Queen Camilla (2 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

We are Australia!

Nice point. Exactly right, we ARE "AUSTRALIA". We should become a seperate entity, free of British monarchy. We don't need Britain any longer...If I remember correctly, we had federation in order to be more independant.

I will point out if people want to understand the constitutional monarchy in Australia, they ought to also refer to our conventions, the unwritten aspects of the constitutional structure, such as the Governor General and Queen following the advice of the parliament.

And you honestly believe this cannot happen WITHOUT the Queen? You just said yourself that they "follow advice of the parliament", yet why this day in age do we need to seek approval from a Queen or the Governor General?

We can still maintain strong ties with Britain as allies, without the need for being part of their monarchy.

 

[Jonathan A]

Nice point. Exactly right, we ARE "AUSTRALIA". We should become a seperate entity, free of British monarchy. We don't need Britain any longer...If I remember correctly, we had federation in order to be more independant.

So what you are saying is that we should become independent from Britain because we became independent from Britain? If the federation made us independent, then there is no justification on that premise for a republic - We have already achieved our independance.

I refer you to the relevant laws in Australia:
-Australia Acts
-Statute of Westminster Adoption Act
-Privy Council Act


And you honestly believe this cannot happen WITHOUT the Queen? You just said yourself that they "follow advice of the parliament", yet why this day in age do we need to seek approval from a Queen or the Governor General?



Because the position of the monarch is what's relevant. THe monarch is an office of justice, impartiality and a symbol of our rule of law. The approval or assent of the Monarch is none other than the final official clarification of our democratic processes. Put this way, it's known as one of the most advanced democratic systems in the world.

 

[fashionista]

i like the idea of a monarchy because the royal families of europe are all blood-relatives, giving countries a more friendly association within the Commonwealth, rather than independant countries forming principally military allegiances.

 

[malkin86]

I will be honest. The Queen has the authority to overrule any bit of legislation passed by the parliament within a year. This power is never used, and it has advantages. It means if our Seperation of Powers fail, there is another safeguard.

I was under the impression, gained from yr 9/10 history, that during or after when the GG sacked the PM, the Queen was asked to overturn this decision, and she wrote back a very nice letter essentially saying "Sod off, you're your own bloody country! Cease and desist asking me to change what goes on." - except in nicer words, cos she's the Queen.

If this is true (I don't have my old history txtbook), that safeguard doesn't exist. Would anyone care to confirm or deny this?

 

[Scanorama]

On your first pointL the Danes and the British Royal Family are related, so they can't be scandal free if you view it that way.

And for your second point, thank your for the clarification. Good to see Her Majesty back on the $5 note.

I said 'relatively', not completely. Also you don't hear the Danish royals went out and got drunk, being a pot head, or their heirs wear inappropriate clothings in a party etc etc. Compare to the British, aren't their image much cleaner?

malkin86, I remember that happened, but forgot the exact words the Queen used. When I was about to call up Liz that morning, Kerr just threw me that letter to sack me.

 

[Monkey Butler]

Yes, we do need a head of state to govern properly. But that doesn't mean we need a hereditary monarch, and a foreign one at that. And even though it's very unlikely, there's still the possibility that a monarch could completely fuck us over if they so chose. And we'd have no way to stop it. The Queen, even though she doesn't use her powers, still has veto power over all pieces of Australian legislation.

But then again, I reckon we need a completely new costitution anyway, because the blokes who wrote it up apparently intended for it to be updated whenever necessary, which hasn't exactly happened. And I'm sure that'll never happen in my lifetime.

 

[Jonathan A]

I said 'relatively', not completely. Also you don't hear the Danish royals went out and got drunk, being a pot head, or their heirs wear inappropriate clothings in a party etc etc. Compare to the British, aren't their image much cleaner?

Do I care?

I don't. Why? Because it does not affect our constitution to the slightest. I wouldn't mind legally having a left wing loony as our Monarch, the reason being I am not interested in who holds the monarchichal position, I only care that the position exists.



malkin86, I remember that happened, but forgot the exact words the Queen used. When I was about to call up Liz that morning, Kerr just threw me that letter to sack me.

Mr Whitlam created a big constitutional crisis, the appropriation bill cannot be held up like that.

 

[Jonathan A]

I was under the impression, gained from yr 9/10 history, that during or after when the GG sacked the PM, the Queen was asked to overturn this decision, and she wrote back a very nice letter essentially saying "Sod off, you're your own bloody country! Cease and desist asking me to change what goes on." - except in nicer words, cos she's the Queen.

If this is true (I don't have my old history txtbook), that safeguard doesn't exist. Would anyone care to confirm or deny this?

Well Whitlam wasn't in the right. Furthermore the literal section in the constitutions states: that the "Queen may disallow any law within on year from the Governor-General's assent". Dismissal is not a law so this section (Section 59) is not applicable. So NO, the system has not failed here.

Whitlam was in deadlock, the legal positioning requiring a dissolution of both houses, no election was called -> Constitutional Crisis, hence the PM was sacked.

 

[malkin86]

Who said anything about who was in the right or wrong? History happens...

If the contents of that letter really did boil down to "You're your own country, don't ask me to change things for you", then the safeguard is void - the Queen won't do anything anyway, perhaps because it would cause a big scandal if she did.

