Should Australia be a Republic? (3 Viewers)

[HeideggerII]

as an ethnic german australian i'm offended by that post

why shouldn't we be allowed to be head of state?

I'm also German origin (as the surname suggests) - my point highlights, however, to those that argue how "British" the monarchy is. Frankly, I love the fact the Germans still symbolicaly control Britian - it brings a touch of irony when the British say "they shall never be slaves" and yet they owe alliegance to a person who is of German origin, biologically (House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha). They are her subjects (as are we - as a libertarian, I can't remember I consented to being anyone's subject). In this definition, I include the House of Mountbatten who are Greek. Thus, the current house is Saxe-Coburg Gotha Mountbatten.

I also remind people that the Britons were raped by the French, and hence how a national monarchy was installed. True, there were monarchy's in Britian in local areas, but they were either Catholic or rotated once every few years (neither of which occurs today - due to the fact Catholics cannot be on the throne and life expectancy means not rotation occurs). Being the ancestor of William the Conquerer certainly has no divinity to it. Later, the monarchy was reinstated, partly, (the UK was a Republic for a few years) so landlords in the House of Lords had someone to veto laws in case the House of Commons threatened their wealth (amongst other things).

As such, and as a libertarian, I cannot accept the notion that any person is someone's "subject" and can ascertain the top office arbitrarly (i.e. without merit and for monopoly purposes). The Queen may have developed experience over the years, but then again, this is the same women who said, slightly prior to her father's death, "When I grow up I really wish to become a horse".

 

[HeideggerII]

Troll alert.

I am for a republic... but i don't like the title of president. That's just too reminiscent of Bush. Could we have a better name that isn't president or chancellor?

Protector? Premier-General? Administator-General? Chief-Executive? President of the Commonwealth Republic?

We could always create a new word.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Protector? Premier-General? Administator-General? Chief-Executive? President of the Commonwealth Republic?

We could always create a new word.

i like commissar
or generalissimo

 

[georgefren]

Comrade.

haa

 

[HeideggerII]

Whats your point? All royal are mixed blood, and she is not of German nationality, she is a sovereign, sovereigns dont have citizenships or nationalities. In addition there is nothing wrong with having an ethnic German as an Australian Head of State since both are not mutally exclusive.

That's true if you want to take a legalistic spin on things (although the idea of a sovereign is taking a hit and Parliament can easily overturn such a thing). The fact is her royal house Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (modern day Barvaria, rather than Germany). Liz's future descendants shall be refered to as House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

Also, its true there is nothing wrong with having an ethnic German (or really Bavarian) as an Australian Head of State since both are not mutally exclusive - but there needs to be legitmacy. There is nothing wrong with having an Afro-American as the American Head of State since both are not mutally exclusive - indeed, Mr Obama won the election, despite his background (and unlike Liz hardly had money but was self made).

See I wouldn't have too much with her if she was from a House which elevated thought and thinking - but the Windsor's are frankly intellectually, aesthetically and morally bankrupt. I look at the reigning House of Sweden, for example, and there is an educated family, where all its members speak several languages, are extremely well-educated and par take in discourse with Nobel Prize Winners.

 

[HeideggerII]

Hello moron.

I'd just like to correct something you said: the AUD is not scum, and changing to the pound would be a ludicrous proposition. First of all, the AUD is the 5th or 6th most traded currency in the world (primarily by countries with low interest rates, such as Britain, Japan, and America), secondly, the pound is teetering on the edge of extinction, about to be subsumed by the Euro, and finally, what you're suggesting is incompatible with both the Australian and British markets; they've evolved irreconcilable differences in their time apart, much of it due to the unique location of both countries (one among Asian Tigers, one among the Eurozone).

Hear hear.

 

[HeideggerII]

i like commissar
or generalissimo

Call it whatever, the reason I support a Republic is to enhance the *quality* of democracy and civil engagement. Symbolism is a secondary issue, albeit important.

 

[HeideggerII]

theres no convincing argument for a change to a Republic. fuck that.

I'm sorry, democracy and giving people, not politicans, more power isn't convincing? I guess you are an ACM stooge - I noticed you did not issue a single reply on why the status quo is superior to a rotating Presidency, melding the status quo with Switzerland and San Marino. I also noticed you said nothing about the fact the monarchy was installed by the House of Lords, for the House of Lords, to keep a check on what goes on in the House of Commons. The monarchy was installed and serves politicans (haha, everytime a monarch has vetoed a bill, they simply get zapped of *all* power e.g. consider the recent Euthenasia bill or the Belgium Constitutional crisis of 1992).

