PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

500N 20th Dec 2013 02:14

I think people put far too much emphasis on the link from GG to the Queen.
Far too much. Even the Queen is hapy for us to move on but I don't think
we will see it soon as we are too disorganised.


Nothing wrong with the flag, it's good enough for Hawaii !
The problem with the flag debate is it will get hijacked by lefty do gooders
wanting to use it to make a statement. nothing wrong with the flag showing
our heritage, it doens't mean we are beholden to the UK, in fact the fact that
the Southern Cross is on it and it's history at Ballarat says more.

Andu 20th Dec 2013 02:44

I wasn't in the country in 1999, so saw the referendum only from afar. However, I understand that one of the major reasons behind its failing was the rejection by the majority of the population of the method any such non-royal HoS would be elected. "The people" apparently did not want the political elite (the members of Parliament) electing the Head of State; they wanted to elect him/her themselves. (I understand that the people [or should that be sheeple?] were lead to feel this way by a concentrated campaign in favour of the popular vote by the Murdoch press.)

If I read that right, I'm in despair that people allowed themselves to be so easily lead. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that any non-royal HoS that Australia adopts would have a titular/ceremonial role with strictly structured and clearly laid out powers to intervene in crisis situations like the events of November 1975. I think Israel's President occupies a very similar status to what we'd be looking to adopt. (How often do you hear about him? The last time he made the news, he was sexually harassing members of his staff. :) )

So really, what I'd like to see is virtually a carbon copy of what we have in our Governor General (if not necessarily our current Governor General!), but without the link back to the UK and the Queen/King of England. Since we would remain a collection of States, I'd go so far as to say we should seriously consider maintaining the GG title rather than adopting the President title.

However, I differ with the majority of Australians (in 1999 at least) in that I feel we should avoid the popular election option at all costs, for it would involve the real risk of what some have said here before me, the richest man (or the man backed by the richest man) winning.

A HoS elected by a minimum of 2/3rds of parliamentarians would ensure that no ex-politician would ever get elected. (As much as I'd like to see it, and as much as the Labor Pardee deserve it, we're never going to see a Federal Parliament with numbers anywhere near what we currently have in Queensland.)

2/3rds of parliamentarians would only ever elect a non-controversial, non-political - and one could only hope, worthy - candidate. If the electorate became involved, (I hate to say it, but), I shudder to think who might get up. I also feel that the position should be one that does not attract a campaign, even a campaign tat is 'once removed' (where the candidate remains aloof while someone [like Rupert Murdoch?] champions him/her.)

Back in 1999, the Brit media totally (and I mean totally) misread the decision to reject becoming a republic. The overriding opinion from the talking heads on Brit TV and the written media was that we loved 'em and still felt we needed them so much we couldn't bear to separate. Some of the comments were downright embarrassing.

500N 20th Dec 2013 02:54

"Back in 1999, the Brit media totally (and I mean totally) misread the decision to reject becoming a republic. The overriding opinion from the talking heads on Brit TV and the written media was that we loved 'em and still felt we needed them so much we couldn't bear to separate. Some of the comments were downright embarrassing."

I missed that. Would have been funny to watch.

rh200 20th Dec 2013 04:39

So as I mentioned before, if the new head of state is going to be a nobody, and hence not worth aspiring to, why bother?

bosnich71 20th Dec 2013 04:54

Congratulations, Kenneth. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...cons/icon7.gif

500N 20th Dec 2013 04:55

rh

Good point.

We have had a few good one's in a row lately.

bosnich71 20th Dec 2013 05:01

Andu .... 'talking heads on brit T.V. etc.'
Don't take it to heart old chap,they were probably taking the piss.

Andu 20th Dec 2013 05:49

No bos, anything but. They really were carrying on as though we had just shown how well we knew our place, tuggin' the forelock and grovelling to our betters. I kid you not. There were some serious (!) panel discussions about it on the Beeb, with every commentator totally misunderstanding and totally misreading the fact that John Howard and cleverly sabotaged the referendum by couching the questions to get the answers he wanted.

Every commentator I can recall really thought the result showed "clear evidence" that the majority of Awstrayans felt a deep and meaningful link with the home country.

John Hill 20th Dec 2013 05:58

Australia does not want to cut traditional ties with England especially if that would lead to loosing out on the benefits of being in the Commonwealth.

500N 20th Dec 2013 06:01

They obviously hadn't looked up the ehtnic make up of Australia then !!! LOL

Only the Maltese from Europe from the 50's to 70's had an affinity with
the UK, the rest (Italians, Greeks etc) got an affinity with Aus very quickly.
Some liked the monarchy, some were non plussed.

And as for anyone from the 80's onwards who came here, I doubt it.

