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

[Father Jack]

If the people decide to invest the future democratically-elected head of state with powers unforeseen, then so be it. I believe that is how democracy works. I certainly don't like this paternalistic view that we need a British head of state to save us from ourselves. As for changing over all the 'royal' stuff in the event of a democracy, well, it would only have to be done once. And then next we start work on updating our hand-me-down flag.

 

[Borscht Mat]

^^^^^^^^

Indeed. The cost argument is a last resort. The cost will be peanuts compared to some of the other crap that goes on. If need be we can pass the hat around and raise $100M in no time to change the signs on a few planes and buildings. If that was the case you would be buying your internet from the Post Master General.

 

[KMac4FF]

Don't think there would be any great benefit apart from maybe more national pride but if the majority favoured it and we changed would not worry me.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Have a look at the Irish and the Israeli Presidential models, for instance. Can the President wage war? What does the President do in those two countries?

The President can get his arse slung for corruption.

THAT'S something which is all too common with Republics. Corruption is far more rife amongst politcians.

POLITICAL corruption could be costing the economy €3bn in lost business revenue and foreign investment.

A damning new report yesterday said politics in Ireland was seen to be heavily influenced by personal relationships, favours and donations.

And yet you are holding the Irish model up as one to consider?

Heaven help Australia.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

we are mature enough to make the right decision

Who is this "we"?

There's plenty of politically active crackpots in society who I'd have no confidence in when it came to making sensible political decisions.

 

[Father Jack]

Yes it is true that the British Monarchy is pretty much incorruptible. They simply don't have to bother with that s**t anymore.

 

[The Punter]

Using Ireland as an example, does anyone want to make any comment about Martin McGuinness?

These are the problems as I see them.

1. We aren't starting from scratch.

2. Republicans cannot agree on a model.

3. The way to change the constitution cannot be adulterated to suit agendas.

If republicans could get together by themselves and agree on a model, that would reduce costs. But I hear proposals about two plebiscites and then a referendum, and this does not guarantee success at the end of the process.

Many constitutional monarchists are fans of the system, rather than the people who fill the roles. Most of the talk about the British Royal Family relates to the sort of stuff that ends up on the front page of New Idea anyway, rather than The Australian.

And if the preference is for a minimalist model, we're spending all that money on changing the citizenship status of one person, and nothing else. And considering the Governor-General is currently an Australian, we're not really even doing that.

There are bigger fish to fry, people.

 

[Father Jack]

So, basically what you are saying is that the citizenship status of our head of state is not important, or not important enough to bother with those issues listed that are hardly insurmountable? I don't think Australia is that much of a powder keg that a democratically-elected G-G would cause the whole place to explode into anarchy.

Not sure what your point is about the Sinn Fein presidential candidate. Are you really that scared of democracy?

 

[The Punter]

I don't believe those issues need to be surmounted.

Maybe the fact that Australia isn't much of a "powder-keg" has something to do with our entire system of government?

I don't sit at home at the end of the day and think to myself "Jeez, I wish everyone believed our head of state was an Australian citizen". It's just not that important. It won't help one more unemployed person get a job (but the money spent on it may if used elsewhere), it won't help one more sick person get quality health treatment (but the money spent on it may if used elsewhere), it won't help one more child get an education (but the money spent on it may if used elsewhere), and it won't help one more important piece of infrastructure get built (but the money spent on it may if used elsewhere).

The national identity debate is a festival of navel gazing. I'm quite comfortable about who we are and where we're headed.

 

[Father Jack]

Then you shouldn't care one way or another about the issue and thus I wonder why you even bother having an opinion, unless of course you think that the process of getting an Australian Head of State will result in dead children due to underfunded hospitals or something.

Once again, yes it is a symbolic gesture, but that is the whole bloody point when you are dealing with a symbol. I don't like what the current symbol symbolises about Australia.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Using Ireland as an example, does anyone want to make any comment about Martin McGuinness?

Or backhander Bertie Ahern!

 

[Monniehawk]

And if the preference is for a minimalist model, we're spending all that money on changing the citizenship status of one person, and nothing else. And considering the Governor-General is currently an Australian, we're not really even doing that.
There are bigger fish to fry, people.

Yep!
I'm all for changing the flag.
Red, green and gold with some sort of image to typify Australia. Not sure wot.

 

[The_Reaper]

Yep!
I'm all for changing the flag.
Red, green and gold with some sort of image to typify Australia. Not sure wot.

