Society/Culture RIP Prince Philip

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,314
12,104
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
I can't wait for the older generation dropping off the Perch so we can finally become a Republic
Why would we necessarily become a republic when the older generation drops 'off the perch'?

 

11kgm

Premium Platinum
Sep 24, 2014
6,652
4,263
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man Utd
Why would we necessarily become a republic when the older generation drops 'off the perch'?

oh for fu** sale, I don't get the obsession they do nothing like obsession with the Kardashins
 

sorted

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
10,059
12,642
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham
Why would we necessarily become a republic when the older generation drops 'off the perch'?

A lot of people are ambivalent about the republic issue. QE2 has shown a lot of wisdom so that her role has remained uncontroversial, and it could be said that she is loved by many of her subjects. But it's unlikely that Charles would attract such devotion. And he has shown he is more likely to bring his strong personal views into the role, which may not be well received.

Then we have the other personalities. Camilla is not popular. Prince Andrew is embroiled in the Epstein sexual abuse allegations. Harry and Meghan are on the outer after implying the Royal Family is racist.

Sentiment about a republic could change dramatically after the Queen dies.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,314
12,104
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
A lot of people are ambivalent about the republic issue. QE2 has shown a lot of wisdom so that her role has remained uncontroversial, and it could be said that she is loved by many of her subjects. But it's unlikely that Charles would attract such devotion. And he has shown he is more likely to bring his strong personal views into the role, which may not be well received.
I don't think that is the case at all.

As Prince of Wales Charles can act with far more freedom than he can as monarch.

He said as much in November 2018 when interviewed on the occasion of his 70th birthday.

“You can’t be the same as the sovereign if you’re the Prince of Wales or the heir. But the idea somehow that I’m going to go on in exactly the same way if I have to succeed, is complete nonsense because the two situations are completely different.

“You only have to look at Shakespeare plays, Henry V or Henry IV part I and 2, to see the change that can take place. Because if you become the sovereign then you play the role in the way that it is expected.

“So, clearly I won’t be able to do the same things I’ve done as heir. So, of course, you operate within the constitutional parameters. But it’s a different function. I think people have forgotten that the two are very different.

"I’m not that stupid. I do realise that it is a separate exercise being sovereign. So, of course, you know, I understand entirely how that should operate."


Then we have the other personalities. Camilla is not popular.
She'll be the consort with no constitutional role at all.

Prince Andrew is embroiled in the Epstein sexual abuse allegations. Harry and Meghan are on the outer after implying the Royal Family is racist.
Andrew and Harry are extremely unlikely to be ever be the monarch.

Sentiment about a republic could change dramatically after the Queen dies.
I'm not sure that it will.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,273
33,593
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
I can't wait for the older generation dropping off the Perch so we can finally become a Republic
Its not the Monarchies fault we're not a Republic. They'd let us leave whenever we wanted to.

It's the fact we cant come up with a model that everyone agrees to with respect to the new Executive arm. How much power the President should have, whether it's a direct elected president or appointed by the PM (or some other method) etc.

My personal preference is for the Ministry to be comprised of the heads of each Government department (to stop MP's also being members of the Executive) and for them to appoint a President, with limited Executive powers.

Basically a stronger separation of the powers than what we have at present where the Legislative branch is also the Executive.
 

andrewmillman

Club Legend
Apr 23, 2020
1,268
1,393
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Its not the Monarchies fault we're not a Republic. They'd let us leave whenever we wanted to.

It's the fact we cant come up with a model that everyone agrees to with respect to the new Executive arm. How much power the President should have, whether it's a direct elected president or appointed by the PM (or some other method) etc.

My personal preference is for the Ministry to be comprised of the heads of each Government department (to stop MP's also being members of the Executive) and for them to appoint a President, with limited Executive powers.

Basically a stronger separation of the powers than what we have at present where the Legislative branch is also the Executive.
How would that ministry be appointed?
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
80,311
37,266
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Why would we necessarily become a republic when the older generation drops 'off the perch'?

I was onboard for the republic, until it turned into Malcolm Turnbull as guest on "The footy show' type spectacle.

Today Im much more cynical, if we do look like becoming a republic, it will have been orchestrated by the Mining lobby and ordinary folk will be dudded somehow

I doesnt mean those people claiming to be fiercely patriotic but also being monarchists don't look silly right now.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
36,273
33,593
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
How would that ministry be appointed?
The heads of each government department. The Department of Defence (for example) appoints the senior Public Servant from within the Department as the Minister.

All the Minister does is exercise powers delegated to them by the Legislature under Legislation. As is the case currently. They would work hand in hand with (but independent from) an appointee from the Government (a MP).