For your argument to succeed, you have to show me how the status quo is better than a rotating Presidency. I'll show you how its better than the status quo - produces efficiency (as Parliament is more consensus oritentated due to citizen initated referenda CIR - hence, no party controls Swiss Parliament yet their Parliaments agree and work faster than any other Parliament - 1975 would never of happened in Switzerland as they know the people would immediately start up a CIR), it produces accountability (as a rotating Presidency means a fresh face which can pass a bill over to CIR or to the High Court to test its constitutionality rather than one person having all the other i.e. the PM - this ensures the people have a say and the Head of State is employed BY THE PEOPLE, not the monarch) and it produces stability (anger is never vented at one person as they are here today [for one year], gone tomorrow and they vent anger through the ballot i.e. CIR not the bullet). It makes society more erudite as a whole.


ps This is the Swiss Head of State: File:Bundesrat der Schweiz 2009.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nostalgia]

I'm also German origin (as the surname suggests) - my point highlights, however, to those that argue how "British" the monarchy is. Frankly, I love the fact the Germans still symbolicaly control Britian - it brings a touch of irony when the British say "they shall never be slaves" and yet they owe alliegance to a person who is of German origin, biologically (House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha). They are her subjects (as are we - as a libertarian, I can't remember I consented to being anyone's subject). In this definition, I include the House of Mountbatten who are Greek. Thus, the current house is Saxe-Coburg Gotha Mountbatten.

I always thought the greater irony was that even though the English have some dislike for the French, their kingdom was founded by the French.
House of Mountbatten if I remember correctly were Danish in origin, the Greeks were not ruled by the Greeks, they chose a Danish prince for their monarch when they gain independence from the Ottomans.

 

[HeideggerII]

I always thought the greater irony was that even though the English have some dislike for the French, their kingdom was founded by the French.
House of Mountbatten if I remember correctly were Danish in origin, the Greeks were not ruled by the Greeks, they chose a Danish prince for their monarch when they gain independence from the Ottomans.

Yes exactly! EXACTLY! So when I hear"oh, the monarchy represents Britian and our cultural links" - um no, it represents your French, Roman and Germanic past (as Britian was raped and pillaged by those various nationalities, throughout history). The fact is after the Australia Act (1986) there are* no* legal ties with the UK, except via the monarch, who, ironically, is from the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha Mountbatten - that particular bloodline only had any relationship with Australia around Queen Victoria's time. Moreover, the Queen plays NO role in Australian politics and the model I support has *technically* been working for us the last 100 years - 60% our GGs were former State Governors (the last 4 were) - hence why I support a rotating Presidency, where the State Governors (perhaps territories) form our collective Head of State, and rotate annually as President (or Governor-General). We would have sportspeople, actors, politicans, scientists, musicians, community leaders, Aboriginals, a few women - all as our Head of State under a collective Presidency. As I cited above, consider this Swiss system, who has even had Nobel Prize winners as their collective Head of State: http://www.admin.ch/br/dienstleistungen/00094/index.html?lang=de

Like in Switzerland the position ought to be purely voluntary and only money they recieve is for travel etc.

 

[rasengan90]

Of course I do - but my grandeur is based on almost 1000 years of stability - the Republic of San Marino. Moreover, Switzerland, who has had almost 400 years of stability, is certainly grand - Zurich and Geneva are both ranked 1st and 2nd respectively as having the worlds cleanest and most 'liveable' city as well as most intelligent. According to sociologists, this is because of their system of direct democracy i.e. citizen initated referenda, which any *real* Republic ought to have. This means giving power to the people, through rational discourse and countermodels, not politicans (after all, the British monarch can be replaced if Parliament declares so i.e. it can change the line of descendancy). Ironically, the founding fathers of our Constitution wanted to include a rotating Governor-Generalship and CIR, but it was defeated by 1 vote on the voting floor.

Nevertheless, grandeur is the new reality.

I stopped reading after "Of course I do." Please pull your head out of your ass and go away.

 

[enterspacebar]

No deal!

 

[Groucho Marxist]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

It's not, I'm quite serious.

your name rings true.

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[x.christina]

Should Australia break from the British Empire?

Do you think its time we let go of the Queen's ruling after over 200 years and become a republic?

Discuss.

(if there is already a thread on this, I was not aware of it...)

 

[gcchick]

Re: Should Australia break from the British Empire?

Yeah, we can manage on our own.

That's my argument, I know it sucks.

 

[love.is.around]

Re: Should Australia break from the British Empire?

I know we are formally apart of the British ties (due to links to the British Constitution) however, I don't think Australia seems like they are in the British Empire at all... I think we have already broken away from Britian and we are either Americanised or we will be Chinaised soon enough.

 

[Kwayera]

Re: Should Australia break from the British Empire?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[greekgun]

Re: Should Australia break from the British Empire?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

this

 

[incentivation]

Re: Should Australia break from the British Empire?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Hear hear.

A solid system of government which is far superior to most. Why change it?

We should embrace our history.

Edit: Note the term 'British Empire' is redundant.

 

[Kujah]

Re: Should Australia break from the British Empire?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

repped.