Politics The Republic Debate

[MaddAdam]

Because the cost of it is paid by all those equally right to want to waste it another way.

I understand that it's my flaw to not be able to see, feel or "Get" how having the Queen on the money or a crown on the official stuff matters at all to life as an Australian. I just see it as an artifact from the birth or the nation.

A nation birthed through the violent dispossession and extermination of the original inhabitants and predicated on the transportation of people, many themselves the victims of violent dispossession at the hands of Crown forces.

Call me crazy, but that's not something I like being reminded of every day, especially when my own ancestors fall into one of those groups.

 

[MaddAdam]

I like the way people are so concerned about government spending on this issue, but not up in arms about the massive waste in cash of so many other re-branding exercises that don't actually matter.

 

[The Punter]

And this is where we're going to have to just agree to disagree about the proposed change.

Because those of us who do not share MaddAdam's personal history can't really address that in one way or another. We have to respect where he and his ancestors have come from and what has happened to them.

It all opens up to a much more meaningful and unfortunately perhaps potentially unproductive discussion about our country, what has happened and what we need to do from this point on. Changing the flag would be cheaper, and I would hope, would provide some level of comfort. But others, rightly or wrongly, consciously or insensitively, would not agree with that change.

It also gets us into the area of individual responsibility versus collective responsibility. And that's why it's easier to talk about how Mav Weller should have got a 50 metre penalty against Geelong last week.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I like the way people are so concerned about government spending on this issue, but not up in arms about the massive waste in cash of so many other re-branding exercises that don't actually matter.

What a bizarre line of argument. How do you know we're not annoyed by it? However, they're already happening. This hasn't yet.

Plus, rebranding one department is exponentially cheaper than rebranding THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

 

[kfc1]

If there was a thread about rebranding customs id also say its a massive waste of money

 

[Taylor]

Tayl0r who is that in your avatar?

A picture I sent to my GF who had enough alcohol in her to think it was me.

Boof headed brunette right here haha

 

[MaddAdam]

There's also the small matter that people are happy with the current system because I'm tipping everyone has only known one monarch - Elizabeth II. She's been a very benign hands off monarch.

But monarchs change. When she finally goes to the big room that smells perpetually of fresh paint in the sky, her son Charles will become our head of state.

One, I do not understand how anybody who calls themselves a democrat, or enjoys living in a democracy, can accept a situation where the head of state is chosen according to who their parents are and their gender.

That is simply indefensible.

Secondly, Charles. He routinely attempts, usually with success, to intervene in governmental matters. See his notorious black spider letters.

Do we really want that man as our head of state?

 

[MaddAdam]

Interestingly, I see that while the majority of people posting on the thread are against change, a majority of voters are in favour.

As I said, every survey shows a huge number of Australians, usually a majority, in favour of change.

 

[kfc1]

There's also the small matter that people are happy with the current system because I'm tipping everyone has only known one monarch - Elizabeth II. She's been a very benign hands off monarch.

But monarchs change. When she finally goes to the big room that smells perpetually of fresh paint in the sky, her son Charles will become our head of state.

One, I do not understand how anybody who calls themselves a democrat, or enjoys living in a democracy, can accept a situation where the head of state is chosen according to who their parents are and their gender.

That is simply indefensible.

Secondly, Charles. He routinely attempts, usually with success, to intervene in governmental matters. See his notorious black spider letters.

Do we really want that man as our head of state?

Two points:

1. Is Charles likely to intervene in Australian governmental matters? Pretty unlikely imo. If it starts happening then there would be more strength for a change to a republic. As it is we are basically independent even if Liz is on our money.

2. Why does the British royal family even exist if it is only a ceremonial position?

 

[MaddAdam]

And this is where we're going to have to just agree to disagree about the proposed change.

Because those of us who do not share MaddAdam's personal history can't really address that in one way or another. We have to respect where he and his ancestors have come from and what has happened to them.

It all opens up to a much more meaningful and unfortunately perhaps potentially unproductive discussion about our country, what has happened and what we need to do from this point on. Changing the flag would be cheaper, and I would hope, would provide some level of comfort. But others, rightly or wrongly, consciously or insensitively, would not agree with that change.

It also gets us into the area of individual responsibility versus collective responsibility. And that's why it's easier to talk about how Mav Weller should have got a 50 metre penalty against Geelong last week.

