John Howard use of ASY1 callsign
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so whatever arguments the Monarchists put forward the fact remains, Australia's Head of State is not an elected representative of the people of Australia. That Head of State does have the power to remove the elected Prime Minister from office. Regardless of who the rest of the world thinks is the leader of Australia (honestly they wouldn't know anyway), the official leader of the country is the Queen of England, as she is the one person who has final say on the appointment of the Governor General, the Head of the Australian State.
I really do think that the majority of Australians support being a republic and removing the attachment to England, but it will not get up in a referendum, in my lifetime anyway, purely because of the astronomical requirements for a referendum to get up. Whether its Sth Australia or Queensland, there will always be a state that won't have a majority in support.
I really do think that the majority of Australians support being a republic and removing the attachment to England, but it will not get up in a referendum, in my lifetime anyway, purely because of the astronomical requirements for a referendum to get up. Whether its Sth Australia or Queensland, there will always be a state that won't have a majority in support.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSA..... not in your lifetime? I reckon it will. They're already dusting off the songbooks down at ARM HQ for the next big push. IF they get the right question formulated with the right model it will happen.
I used to be , not so much pro-monarchy but anti-republic, not because I liked having the old bag in England in charge but for what you might call reasons of sentimentality. I suppose I've grown up now a bit but still feel the same way about the flag and other similar topics.
But I'd like to see the ties cut. The thing is if we become a republic I believe we should cut ALL the commonwealth ties. No half measures or special relationship for friends. No more Commonwealth games for Aust, no more knighthoods for fat, slimy pollies, OBEs, etc, no more "Royal" titles or post-nominals, etc etc...
I used to be , not so much pro-monarchy but anti-republic, not because I liked having the old bag in England in charge but for what you might call reasons of sentimentality. I suppose I've grown up now a bit but still feel the same way about the flag and other similar topics.
But I'd like to see the ties cut. The thing is if we become a republic I believe we should cut ALL the commonwealth ties. No half measures or special relationship for friends. No more Commonwealth games for Aust, no more knighthoods for fat, slimy pollies, OBEs, etc, no more "Royal" titles or post-nominals, etc etc...
Evertonian
Perhaps my last word on this, because punching the monitor hurts!
My favourite part of our current system is the fact that it has a 2 tier failsafe arrangement. Consider a Naval vessel. The Captain is God (No, not aircraft, Navy!), but he can be removed from command by a Doctor. (Can someone verify this, or have I watched too many movies?) So, the Doctor has some medical duties, perhaps an honourary level in the chain of command, and a failsafe power over the Captain.
The GG is, nowadays, mostly ceremonial (but perhaps we should use them in a greater capacity?) but this person has the power to remove a dodgy PM if need be. Disregard Whitlam in this instance and avoid the parochial party line for a moment. Take Zimbabwe, do they have the same system, with a GG able to remove Mugabwe? (I honestly don't know)
If our ultimate authority resides in the hands of one man, with no way to go around him, no "ombudsman" to watch over his actions, well, who knows.
This is one of my main concerns & the reason I withold my support for a Republic, until I am satisfied with the model.
My favourite part of our current system is the fact that it has a 2 tier failsafe arrangement. Consider a Naval vessel. The Captain is God (No, not aircraft, Navy!), but he can be removed from command by a Doctor. (Can someone verify this, or have I watched too many movies?) So, the Doctor has some medical duties, perhaps an honourary level in the chain of command, and a failsafe power over the Captain.
The GG is, nowadays, mostly ceremonial (but perhaps we should use them in a greater capacity?) but this person has the power to remove a dodgy PM if need be. Disregard Whitlam in this instance and avoid the parochial party line for a moment. Take Zimbabwe, do they have the same system, with a GG able to remove Mugabwe? (I honestly don't know)
If our ultimate authority resides in the hands of one man, with no way to go around him, no "ombudsman" to watch over his actions, well, who knows.
This is one of my main concerns & the reason I withold my support for a Republic, until I am satisfied with the model.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OZstrayliya
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster,
I am with you on this one.
Nothing the republicans have put forward to convince me of any need to change our system of Government, that has nice checks and balances put in place to prevent an autocratic dictator the likes of Mugabwe (or worse) taking total control and doing what dictators do. Lots of BAD stuff.
