Lets hope history does not repeat itself. We do not need Britian any more. As far back as 1942, when Britian could not defend Singapore, let alone Australia, we saw that Britain was little use to us. This was confirmed after the war when Britian joined the European Common Market and reducing trading with us due to our "convinct" past.[/qupte]
In the previous paragraph you've mentioned how we should never forget our forefathers, and how the past is important. Now you're telling us we should cut off our closest tie to not only Britain, but to other Commonwealth Realms (the idea that we all have a common head of state, the Queen).
The UK is not our closest ally any more, everybody can tell you that. However, we do not need to keep modelling ourselves whenever we get a new best friend. Should the PRC become our next closest ally, do you suppose we adapt communism?
Thirdly, moreover, we have been living a lie: The Irish who came here as convicts or later, as regugees of the great Famine in the 1840s and 1850s, had no love for Britian. In fact they hated anything British and had blamed Britian for the uncessary death of over 1.5 million Irish people as well as the forced emigration of another 1.5 millioon at the time; not to count the millions who left there in decades to follow escape the pverty. This was shown in both 1917 and 1967 (an Irish community who is still very strong) when they campaigned against the conscripting of troops to help Britian in the First World War. Thus, what does the Queen mean to the Irish-Australian? European-Australian? Vietnamese-Australian?
I'd suppose the Queen means exactly the same thing to immigrants from Ireland, continental Europe, Vietnam and other Asian nations as well as other nations that aren't Commonwealth Realms as she does to those who were born in Australia or another Commonwealth Realm. She is a figurehead leader who does what she's told. In return Australia gets a stable government, a head of state who does not change every four years, the ability for a failing government, or a failing head of government to be easily removed (via a simple no-confidence vote), and a bit of class and tradition about the way things are done. While the last is not at all important, it's still notable. Especially when you were so eager to mention Australia's past above.
Fourthly, America, India, Hong-Kong (which is now China) - France even (although they are not part of the Empire) - have turned into a Republic. One by one, the empire (or rather, the monoarchy) falls. Australia, lets face it will eventually be a republic. Moreover, for as these nations show, economic strength, freedom and national unity. Thus, I remind you they are the most powerful nations on Earth - All republics are. So you are right: "oh yes, aren't we good, we are our own republic, look how brilliant we are".
Look at the United States now. It's pretty much a democratic autocracy. The president can do several things without Congress' approval, those that do need Congress' approval are very easy to get should the president and the majority of congress be in the same political party.
On the other hand, India is a good example you mentioned. The president is a simple figurehead who has reserve powers, similar to governors-general. Parliament still contains the power, the PM is still answerable to parliament, meaning the PM must please parliament (while in the Westminster System this is almost guaranteed, there are times where people will cross the floor). If Australia was to become a republic, I would favour the Indian model most of all.
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. It is not a republic. It also never was a Commonwealth Realm. Commonwealth Realms have governors-general, Hong Kong had a governor. Hong Kong was a British overseas territory. In 1997 it simply left the UK and became part of the PRC for fifty years of considerable autonomy from the Central People's Government in Beijing. It also never chose to leave the UK. The lease on the New Territories was running out, and when Thatcher attempted to renew the lease, China stated they'd not be renewing the lease, and would like all of Hong Kong returned to China. There was no referendum, the people of Hong Kong had no choice.
Agreed, Australia will most likely become a republic. While I'd not like to see this happen, should it happen Australia will need to at the same time fix up federation. As I said earlier, I'd hope for the Indian method of republicanism to be chosen.
The People's Republic of China is a republic... not a very free one, but it's a republic. Both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and South Korea are also republics, and only recently have they become democratic. There are several examples of republics gone wrong (as with other systems, including constitutional monarchies). Republics cannot be seen as the pinnacle of human freedom or democracy.
Even though the Australian Republic would be different tothe American one, even if it wasn't, mid-term elections coupled with leader limitation is the most effective democracy. I suggest you read Karl Popper's Open Society and its Enemies which showed Republics are the most effective. Jurgen Habermas supports a deliberative democracy - one where we have multiple heads of State, much like a Supreme court. Habermas goes on to prove that Republics are most effective - but I think that you don't like the American model - I don't 100% of the time either. I therefore believe you should certainly read the latter, and until you do, do not reply on my posts.
I also am not a fan of the US model, and preferably would like to see little change to the Westminster system of government should/when we become a republic.
However, my third point, not only do we live in a multi-cultural country, we need to see Asia not as a threat; but as a hope. More importantly, I question your point that the Governor general is our head of state. We did not elect him. So, what I will give America credit is this: That from the slums and ghettos (such as Bill Clinton) to the rich ends of town a man can have the thrill to rise; to build himself into something great. For the kids of that country to dream to have the right to have the highest office in the land; the thrill of campaining. Any role the Governor-General plays in breaking political deadlocks can be played by a President - someone elected for, by and of the people.
An elected president would serve no meaning in a Westminster style government. S/he would simply be a figurehead giving "royal" assent to bills passed in parliament to make them law. But if Australia were to become a republic, the president would need to be elected. I think the previous referendum on Australian republicanism proved that. An elected figurehead. I guess Ireland has done it.
Currently, the Queen is a most intelligent, charming and proper person and is highly regarded - even by Republicans such as myself! But, as the country gears progressively for a Republican system of government the above credentials are insufficent, if not irrelevant. The fact is that she is foreign (i.e. of another nationality) and economically useless - she pays no taxes into the Australian consolidated revenue, and by virtie of her birthright status, she alienates hundred of thousands of true Aussie citizens whether they be native born or naturalised. Retention of the British monarch in our system of governent maintains Britishness to a great degree. The English language dominates, as does, to a minor extent, the British culture. This, in many ways, denies the multicultural, economic and social strands of the country.
The Queen is interesting in regards to citizenship. All peoples of Commonwealth Realms (that is, the countries that share the office of the head of state with Her Majesty) are subjects of The Queen. For example, let's use the UK. All citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are subjects of The Queen. If she was a citizen of the UK, she would then also be a subject of herself. For Australian purposes, the Queen is treated as a very special anomaly, she is granted a Special Purpose Visa upon arrival, and has right of abode in Australia (as with all Commonwealth Realms).
So to paraphrase you: If you don't like our history go home. People like you seem to have some frivlous, outdated dogma for Australia which says this: "staying" a monoarchy in the face of changing world circumstances is the way to go. You seem to want Prince Charles are your King; you seem to be the first person, to my knowledge, that suggests hope, idealism and renewal are negative things. You are truly stuck in what can only be described as the "impotence": We can never truly grown up with out own sense of identity and a feeling of a common future if we do not take this final step. It is important to our own self-identity and sense of common destiny that we go it alone.
We live in a global society. There's very little we can go at alone. There will always be international observers. The age of nations minding their own business is over.