Would you feel the same about a King Charles III who openly commented on Australian political matters?

 

[The Punter]

One, I do not understand how anybody who calls themselves a democrat, or enjoys living in a democracy, can accept a situation where the head of state is chosen according to who their parents are and their gender.

On the other hand, having someone above the political fray and being answerable to no political party or process has its advantages. But the point you make about the Queen is a salient one. Bob Hawke is a Republican, but always said as PM that he would wait until the current monarch had left this mortal coil. I also have the feeling Whitlam was the same way while PM, although was a bit longer ago.

 

[Taylor]

The UN comments on Australian political matters all the time.

 

[The Punter]

Would you feel the same about a King Charles III who openly commented on Australian political matters?

I'd be pretty unhappy about it. I was also pretty unimpressed when Quentin Bryce dipped her toe into political matters that were also matters on which the two major political parties did not necessarily agree.

 

[kfc1]

Some good discussion about why a ceremonial monarchy exists
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-royal-...ies-Isnt-it-useless-and-a-huge-waste-of-money

 

[Long Live HFC]

There's also the small matter that people are happy with the current system because I'm tipping everyone has only known one monarch - Elizabeth II. She's been a very benign hands off monarch.

But monarchs change. When she finally goes to the big room that smells perpetually of fresh paint in the sky, her son Charles will become our head of state.

One, I do not understand how anybody who calls themselves a democrat, or enjoys living in a democracy, can accept a situation where the head of state is chosen according to who their parents are and their gender.

That is simply indefensible.

Secondly, Charles. He routinely attempts, usually with success, to intervene in governmental matters. See his notorious black spider letters.

Do we really want that man as our head of state?

who the monarch is is irrelevant. they have 0 authority in australia.

 

[MaddAdam]

Two points:

1. Is Charles likely to intervene in Australian governmental matters? Pretty unlikely imo. If it starts happening then there would be more strength for a change to a republic. As it is we are basically independent even if Liz is on our money.

2. Why does the British royal family even exist if it is only a ceremonial position?

1. - I could very, very easily see him commenting on them, which is effectively intervention.

2. - The British royal family is NOT a ceremonial position. It is a political position, and it always has been. Which is why it is deeply inapproapriate for them to have any influence, regard or even acknowledgement in Australian matters.

We may as well have a picture of JFK on our two buck coin.

 

[MaddAdam]

who the monarch is is irrelevant. they have 0 authority in australia.

Not so, they are our head of state. And they certainly can intervene in Australia.

 

[Long Live HFC]

1. - I could very, very easily see him commenting on them, which is effectively intervention.

how is it qualitatively different to any other foreigner commenting on Australian affairs?

And they certainly can intervene in Australia.

how?

 

[kfc1]

2. - The British royal family is NOT a ceremonial position. It is a political position, and it always has been. Which is why it is deeply inapproapriate for them to have any influence, regard or even acknowledgement in Australian matters.

Why do they still exist though?

 

[The Punter]

The Queen felt entirely restricted in acting, when requested to do so, during the 1975 crisis.

A future British Monarch could ask or suggest, but that request may fall on deaf ears.

 

[MaddAdam]

On the other hand, having someone above the political fray and being answerable to no political party or process has its advantages. But the point you make about the Queen is a salient one. Bob Hawke is a Republican, but always said as PM that he would wait until the current monarch had left this mortal coil. I also have the feeling Whitlam was the same way while PM, although was a bit longer ago.

And here we are in agreement.

I find the Irish presidential role the most attractive option in that regard.

And while I'd like a referendum now, I suspect that we'll have to wait til Brenda kicks it.

 

[MaddAdam]

how is it qualitatively different to any other foreigner commenting on Australian affairs?

Do those really need to be explained?

 

[MaddAdam]

Why do they still exist though?

Because they are the foundation of British governance.

At the start of every parliamentary year, there's the Queen's Speech, as read by the Monarch in the parliament.

 

[kfc1]

Because they are the foundation of British governance.

At the start of every parliamentary year, there's the Queen's Speech, as read by the Monarch in the parliament.

That doesn't really answer the question though. They are the foundation of Australian governance too but that doesn't stop the thought that they are outdated and serve no purpose.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Do those really need to be explained?

i'd like to hear how you differentiate between 2 foreign commentators who share 0 authority between them over Australian federal governance.