Re: Should Australia be a Republic.
ASNSWR127 said:
hang on a second buggalugs dont be so quick to dismiss that.
You arent thinking of all the costs...
every singe uniform of every single serving member of every single police/fire and ambulance service would have to change, every sign, every piece of ornamental and traditional items would have to change, all the defence forces would have to change... then there is the rest of the public service! that is just the tip of the iceberg!
then there is all of the tradition to be lost so rather than creating history one would actually be destroying it... ANZAC would be lost forever, the rising sun on our cap badges would be gone - entire institutions lost. the history erased in all but memory and text books.
We would no longer have so much tradition and so much history - you are really willing to throw that away? for what?? so we can sort of say to Britain *childish voice* "we are big boys and girls now", sorry not worth it...
Sorry? Every uniform? We change the uniforms all the time - modifying their ratio and form. And, of course, if its done over a period of 10 years, starting now, it would cost nothing. What about everytime we have to change coins when the monarch dies (Liz has an unnaturally long reign) or the gifts were send the Queen or the 12 million dollars the GG costs us or the 50 million the State costs us with paperwork. Also, look carefully at most logos - they have already removed the Crown and that is the only thing that needs to be removed - a Crown, often a small dot on most logos. Moreover, if there is a "phasing out period" it would cost essentially
nothing. Both uniforms are acceptable starting date X - coinciding with any other changes.
As for your history point, your views are almost laughable. Open up a history textbook and you will find several things - one, the reason a Republic is being pushed is because of ANZAC - Australian soliders, according to several historaisn, were used as pawns and the British had time to act on the knowledge that they were landing in the wrong beach-head. Secondly, when Darwin was attacked Britian could not defend itself, let alone Australia. Third, the Queen is not even British but
actually German and Spanish - the Brits are just a mix of Normans and Romans. Four, the history is already lost because no one cares about the UK or the Queen (well, most people hardly consider them). Five, a NEW institution could be formed with exactly the same as the old (i.e. a rotating Presidency) - which is historically thousand more years stable than any monarchy (think San Marino and Switzerland).
As for your tradition point hahaha. Liz is a complete philistine and "poorly educated" according to her own historian:
Queen is poorly educated and philistine, says Starkey | UK news | The Guardian
Let's get this straight. You're saying a french bastard landing on the shores of Normandy, raping the locals, and declaring himself as King of England as Noble? Wow. Or perhaps the fact Catholics cannot be Head of State. Furthermore, the Queen lives there, not here - tradition would come with the President, like in Switzerland or Ireland. But again I repeat - there is no tradition other than pillage and revolution with a monarchy - its completely artifical.
Thomas Paine's Common Sense: The Most Influential Tract of the American Revolution
Only slaves support the monarchy - men v women distinctions of nature, good v evil distinctions of heaven, but royal blood v commoners - I fail to see empirical, rational grounds for such an arbitrary distinction. No man should be anyone's "subject".
So, its not just indepedence - its to create a newer, better system - and increase rapport with our local trading partners and just convert into reality what is already going on: the UK has no constitutional role in Australia, except a symbolic one which is outdated, at odds with Australian values of mateship and a fairgo.
