Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Geelong_Sicko]

How so?

Wasn't that the whole point of the Libs blocking supply in the first place? They knew that a GG dismissal might be a chance especially with how on the nose the Whitlam Government was in London and Washington? That in itself is a political machination I would have though, playing for dismissal through the blocking of supply. A dastardly one at that.

I'm glad that, to the best of my knowledge, such a thing can't happen in today's Parliament.

 

[tandino]

Wasn't that the whole point of the Libs blocking supply in the first place? They knew that a GG dismissal might be a chance especially with how on the nose the Whitlam Government was in London and Washington? That in itself is a political machination I would have though, playing for dismissal through the blocking of supply. A dastardly one at that.

I'm glad that, to the best of my knowledge, such a thing can't happen in today's Parliament.

It can definitely happen today if the conditions permit. The GG still has that power.

I think the motivation was more that it would force Whitlam to bring on an election, rather than the dismissal.

 

[Father Jack]

Wasn't that the whole point of the Libs blocking supply in the first place? They knew that a GG dismissal might be a chance especially with how on the nose the Whitlam Government was in London and Washington? That in itself is a political machination I would have though, playing for dismissal through the blocking of supply. A dastardly one at that.

I'm glad that, to the best of my knowledge, such a thing can't happen in today's Parliament.

What was subsequently changed that would prevent it from happening in today's Parliament?

 

[maroon and blue]

If we become a republic there will be change in every day life to our detriment. From global financial powers to political control. We will be handing the keys to Australia to the most evil organisations in the world.

 

[Gough]

I think George Soros should become our first President for the lols.

 

[maroon and blue]

I think George Soros should become our first President for the lols.

For me it's the head of the American Republic; Jo Biden. Republics are bad.

 

[Gethelred]

If we become a republic there will be change in every day life to our detriment. From global financial powers to political control. We will be handing the keys to Australia to the most evil organisations in the world.

Could you... elaborate?

 

[Father Jack]

Must be some pure A-Grade arseholes taking over to be worse than the British Royal Family

 

[tandino]

If we become a republic there will be change in every day life to our detriment. From global financial powers to political control. We will be handing the keys to Australia to the most evil organisations in the world.

They already have the keys

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It can definitely happen today if the conditions permit. The GG still has that power.

I think the motivation was more that it would force Whitlam to bring on an election, rather than the dismissal.

Fair enough. I think it's wrong and that even OUTSIDE the Republican debate such matters should only be decided by the Australian people. An immediate double dissolution of Parliament should have occurred (and yes, I realise Gough already survived one double dissolution which landed him an increased majority in the House of Reps but still a deadlocked Senate).

Actually, I think it should be impossible for opposition parties to block essential Government business altogether. They should still have the power to vote on and against policy but essential government business? I'd say it was almost treasonous.

What was subsequently changed that would prevent it from happening in today's Parliament?

Turns out I was wrong. Blocking supply SHOULD be illegal in my opinion but it's not.

 

[Roylion]

Fair enough. I think it's wrong and that even OUTSIDE the Republican debate such matters should only be decided by the Australian people.

That's why you have an executive. To resolve political crisis and restore responsible government. That executive should be as apolitical as possible.

Actually, I think it should be impossible for opposition parties to block essential Government business altogether.

If a party in government doesn't gain an absolute majority under our electoral system, then they can do exactly that, until the Australian people go the polls again. Unless they have a majority you could argue they don't have a mandate from the people.

Turns out I was wrong. Blocking supply SHOULD be illegal in my opinion but it's not.

The Coalition blocking supply in 1975 was an attempt to force a general election in the House of Representatives.

The Senate has constitutional power to refuse or defer supply to the Government. In order to continue providing resposible government a Prime Minister who cannot obtain supply, including money for carrying on the ordinary services of government, must either advise a general election or resign.

On the 2nd November, Malcolm Fraser proposed a compromise: that the Opposition would concede supply if Whitlam agreed to hold a House of Representatives election at the same time as the half-Senate election. Whitlam rejected the compromise and determined only to hold a half Senate election. Another meeting on the morning of 11th November also failed to reach a compromise.

Whitlam was dismissed as Prime Minister shortly after 1 pm the same day.

 

[maroon and blue]

Which ever way you look at it the optics were poor. Kerr was a rabbit and Fraser was a haughty fool. In the end the public had its say, and life went on.

 

[Gough]

However much I agree with Charles' comments about refugees and Rwanda I suspect the days of the Monarch keeping out of politics are fast coming to end and this sort of public intervention isn't likely to be an exception. It's possible Charles as King could potentially have a destabilising effect on Britain if the crown and it's government find itself at odds. Which leads to the question that should be asked; should someone wield the sort of power that he will have at his disposal purely by accident of birth?

