Australian Republic or Monarchy for 2005+beyond (1 Viewer)

[Hippy La-Laa]

I LOVE the queen.

I wanna keep her.

 

[zahid]

I LOVE the queen.

I wanna keep her.

I dont......

 

[Comrade nathan]

Does anyone on this board read and can source any other news source other then smh?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The australian, also the drudge report is good

 

[Jonathan A]

I fucking hate the monarchy, it's a bunch of bullshit. We should declare war on those morons for fucking up so bad at gallipoli and causing so many aussies to be killed.

You have failed to look at the context of that situation. Hence your argument is quite a joke.

 

[Jonathan A]

I think that it is a sign of the times that Australians are far more interested in what Princess Mary is doing than what Prince Charles is. Why are we interested in Mary? Because she is Australian.

I think that the monarchy is antiquated and serves no real purpose in contemporary life and politics. The only purpose it serves is to fill up pages in gossip magazines.

Why should a nation which believes in democracy (because isn't that what we are apparenlty fighting for in Iraq) place itself under the rule of a system which is based on autocratic systems of power built upon financial and social priviledge.... shouldn't the idea of aristocratic rule be dead by now?

There is no need for Australia to maintain it's ties to the monarchy. What purpose does this relationship currently serve?

I think it is quite ignorant to view the monarch as nothing more than a tabloid story.

The monarch presents us with one of the most unique systems in this world. 5 out of 7 of the world's biggest democracies are under a Monarch, the others used to be under Monarch.

Australia is like a republic, however the justification often used and I think its a good one, is that our parliament never has the final say in a time where a government becomes to greedy with power and goes beyond its realms.

 

[Jonathan A]

We lost the referendum in 99 oh wellz its pretty soon to recall this issue but

Well 72% of the electorates of Australia didn't want a republic the way it was proposed. Then again, many Australians don't want Australia to budge from its current SAFE position.

 

[Jonathan A]

Yes, I knew we were referring to the paraphenalia. OK, well I've come up with some simple solutions to the issues you've presented.

1) We abolish the flag altogether. Who needs a flag anyway?
2) Constitution/laws: we rub out all references to the queen and GG... just imagine our PM going to the queen and saying "Now look here Elizabeth, there is no 'U' in 'Constitution'... wait... Damn!"
4) We phase in new coins that only display their worth, year of production, and 'Australia'. Who wants a head on their coin anyway?
3) The president doesn't get a salary.
4) Our president would be prohibited from travelling. For holidays he/she would... actually, no holidays for our president.
5) For diplomacy he/she will add all the worlds heads of states to his msn account, making negotiations a breeze. He/She can block Kim Jon Il, Mugabe etc...

Obviously no understanding of Australian Law.

 

[fleepbasding]

Obviously no understanding of Australian Law.

Obviously it was a joke.

 

[Iron]

But I like the idea that we can banter about the Royals with some sence of relevance. It's an ongoing story. A never ending story. Dianna? Harry? Liz? Fascinating stuff. There only worth is in the tabloids, and it sells. We all love viewing trouble in paradise.
I like the idea that it gives the masses too. I.e 'They were born with title, they didnt deserve it. There's no way I could achieve that title, so i'll accept my lot and be happy'. Whereas in the states, they all appear to grow up in the hope that they'll be president, and are mortally dissapointed when they're inevitably not.

 

[paper cup]

The RELATIY IS DIFFERENT. The monarch is nothing more than a tabloid story these days. WHY? Because she has no actual power.

----------------

If you have done public constituional you will find that the Monarch, even when given the opportunity, has never intervened in Australia politics.

Eg...Australia government that had a majority in the lower house is sacked by the GG.

Government appeals to the Queens directly for the sacking of a government that was elected by the people. The Queens legal advice back said she had nothing at all do with Australia and our affairs and that the GG represents her. She has no interest and does not want to do anything etc etc.

We are a republic in all but name.

I can dig up the passage somewhere.

Yes the queen is a mere figurehead nowadays (I remember in yr 5 some girl made a speech about it in a public speaking contest....)...she has no power whatsoever.
but becoming a republic would mean changing our flag and names like the rspca...and some of those flag designs are seriously lame. Come on, no one's going to take a country whose flag has a bouncing marsupial on it seriously.

 

[leetom]

Does anyone on this board read and can source any other news source other then smh?

The quality of journalism in the SMH is well recongised in the media society.

And don't think for a second that your little weekly CPA paper qualifies as journalism.

On the monarchy, if we become a republic we won't be able to strut about in foreign countries and declare our superiority, we belong to what was once an all-conquoring empire. Few nationalities can make such a claim, we should not discard it.

 

[leetom]

The names would not have to be changed.

The names would slowly be phased out.


Democratic republic of Australia

?

It just sounds wrong. We should be pround of our link to Britain. She is the mother country and we are her vassel. There is no shame in it.

I hope, should the public vote for a republic, some high-ranking monarchist military man makes a stand at Parliament. That would be cool.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Australia is like a republic, however the justification often used and I think its a good one, is that our parliament never has the final say in a time where a government becomes to greedy with power and goes beyond its realms.

The government can't go beyond its power if it is written in the Constitution.

In regards to our current Constitutional framework, as I'm sure you're aware, most of the 'rules' are simply conventions and extremely difficult to enforce (practically) by the HC.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Yes well the Governor General also exists to stop a stagnation in government and their are ways I'm sure in which the government could over step it's boundaries and not be challenged upon constitutional grounds. Besides who is the person who can call up the government to be accountable for over stepping the constitution. Since it's the job of the GG then there is always someone monitoring the bastards in power.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yes well the Governor General also exists to stop a stagnation in government

That can be provided for in the republic model, or in written form.

...and their are ways I'm sure in which the government could over step it's boundaries and not be challenged upon constitutional grounds.

The Constitution prevents that, as interpretted by the judiciary. And of course if the government passes a law that is in conflict with the Constitution the HC will swipe it. But essentially my point was that with the CURRENT system there is the potential to overstep power, because currently much of it is convention.

Besides who is the person who can call up the government to be accountable for over stepping the constitution. Since it's the job of the GG then there is always someone monitoring the bastards in power.

The High Court can invalidate any law deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Iron]

But Howard appoints Chief Justices thru the GG (I think he's done about three so far?)...there's always potential for corruption in the current system.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

But Howard appoints Chief Justices thru the GG (I think he's done about three so far?)...there's always potential for corruption in the current system.

According to a study on how many times the recent High Court has been divided politically on decisions in the past few years, it was once, and on something completely irrelevant.

The bench may be more conservative, but "corruption" is a very far-fetched possibility

 

[Iron]

I know, but in terms of checks and balances and hypothetically

 

[Benny_]

So long as the political system doesn't get screwed over, the symbolic value alone of a republic makes it worth pursuing. It's well past time this country severed these superfluous links don't you think?