To you republicans, O.K. I concede that the Royals 'seem' to be an anachronism of the past.
With Australia becoming more and more multi-cultural, there is less interest in the populace to hang onto the ties of the Mother Country and on that level, republicanism sounds good.
But, the reason a republic won't get up any time soon is that Australians are a sensible, conservative bunch, who appreciate the redundancy and safety that the current system provides. The system is a fair and just system. And it actually works - has done successfully for over a 100 years.
The only real blip along the way - Whitlam's sacking - was through skull-duggery with the Opposition leader working in cahoots with an unsatisfactory GG incumbent to prevent the government of the day doing its job.
If Whitlam had of been awake at the time anyway, he'd have ditched Kerr before he got ditched himself. He had that power, just neglected to use it.
Fortunately, the majority of Australians are not fooled by the utopian bliss that the republicans love to espouse: that if we changed the head of our state to a President and dropped the monarchy we could all stand tall and tell ourselves we are now all independent and grown up.
That's not good enough I'm afraid. We can be independent, patriotic Aussies, (and still serve it up to the Poms whenever we like) with no change to the status quo.
Put simply, "If it's not broke, don't fix it".
This argument of mine has nothing to do with cultural insecurity either!
I believe we can and should stand tall and mix it with the world's best. We are an intelligent country, blessed with great potential in all corners and in all walks of life.
Lets do that - continue to strive to be world's best! Stand tall Aussies. It is not your political system that makes you, it simply protects you and your freedoms.
But, before we go and do something stupid like provide an open door for the powers that be to destroy those very freedoms without a second thought in the naive view that "It couldn't happen to us", let us remind ourselves that anything in this world is possible.
History makes for an interesting read to those who are interested to learn from it.
I for one, am quite happy to leave things as they are until a Republican system is offered that guarantees the same level of safety our present one does but more than that, I think it should enhance what we have already.
Not merely echo what we have (or what has been offered so far which falls well short of the mark).
Only then would I consider voting for a republic.
And just one final thought on the republic. How many times does a republic have to be put up for in a referendum and then defeated before we say why bother any further on the matter?
TJ
p.s. Flackjacket is now on.
I am with you on this one.
Nothing the republicans have put forward to convince me of any need to change our system of Government, that has nice checks and balances put in place to prevent an autocratic dictator the likes of Mugabwe (or worse) taking total control and doing what dictators do. Lots of BAD stuff.
To you republicans, O.K. I concede that the Royals 'seem' to be an anachronism of the past.
With Australia becoming more and more multi-cultural, there is less interest in the populace to hang onto the ties of the Mother Country and on that level, republicanism sounds good.
But, the reason a republic won't get up any time soon is that Australians are a sensible, conservative bunch, who appreciate the redundancy and safety that the current system provides. The system is a fair and just system. And it actually works - has done successfully for over a 100 years.
The only real blip along the way - Whitlam's sacking - was through skull-duggery with the Opposition leader working in cahoots with an unsatisfactory GG incumbent to prevent the government of the day doing its job.
If Whitlam had of been awake at the time anyway, he'd have ditched Kerr before he got ditched himself. He had that power, just neglected to use it.
Fortunately, the majority of Australians are not fooled by the utopian bliss that the republicans love to espouse: that if we changed the head of our state to a President and dropped the monarchy we could all stand tall and tell ourselves we are now all independent and grown up.
That's not good enough I'm afraid. We can be independent, patriotic Aussies, (and still serve it up to the Poms whenever we like) with no change to the status quo.
Put simply, "If it's not broke, don't fix it".
This argument of mine has nothing to do with cultural insecurity either!
I believe we can and should stand tall and mix it with the world's best. We are an intelligent country, blessed with great potential in all corners and in all walks of life.
Lets do that - continue to strive to be world's best! Stand tall Aussies. It is not your political system that makes you, it simply protects you and your freedoms.
But, before we go and do something stupid like provide an open door for the powers that be to destroy those very freedoms without a second thought in the naive view that "It couldn't happen to us", let us remind ourselves that anything in this world is possible.
History makes for an interesting read to those who are interested to learn from it.
I for one, am quite happy to leave things as they are until a Republican system is offered that guarantees the same level of safety our present one does but more than that, I think it should enhance what we have already.