The GG is the representative of the Queen in Australia, so if your personal representative is behaving in a manner which you don't like, you could theoretically phone them and say: behave yourself. The Queen, however, decided to wash her hands of that particular incident. I don't know if she had issue with the way the GG was behaving himself or not, I'm just saying that if she'd wanted to, she could have told the GG to change his mind. To do so, however, would have compounded the scandal.

Therefore, if the Queen tells Australia, "you're your own country, don't ask me to actually do anything of importance" in one matter, doesn't that set a precendent, or something, for her and her descendants, to merely be hand-shaking, waving, cutting-of-ribbonning figureheads in other matters?

I know that this is on fairly shaky ground, but I think it may have some importance. I wonder where we could see that letter.

 

[Scanorama]

Do I care?

I don't. Why? Because it does not affect our constitution to the slightest. I wouldn't mind legally having a left wing loony as our Monarch, the reason being I am not interested in who holds the monarchichal position, I only care that the position exists.

If you don't care, why did you reply it at the first place?

 

[Korn]

Who said anything about who was in the right or wrong? History happens...

If the contents of that letter really did boil down to "You're your own country, don't ask me to change things for you", then the safeguard is void - the Queen won't do anything anyway, perhaps because it would cause a big scandal if she did.

The GG is the representative of the Queen in Australia, so if your personal representative is behaving in a manner which you don't like, you could theoretically phone them and say: behave yourself. The Queen, however, decided to wash her hands of that particular incident. I don't know if she had issue with the way the GG was behaving himself or not, I'm just saying that if she'd wanted to, she could have told the GG to change his mind. To do so, however, would have compounded the scandal.

Therefore, if the Queen tells Australia, "you're your own country, don't ask me to actually do anything of importance" in one matter, doesn't that set a precendent, or something, for her and her descendants, to merely be hand-shaking, waving, cutting-of-ribbonning figureheads in other matters?

I know that this is on fairly shaky ground, but I think it may have some importance. I wonder where we could see that letter.

As Jonathan has already said, it was beyond her power

 

[Jonathan A]

If you don't care, why did you reply it at the first place?

Because the loony radicals like to spoil the education of our monarchichal system with rediculous accusations.

 

[Jonathan A]

Who said anything about who was in the right or wrong? History happens...

If the contents of that letter really did boil down to "You're your own country, don't ask me to change things for you", then the safeguard is void - the Queen won't do anything anyway, perhaps because it would cause a big scandal if she did.

.

You don't get it.

The QUEEN HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO OVERRULE A DECISION MADE UNDER s59.

The GG is the representative of the Queen in Australia, so if your personal representative is behaving in a manner which you don't like, you could theoretically phone them and say: behave yourself. The Queen, however, decided to wash her hands of that particular incident. I don't know if she had issue with the way the GG was behaving himself or not, I'm just saying that if she'd wanted to, she could have told the GG to change his mind. To do so, however, would have compounded the scandal.


SO you want the Queen to run Australia? And instead of attacking the Queen, Look at the constitution and look at the conventions of practice which usually mean the crown follows advice of the cabinet, however 1975 asked the question, what if the cabinet does NOT follow the constitution? Remember the Sir John Kerr recieved his advice from the then Chief Justice of the High Court.


Therefore, if the Queen tells Australia, "you're your own country, don't ask me to actually do anything of importance" in one matter, doesn't that set a precendent, or something, for her and her descendants, to merely be hand-shaking, waving, cutting-of-ribbonning figureheads in other matters?

Again, do you want a dictator?

I know that this is on fairly shaky ground, but I think it may have some importance. I wonder where we could see that letter

Perhaps the Archives, and while you are at it you can ask them why Whitlam was ever successful in becomming PM in the first place.

 

[katie_tully]

SO you want the Queen to run Australia?

No, we want her to have nothing to do with Australia

Again, do you want a dictator?

So long as we could be guaranteed a benevolent dictator, that wouldn't be such a bad idea.

 

[malkin86]

I am not attacking the Queen, or accusing her of anything.
I simply believe that any system of governance is only as good as the people in it, and that the monarchy is no exception. And with a system that is simply inherited, the non-royal people, the rest of us, have no say over who is in charge, and so that raises the question of whether the monarch is an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

So, convention means that the Queen has no power unless she is advised, that she is a rubberstamp. If we need a rubberstamp, so be it, however, some of us would prefer that it would be an Australian citizen, preferably someone who lives in Australia as well. The Queen will always be welcome in Australia, no matter how the republican debate goes.

And the difference between a monarch and a dictator is what, to your mind?

The letter: http://whitlamdismissal.com/documents/letter-from-queen.shtml

So, the shot was the GG's to call. It "would not have been proper" for HRH to intervene, though...

 

[Seraph]

Lol its funny how we keep these ties with England which see them still overpowering us status wise , funny and stupid.

 

[Seraph]

and remember , touching the queen is a big no no

 

[Iron]

and remember , touching the queen is a big no no

The 'help' at Buckingham are forbidden to make eye contact OR serve tomatoes (the pips get stuck in one's teeth).

 

[Korn]

Did anyone read this in the news
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12741864%5E1702,00.html

 

[llamalope]

a kiwi granny gets a royal invite, and yet little johnny howard has to stay at home.... what a sad state of affairs