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

[leetom]

No, because as mentioned before, we would sever a link to a rich and glorious history.

 

[Comrade nathan]

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

I never us the Guardin as soucre for current events.

I have only every used it to show a leftist viewpoint on local and international views, or for a interesting article that people may want to read that would not have read otherwise, like the Egon Kirsch article.

Anyway my point was that i rarely ever see someone use other source, its as if people only read that newspaper. Meaning we are getting one source when there are many source wich all differ.

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.

Settled, we won't become a republic on the grounds we would have to use our own creativity to create a new flag, thats just to much work.

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.

Yeah if your over 70.

 

[leetom]

So why, Comrade Nathan, other than a Republic bringing your dream of an Australian Communist revolution the tiniest inch closer, do you wish to see an Australian Republic established?

I think most Australians who support the Republic only do so for the oppurtunity to bag the British.

 

[Iron]

http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/history/history_rac_pjkspeech.htm
-Keatings' famous republican speech

"We are attached to Great Britain by long threads of kinship and affection which, to a considerable extent, are embodied in the warmth of our regard for Queen Elizabeth. Many Australians may well feel that to substitute an Australian for the monarchy constitutes in some way a rejection of these ties. I think all of us can understand these feelings.

"But the creation of an Australian republic is not an act of rejection. It is one of recognition: in making the change we will recognise that our deepest respect is for our Australian heritage, our deepest affection is for Australia, and our deepest responsibility is to Australia's future.

 

[Comrade nathan]

do you wish to see an Australian Republic established?

I have a arkward relationship with the Queen which i would rather not discuss.

 

[Enlightened_One]

I think most Australians who support the Republic only do so for the oppurtunity to bag the British.

All the more reason to stay in the monarchy. Then every Commonwealth games we can wipe the floor with the useless poms and rub it in.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Australia has its own identity now... we are our own country, why not formalise this?
I find it interesting that the libs seem to be anti-republic, where as labor is pro-republic... Seeing as the libs are the nationalist party. To me, having australia a recognised republic, is a great formal act of nationalism.

 

[Iron]

But there's a blur of what Aust. nationalism is...As Keating points out, many see it connected to the Monarchy in some way.

 

[Xayma]

But republic nations can remain in the Commonwealth.

 

[Jonathan A]

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.

But then it comes down to elected governments. The keyword being 'elected'. Seriously, a republic will not solve any government overstepping the mark, but a monarchy will at least concentrate some of the politics back onto an impartial person.

 

[Jonathan A]

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.

However, Judges have Security of Tenure. That is they cannot be sacked by the Government without both houses of parliament agreeing only on grounds of misconduct and inabilty to perform as a judge.

Judges also are paid large amounts to prevent any bribery, hence any forms of bribes would have to be large and thus noticeable.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

But then it comes down to elected governments. The keyword being 'elected'. Seriously, a republic will not solve any government overstepping the mark, but a monarchy will at least concentrate some of the politics back onto an impartial person.

You can always retain the functions of the GG in a republic, as president.

 

[Jonathan A]

Australia has its own identity now... we are our own country, why not formalise this?
I find it interesting that the libs seem to be anti-republic, where as labor is pro-republic... Seeing as the libs are the nationalist party. To me, having australia a recognised republic, is a great formal act of nationalism.

The Liberals do not have a standpoint on this. Our policy is to agree to disagree between members. Remember Malcolm Turnbull - a Liberal MP is a very strong public supporter of the Republican Movement, even taking up the position of chairman of the campaign.

There are also many Pro-Monarch people in the ALP. Republicanism cannot be tied in with nationalism as being exclusive. I am very proud of this country and I am staunch monarchist. Because I know I can fly my flag without any hypocracy looming over me like some members of the ALP. THe ALP have a policy to change the flag (hence why their logo does not have a union jack. But what happened with these members of NSW ALP:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/0/A766E6F7460820794A2567450001655A

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/Members.nsf/802a7941739d8166ca256f9000051f8d/41bee69c23651b434a25674500016550!OpenDocument

 

[Iron]

It's mainly Howard though. He keeps it off the agenda...Costello often banters about being a republican.

 

[Abbeygale]

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?)

A monarch dabbling in politics beyond the traditional powers of approving bills and disolving governments is banned by the British Constitution. Wasn't anybody else watching the news when Charles got in trouble a few years back when it was revealed he'd been corresponding with a politician? They're not even supposed to air opinions on political issues.

If it wasn't banned, don't you think all the spares like Harry, Andrew and Edward would have been pushed into political careers?