Not merely echo what we have (or what has been offered so far which falls well short of the mark).
Only then would I consider voting for a republic.
And just one final thought on the republic. How many times does a republic have to be put up for in a referendum and then defeated before we say why bother any further on the matter?
TJ
p.s. Flackjacket is now on.
Bottums Up
IMHO the best reason for Australia becoming a Republic is so that an Australian, not an English person, can become our Head of State.
Also IMHO, the republic question, should be; "Do you support Australia becoming a republic", as, until this question is answered truthfully, skilled politicians, such as John Howard, will be able to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy by keeping the various republican factions fighting one another, rather than fighting the Monarchists.
To now join the factional republican debate, if IMHO we adopt a direct election model, we'll end up with some one like Smith's Dick for President (or whatever title is conferred) as only the likes of him will have the funds to campaign.
In my memory (back to '57) the most dignified and humane GG we've had was Sir William Dean. I think it highly unlikely that a person of his calibre would stand for and pay for the election circus, a la the US of A.
Also IMHO, the republic question, should be; "Do you support Australia becoming a republic", as, until this question is answered truthfully, skilled politicians, such as John Howard, will be able to maintain the Constitutional Monarchy by keeping the various republican factions fighting one another, rather than fighting the Monarchists.
To now join the factional republican debate, if IMHO we adopt a direct election model, we'll end up with some one like Smith's Dick for President (or whatever title is conferred) as only the likes of him will have the funds to campaign.
In my memory (back to '57) the most dignified and humane GG we've had was Sir William Dean. I think it highly unlikely that a person of his calibre would stand for and pay for the election circus, a la the US of A.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how this thread has turned into a republican debate.
Capt Claret if you think "best reason for Australia becoming a Republic is so that an Australian, not an English person, can become our Head of State" then shouldn't the question be something like:
"Do you support a change to the constitution resulting in an Australian Head of State?" or words to that effect.
Might be only a fine line of difference there but it sounds like a more appropriate question, to me.
I think a lot of people don't know the other ramifications of becoming a republic, myself incuded.
Capt Claret if you think "best reason for Australia becoming a Republic is so that an Australian, not an English person, can become our Head of State" then shouldn't the question be something like:
"Do you support a change to the constitution resulting in an Australian Head of State?" or words to that effect.
Might be only a fine line of difference there but it sounds like a more appropriate question, to me.
I think a lot of people don't know the other ramifications of becoming a republic, myself incuded.
Last edited by itchybum; 7th Jun 2004 at 17:31.
Could not agree more CC, especially the obfuscation of the referendum with that constitutional preamble...now what was that about again 
Perfect politics - confuse the masses
Perfect politics - confuse the masses
Bottums Up
Itchy
Your suggested question would perhaps achieve the same result, that of an Australian Head of State. I'm sure though, that if that were the question, some one would say, "but how are you going to change the constitution? I won't vote for that until you tell me how."
Semantics really.
Your suggested question would perhaps achieve the same result, that of an Australian Head of State. I'm sure though, that if that were the question, some one would say, "but how are you going to change the constitution? I won't vote for that until you tell me how."
Semantics really.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What needs to be made clear for the Rebublic Referendum to have any chance to get up, is that the flag and national anthem issues are separate to that of becoming a republic. The last referendum, it drove me crazy with so many people in the street arguing they were against a republic because they didn't want to change the flag. Personally I think the aboriginal flag with the southern cross laid on top would be the perfect Aussie flag, but that is a separate issue.
As far as the question goes, I agree with C C, the question needs to be simply, "Do you support Australia becoming a republic". If that is supported, then put forward a couple of different systems and then have a vote on them. I am not a fan of the direct election method as I feel like CC we could end up with Co.ck Smith as our president. But honestly at least he is Australian, and I would take him over an English person as our head of state any day (that really hurt me to say that).
As far as the question goes, I agree with C C, the question needs to be simply, "Do you support Australia becoming a republic". If that is supported, then put forward a couple of different systems and then have a vote on them. I am not a fan of the direct election method as I feel like CC we could end up with Co.ck Smith as our president. But honestly at least he is Australian, and I would take him over an English person as our head of state any day (that really hurt me to say that).
