Australian Republic or Monarchy for 2005+beyond (2 Viewers)

[Korn]

Except in the presented system, the President was to take the position of the Governor General and not be directly elected by the people but by a 2/3 majority of the House of Representatives (I think it was just the Reps). This is far away from the US style of Presidency.

Yes, and this is why that system was shot down, as the referendum was on a particular system of republic, not on the idea of a republic

 

[line_backer]

well in our 'BOS forum referendum' Republic is holding a 1.85% majority at this stage of the voting....only some late swing can help u monarchists

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Whilst the monarchy does not have much of a role in day to day politics, it is a good safeguard against having a leader with too much power. Think about it, if we were a republic at the moment there would be no one to stop Howard from going crazy and creating all kinds of horrible laws. In our current system we have two people, the GG and the Queen to stop him if he went too far.

Personally I would like to keep the monarchy, basically because I love history and keeping our ties to monarchy and Europe allows some sort of connection to a grander history. Also I love royalty.

Although I might support a new governmental system with an Aussie head of state, if it was a new, fresh idea and structure that was not based on the USA system (which I fear it would be if we were to become independent).

The system proposed will see the 'president' as little more than a figurehead, like the govenor general now.. The system wasn't voted for because a) some people don't want change. b) people didn't know what exactly they were voting for.

I personally would like to see it returned some political power.

Yes because you should gain political power just because of birthright.

 

[mr_brightside]

Republic...cmon referendum next year! (so i can vote)

 

[waterfowl]

The system proposed will see the 'president' as little more than a figurehead, like the govenor general now.. The system wasn't voted for because a) some people don't want change. b) people didn't know what exactly they were voting for.

I think the system wasn't generally voted for because people didn't want their head of state to be voted by Parliament.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea the wording wasn't too great.

 

[leetom]

Yes because you should gain political power just because of birthright.

If the King was to dabble in politics, though I think that would be rare.

I don't actually know this, but is it possible for the King/Queen of England to become a major political power in Britain if he/she so desired, rather than just strolling the social circuit and donating to charities?

For example, could the King establish his own political party ('King's Party' eg?) in an attempt to be democratically elected? Or is that impossible? (Can't be both PM and King?)

 

[Xayma]

The Monarch hasn't had much doings in legal matters since the legal reforms of Queen Victoria's day, I no longer think it is within their power.

 

[Enlightened_One]

I suppose you could describe me as a pragmatic monarchist. I don't mind the Queen, Charles, Wills etc. I also like the idea of having someone who is not a politician as head of state.

I have problems with the way different models of republic might work. If you read the Australian constitution the Queen has an enormous amount of power, except through convention this power is (thankfully) exercised by parliament. This may not be the case if we became a Republic and one man or woman would have far too much power for my liking.

I pretty much agree.

Our system provises balances and checks, so to speak, such as the Governor's and Governor General.

Besides there are many more things that could do with the money that would be wasted on proclaiming us a republic.

 

[ohne]

If the King was to dabble in politics, though I think that would be rare.

I don't actually know this, but is it possible for the King/Queen of England to become a major political power in Britain if he/she so desired, rather than just strolling the social circuit and donating to charities?

For example, could the King establish his own political party ('King's Party' eg?) in an attempt to be democratically elected? Or is that impossible? (Can't be both PM and King?)

The Queen/King can't vote. They are neutral and this is the best thing about the Monarchy - they are above politics.

 

[leetom]

The Queen/King can't vote. They are neutral and this is the best thing about the Monarchy - they are above politics.

Is the King/Queen really 'above politics'? Essentially the Queen removed Gough Whitlam. If she was really above politics, she nor her representative would have had the power to remove an elected PM.

 

[fleepbasding]

I pretty much agree.

Our system provises balances and checks, so to speak, such as the Governor's and Governor General.

Besides there are many more things that could do with the money that would be wasted on proclaiming us a republic.

How do we know that the GG will provide the "checks and balances" when they are most needed?

Anyway, the whole "checks and balances" mentality is so conservative, the people of Australia know what they're voting for. Republic is the way to go.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

They still have the house of lords...

 

[waterfowl]

(1) At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor-General may be exercised by the Queen.

My understanding of this (and other things I have read) is that if the Queen is physically present in Australia she can use most of the powers of the Governor General, and if she is phsically present in any state, for exmple NSW, she can use the powers of the NSW Governor.

Otherwise if she is not in Australia she has the following powers:

She has the power to appoint, instruct and remove the Governor General

She has the power to approve or disapprove legislation reserved, by the Governor General for her pleasure

She has the power to over ride the approval of the Governor General and annul a law validly enacted up to one year previously

 

[leetom]

My understanding of this (and other things I have read) is that if the Queen is physically present in Australia she can use most of the powers of the Governor General, and if she is phsically present in any state, for exmple NSW, she can use the powers of the NSW Governor.

Effectively blowing the notion of our monarch being 'above politics' out of the water?

 

[Enlightened_One]

How do we know that the GG will provide the "checks and balances" when they are most needed?

Anyway, the whole "checks and balances" mentality is so conservative, the people of Australia know what they're voting for. Republic is the way to go.

Bullshit! If we become a republic then we lose the Governor General who is the the only person who can get rid of a 'bad' government. And he can't act without due cause. The governor general stops someone from becoming another Hitler or a dictator or just running our country into the ground.

Most people who want a republic think we'll end up like the U.S. It won't change our economy our anything else except a few minutes in history class and of course the cost of destroying every British and pre-republic seal and symbol on the land. This includes the parliament which is decked out in monarchist symbolism. It also includes an alteration to our flag. All this money that could be better spent elsewhere used so a we can say we're no longer disciples of the British when the British gave up all responsibility for us with the Australia Acts and took away leave to appeal to their court.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

what is proposed is that basically there will be a vote in parliament for the president... basically kinda like how howard picks out the GG these days..

Seriously tho, who are u to say that a GG can decide who is and who isn't a "bad" government.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Only soft cocks don't want a republic.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

me and comrade nathan agree on something?

 

[Enlightened_One]

what is proposed is that basically there will be a vote in parliament for the president... basically kinda like how howard picks out the GG these days..

Seriously tho, who are u to say that a GG can decide who is and who isn't a "bad" government.

It mainly comes from public pressure! And as for a vote inm parliament for a president. What about all the money to get rid of the monarchy symbols and the change to our flag and all.

If it's not broken why fix it.

And if we're heading for a republic similiar to America then I'm scared.

I have not yet heard an American president who does not sound dim witted.