Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Geelong_Sicko]

If we went republic there would be impacts on just about everything. Big or small, there would be an impact

Again, if your only reason for this is caring who a token role is you are a nuffy

Nah, vocal fence-sitters aren't fence-sitters at all. If you truly don't care don't say ANYTHING. To either side. But you do care, don't you? You wouldn't be bothered writing about it otherwise.

It's okay to care, by the way. It's okay to have an opinion about the future direction of your nation.

People will either agree or disagree with you.

 

[burge13]

Nah, vocal fence-sitters aren't fence-sitters at all. If you truly don't care don't say ANYTHING. To either side. But you do care, don't you? You wouldn't be bothered writing about it otherwise.

It's okay to care, by the way. It's okay to have an opinion about the future direction of your nation.

People will either agree or disagree with you.

I hand on heart could not care less if we went republic or stayed as is. Of all the political issues we face, I hope our politicians tackle other things tbh

I'm pointing out people's reasoning is dumb as **** when they haven't thought about the additional impacts which exist. The head of state is not a reason, that is what I'm pointing out. The fact this is somehow a big issue for people who vote is worrying tbh. I know the country is getting dumber but FMD, of all things to be passionate about

If it went to a vote I'd want to know the questions i've asked and not who the HOS is. If there were no policies/costings etc provided, it'd be a no from me.

Don't take posting on here as caring, I'm bored at work lol. What else am I supposed to do?!

I'll say it again though so people get it, caring about HOS and not the other stuff I raised when discussing going republic is stupid.

 

[Roylion]

As will the powers be vested in the GG (or whatever they’re called, I vote for the “Big Kahuna’) and then transferred once their term ends. It’s not hard.

Forget this medieval “reigns/rules” sh*t. It’s 2023.

Reign is a term meaning to possess or exercise sovereign power or to hold office as chief of state although possessing little governing power.

I totally disagree. One, symbolically we are under the flag and symbols of another country.

We're not 'under the flag' of another country. Where do you get this from? Australia has a Westminster system of goverment inherited from Britain.

Australia has a legally separate Australian monarchy, the monarch acting with regard to Australian affairs exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers.

The succession to the Crown of Australia is governed by the Australian Constitution (1900), the Act of Settlement (1700) and the Bill of Rights (1689). All three are now Australian law, not UK law and can be repealed or altered for Australia, ONLY by an Act amendment by the Australian Parliament or the state parliaments or in the case of the Australian Constitution a referendum.

Australia amending or repealing these laws would have no impact on the UK. And the same applies in reverse.

Secondly does the British Monarch have any power to overrule the decisions of the Australian GG or parliament?

Under the Constitution, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the King’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Kings’s pleasure.

Section 59 of the Constitution states that the King may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent.

This section has never been used in Australia's history and it does not apply to referendum results to change the Constitution. Moreover it cannot be used without the advice of Australian ministers (an observation of the 1988 Constitutional Commission). In other words, the King cannot over rule the assent of the Governor-General to a law without the advice of Australian ministers, but has the option do so, if advised to do so.

The King occupies a position as King of Australia that is entirely distinct from his position as King of the United Kingdom (or any other country and his powers as King of Australia are exercised on the advice of Australian ministers. (That's straight from the Attorney-General's office)

It’s a catch 22 for you. If you say that the British Monarch does have the power the overrule Australians then we are not an independent country.

See above. There's plenty of checks and balances in the current system.

If you say they don’t then it should be very easy to sever ties with them. You lose either way.

A 'Yes' vote in a referendum, such as the one held in 1999 can replace the Australian monarchy with another system of government.

I firmly believe that. You yourself said you prefer Australia’s head of state to be British.

What I said was, is that I prefer a system of a constitutional monarchy to that of a republic

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Reign is a term meaning to possess or exercise sovereign power or to hold office as chief of state although possessing little governing power.



We're not 'under the flag' of another country. Where do you get this from? Australia has a Westminster system of goverment inherited from Britain.

The union jack is literally superimposed over our flag.

 

[Roylion]

The union jack is literally superimposed over our flag.

That doesn't mean Australia is subservient to the UK which I assume was implied by the reference to being 'under the flag' of another country. The French flag has the white of the Bourbon royal family. That doesn't mean France is a monarchy where the head of the Bourbon family is the French monarch.

 

[schneebly111]

That doesn't mean Australia is subservient to the UK which I assume was implied by the reference to being 'under the flag' of another country. The French flag has the white of the Bourbon royal family. That doesn't mean France is a monarchy where the head of the Bourbon family is the French monarch.

It does actually.

In Vexillogical terms the symbol in the canton (top left) is the most important in the flag, it ‘reigns’ over the rest of the flag if you will.

That’s because when a flag is hung from a pole the top left corner hang on top of everything else.

 

[schneebly111]

We're not 'under the flag' of another country. Where do you get this from? Australia has a Westminster system of goverment inherited from Britain.

Are you blind?

Section 59 of the Constitution states that the King may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent.

This section has never been used in Australia's history

Just because it hasn’t been used doesn’t mean it can’t.

