Should Australia become a republic?

[Asgardian]

Should we have a referendum asking:-
"Should Australia become a republic?"

if the answer is YES, then we can argue over the way we govern ourselves, if the answer is NO, the issue is dead and buried.

The last referendum should have been a simple yes/no answer to the above direct simple question.

------------------
Chris

(Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus)

[This message has been edited by Asgardian (edited 14 March 2001).]

 

[QT]

Ofcourse we should become a republic! We should have freedom to do anthing this conutry wants without the SUPERSLUT - Queen having to sign it. Monrachy was a thing of the past (1400's)

------------------
"I came here to win, I am a winner" - Denzel Washington , Remember The Titans ; 2000

 

[Go South]

[YES] Republic [YES]

Who needs that hag? The bitch didn't even come to Adelaide last time she was in Australia - that was the last nail in the coffin for me. Bugger off back to England, and piss off out of our affairs over here...



------------------
'...and we won't give up, till the premiership cup is safely in our hands...'

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Tis question should be directed to Phil Cleary and Ted Mack

who have alot of explaining to do ....

 

[Darky]

I am not a monarchist per se, but ask yourselves this... "How would changing to a republic change our everyday lives?".

 

[TigerTank]

I hate the word 'republic'. It is the "cheap-and-nasty" of political systems ... it just sounds so "Oh, everyone else calls themselves a republic, and I'd hate to be different from the crowd!".

Republic of South Africa, People's Republic of China, Weimar Republic, Soviet Socialist Republic ... republic, republic, let down your golden hair.

If we break ties with House Windsor why do we have to call ourselves a bloody republic - just replacing a British term (Commonwealth - at least it sounds classy!) with what has become a glorified Americanism (yes I know it was originally Greek)?

President - about the most boring name you could possibly give a head of state - El Presidente (boring as Freo v North). If we break ties with House Windsor, can't we just keep "Governor General" (sounds classy) instead? Why be a Commodore or Falcon when you can be a Calais or Fairmont Ghia?

Personally I would rather the Queen as Head of State than a Politician - that would make us like the United States, and we all know how great that system is.

Better still, why don't we have our own Royal Family? Australian head of state who is NOT a politician.

Perhaps Ian Sinclair and Barry Jones should be joint King of Australia - and when we marry Ian's son to Barry's daughter - instant Royal House.

See people - a bit of lateral thinking so we get a compromise! Of course those sh!thead anti-Australians who hand out Green Left Weekly wouldn't know 'compromise' if it fell out of the stinking, lice-infested rags they call clothes.

------------------
TT - Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter



[This message has been edited by TigerTank (edited 14 March 2001).]

 

[James2]

It would interest you to know TT, that Australia has its own royal family.The Head of State of Australia is the Queen (or King) of Australia. It just happens that they are also the British royal family too.

This anomaly can be rectified very easily. All John Howard & Co need to do, is ammend the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 (Cth), confering the title of Queen (or King) of Australia on an Australian.

This would be an admirable compromise...

Cheers.

------------------
"Strangely enough, in the midst of change, the present course may often be the most risky one. It may only serve to perpetuate the irrelevancy."

 

[magpie_joffa]

WELL I WOULD NOT PISS ON BUCKINGHAM PALACE IF IT WAS ON FIRE NOR ITS OCCUPANTS,BRING ON THE REPUBLIC!!!!!!

------------------
good ole collingwood for ever,we know how to play the game,side by side we stick together to uphold the REAL magpies name,see the barrackers are shouting,as all barrackers should,YES the premiership's a cakewalk for the good ole collingwood.
http://www.mp3.com/joffa

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by TigerTank:
President - about the most boring name you could possibly give a head of state - El Presidente (boring as Freo v North).

Hey, what's wrong with a repeat episode of the Wayne Carey show? I think the in the last one, the crew got up to all kinds of crazy hijinks, with Wacky Wayne slamming on 7 in the second half against the hapless Docker Crocker Shockers as the studio audience fell about the floor in laughter .

 

[TigerTank]

You're such a jolly, happy fellow, Joffa.

------------------
TT - Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter

 

[Same Old's]

Originally posted by TigerTank:
Personally I would rather the Queen as Head of State than a Politician - that would make us like the United States, and we all know how great that system is.

The United States isn't the only county with a politician as a head of state.

 

[WCE2000]

i dont give a ****

as long as they keep cricket, footy and beer. that australia can become nazi for all i care.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[Eagle_Fan]

Put simply - Yes.

 

[Roylion]

For a variety of reasons, I believe that the system of a constitutional monarchy is the most stable form of government in the world at present and personally I would like Australia to remain one. Please note that this does not necessarily mean the British Royal Family should be the monarch of Australia...I agree the head of State should preferably be an Australian.