So you have the WASP's, Maltese and ???? that's about it.

Airey Belvoir 20th Dec 2013 06:04

I blame good Queen Vic. With all those kids she had them married off to undeserving European inbred despots instead of farming them out to the Colonies to kick off the nascent Royal line in those countries.

The system inherited from the UK has stood the test of time. Neither the administration nor the state has ascendency over the other. And while the state draws its head in for the most part and cuts ribbons and opens fetes woe betide the administration that gets above itself. The system works supremely well.

And what of the alternatives for a republic of Australia?

Choice #1 - The pollies choose. Hmm. We've seen what that can do with State and Federal Governors - fortunately the present system shackles them in much the same way as it does in the UK.

Choice #2 - Popularly elected. Oh FFS! Can you really imagine the likes of Shane Warne, Jason Akermanis, Kylie Minogue or Hugh Jackman being our Head of State? Or even worse - the latest rave winner of "Australia's Got Talent", or whoever Women's Day or New Idea can convince the thickos to vote for. You only have to look at the winners of the Golden Logie to instantly scotch that idea.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

- - - - - - - -

Yes 10,000+ Quite remarkable when you consider all the threads that were canned previously because of trouble-makers and some questionable modding.

John Hill 20th Dec 2013 06:05

Of course the Greeks had an affinity with the British Monarchy.

Howard Hughes 20th Dec 2013 06:11


And what of the alternatives for a republic of Australia?

Choice #1 - The pollies choose. Hmm. We've seen what that can do with State and Federal Governors - fortunately the present system shackles them in much the same way as it does in the UK.
The Pollies already put forward the Governor General, the Queen just gives the nod! So why not continue with that system, apart from having to get the Queens OK? That would have the least impact on the system and least changes to the constitution. In fact the Head of State could even still be called Governor General, Governor, or maybe Executive Governor.

500N 20th Dec 2013 06:19

"The Pollies already put forward the Governor General, the Queen just gives the nod! So why not continue with that system, apart from having to get the Queens OK? That would have the least impact on the system and least changes to the constitution."

Well the Queen is very unlikely to say no to someone put up so
it kind of is irrelevant.

The other thing is, which GG was removed in the last 10 years ?
Was it a GG or Vic's GG ? I think he was an ex priest or something.

Ken Borough 20th Dec 2013 07:21

Were Australia to become a republic, the only tie with the Brits that would be broken is the farce that the Queen of England is the Queen of Australia. All other institutions can be continued basically unchanged. We'd not have to forego of membership of the Commonwealth: I can't see what such membership achieves except the ability to send some young people to an athletics carnival every four years.

I do wish that someone like Malcolm Turnbull or Fr Frank Brennan could write a treatise on the benefits of a republic that would be not only readily available but also easily understood. For those of us who understand the implications, becoming a republic with minimal change is not a big deal. However, the message that it sends to the rest of the world would be immeasurable. End of rant. :ok:

500n. A former G-G, recommended for office by one John Winston Howard, was at the time of his appointment an Archbishop of Anglican Church. For memory, he resigned kicking and screaming with a large cloud over his head on account of the way in which he 'managed' (used charitably), a case of alleged abuse. You can read about it here: Governor-General quits - smh.com.au

parabellum 20th Dec 2013 07:27

To keep the Shanes and Kylies out of the frame a basic requirement should be a minimum of fifteen years public service, time spent as a senator or MP not to count.

CoodaShooda 20th Dec 2013 07:37


the message that it sends to the rest of the world would be immeasurable.
Ken
I'd hazard a guess that, whatever the message from Australia, it would pass pretty well unnoticed by the rest of the world.

Apart from the occasional sportsmen and women, and some rather funky wildlife, we don't really grab the headlines 'off shore'.

I'd be more interested in seeing us focus on developing a strong social culture that is supported by the governments we elect. This would require significant change to our current system of government - but, given that the existing arrangements are rapidly falling short of requirements, that may not be a bad thing.

Ken Borough 20th Dec 2013 07:49

Cooda,

The first things we need to do is to abolish the states and update the Federal Constitution so as to reflect life in the 21st century. Sadly, I think we'll see airborne pigs before we see either deed.:mad:

rh200 20th Dec 2013 08:17


I do wish that someone like Malcolm Turnbull or Fr Frank Brennan could write a treatise on the benefits of a republic that would be not only readily available but also easily understood.
Won't happen, why because there isn't any with any of the proposals. Thats the farcical point, in the whole time not one person has put forward a single actual benefit. All the ones put forward are some humilating joke.

least the daylight savings crew over here could actually make a case for it, when they got smited in their referendum.

rh200 20th Dec 2013 08:19


The first things we need to do is to abolish the states
I'd rather WA spilt than let that happen


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:45.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.