In our current system, we have MP's (i.e. the Legislative branch) appointing themselves as Ministers (i.e. as members of the Executive). So effectively the guys writing the laws (the Legislature) are writing laws for themselves to Execute (as Ministers). Accordingly we get 'privative clauses' and other 'protection from Judicial oversight' laws slapped into every bit of Legislation (seeking to shield the Executive from Judicial review).

A separation of the powers requires an independent Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branch. One of the weaknesses of the Westminster system is the lack of an independent Executive. The head of the Executive (the Monarch or her representative) doesn't actually do anything or wield any powers other than reserve powers, and the next level down (the Ministry) are all members of the Legislative branch as well as being the Executive.

Effectively in a Westminster system the Legislative branch are in charge of the Military, all decision making under legislation (that they themselves write), appointing Judges and every other aspect of government.

I'd like to see a greater separation of those two arms of government between the Executive and the Legislature.
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
80,311
37,266
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
1618809768523.png


Harry and William and Kate have been close before, it can resolve. But Anne in this picture speaks volumes.

If you think about it the whole thing boils down to:

Harry respects Charles and Williams positions, but wanted to change his own, not theirs.

William and Chares didn't respect Harry's intended position, or weren't moving fast enough for William (which he is now in, one way or another) now all they need to do is respect it.

After that all the decisions on details come easy. Just keep those meddling advisors out of it


Harry in his life saw:
  • His mothers death substantially due to media
  • His armed forces job which he loved came to an end because the media didn't respect his privacy
  • He saw the same thing developing very quickly for his new family. Due to the media.
How is it Hard to understand?
 

Pessimistic

Make me an Admin!
Sep 13, 2000
80,311
37,266
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
The heads of each government department. The Department of Defence (for example) appoints the senior Public Servant from within the Department as the Minister.

All the Minister does is exercise powers delegated to them by the Legislature under Legislation. As is the case currently. They would work hand in hand with (but independent from) an appointee from the Government (a MP).

In our current system, we have MP's (i.e. the Legislative branch) appointing themselves as Ministers (i.e. as members of the Executive). So effectively the guys writing the laws (the Legislature) are writing laws for themselves to Execute (as Ministers). Accordingly we get 'privative clauses' and other 'protection from Judicial oversight' laws slapped into every bit of Legislation (seeking to shield the Executive from Judicial review).

A separation of the powers requires an independent Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branch. One of the weaknesses of the Westminster system is the lack of an independent Executive. The head of the Executive (the Monarch or her representative) doesn't actually do anything or wield any powers other than reserve powers, and the next level down (the Ministry) are all members of the Legislative branch as well as being the Executive.

Effectively in a Westminster system the Legislative branch are in charge of the Military, all decision making under legislation (that they themselves write), appointing Judges and every other aspect of government.

I'd like to see a greater separation of those two arms of government between the Executive and the Legislature.
The national cabinet looks like it will continue past the covid emergency. Its more executive than CHOG was, and seem to completely bypass the senate as representative of 'states rights'

The constitutional relationship in a practical sense is developing naturally.

Interesting in the Trump crisis the entire US armed forces was reminded they were loyal to the constitution, not the President
 

andrewmillman

Club Legend
Apr 23, 2020
1,268
1,393
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The heads of each government department. The Department of Defence (for example) appoints the senior Public Servant from within the Department as the Minister.

All the Minister does is exercise powers delegated to them by the Legislature under Legislation. As is the case currently. They would work hand in hand with (but independent from) an appointee from the Government (a MP).

In our current system, we have MP's (i.e. the Legislative branch) appointing themselves as Ministers (i.e. as members of the Executive). So effectively the guys writing the laws (the Legislature) are writing laws for themselves to Execute (as Ministers). Accordingly we get 'privative clauses' and other 'protection from Judicial oversight' laws slapped into every bit of Legislation (seeking to shield the Executive from Judicial review).

A separation of the powers requires an independent Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branch. One of the weaknesses of the Westminster system is the lack of an independent Executive. The head of the Executive (the Monarch or her representative) doesn't actually do anything or wield any powers other than reserve powers, and the next level down (the Ministry) are all members of the Legislative branch as well as being the Executive.

Effectively in a Westminster system the Legislative branch are in charge of the Military, all decision making under legislation (that they themselves write), appointing Judges and every other aspect of government.

I'd like to see a greater separation of those two arms of government between the Executive and the Legislature.
In this situation, how does the mandate of elections get implemented as through the current change of ministers?
If ministers aren't installed by a president who has a popular mandate for their policies as in say america?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad