Who wants a Republic?

[HardcoreGeelongFan]

A republic will always be American made s**t like everything else made in america. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fairy trippa

 

[Bomberboyokay]

So does Russia

Russia > Saudi Arabia

 

[Roylion]

I won't break down your post into individual points, it starts getting a bit messy.

Yes, it is not vastly different to a minimalist republic model, but I think it is subtlety different. Appointed by parliament with a 2/3 majority or something like that. That bit would be the same. But I am trying to build a certain gravitas to the office which does not apply to a President.

Why does a monarch have a certain 'gravitas", but not a 'President'?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Why does a monarch have a certain 'gravitas", but not a 'President'?

By removing the populist element, and the way elected politicians say everything through a filter of spin and PR consultants. I want to remove all of that sort of attitude from the office.

 

[Roylion]

By removing the populist element, and the way elected politicians say everything through a filter of spin and PR consultants.

Yet it is the politicians electing the monarch. How does the position not become possibly politicised? It's virtually the same as the model presented for a republic in 1999.

I want to remove all of that sort of attitude from the office.

That why the hereditary system most often exists in a constitutional monarchy. As I said we know already who the next three monarchs are going to be after the death of Queen Elizabeth. Charles --> William --> George. If the lives of each of those monarchs reaches their natural extent, that's for roughly the next fifty years. Gravitas combined with stability outside politics.

 

[Gough]

I suspect the continuity and stability that we're assured that comes with a constitutional monarchy might be a little upset post the death of Elizabeth II.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Yet it is the politicians electing the monarch. How does the position not become possibly politicised? It's virtually the same as the model presented for a republic in 1999.



That why the hereditary system most often exists in a constitutional monarchy. As I said we know already who the next three monarchs are going to be after the death of Queen Elizabeth. Charles --> William --> George. If the lives of each of those monarchs reaches their natural extent, that's for roughly the next fifty years. Gravitas combined with stability outside politics.

I think we are going around in circles here. We don't let the polictians choose one of their own, plus we require a 2/3 majority. This removes the objection nicely. ATM the G-G is pretty much chosen by the PM. So this improves the current situation.

Hereditary monarchs are out. There is no guarantee that any future person will be up to the job, other than just dumb luck.
On top of that, the British royal line are ruled out because they're not Australian. As I said, the person needs to be head of state of Australia only and no other nation.

 

[Roylion]

I suspect the continuity and stability that we're assured that comes with a constitutional monarchy might be a little upset post the death of Elizabeth II.

I doubt it.

The moment Queen Elizabeth dies, Prince Charles automatically becomes the new King. The Queen's death and subsequent funeral will be a massive media event that will rival or surpass that of Diana's. Following that, there will a be a succession of royal events that will be watched by the world. The coronation of Charles III (George VII) will be the first. William automatically becomes the Duke of Cornwall on is grandmother's death and will likely be followed his investiture as Prince of Wales. This will no doubt be followed by tours of the Commonwealth nations by one or both with wives and family in tow.

It will all be covered extensively by the Australian (and world media) and may well have the net effect of helping to maintain and even increase the monarchy's popularity in Australia. Then of course George, Charlotte and Louis will become the darlings of women's magazines with extensive coverage of their lives by the papers as they mature into adulthood.

 

[Roylion]

I think we are going around in circles here. We don't let the polictians choose one of their own, plus we require a 2/3 majority.

Politicians weren't going to choose one of their own in 1999 either. Yet it was still a republic.

ATM the G-G is pretty much chosen by the PM. So this improves the current situation.

No it doesn't. The GG exercises the Queen's reserve powers, but those powers are vested in the person of the monarch, not the Governor-General. That would change.

Hereditary monarchs are out. There is no guarantee that any future person will be up to the job, other than just dumb luck.

There's no guarantee of anything. However future monarchs are most often trained from birth to fulfil the position of monarch.

On top of that, the British royal line are ruled out because they're not Australian. As I said, the person needs to be head of state of Australia only and no other nation.

The change the line of succession so eventually there is an Australian monarchy. Australia has a shared monarchy at the moment but that can be changed.

 

[Gough]

I doubt it.

The moment Queen Elizabeth dies, Prince Charles automatically becomes the new King. The Queen's death and subsequent funeral will be a massive media event that will rival or surpass that of Diana's. Following that, there will a be a succession of royal events that will be watched by the world. The coronation of Charles III (George VII) will be the first. William automatically becomes the Duke of Cornwall on is grandmother's death and will likely be followed his investiture as Prince of Wales. This will no doubt be followed by tours of the Commonwealth nations by one or both with wives and family in tow.

It will all be covered extensively by the Australian (and world media) and may well have the net effect of helping to maintain and even increase the monarchy's popularity in Australia. Then of course George, Charlotte and Louis will become the darlings of women's magazines with extensive coverage of their lives by the papers as they mature into adulthood.

I'm not convinced that as monarch Charles will take the hands off approach that his mum has. I think he might meddle where some will consider it's not his place to.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Politicians weren't going to choose one of their own in 1999 either. Yet it was still a republic.



No it doesn't. The GG exercises the Queen's reserve powers, but those powers are vested in the person of the monarch, not the Governor-General. That would change.



There's no guarantee of anything. However future monarchs are most often trained from birth to fulfil the position of monarch.



The change the line of succession so eventually there is an Australian monarchy. Australia has a shared monarchy at the moment but that can be changed.

Changing the line of succession involves politicians choosing who the monarch will be.

Ultimately, all of the monarchs for the last 300 years have been chosen directly or indirectly by parliament.

 

[holybishop]

Russia > Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy so your comparison is absolute bull

 

[Roylion]

I'm not convinced that as monarch Charles will take the hands off approach that his mum has. I think he might meddle where some will consider it's not his place to.

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."

 

[Roylion]

Changing the line of succession involves politicians choosing who the monarch will be.

The monarchy is a consitututional monarchy, not an absolute one.

And that happens very indirectly. For example Australia could revert to male promgeniture succession or some other system, independent of the UK system.

Eventually that would mean that that say if Prince George died without an heir, Princess Charlotte becomes the Queen of the UK and Prince Louis becomes the King of Australia.

Parliament does not choose whether Prince Charles will be the next king. Under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, a new monarch succeeds automatically. The Accession Council is a ceremonial body which assembles in St James's Palace upon the death of a monarch (Demise of the Crown), to make formal proclamation of the accession of the successor to the throne. The proclamation merely confirms by name the identity of the heir who has succeeded.The Accession Council Council is made up of Privy Counsellors, Great Officers of State, members of the House of Lords, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the Aldermen of the City of London, High Commissioners of Commonwealth realms, and other civil servants.

Ultimately, all of the monarchs for the last 300 years have been chosen directly or indirectly by parliament.

Indirectly. Parliament hasn't chosen another family to be their royal family since 1701.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The monarchy is a consitututional monarchy, not an absolute one.

And that happens very indirectly. For example Australia could revert to male promgeniture succession or some other system, independent of the UK system.

Eventually that would mean that that say if Prince George died without an heir, Princess Charlotte becomes the Queen of the UK and Prince Louis becomes the King of Australia.

Parliament does not choose whether Prince Charles will be the next king. Under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, a new monarch succeeds automatically. The Accession Council is a ceremonial body which assembles in St James's Palace upon the death of a monarch (Demise of the Crown), to make formal proclamation of the accession of the successor to the throne. The proclamation merely confirms by name the identity of the heir who has succeeded.The Accession Council Council is made up of Privy Counsellors, Great Officers of State, members of the House of Lords, the Lord Mayor of the City of London, the Aldermen of the City of London, High Commissioners of Commonwealth realms, and other civil servants.



Indirectly. Parliament hasn't chosen another family to be their royal family since 1701.

The Act of Settlement 1701 was an act of parliament. The monarchy was created by parliament and they chose who the monarch would be.

We can't avoid the involvement of parliament somehow.

There is no reason why the parliament of today 320 years later, could not be trusted to make a sensible decision on who the monarch should be. There is nothing mystical or magical about that parliament of 1701, they are just a parliament of politicians of their time.

I'm only proposing that the parliament needs to make a choice about 8 times per century. If they get one wrong it will be corrected next time around.

 

[The Speaker]

I'm not convinced that as monarch Charles will take the hands off approach that his mum has. I think he might meddle where some will consider it's not his place to.

Elizabeth II is the outlier in that regard, not a hypothetically-slightly-involved Charles.

 

[Roylion]

The Act of Settlement 1701 was an act of parliament. The monarchy was created by parliament and they chose who the monarch would be.

Wasn't created. The monarchy already existed. They just barred Roman Catholics from the throne

We can't avoid the involvement of parliament somehow.

That's what a consitutional monarchy is. There are restrictions on the powers of the monarch

There is no reason why the parliament of today 320 years later, could not be trusted to make a sensible decision on who the monarch should be.

They don't do it now, thus keeping the person of the monarch outside / above politics.

There is nothing mystical or magical about that parliament of 1701, they are just a parliament of politicians of their time.

Yep.

I'm only proposing that the parliament needs to make a choice about 8 times per century. If they get one wrong it will be corrected next time around.