New flag should be a black swan on a gold background

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

New flag should be a black swan on a gold background

Swan Lager? I thought Emu Export was the drink of choice over there in the West?

 

[The_Reaper]

Swan Lager? I thought Emu Export was the drink of choice over there in the West?

I was going for a WA dominated flag, but I like your thinking.

Emu Export is pretty good though.

 

[The rabbi]

Yep!
I'm all for changing the flag.
Red, green and gold with some sort of image to typify Australia. Not sure wot.

That sounds gay. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
But here is a better flag.

​

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

If you ran that one up the pole rabbi, I'd salute it!

 

[MrNatural]

Its time for change i feel.
We need to move on from the days of the British Empire and become an 100% free nation, with zero political ties to the United Kingdom.
We need our own head of state born and residing in Australia.

I have nothing against the British Monarchy, i just want them out of our political system.
A flag change should be the first step towards change.
I want our flag to be one of the most recognisable in the world, not have it look like several other nations flags

 

[JoondalupJ]

Are you for a Monarchy or Republic for Australia, and what is the main reason you are one way or the other?

If you vote 'Other' for either, explain why.

I,ve said before the monarchy in our country is a form of government its not anything to do with the Queen.
I can never see why people are so petty about this foreign head of state bullshit.
Kerr sacked Gough, not the Queen ,believe it , its true.
The Queens part was simply a formality of paperwork or some tradition.
The royal family nor the British government have absolutely no say or power over
Australia. If you don,t understand that then you are not well informed.

Taking pot shots at a figure head is just stupid .Our monarchial system gives us a third over riding power to be able to stop lets say an Australian politician from borrowing billions off a Pakistani money lender and stuffing up the country. IT WORKED YOU KNOW.
BUT KERR DID IT, NOT ELIZABETH THE 2ND.

Its a system of government that has a huge safety net.It works and just because misguided republicans with their over top I am an Aussie don,t realise they are Aussies
in a bloody good stable country that doesn,t need political change in head of state issues. We have a head of state its the Governor General, the Queen is just a bit of ceremony, nothing to do with decisions on our part. So stop the bullshit we have a safe system, leave the damn thing alone.

And yes I am worried that a change in how we do things might just f**K us up completely.
So never ever change what we have its too good to risk even one little movement in power when you look at the s**t we have in labor and liberal politicians these days.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Its time for change i feel.
We need to move on from the days of the British Empire and become an 100% free nation, with zero political ties to the United Kingdom.
We need our own head of state born and residing in Australia.

I have nothing against the British Monarchy, i just want them out of our political system.
A flag change should be the first step towards change.
I want our flag to be one of the most recognisable in the world, not have it look like several other nations flags

Our head of state does reside in Australia for crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoondalupJ]

So the royal family cant marry a catholic. Then why did the queen marry someone that was born in Greece. I think its about time Australia has its own head of State which is voted by the people of Australia not the politicians.

We have got a head of state bloody how maney times do I have to say it.
Our head of state is the GOVERNOR GENERAL, the Queen is ceremonial , its the system thats important not the friggin Queen, its all words and traditions it has NO POWER over Australia. Surely you people on this site understand the simplicity of our nsafe system.

Well maybe thats it , you just don,t understand and the ones that do, send in jokes about the Geelong flag, the ones that are serious and keep raving about how the Queen tells us what to do probably are not worth me posting anymore because there is no real comprehension of what our system means.

Again and good bye, keep it OUR system its safe.

 

[The Punter]

Remember that the Queen rightly refused the petition of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to overturn Kerr's decision to sack Whitlam because she didn't have the power to do so.

The uproar from Whitlam's sacking prevents it from ever happening again, or even the use of the tactics (blocking supply) that made Kerr's decision immediate.

 

[Father Jack]

So we don't need an Australian head of state because we already have one that isn't, and even though said non-Australian head of state is purely ceremonial, having an actual Australian head of state that does what the Australian pretend head of state currently does or does not do would ruin the country?

I think i understand now.

 

[The Punter]

If you want significant change, then there is a potential for risk. You also have to make the case that there is something significantly wrong with how Australia is governed.

If you want superficial change, it is a waste of a large amount of money.

 

[Father Jack]

Symbols are important. The Head of State is one of the most important symbols a nation has. This makes it important and worth spending some money on. A very potent nation-building exercise that ends with a head of state that represents all Australians, not just the Anglos.