07-01-2005, 03:26
The problem I have with parliament electing the head of state is potential cronyism. If the government of the day has a large enough majority, they could elect someone who may not dismiss the government, if that was required. Plus I'm pretty cynical about politicians in general.
Helennia
07-01-2005, 06:06
Politicians love to put spin on their policies to make it look like they're doing a great job. I'd love to meet a pro-environmental politician who doesn't drive a car, uses solar-heated water and recycled water where possible, plants native species of grass in their lawn, and doesn't take more than six-minute showers.
Ultra Cool People
07-01-2005, 06:51
What the majority of Aussies want should be the way it goes. I'm sure the Queen will understand.
Smeagol-Gollum
07-01-2005, 08:35
My objection last referendum was that we would be stuck with the model for the forseeable future. Sure, you can change the system after becoming a republic, but we all know that's not going to happen. We are going to get one chance to change the government because selling something as abstruse as a style of democracy to the population is far too difficult without a catalyst.

I still voted yes though.

Agree fully.

The last referendum proposed the model that they knew nobody wanted - a "rigged question".

I believe that the fairer proposition would be to have a series of questions put to the voters.

The first one would be to determine if a republic (of a to be determined nature) was desired, or whether the current constitutional monarchy was to be retained.

If the vote was to retain the current system (which I belive would be most unlikely) then that would complete the exercise.

If, however, the vote was for a republic, then future votes would be to determine the model to be used.
Sum Bitch
07-01-2005, 18:50
To be brutally honest most british people could not give a flying fcuk about australia becoming a republic or not. we just want your stars off our flag!! :)
Smeagol-Gollum
07-01-2005, 21:51
To be brutally honest most british people could not give a flying fcuk about australia becoming a republic or not. we just want your stars off our flag!! :)

Thank you for demonstrating exactly why it is important for us to show any consideration to our so-called British origins.

I, for one, would be most happy to have both nations flags look much more distinctive.

As far as I am concerned, you can keep your jack and your kings and queens, because your only a bunch of knaves. Australia remains the ace.
Kaptaingood
08-01-2005, 06:27
To be brutally honest most british people could not give a flying fcuk about australia becoming a republic or not. we just want your stars off our flag!! :)

don't know why you are complaining, its the only time you see the Union jack at the olympic, or the commonwealth games, or any other international sport for that matter...

oh and if we had street parades like you guys did after winning the rugby WC, every time we whipped the pommes at a sport, no work will ever get done in Aus.
Ultra Cool People
08-01-2005, 06:56
But think of the Queen all alone in Windsor Castle, drinking tea and nibbling some vegimite on a digestive biscuit, and Australia you never call. It's bad enough that Canada wants to live on its own taking up with that big Yank across the water, but now you?
Nova Terra Australis
08-01-2005, 07:28
don't know why you are complaining, its the only time you see the Union jack at the olympic, or the commonwealth games, or any other international sport for that matter...

oh and if we had street parades like you guys did after winning the rugby WC, every time we whipped the pommes at a sport, no work will ever get done in Aus.

:D Very good point.
Smeagol-Gollum
08-01-2005, 07:53
don't know why you are complaining, its the only time you see the Union jack at the olympic, or the commonwealth games, or any other international sport for that matter...


And usually only at the opening or the closing ceremonies.

Very rarely on the winners dias.
Nova Terra Australis
08-01-2005, 08:02
And usually only at the opening or the closing ceremonies.

Very rarely on the winners dias.

We usually come in the top 5 on the olympic medal tally. Our cricket and hockey teams are the best in the world. For a country of 20 million, Australia is phenomenal in its sporting achievements. Your claim is unfounded.
Patra Caesar
08-01-2005, 09:21
We usually come in the top 5 on the olympic medal tally. Our cricket and hockey teams are the best in the world. For a country of 20 million, Australia is phenomenal in its sporting achievements. Your claim is unfounded.

I think he was talking about the Union Jack (their flag on our flag), which means the UK. They don't seem too united these days though...
Nova Terra Australis
08-01-2005, 10:04
I think he was talking about the Union Jack (their flag on our flag), which means the UK. They don't seem too united these days though...

Ah, I misunderstood. The statement was ambiguous. My bad.