Some countries that are at present constitutional monarchies (excluding Britain and the countries that have the British monarch as their monarch), are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, Morocco, Japan, Thailand, Malaysia, Nepal, Swaziland, and Tonga. I would describe all of these to be politically stable, given that the various political parties in these countries have someone who is above politics to rein them in necessary. For example, there was a attempted coup d'etat in Spain about eight or nine years ago where King Juan Carlos, used his personal popularity with all factions and the people to defuse the situation. In fact I would like to see an Australian hereditary monarchy along the lines of the people's monarchies of northern Europe, where the monarch lives quite simply, yet has considerable constitutional powers invested in him/her and exercises them very rarely.

Countries that are monarchies that are not strictly constitutional, but more absolute are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates. Even these would be described as some of the most stable in their region. Fiji has a council of chiefs who have ultimate power and is the exception to the rule.

Why hereditary? Well some people may argue that the notion of rule by birth is out-dated, unjust and out of place in a supposedly egalistarian society such as Australia. However I believe there are a couple of good reasons for keeping an hereditary monarchy.

They are:
1. trained from birth to fulfill a role and therefore one would think far better able to fulfill a complicated role than a politician. Margaret Thatcher once said that..., "anyone who thinks that a politician would make a better head of state than a constitutional monarch has obviously never met a politician."
2. the notion of continuity adds to stability. Britain for example knows that after the death or abdication of the Queen, who the next two monarchs for the next 50 odd years are going to be, (barring accident or other unforseen circumstances). Governments come and go, but the monarch, the symbol and embodiment of the nation, remains. Royal Weddings, royal funerals, royal occasions, bring the nation together in either joy or grief. Witness the grief over Princess Diana's death, the wedding of Charles and Di. They symbolise the nation....not Australia, but certainly Britain.
3. Being hereditary means they are not elected or chosen by anyone. Therefore they do not owe "favors" to any government who may call on them and can truly remain above politics. The Governor-General of Australia may be chosen by the PM at the moment, but he/she exercises the limited power that they do, on behalf of a hereditary monarch who needs to confirm their appointment before it takes effect.

I repeat..I do NOT think the British monarch family should also Australia's head of state, but I would for the above reasons, prefer the SYSTEM of a hereditary constitutional monarchy to that of a republic in whatever form that republic might take. In my opinion the modern constitutional monarchies have far more credentials than modern republics do throughout the world.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Hey Roy

Your post semms strangely familiar to me - did you post the same thing at F2 Forum in 99 ?

Oh BTW I agree with you the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of Government BUT how on earth can we continue to keep a Head of State who :

- does not live here
- Is not even an Australian Citizen
- Does not even think about us
- Must be Anglican
- Must be male
- Must be born into the Windsor Family

I can see the poin you are making but I must say that in the end a hereditray monarchy is an anachronism

cheers

 

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel:

- Is not even an Australian Citizen

cheers

Not technically true. The Queen was effectively 'naturalised' during the 1970s, according to something I saw on the ABC last night.

------------------
TT - Obligatory bad-tempered Richmond supporter

 

[ptw]

sorry...can't agree

Constiutional monarchies are generally stable...I will give you that.

However, what we are saying is that regardless of how well qualified, how good we would be at the job, the respect we have in the community...none of us or our children or anyone associated with us could be the head of state.

Instead you get someone like Charles who would like to be a tampon. At the monment the only training that the royalty in England get for the job is slamming each other's dicks in the door !

With a monarchy you get no choice at all. If Charles is a tosser and incompetant then too bad....that is who you get. If he has no support of the people...too bad that is who you get. You get Charles because he was the fastest sperm. Having an Australian royal family would not solve any of these issues.

IMHO you only get a politician as a head of state if you have a direct election model. There have been several models put forward where the head of state is appointed by a panel of people...high court judges...they might be the Head of the High Court themselves although this might cause a conflict of interest.

There are probably thousands of ways of choosing a head of state which does not result in a politician getting the job. With a monarchy two people have a root and what do you know...we have our next head of state.

So you get stability....which in my mind has more to do with the respect people have for the political process rather than respect for an individual family....but you lose the right to have the best person in the job and we lose the possibility of our children being the head of state of their own country.

No Thanks

ptw

 

[SwampCreature]

Topical thread Asgardian. My gut says it could happen a lot quicker than we think as the modern culture wars reach a crescendo.

 

[utility]

Any push for a republic is an underhanded attempt to remove your constitutional rights by replacing it with something that gives you less rights.

So even though I am not a monarchist there is no way I'd support a republic.

 

[utility]

The Queen of Australia is a piece of paper, a legal entity.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Any push for a republic is an underhanded attempt to remove your constitutional rights by replacing it with something that gives you less rights.

So even though I am not a monarchist there is no way I'd support a republic.

Which rights are you worried about losing?

 

[SwampCreature]

Any push for a republic is an underhanded attempt to remove your constitutional rights by replacing it with something that gives you less rights.

So even though I am not a monarchist there is no way I'd support a republic.

Any chance you’re a s0vEreIGn c1t3zEn buddy?

 

[SwampCreature]

Anyone know Malcolm Roberts’ bigfooty handle?

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Yes.

Racists should support this too as their white brothers in Europe and America are republicans.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Anyone know Malcolm Roberts’ bigfooty handle?

HLM*