Parliament hasn't made a choice for over 300 years. Tradition and continuity adds to the "gravitas" of the monarch.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Wasn't created. The monarchy already existed. They just barred Roman Catholics from the throne



That's what a consitutional monarchy is. There are restrictions on the powers of the monarch



They don't do it now, thus keeping the person of the monarch outside / above politics.



Yep.



Parliament hasn't made a choice for over 300 years. Tradition and continuity adds to the "gravitas" of the monarch.

My starting point is that both hereditary succession and having a shared monarchy are both unacceptable. Either alone is unacceptable, both in combination is worse. I am trying to come up with a system which corrects those faults, but minimises the risk of opening up new ones. The most notable risk being that the office becomes part of the party political system. There is no way to avoid the involvement of parliament to some extent, but we can limit the party parochialism with some sensible rules. You seem to be suggesting that latter is too hard to accomplish so therefore we stick with the current system. My starting point is getting rid of it.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

A millionaire fashion executive accused of raping 10 women and girls at his Bahamas mansion reportedly hosted Prince Andrew and his family at the property in 2000.

A class action lawsuit lodged in New York City claims that Peter Nygard lured “young, impressionable, and often impoverished children and women” to his Bahamas property with cash payments and promises of modeling opportunities, only to then “assault, rape, and sodomize them”.

Nygard, 78, has hosted celebrities and politicians at the property, near the Bahamian capital of Nassau. Photos credited to Nygard’s website appear to show such visitors included Prince Andrew, accompanied by his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson and their two daughters, 20 years ago.

One photo shows Nygard talking with a shorts-wearing Andrew as the two stroll together. In another picture Nygard is posing with Sarah and her daughters, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice.

The link is a potential further embarrassment for Prince Andrew, who has stepped back from public duties following an outcry over his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and sex offender who died in a New York cell last year as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges.

Fashion executive accused in rape lawsuit reportedly hosted Prince Andrew at Bahamas estate

Peter Nygard is accused of luring women to the property that the royals appear to have visited 20 years ago

www.theguardian.com

 

[mighty tiges]

Isn't this a republic?

If we wanted a non-political person in the job we could make a rule that they can't have been an elected member of the House of Reps or Senate or any state parliament for the last 10 or 15 years, or however long seems necessary.

Non-political people still have political sympathies. I've never been a politician, but I've been a member of a political party. And I vote. The Queen and senior members of the royal family do not vote.




So elect the head of state? In other words a republic.

The problem of succession imposes great strains on any political order: the continuity of rule is broken, established patterns of action are interrupted, and the future suddenly becomes uncertain. A hereditary monarchy reduces those strains, partly because the future monarchs identity is generally known in advance, he / she may be educated with a view to his future office.

Sir Harold George Nicholson, British diplomat, author, diarist and politician once wrote:

"The advantages of a hereditary Monarchy are self-evident. Without some such method of prescriptive, immediate and automatic succession, an interregnum intervenes, rival claimants arise, continuity is interrupted and the magic lost. Apart from the imponderable, but deeply important, sentiments and affections which congregate around an ancient and legitimate Royal Family, a hereditary Monarch acquires sovereignty by processes which are wholly different from those by which a dictator seizes, or a President is granted, the headship of the State. The monarch personifies both the past history and the present identity of the Nation as a whole. In an epoch of change, he [she] remains the symbol of continuity; in a phase of disintegration, the element of cohesion; in times of mutability, the emblem of permanence. Governments come and go, politicians rise and fall: the Crown is always there. He [she] is not impelled as usurpers and dictators are impelled, either to mesmerise his people by a succession of dramatic triumphs, or to secure their acquiescence by internal terrorism or by the invention of external dangers. The appeal of hereditary Monarchy is to stability rather than to change, to continuity rather than to experiment, to custom rather than to novelty, to safety rather than to adventure.

The Monarch, above all, is neutral. Whatever may be his [her] personal prejudices or affections, he [she] is bound to remain detached from all political parties and to preserve in his own person the equilibrium of the realm. An elected President – whether, as under some constitutions, he be no more than a representative functionary, or whether, as under other constitutions, he be the chief executive – can never inspire the same sense of absolute neutrality. However impartial he may strive to become, he must always remain the prisoner of his own partisan past; he is accompanied by friends and supporters whom h may seek to reward, or faced by former antagonists who will regard him with distrust. He cannot, to an equal extent, serve as the fly-wheel of the State.”



That we can. We can change the succession to Crown of Australia to make it different to the British one.

More fairytales from foreign monarchists.

Fiji was a constitutional monarchy with QEII as their head of state but that didn't prevent a military coup in 1987. So much for "stability", "continuity" and "personifies both the past history and the present identity of the nation" .

