Society/Culture Monarchy vs Republic for Australia, and what is your main reasoning?

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
24,339
Likes
21,193
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters
You can't always get what you want but you can get what you need. Monarchists and pro-changers with idiot purity tests could doom a flag debate like the republic referendum was doomed. "Oh it's just not quite the model I want even though it's clearly superior than the model we have now". 20 years later they don't have shit.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

__Nantes__

Team Captain
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Posts
487
Likes
657
AFL Club
Richmond
You can't always get what you want but you can get what you need. Monarchists and pro-changers with idiot purity tests could doom a flag debate like the republic referendum was doomed. "Oh it's just not quite the model I want even though it's clearly superior than the model we have now". 20 years later they don't have shit.
I reckon the indigenous flag could be incorporated, or maybe just go completely minimalist with only green and gold or something and no symbol.

I'm surprised that NZ hasn't got the black flag with the white leaf as their official flag yet, it seems to tick all the boxes and has a neat design. A lot of people in Aus seem really keen on keeping the southern cross. Our flag just resembles NZ so much, we could've chosen something that wasn't nearly identical.
 

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
24,339
Likes
21,193
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters
I'm surprised that NZ hasn't got the black flag with the white leaf as their official flag yet, it seems to tick all the boxes and has a neat design. A lot of people in Aus seem rea
They were getting a black and white fern flag then ******* ISIS came along so they picked a crapper design for the final referendum which lost because purity test + old people.

Now it's 5 years later. Who ever talks about ISIS?
 

Roylion

Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,966
Likes
8,453
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #279
Elizabeth refuses to release her communications with Governor-General John Kerr, probably because her directions were anything but respectable for the head of a state of a democracy.
The Full Federal Court has ruled the 'Palace Papers', were correctly classified by the National Archives as "personal records" that cannot be accessed until at least 2027 as stipulated by Sir John Kerr's estate. They were ruled as not being "Commonwealth records", and accordingly are outside the scope of a statutory regime allowing access to documents after 30 years.

In November 2015 Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston published The Dismissal: In the Queen’s Name . This work was noteworthy because it was based on about 40 new interviews and 1000 pages of new historical documents.

They reject the notion put forward by historian Jenny Hocking that propagated the view that the Queen not only had prior warning of Kerr’s dismissal but also supported his vice-regal intervention.

Kelly and Bramston called it an "astonishing claim made on the thinnest evidence. It is tenuous and fleeting. It is disputed by other records and interviews." They suggested that Hocking’s view was not verified by any other document in Kerr’s many thousands of pages of files at the National Archives or any interview with a participant in these events.

Whitlam himself always argued the Queen would never have done what the governor-general did.

She also ruined her only sibling's life by refusing to let her marry the man she loved.
Papers released in 2004 to the National Archives show that the Queen and the new Prime Minister Anthony Eden (who had been divorced and remarried himself) drew up a plan in 1955 under which Princess Margaret would have been able to marry Townsend by removing Margaret and any children from the marriage out of the line of succession. Margaret would be allowed to keep her royal title and civil list allowance, stay in the country and even continue with her public duties. Eden summed up the Queen's attitude in a letter on the subject to the Commonwealth prime ministers "Her Majesty would not wish to stand in the way of her sister's happiness."

Her idiot son and hopefully less idiotic grandson and great-grandson aren't lucky. They'll be grey-haired when they become kings after a lifetime of ridicule in the media and on the internet.

The aura dies with her.
Australian Republicans are certainly banking on the death of the Queen to push through their republic agenda. However I wouldn't be too sure that the Queen's passing will necessarily be the fillip for the Republican cause that they anticipate.

Once the Queen dies (her death and funeral will be a massive media event that will rival or surpass that of Princess Diana), there will a be a succession of royal events that will likely help maintain the so called royal 'aura'. The coronation of Charles III (George VII) will be the first, followed by the investiture of William as Prince of Wales, possibly followed by tours of the Commonwealth by one or both. Many will be covered extensively by the Australian (and world media) and may well have the effect of helping to maintain the monarchy's popularity in Australia.
 
Last edited:

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
60,984
Likes
49,877
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I prefer republics over monarchy in principle

But as everything in life it’s a debate about substance over form.