 

[Roylion]

However much I agree with Charles' comments about refugees and Rwanda I suspect the days of the Monarch keeping out of politics are fast coming to end and this sort of public intervention isn't likely to be an exception.

I doubt that very much.

As has been explained to you before..

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."

It's possible Charles as King could potentially have a destabilising effect on Britain if the crown and it's government find itself at odds.

See above.

Which leads to the question that should be asked; should someone wield the sort of power that he will have at his disposal purely by accident of birth?

Charles is already the most well trained heir to the throne to take on the role of constitutional monarch ever, so should do a good job.

 

[Gough]

I think you're expecting a seventy five year old bloke to break the habits of a lifetime.

 

[Roylion]

I think you're expecting a seventy five year old bloke to break the habits of a lifetime.

Why wouldn't he adjust to the demands and parameters of a new job? It's clear he understands the limitations of what he can do and say as the monarch.

 

[Gough]

Why wouldn't he adjust to the demands and parameters of a new job? It's clear he understands the limitations of what he can do and say as the monarch.

Like he adjusted to demand and parameters of his new marriage? He made vows before God when he married too and it's arguable whether he even walked into St. Paul's with an intent to keep them.

 

[maroon and blue]

Like he adjusted to demand and parameters of his new marriage? He made vows before God when he married too and it's arguable whether he even walked into St. Paul's with an intent to keep them.

At least Charles did not go the full Henry VIII.

 

[Father Jack]

So it all hinges on what Charles should do, not what he can do. But I suppose because he was born to the job that makes it all fine, nothing can possibly go wrong.

Either way, all we can do is cross our fingers and hope that this Englishman does right by us, because that's all the power we have over it.

 

[Roylion]

Like he adjusted to demand and parameters of his new marriage?

Is that the best you have?

In 2020, 78,989 marriages were registered in Australia. 49,510 divorces were granted the same year. In the UK 103,592 divorces were granted.

Are you suggesting that the just under 100,000 Australians who divorced in 2020 or the just over 200,000 Britons who divorced that year aren't capable of performing their job competently or be able to keep promises because they didn't keep their marriage vows?

In any case Church of England has allowed divorce since 2002. They recognise "That some marriages regrettably do fail and that the Church’s care for couples in that situation should be of paramount importance;"

He made vows before God when he married too

So are you suggesting that Charles won't do the following?

"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

and it's arguable whether he even walked into St. Paul's with an intent to keep them.

The former bodyguard of Diana between 1982 and 1989 Allan Peters has suggested that the first to become involved in an extramarital relationship was Diana. Author Jonathan Dimbleby gave a similar account in his 1994 biography of Prince Charles claiming that he and Parker Bowles didn't rekindle their relationship until 1986 while Diana began her affair in 1985.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I agree can appreciate the sentiment.
I voted for a Republic, simply because I want Australia to stand on it's own two feet, devoid of any possible inference we are beholden to any other nation.
That said, on the day we should forward a letter to Britain thanking them for their input over the last 200 odd years.

We do stand on our own feet you drongos' !

WE DO STAND ON OUR OWN TWO FEET, WE DO NOT SIT BEHOLDEN TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.
We use that style of safe government, a MONARCHY!!! Yes!!!
Our GG is head of state and what ever anyone thinks about with holding supply was the reason Gough got sacked, you are misinformed , Fraser used the ability to block supply with his numbers, to show the seriousness of what ever Goughs underlings were up to with Kemlani?

Without Supply you can't govern, John Kerr had no other choice and was probably aware of what Fraser was presenting to him, never told Gough because Gough could have sacked Kerr and saved his government..... by sacking Kerr!!! Yes he could. Didn't think in time, or just didn't.

So maybe we dodged a Labor bullet that year. That we might be still paying for,
we aren't!

Although with the uninformed fellow that got his way into office by foul and underhanded bias from media 2022 , well we might need a governor general with the testicles Kerr had, what ever you who know, may think, I would suggest Kerr's life was wrecked by that time as GG! A sacrifice and to a friend as well Gough.

Just a reminder we are a sovereign nation and people who are ignorant should make themselves known to the facts we are not under UK's rule , the Queen if told about the 1975, at the true time of the crisis, would not!! And could not!! Stop! What OUR HEAD OF STATE, Kerr, apparently with good reason! DID!
Sacked The Whitlam government. We in Australia do fine with how we are.
You begin stupid unneeded changes to your nation's successful way it runs, you have to be aware of the protections our system brings, and the special power of the GG, its the future, you worry about! 10 20 years down the track!

That's when someone could "change " things then, make the President a voted for position and look at how we voted this time, just for a PM, who is across nothing he's in charge of. A vitriolic pack of underlings, and power at any cost, even the character assassination of a good bloke, like everyone had faults but was treated like sh*t I reckon, by the ABC and other left media , they all lead to a disaster.