A constitutional monarchy with QEII again as head of state didn't prevent South Africa in the 1950s becoming effectively a one-party state and removing the already limited voting rights of non-whites in the Cape to impose the beginnings of apartheid. Ironically, this lead to monarchy's dumping in 1961 by this one-party state.

Iraq was set up as a constitutional monarchy by the British in 1930s. It also collapsed.

A constitutional monarchy with the British monarchy as its soverign didn't prevent violence in Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has always been peaceful however. Ireland replaced a foreign British monarchy & its representative governor general with their own mostly ceremonial president with limited powers. They haven't descended into chaos.

Germany was technically a constitutional monarchy from 1871-1918. That turned out well.

At the end of the day, it is the people who live in nation that make it and especially its democratic system of government work or not. No foreigner does. Australians are staunch democrats and have fought and died for freedom. An Australian republic with our own head of state will be free and democratic. If the British monarchy disappeared tomorrow we wouldn't notice any difference as what you call "above politics" really translates as useless and irrelevant to us Aussies. Like every other Australianisation change of the political system we've already made over the past 119 years, everyone after the event wonders what the fuss was all about. The same will be when we get our own Aussie head of state.

We wouldn't be wasting millions of Aussie taxpayers money either on continually bringing out this foreign monarch's family members which now should instead be going towards our desperate bushfire victims who need as much money as we can give them. This latest "royal tour" is a disgraceful waste of our taxpayers money. Also so kind of these narcassists to take the world's attention off Australia in a time of need during the height of the bushfires to worry about their own insignificant family tiff (i.e. "Megxit") and make it the world's issue. Yeah they really care about Australia when it counts - Not! An Australian president would've been visiting and consoling the victims in person as soon as it was safe to do so and it would have barely cost us an extra penny.

 

[Admiral Byng]

How about a system where the PM gets to nominate the person for the role, but it has to be approved by a special convention which includes not only representatives of the Federal parliament, but representatives from each state too. In fact states should hold the majority of votes in this body so the Feds can't just ram through any choice they like, it forces the PM to make a reasonable nomination. After all, this person will be the Crown equivalent in all of the state constitutions too.

We can argue over the title this person gets. I would prefer to call them King or Queen of Australia, but I am open to any other title except President. Just because there are too many people who will be too ignorant and stupid on these affairs that assume a President means a US style president. Which is the last thing I want. I'm open to "The Australian Head of State", "The Australian Crown Wearer", "The Crown-Governor" "Citizen One"... anything except President.

 

[footyfan1978]

At the end of the day, it is the people who live in nation that make it and especially its democratic system of government work or not. No foreigner does. Australians are staunch democrats and have fought and died for freedom. An Australian republic with our own head of state will be free and democratic. If the British monarchy disappeared tomorrow we wouldn't notice any difference as what you call "above politics" really translates as useless and irrelevant to us Aussies. Like every other Australianisation change of the political system we've already made over the past 119 years, everyone after the event wonders what the fuss was all about. The same will be when we get our own Aussie head of state.

Well said.

 

[footyfan1978]

We can argue over the title this person gets. I would prefer to call them King or Queen of Australia

Over my dead body.

but I am open to any other title except President. Just because there are too many people who will be too ignorant and stupid on these affairs that assume a President means a US style president. Which is the last thing I want.

Agreed.
King, Queen or President are certainly not what we need or want as head of the state.
Like you, I am open to lots of suggestions that make it clear it is someone that oversees the government but is not there to make day to day decisions of running our nation.

 

[Fire]

I doubt it.

The moment Queen Elizabeth dies, Prince Charles automatically becomes the new King. The Queen's death and subsequent funeral will be a massive media event that will rival or surpass that of Diana's. Following that, there will a be a succession of royal events that will be watched by the world. The coronation of Charles III (George VII) will be the first. William automatically becomes the Duke of Cornwall on is grandmother's death and will likely be followed his investiture as Prince of Wales. This will no doubt be followed by tours of the Commonwealth nations by one or both with wives and family in tow.

It will all be covered extensively by the Australian (and world media) and may well have the net effect of helping to maintain and even increase the monarchy's popularity in Australia. Then of course George, Charlotte and Louis will become the darlings of women's magazines with extensive coverage of their lives by the papers as they mature into adulthood.

In my own anecdotal experiance, the US is more obsessed with the royal family than Australia, and they aren't about to ask to be let back in. Its not a factor.

Revulsion towards King Charles may be tho.

 

[ferball]

Over my dead body.


Agreed.
King, Queen or President are certainly not what we need or want as head of the state.
Like you, I am open to lots of suggestions that make it clear it is someone that oversees the government but is not there to make day to day decisions of running our nation.

"That Clown in The w***er Suit."

That campaigner Who Thinks He/She Runs The Joint.

My personal favourite would be:

"That * Wit in Charge."