The King occupies a position as King of Australia that is entirely distinct from his position as King of the United Kingdom

What utter rubbish. No one looks at the wannabe tampon in Buckingham Palace and thinks ‘Australian’.

A 'Yes' vote in a referendum, such as the one held in 1999 can replace the Australian monarchy with another system of government

Just like now an opportunity for conservatives to fearmonger and spread falsities.

What I said was, is that I prefer a system of a constitutional monarchy to that of a republic

A monarchy with a British head of state, not Australian.

 

[Roylion]

Are you blind?


Just because it hasn’t been used doesn’t mean it can’t.

Yes. But it will only be used on the advice of Australian ministers. It's a check on the Governor-General's exercise of the reserve powers that are vested in the monarch.

What utter rubbish. No one looks at the wannabe tampon in Buckingham Palace and thinks ‘Australian’.

The Crown of Australia is legally independent of the Crown of the United Kingdom. That is fact.

Just like now an opportunity for conservatives to fearmonger and spread falsities.

Whatever. It is incumbent on the Republic movement to come up with a republic model that will be accepted as preferable to the current system of consitutional monarchy by the Australian people.

A monarchy with a British head of state, not Australian.

Currently it a shared monarchy.

As I said, the succession to the legally separate and independent Crown of Australia is governed by the Australian Constitution (1900), the Act of Settlement (1700) and the Bill of Rights (1689). All three are now Australian law, not UK law and can be repealed or altered for Australia, ONLY by an Act amendment by the Australian Parliament or the state parliaments or in the case of the Australian Constitution a referendum.

Australia amending or repealing these laws would have no impact on the UK. And the same applies in reverse.

 

[Roylion]

It does actually.

In Vexillogical terms the symbol in the canton (top left) is the most important in the flag, it ‘reigns’ over the rest of the flag if you will.

That’s because when a flag is hung from a pole the top left corner hang on top of everything else.

That's great. It acknowledges the history of British settlement in Australia as well as the British institutions that form the foundation of much of our current culture and political systems.

That still doesn't mean Australia as a political entity (in other words a fully independent country) is subservient to the United Kingdom. That's been the case since (arguably) 1942 and definitely since 1986.

 

[Father Jack]

What we should do then is pick a random Australian to be Head of State for the reserve powers or whatever to reside in, and that way the only change will be that they will be Australian and will live in Australia. We can have a lottery or something to pick the first Captain of Australia, and every few years we pick a random newborn to fill out the line of succession, which is the exact system we have now except they are always Brits who live in London.

Even the most staunch monarchist can have no complaints about that unless they absolutely must have a pom in charge, in which case I can't help them.

 

[Roylion]

What we should do then is pick a random Australian to be Head of State for the reserve powers or whatever to reside in, and that way the only change will be that they will be Australian and will live in Australia. We can have a lottery or something to pick the first Captain of Australia, and every few years we pick a random newborn to fill out the line of succession, which is the exact system we have now except they are always Brits who live in London.

Why not change the shared monarchy arrangement?

 

[schneebly111]

Why not change the shared monarchy arrangement?

An Aussie royal family? Should we invite Mary and Freddie back from Copenhagen, she seems a lot nicer than any British Royals

 

[Cap]

All we need to do to become a Republic is convince Murdoch and the LNP that the woke like the Monarchy and we will have a Republic within 5 years.

Unfortunately like the voice, unfortunately for the country it's being cast as a Labor thing.

 

[Cap]

I'm proposing a direct swap for British people who want a Republic for Australians who want to retain a Monarchy

Support for the monarchy Britain 2024, by age | Statista

Although the British monarchy is supported by a plurality of people across most age groups in Great Britain, it is among over 65 year-old's where the level is support is highest at 82 percent.

www.statista.com

 

[Father Jack]

Why not change the shared monarchy arrangement?

Do you mean not sharing the monarch with other countries? Doesn't that go without saying in any change?

 

[Toump Ass]

the wannabe tampon

 

[Roylion]

Do you mean not sharing the monarch with other countries?

Yep.

Doesn't that go without saying in any change?

Keeping a monarchy, but not sharing that same monarch with other countries such as Britain, Canada, New Zealand etc. I thought that was obvious.

 

[schneebly111]

That's great. It acknowledges the history of British settlement in Australia as well as the British institutions that form the foundation of much of our current culture and political systems.

The Union Jack in the Canton is, according to Vexillological design is the point of honour, the most important point of the flag:

The point of honor is the “canton” area—the upper–left corner. This corresponds to the part of the flag that is seen when it hangs limp from a flagpole.

https://www.ausflag.com.au/assets/images/Good-Flag-Bad-Flag.pdf

Apart from a few other suck up ex colonies like NZ and Fiji which didn’t bother to change most countries do not put their coloniser on their current nation flag, even as a mark of history.

Keeping a monarchy, but not sharing that same monarch with other countries such as Britain, Canada, New Zealand etc. I thought that was obvious.

Ok so an Aussie royal family? Who do you want? Princes Mary? Russell Coight? The Irwins? Sam Pang?

