Republic vs Monarchy (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

Republic.

We are no longer a little colony of England. Time to stop acting like one.

Do you realise that the benefits from a safety-net is MUCH greater than 'acting like a little colony'?

Then again, I don't act like someone who's part of a colony, neither do most Australians. The fact is, we're autonomous.

However, when shit hits the fan, the monarch can come in to shake up the system.

There are so many forseeable issues that the monarchy can fix, especially when we come to the stage that America has of appointing judges. I mean, a lucky Prime Minister could be lucky enough to find a suitable President and be 'advised' to appoint him. This lucky PM could be lucky enough to be 'advised' to 'advise' the Attorney-General to appoint a few High Court justices that he is friendly with. Suddenly, the PM and his group of friends has total control of the executive, the legislative, the State AND the parliament! All it takes is the PM to be in the right place at the right time -- when a few HCJ and the President is retiring.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but it highlights the security which the Monarchy gives us.

 

[Iron]

Missed her at the airport today, but i'll catch her on Tuesday evening @ Parli house. Any ideas of exaggerated phrases to be bellowed? I can only come up with a poster: 'Id hit it'

Im all for a Republic, but id rather all that to wait for Liz to bow out. We're too attached to her on a superficial level. She's a big part of the Australian story I think. Despite the boring conclusion that all this is cosmetic anyway.

I think Vandstone's comments about playing God Save the Queen at the opening ceremony were valid. Having such a wake up call, that she's our head of state and this is the consequence of being a con. mon. would help the republican debate.

 

[ihavenothing]

I hate people who like the Queen and people who go around with out current flag on their shoulders makes me more sick that we are treated like the child of a once domineering Empire.

 

[HotShot]

either way makes little diff, queen or president same thing,

 

[xeuyrawp]

Despite the boring conclusion that all this is cosmetic anyway.

Good. Let's keep it that way by not inviting one group of people to control the country. :S

 

[alexvincent]

Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

There's a Liberal vs Labor thread so here's another.

Should Australia become a republic? Why? Why not?

 

[gerhard]

Re: Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

can someone tell me why the previous model was bad (the one we had a referendum for and decided against)? ive never understood why anyone would give a fuck if the government chose the president, considering that his role is pretty much non existant.

was it just that people thought that the president was going to be like an american president or something? ive never understood this.

we already have a person who does exactly the same job as the president whom the government chooses. his name is the governor general. its pretty much just a name change.

 

[Optophobia]

Re: Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

If its *only* just changing the name, than why do we need to do it?

Nah, don't try to fix what isn't broken. Some may argue that it is broken, but if you think installing a republic is going to fix it, than you're pretty naive.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

Use the search function kthx.

 

[*Minka*]

Re: Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

For.

 

[Iron]

Re: Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

can someone tell me why the previous model was bad (the one we had a referendum for and decided against)? ive never understood why anyone would give a fuck if the government chose the president, considering that his role is pretty much non existant.

was it just that people thought that the president was going to be like an american president or something? ive never understood this.

we already have a person who does exactly the same job as the president whom the government chooses. his name is the governor general. its pretty much just a name change.

I think the initial model was tops. The new bipartisan flavour was good too.
The punters didnt buy it because they dont trust politicians. The Gov also sabotaged the ref. by omission, and there are probably too many American connotations in the title "President", when a better title is something like 'Petty safeguard'. PMs have progressively become more presidential themselves.

What we dont want is a head of state being elected by those shmucks called "the people". That changes everything. It gives a GG real power and a real mandate to do crazy whino things like dismiss governments.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

If the 'President' or other head of state equivalent was only going to have the same amount of political power as the current Queen/GG do, what's the point? Why do we need to change from one head of state who doesn't do much at all, to another? I'd rather have the tradition and celebrity associated with the monarchy than some random old guy elected by the government anyway.

Or, if the President would be like the USA president, I'd be against it due to the possibility of <insert the name of your most hated politician here> having that much power.

With either model, monarchism makes more sense.

 

[Iron]

What's the point? -What's THE POINT?!
How concerning

 

[loquasagacious]

Division of power ....

But yes I agree, perhaps my preferred model is the McGarvie (sp? too lazy to go to bookshelf and check his name) one, which is this: business as usual; No power changes, no name changes, no queen.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

The only people who care about that are 2nd gen asian kids who don't understand our connection with Britain anyway.

There, I said it.

 

[erawamai]

I also favour the President being directly elected (as opposed from majority vote by parliament)

Dangerous. Makes the president just as legitimate as the parliament. Especially when the president or head of state is more popular than the parliament or the elected government within parliament. Power struggle between head of state and parliament not good.

On reading the thread I notice I already said this last year.

As for the republic Australia is a republic in all but name. And as for the model. The 'President' should be appointed by parliament. Direct election of the president would give him the support of the electorate and possibly more legitimacy then the PM and parliament. That is bad. You would have a continual struggle between Head of state and head of parliament.

Such an 'intellectual' argument was rejected by the Australia people. The people wanted a direct election of a president because they pretty much don't understand how parliament works. They don't understand the ramifications. Just simply a populist idea.

I believe the Australian people are too dumb to actually understand (knowing how suspicious we are of intellectuals, elites and anyone who tries their best (tryhard!) and that we invented tall poppy syndrome) to ever listen to any such tripe. Hardly any of us understand what the senate does let alone explain parliament and head of state. If you changed the name to president half the population would think he or she would be like the American president.

A republic would be nice. However I we are already one in many ways. I mean King Charles of Australia? Makes me feel a little sick.

In operation Australia is a republic. But in name we are still a constitutional monarchy.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I've posted up about this before in a rather long post.

I'm sure someone can search for it.

Basically: The monarchy offers stability in times of crises, but does not greatly impose us the rest of the time.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: Australia: Republican vs Monarchist

Yeh, because they do it so often...

Who said they do it often, Hayden? Please learn to reason.

Regardless of frequency, the opportunity is there if it's needed. And it's certainly needed.

 

[_dhj_]

If the 'President' or other head of state equivalent was only going to have the same amount of political power as the current Queen/GG do, what's the point? Why do we need to change from one head of state who doesn't do much at all, to another? I'd rather have the tradition and celebrity associated with the monarchy than some random old guy elected by the government anyway.

Or, if the President would be like the USA president, I'd be against it due to the possibility of <insert the name of your most hated politician here> having that much power.

With either model, monarchism makes more sense.

I actually agree with you on this...

 

[erawamai]

Basically: The monarchy offers stability in times of crises, but does not greatly impose us the rest of the time.

IMO Not really. The only constitutional crisis we had was Whitlam. Despite having a majority in the lower house he was sacked by the governor general. The Speaker of the house sought intervention from the crown, they refused to intervene saying something along the lines of them having nothing to do with it.

The monarchy had zero influence in the constitutional crisis. The only reason that crisis did not worsen was because Whitlam accepted the decision of the GG. If Whitlam has refused to accept the decision of the GG then we would have had a serious problem.