Politics Ireland - a model for the Australian Republic

donkeypunchd

Club Legend
Nov 26, 2016
1,779
3,421
AFL Club
Melbourne
The issue of Republic vs Monarchy is an endless one for Australia. While defeat for one side may quiet the opposition for some time, the question will eventually reassert itself.

Taking this into consideration alongside Ireland’s history as a British colony, the Irish Presidency has some validity as an alternative model for head of state in the Australian Commonwealth.

Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Irish constitution, circumscribes the president’s power in favour of the executive; there are however some key powers that the President possesses, for instance the power to refer legislation to the Supreme Court to test its legality prior to signing it into law, besides being head of state and Commander in Chief of the Irish Defence Forces. The Irish President is also barred from commenting on political issues by the government, eliminating the dual loyalties inherent in the Governor General position. The Irish presidency as an institution has proven itself to be robust enough to position itself above politics as a check to the legislature without being unrepresentative of the electorate. It thus presents as a viable model for an alternative head of state to the governor-general and Australia’s status as a dominion .
 

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Sep 27, 2014
34,227
28,861
AFL Club
Essendon
There's a reason monarchists never talk about the Republic of Ireland and all the other parliamentary republics (i.e. most of Europe). It ruins their "DO YOU WANT TO BE LIKE AMERICA!?!!" narrative.
 

King Brown

Club Legend
Aug 12, 2017
2,582
3,763
AFL Club
Essendon
I think we should petition Britain to send Harry and his future wife Megan Markle over to be our king and queen. Their descendants could be the line of monarchs for generations.

This would break the brains of so many people it would be worth it.
 
Apr 12, 2012
45,989
41,667
AFL Club
GWS
We need to keep the Westminster system and find a way to have our own head of state.
Finding a method to choose a head of state is the problem.
Easy.

Instead of getting the Queen/Kings permission.
The GG just makes the decision. Everything else remains the same.

Pretty sure thats what the ARM are for.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,296
40,455
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Nope i took part in it.

Nothing about American style leadership.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

The biggest complaint from the ARM was that the question specifically mentioned the Parliament picking the President based on the findings from the Republic Convention - which was the popular position of politicians and academics. But the Australian public were vastly more in favour of directly electing the President.

The ARM wanted a straight up yes/no become a Republic question first, then would work on winning over the people to their way of thinking. Howard outsmarted them and went with the option he knew was not popular. Which really was the proper way to do it, because saying "do you want stuff?" without qualifying what "stuff" is, is dodgy as hell.

So Im going to assume you either werent involved in the vote, or voted without being at all informed on the debate.
 
Apr 12, 2012
45,989
41,667
AFL Club
GWS
The biggest complaint from the ARM was that the question specifically mentioned the Parliament picking the President based on the findings from the Republic Convention - which was the popular position of politicians and academics. But the Australian public were vastly more in favour of directly electing the President.
.

The biggest issue was the vote was run by a Monarchist PM that set it up to fail.

The ARM wanted a straight up yes/no become a Republic question first, then would work on winning over the people to their way of thinking. Howard outsmarted them and went with the option he knew was not popular. Which really was the proper way to do it, because saying "do you want stuff?" without qualifying what "stuff" is, is dodgy as hell.
.
Exctly. Howard setup the vote to fail.

Not dodgy at all, its getting an idea if a republic is whats wanted. Once we know we do want a republic them a model can be voted on.

So Im going to assume you either werent involved in the vote, or voted without being at all informed on the debate.

Assume what you want.
Just makes an ass out of you.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Apr 12, 2012
45,989
41,667
AFL Club
GWS
By going with the model the arrogant elites in the ARM wanted. He played them at their own game.

Instead of the popular vote model wanted by the public.

Arrogant? Thats the monarchists. Im sure next time with the entire Australian state amd national leadership behind it that the republic will be done right.

You mean the same model as now besides the fact the GG has to ask the Queens permission?

Never should of been the question anyway.

Should of been are you for a republic. Once done vote on the model.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,296
40,455
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Arrogant? Thats the monarchists. Im sure next time with the entire Australian state amd national leadership behind it that the republic will be done right.

You mean the same model as now besides the fact the GG has to ask the Queens permission?

Never should of been the question anyway.

Should of been are you for a republic. Once done vote on the model.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

That is a ridiculous way to hold a vote:
Do you want stuff but we will decide what stuff later? Y/N

Plus, Im not exactly sure how the referendum would even work, given it is a vote to change the Constitution. You cant just change the Constitution to say "stuff which isnt yet decided".

Can you point to any other referendum where a completely vague question was posed with the proviso that someone would figure out the rest at a later date?
 
Apr 12, 2012
45,989
41,667
AFL Club
GWS
That is a ridiculous way to hold a vote:
Do you want stuff but we will decide what stuff later? Y/N

What stuff? No.

The question is Do you want an Auatralian Head of state. Fairly straight forward really

This stuff that is stuff to decided on later is a nice attempt but Howard did it better.

Hense now with Republicans in countrol in every state and territory it will get a fair shake at the table. More than actually.

Plus, Im not exactly sure how the referendum would even work, given it is a vote to change the Constitution. You cant just change the Constitution to say "stuff which isnt yet decided".

Im sure people smarter than us have worked it out.

And nothing in the constitution changes until all details finalized.

Can you point to any other referendum where a completely vague question was posed with the proviso that someone would figure out the rest at a later date?

Not a vague question at all.

Have a vote wether you wish to have an Australian Head of State.

If the vote comes back as yes we then put all the types up to be voted on.

Current process stays in place until everything decided.

Easy effective and a monarchists worst nightmare.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Sorry GG. You need a model for government before it can be voted on.
Just voting on "a republic" is extremely vague.

yep ...........the new constitution is more important than the word republic and appointing an aussie as head of state
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,296
40,455
AFL Club
Hawthorn
What stuff? No.

The question is Do you want an Auatralian Head of state. Fairly straight forward really

This stuff that is stuff to decided on later is a nice attempt but Howard did it better.

Hense now with Republicans in countrol in every state and territory it will get a fair shake at the table. More than actually.



Im sure people smarter than us have worked it out.

And nothing in the constitution changes until all details finalized.



Not a vague question at all.

Have a vote wether you wish to have an Australian Head of State.

If the vote comes back as yes we then put all the types up to be voted on.

Current process stays in place until everything decided.

Easy effective and a monarchists worst nightmare.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

How do you have a Yes/No vote if you put up all the models for vote?

So really what you need to do is first have a referendum to change the referendum rules in the Constitution to allow multiple choice. But do you go for first past the post? Do you need a minimum 50%? If 17 models are put up, is 8% of the vote sufficient to change? Do you allow preferences?
 
Back