Thus the debate is really our current constitution vs any new one.

If we could keep our current constitution and change the references to monarchy to a republic, we have a win!
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,416
Likes
13,970
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
I'm happy enough to just replace with English monarch with an Australian monarch if becoming a republic is a step too far for some.

withdraw from the Commonwealth, and change the flag too, in due course.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,625
Likes
3,957
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
I prefer republics over monarchy in principle

But as everything in life it’s a debate about substance over form.

Thus the debate is really our current constitution vs any new one.

If we could keep our current constitution and change the references to monarchy to a republic, we have a win!
One change is all that's needed , call the GG Mr President. Thats it thats all.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,625
Likes
3,957
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
These are 3 separate issues. If we become a republic, neither of the other 2 things actually change.

We would still be part of the Commonwealth, like India and Pakistan and South Africa, who are all republics. Unless we change the name of our country in the same referendum, we would still be known on the world stage as the Commonwealth of Australia officially. The Commonwealth in our name is older than the UK Commonwealth. It was based on the fact that our states united into one nation, similar to the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth. The UK Commonwealth has no real power as well. It is nice and something we should be a part of, but I think one pollie mention that the CHOGM is just a holiday.

We would still have the Union Jack on our flag as well. Hawaii still has Jack on its flag.

People think it would be a huge change, that we would not play in the Commonwealth Games or that it would be super expensive. I feel there is little change and though there will be a cost, I can't see it being much more than a normal election.

I am in the "It aren't broke, don't fix it" camp. Personally, would not like having an Australian President. Sounds so Yankee and boring. If you just decide to cut out the Queen and still have the GG, I would be more inclined to vote it for change. But I think the issue is overblown and prefer to do things which actually matter. And I like things having the Royal prefix in it(Etc Royal Australian Air force).....The fact that the biggest issue I have is the name of things showcases how little I think will actually change.
Great comment, I agree the Royals have been ceremonial since federation. ceremonial!
The fact is we are a sovereign state, and a commonwealth, Union Jack is part of our history, as the red black and gold flag is part of our original history too. Our first people.
The idea seems to be simply about changing names of things , why bother, the monarchy is a system of government, any one can complain about the Queen and the royals , they are not running anything, but the Queen like the GG has a special safety power, if something gets out of hand, I actually think it is safe and doesn't need any messing with.
It is also down the track in the next decades that you have to be wary of such a change , in fifty years anything could be switched around in our constitution.
History tells you all that.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,805
Likes
6,125
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Once the Queen dies (her death and funeral will be a massive media event that will rival or surpass that of Princess Diana), there will a be a succession of royal events that will likely help maintain the so called royal 'aura'.
It will be massively bigger than that of Diana who had plenty of critics. Whilst Charles is a bit of a kook and Harry seems to have completely lost the plot, William and Kate will ensure the monarchy remains immensely popular in the UK.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,416
Likes
13,970
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
One change is all that's needed , call the GG Mr President. Thats it thats all.
I'm not so sure about that any more.

President has a certain connotation in regards their powers and authority and the way in which they are chosen, which extend a bit beyond what the GG would do.

I would prefer some other title, maybe just "The Australian Head of State" or something generic like that. Or else going the other way I wouldn't mind if we just called them the King or Queen of Australia.

Anything that suggests they don't get voted on. I don't want a popular vote for the President.
 

Richard Pryor

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Posts
6,921
Likes
8,685
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I'm not so sure about that any more.

President has a certain connotation in regards their powers and authority and the way in which they are chosen, which extend a bit beyond what the GG would do.

I would prefer some other title, maybe just "The Australian Head of State" or something generic like that. Or else going the other way I wouldn't mind if we just called them the King or Queen of Australia.

Anything that suggests they don't get voted on. I don't want a popular vote for the President.
No expert, but the President of, say, Italy seems comparable to the GG in terms of powers and authority. From wikipedia:
In practice, the President's office is mostly—though not entirely—ceremonial. The Constitution provides that nearly all presidential acts must be countersigned by a member of the government (either the Prime Minister or an individual minister) as most presidential acts are only formal and real political responsibility is upon the government. Many of the others are duties that he is required to perform. However, pardons and commutations have been recognized as autonomous powers of the President.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,419
Likes
9,706
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
I'm not so sure about that any more.

