NationStates Jolt Archive

Australian NSGers, in view of the confusing last attempt at a Republic, I have made this poll as a simple Yes or No answer. Discussion welcome.

I support Australia becoming a colony of New Zealand, except Tasmania, which should be a zoological study in reverse evolution.

I've sent my proposal, with shiny graphics, to the Queen - but she has not deigned to reply yet, I assume she's busy.

I've sent my proposal, with shiny graphics, to the Queen - but she has not deigned to reply yet, I assume she's busy.

Busy doing what? Burning money literally instead of just figuratively for once perhaps ;)

Busy doing what? Burning money literally instead of just figuratively for once perhaps ;)

Probably, it's winter in the UK and she's nothing better to do.

I've sent my proposal, with shiny graphics, to the Queen - but she has not deigned to reply yet, I assume she's busy.

No response is not an objection. We should go ahead with this plan.

Australia should have a Socialist Monarchy.

The option which involves as little change as possible.

Australia should have a Socialist Monarchy.

Now, we've been over this a million times, and we all know that socialism just doesn't work.

Better option: Make Britain a republic. Then Oz can go do what it wants!

Republic, yes. Popularly elected Head of State, no.

My reason being that the Head of State is a sort of last guarantor of the order of things. If a government wins election in a landslide, it's likely that its preferred candidate will also be elected Head of State.

I don't mind the German system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany#Selection), actually. It seems to work in practice, but whether or not it can just be translated is another matter.

No.

Now, we've been over this a million times, and we all know that socialism just doesn't work.

Royal Socialism can work if ruled by a strong queen. Just look at the honeybees.

Republic, yes. Popularly elected Head of State, no.

My reason being that the Head of State is a sort of last guarantor of the order of things. If a government wins election in a landslide, it's likely that its preferred candidate will also be elected Head of State.

I don't mind the German system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany#Selection), actually. It seems to work in practice, but whether or not it can just be translated is another matter.

Well to a degree I agree, I like our 'leader' having to appear every day in parliament and getting racked over the back about everything he does or doesn't do, as in Britain I think the 'griller' of the parliament makes good leaders, people like Bush wouldn't last 2 minutes in parliament without having a nervous breakdown, and that's a democratic thing, someone who can sit in his office like a dictator vetoing and talking with such arrogance disgusts me, and yes I am referring to Bush.

So on one hand I support the principles of a republic, yet I hate the potential for cronyism in presidential republics. But the question beckons, if the Queen isn't head of state, who is? I mean I wouldn't mind a collective presidency like Switzerland just replacing the powers of the Governor-General(crown), it could be like a 3rd house of parliament above the senate, and it could effectively replace royal ascent - so legislation must pass 3 levels as usual except the third would be elected. By having a multi-party collective presidency which acts as head of state, you could eliminate the potential for corruption under an individual being head of state, and instead of an apolitical head of state you could have a multi-political one. Would you agree with that formula?

Australian NSGers, in view of the confusing last attempt at a Republic, I have made this poll as a simple Yes or No answer. Discussion welcome.

I think you should go by the Moderation thread you started (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13215216), and clear up a certain issue I have with a poster called Imperio Mexicano.

If you are in fact IM, now would be the time to log back in as him and delete that post. I will delete the posts of mine before and after, and we'll both be better off.

Discussion: Turnbull totally failed to "lead" the Republican Movement in what should have been a slap-down victory, and he did it so deftly that it was perceived as a failure of the movement rather than deliberate sabotage, and he was rewarded with a seat on Howard's front bench almost from his first day in his cushy seat.

He's going to Hell.

Of course I'm in favour of a Republic, the difficult question is how to replace the figurehead of monarchy. A popularly elected King, on the US model, would be worse than what we have.


Therefore, I did not answer the poll.

Also Ferrous you're just buying into the right-wing rhetoric of labeling things, like saying it's 'communist' or 'socialist' so it can fit a prescribed ignorant cultural/political prejudice. 'Socialism' has a long philosophic and ideological development, stretching from Lycurgus, Christ, Hegel, Marx, Saint Simon etc, 'actually existing socialism' in many forms, real or perceived, have been in the world, the constitutions of Syria, Sri Lanka and India contain references to socialism. But when someone mentions 'socialism' or 'communism' in such a tone as you and others do, I know they are referring to it philosophically as an expression of society(social), but as an hysterical appeal to current political hatreds, Ferrous once you can detach yourself from political ideals for the sake of having political ideals, and instead have them as action - then you are an ideologue, unfortunately most conservatives are fantasists.

I support Australia becoming a colony of New Zealand, except Tasmania, which should be a zoological study in reverse evolution..

yur keep dreaming it's never going to happen what with the military you have





trying it with sheep on the other hand would liven up the news:p

Australia should be a de jure colony of Italy and Italy a de facto colony of Costa Rica.

Busy doing what? Burning money literally instead of just figuratively for once perhaps ;)
Erm, you realise that the royalty make no real gains nor losses, right?

Aye, we give them a few million a year, on the other hand, most of the royal estates are open to the public.

Australia should have a Socialist Monarchy.

Woo! Make me king of Australia!

Better option: Make Britain a republic. Then Oz can go do what it wants!

Not really. Lizzie would still be the queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries (I think). She's the queen of Britain and the commonwealth members who have not created a national head-of-state.

Erm, you realise that the royalty make no real gains nor losses, right?

Aye, we give them a few million a year, on the other hand, most of the royal estates are open to the public.

Only when they not present. That pretty much gives them free rental (which I think they keep if Britain becomes a republic) and all of those properties are repaired and renovated for free.

If you are in fact IM, now would be the time to log back in as him and delete that post. I will delete the posts of mine before and after, and we'll both be better off.

We are not the same person.

whatever is OK with the australian people is OK by me. otherwise i have no opinion.

I hate monarchies.

I hate monarchies.

Why? I think it's far better to have a hereditary monarchy. In my country Denmark, our Royal Familiy can trace their ancestry several hundred years back. It's part of Danish history. This Royal has been important in shaping our history and country.. I think it's far better than have some wise ass politician who can be anything from womanizer to corrupt. Not saying a monarch can't be these things but the Danish monarchy isn't and it's harder to be as a member of a Royal House....

The option which involves as little change as possible.

How Australian...


I would prefer a republic, personally.

Better option: Make Britain a republic. Then Oz can go do what it wants!

Nope. If Lizzy II is no longer Queen of the United Kingdom, she'd still be Queen of Australia until Australia chose to abolish the Australian monarchy.

Likewise, she'd still be Queen of New Zealand, Canada, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, a few others... And Paramount Chief of Fiji.

Anyway, as a Brit, I don't care one way or another about whether the UK keeps the monarchy. So you can imagine how I feel about the issue in Australia.

I hate monarchies.

I love them.

I hate monarchies.

The monarchy isn't doing any harm.

My grandfather was rather fond of it. I think he felt that he'd fought for King and country during World War 2. That took six years of his life, so he wouldn't have been happy to see the monarchy go. He'd dead now, but I assume the monarchy is still important to many elderly people (especially veterans) in the UK and (perhaps) in parts of the Commonwealth. As long as they want it to stay, and it's purely symbolic...

Yes, I want to see Aus become a republic. No offence to Lizzy, but it's time to move on.

The best of both worlds of course, would be an Australian Monarchy. (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/243634~Dame-Edna-Everage-Posters.jpg)