And all too big changes, and it'll be all you young buggars and your kids, that will where the likelyhood of becomming little USA!

Then what we get Biden or Putin, or any other potential dictator!!!!

Grow a brain Australia.

How ever good Gough was, some of his people were NOT.
Nor were inexperienced and, yes, wanted to do everything they could for our nation !

NOBLE ideal, but the wrong way of going about it, dodgy loans would have had us in hock to who we don't know

Better for your peace of mind.

At the time I thought Fraser was a dog, now I think he wanted power alright, but he knew something was very wrong and Goughs mate Sir John would have also known,and did the hardest thing he'd ever done, took responsibility to remove what might have been a terrible error, or maybe was
dead set in the knowledge and already knew what would be a terrible error.

 

[JoondalupJ]

So it all hinges on what Charles should do, not what he can do. But I suppose because he was born to the job that makes it all fine, nothing can possibly go wrong.

Either way, all we can do is cross our fingers and hope that this Englishman does right by us, because that's all the power we have over it.

What tripe, Charles or Queen Elizabeth, have no say over what we do and what we think, you are so UNinformed.

It really doesn't work like that, we are a sovereign nation go learn!

 

[Pessimistic]

If we become a republic there will be change in every day life to our detriment. From global financial powers to political control. We will be handing the keys to Australia to the most evil organisations in the world.

This is my fear. It will require a significant part of the coalition to be on board for a referendum to succeed. They are in the pockets of big mining so if they become in favour, watch out. As if they don’t raid the coffers enough.

 

[Pessimistic]

Charles can’t even manage his own family at 70 plus yo His mother was doing it age 25 yo
They are so reliant on a good press and the press will tear him down even if he makes a good start

Over here the two sides are preparing for the long game, obviously for when Charles is ‘annointed’

Any monarchists calling me disloyal can watch this then piss off

Anyone think the sugar hit Brits at the celebrations sound like trumpites

 

[Pessimistic]

We do stand on our own feet you drongos' !

WE DO STAND ON OUR OWN TWO FEET, WE DO NOT SIT BEHOLDEN TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.
We use that style of safe government, a MONARCHY!!! Yes!!!
Our GG is head of state and what ever anyone thinks about with holding supply was the reason Gough got sacked, you are misinformed , Fraser used the ability to block supply with his numbers, to show the seriousness of what ever Goughs underlings were up to with Kemlani?

Without Supply you can't govern, John Kerr had no other choice and was probably aware of what Fraser was presenting to him, never told Gough because Gough could have sacked Kerr and saved his government..... by sacking Kerr!!! Yes he could. Didn't think in time, or just didn't.

So maybe we dodged a Labor bullet that year. That we might be still paying for,
we aren't!

Although with the uninformed fellow that got his way into office by foul and underhanded bias from media 2022 , well we might need a governor general with the testicles Kerr had, what ever you who know, may think, I would suggest Kerr's life was wrecked by that time as GG! A sacrifice and to a friend as well Gough.

Just a reminder we are a sovereign nation and people who are ignorant should make themselves known to the facts we are not under UK's rule , the Queen if told about the 1975, at the true time of the crisis, would not!! And could not!! Stop! What OUR HEAD OF STATE, Kerr, apparently with good reason! DID!
Sacked The Whitlam government. We in Australia do fine with how we are.
You begin stupid unneeded changes to your nation's successful way it runs, you have to be aware of the protections our system brings, and the special power of the GG, its the future, you worry about! 10 20 years down the track!

That's when someone could "change " things then, make the President a voted for position and look at how we voted this time, just for a PM, who is across nothing he's in charge of. A vitriolic pack of underlings, and power at any cost, even the character assassination of a good bloke, like everyone had faults but was treated like sh*t I reckon, by the ABC and other left media , they all lead to a disaster.

And all too big changes, and it'll be all you young buggars and your kids, that will where the likelyhood of becomming little USA!

Then what we get Biden or Putin, or any other potential dictator!!!!

Grow a brain Australia.

How ever good Gough was, some of his people were NOT.
Nor were inexperienced and, yes, wanted to do everything they could for our nation !

NOBLE ideal, but the wrong way of going about it, dodgy loans would have had us in hock to who we don't know

Better for your peace of mind.

At the time I thought Fraser was a dog, now I think he wanted power alright, but he knew something was very wrong and Goughs mate Sir John would have also known,and did the hardest thing he'd ever done, took responsibility to remove what might have been a terrible error, or maybe was
dead set in the knowledge and already knew what would be a terrible error.

Wasn’t the kicker that khemlani was to be the banker? Dodgy deals, but here we are and the chinese communist party is our banker, not the only country there mind you