President has a certain connotation in regards their powers and authority and the way in which they are chosen, which extend a bit beyond what the GG would do.

I would prefer some other title, maybe just "The Australian Head of State" or something generic like that. Or else going the other way I wouldn't mind if we just called them the King or Queen of Australia.

Anything that suggests they don't get voted on. I don't want a popular vote for the President.
Maybe they should just remain as the Governor-General and be their own representative.

Either way, if it's largely ceremonial I don't see the problem with an election.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,416
Likes
13,970
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Maybe they should just remain as the Governor-General and be their own representative.

Either way, if it's largely ceremonial I don't see the problem with an election.
The problem with an election is that I don't want some half-wit cock-twirling bong-ferret in the role. You can call the role ceremonial if you like but there is a serious side to it and the person in question really needs to know their role. I want to keep the parliament operating as it does now, I wouldn't want to set up an elected populist president with an alternative mandate.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,419
Likes
9,706
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
The problem with an election is that I don't want some half-wit cock-twirling bong-ferret in the role. You can call the role ceremonial if you like but there is a serious side to it and the person in question really needs to know their role. I want to keep the parliament operating as it does now, I wouldn't want to set up an elected populist president with an alternative mandate.
If the role is largely ceremonial then the occupant will be largely powerless which means that any alternate mandate will be largely pointless. Ergo, the Parliament will operate as it does now, except with a President (or whatever) that has been chosen by this nation to represent this nation.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,416
Likes
13,970
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
If the role is largely ceremonial then the occupant will be largely powerless which means that any alternate mandate will be largely pointless. Ergo, the Parliament will operate as it does now, except with a President (or whatever) that has been chosen by this nation to represent this nation.
I meant to say it is not entirely ceremonial, there is a bit more to it. There are serious reserve powers which require a person of maturity and sound judgment.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,419
Likes
9,706
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
I meant to say it is not entirely ceremonial, there is a bit more to it. There are serious reserve powers which require a person of maturity and sound judgment.
I can't see how a parliamentary voted President is any more guarantee that we'll get a person of maturity and sound judgement than a popularly elected one.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,416
Likes
13,970
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
I can't see how a parliamentary voted President is any more guarantee that we'll get a person of maturity and sound judgement than a popularly elected one.
I can. If it was open to elections you'd get the Pauline Hansons and Clive Palmers of this world wanting to run for President, probably more attracted to it than running for parliament itself. The sort of person I want in that job is the exact opposite, an anti-politician: sound, reserved, careful, diplomatic - the sort of person that would be at a disadvantage in having to run for election to the office.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,419
Likes
9,706
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
I can. If it was open to elections you'd get the Pauline Hansons and Clive Palmers of this world wanting to run for President, probably more attracted to it than running for parliament itself. The sort of person I want in that job is the exact opposite, an anti-politician: sound, reserved, careful, diplomatic - the sort of person that would be at a disadvantage in having to run for election to the office.
I can't for the life of me see how someone like that would get anywhere near to winning a national popular vote. Think about the sort of person that would appeal to a majority of the nation, and you'll be looking at someone pretty vanilla. We're not going to vote in crackpots like Hanson or Palmer.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,625
Likes
3,957
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
I'm not so sure about that any more.

President has a certain connotation in regards their powers and authority and the way in which they are chosen, which extend a bit beyond what the GG would do.

I would prefer some other title, maybe just "The Australian Head of State" or something generic like that. Or else going the other way I wouldn't mind if we just called them the King or Queen of Australia.

Anything that suggests they don't get voted on. I don't want a popular vote for the President.
No popular vote for President correct. We have to have the same protection that we have now , which is the GG, with that special power.
Once you start voting then you get the problems and the changes down the track that people may not like and that a GG cannot make.
But the GG can halt bad things if he/she feels the need.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,625
Likes
3,957
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
I like that

Perhaps we should also remove New Zealand from our constitution and expansionist plans whilst we are at it.
If we happened to completely take over New Zealand , then we could stop being beaten in Rugby every time we just take a sideways look at an All Black , ha ha !
 
Top Bottom