What if their offspring are total dropkicks? Are we stuck with them in case the kids are morons?

Or we just have the current system with the GG being at the top alone. What about a rotating GG from each state governor given a year in Canberra?

 

[Roylion]

The Union Jack in the Canton is, according to Vexillological design is the point of honour, the most important point of the flag:

The point of honor is the “canton” area—the upper–left corner. This corresponds to the part of the flag that is seen when it hangs limp from a flagpole.

https://www.ausflag.com.au/assets/images/Good-Flag-Bad-Flag.pdf

Apart from a few other suck up ex colonies like NZ and Fiji which didn’t bother to change most countries do not put their coloniser on their current nation flag, even as a mark of history.

As I said, the presence of the Union Jack acknowledges the history of British settlement in Australia as well as the British institutions that form the foundation of much of Australia's current culture and political systems.

Ok so an Aussie royal family? Who do you want? Princes Mary? Russell Coight? The Irwins? Sam Pang?

As I said, the succession to the legally separate and independent Crown of Australia is governed by the Australian Constitution Act (1900), the Act of Settlement (1700) and the Bill of Rights (1689). All three are now Australian law, not UK law and can be repealed or altered for Australia, ONLY by an Act amendment by the Australian Parliament or the state parliaments or in the case of the Australian Constitution a referendum.

Call a Constitutonal Convention and look at the possibiliites of what might be done to alter those.

What if their offspring are total dropkicks? Are we stuck with them in case the kids are morons?

In a hereditary constutional monarchy the next person in line is trained for the job.

Senior members of the royal family (in terms of their position in the line of succession) are trained in constitutional law from a young age so that they might adequately fulfil the requirements of the job, if called upon to do so.

For example, Charles had training in constitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments from his teen years.

When Prince William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

Or we just have the current system with the GG being at the top alone. What about a rotating GG from each state governor given a year in Canberra?

I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy.

 

[schneebly111]

As I said, the presence of the Union Jack acknowledges the history of British settlement in Australia as well as the British institutions that form the foundation of much of Australia's current culture and political systems.



As I said, the succession to the legally separate and independent Crown of Australia is governed by the Australian Constitution Act (1900), the Act of Settlement (1700) and the Bill of Rights (1689). All three are now Australian law, not UK law and can be repealed or altered for Australia, ONLY by an Act amendment by the Australian Parliament or the state parliaments or in the case of the Australian Constitution a referendum.

Call a Constitutonal Convention and look at the possibiliites of what might be done to alter those.



In a hereditary constutional monarchy the next person in line is trained for the job.

Senior embers of the royal family (in terms of their position in the line of succession) are trained in constitutional law from a young age so that they might adequately fulfil the requirements of the job, if called upon to do so.

For example, Charles had training in constitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments from his teen years.

When Prince William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.


I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy.

You’re just repeating your existing arguments without addressing my points.

The Union Jack on the Australian flag is not about history, it’s about ownership.

The Monarchy is not Australian

 

[Roylion]

You’re just repeating your existing arguments without addressing my points.

What points?

Yeah...the Union Jack is on the canton of the Australian flag. I've explained why.

I've explained that the the succession to the legally separate and independent Crown of Australia is governed by the Australian Constitution Act (1900), the Act of Settlement (1700) and the Bill of Rights (1689) and all three are now Australian law.

You've asked me some nonsensical question as to who should be the monarch of Australia.

If Australia was to repeal or amend the above laws, the shared monarchy arrangement would lapse and eventually a different person from the monarch of the United Kingdom, but a descendant of Queen Victoria (and there are just under a thousand of those alive today) would hold the legally separate Crown of Australia.

I also answered that question should be a matter for a Constititional Convention to consider.

I've also explained how future monarchs are trained in constitutional matters from youth. That is the primary function of their office.

The Union Jack on the Australian flag is not about history, it’s about ownership.

That is merely your opinion. An opinion I don't share. The United Kingdom does not 'own' Australia. If you think it does, then you need to look up international law and the history of the various statutes that have been passed since 1901.

Change the flag tomorrow and the current legal situation regarding the independence of Australia would not change.

The Monarchy is not Australian

As I said, the Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom. Nothing the Crown of the United Kingdom agrees to in that country, has any effect in Australia. And vice-versa.

That is legally enshrined in the 1931 Statute of Westminster (adopted formally by the Australian government in 1942 and backdated to 1939) and later the Australia Acts 1986 which severed the last legal ties between the British Crown and Australia.

The Statute recognised:

• the formal equalness and separateness of the British Crown and the Australian Crown.
• that any alteration to laws regarding the Succession to the Throne or the monarch's Royal Style and Titles needed the assent of the Australian parliament to be valid in that country. This includes the abdication of any monarch.
• that the Parliament of the United Kingdom no longer had any legislative authority over the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
• laws made by the Parliament of Australia which were repugnant to British laws were no longer invalid.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Keeping a monarchy, but not sharing that same monarch with other countries such as Britain, Canada, New Zealand etc. I thought that was obvious.

What is it about a Monarch in particular that appeals to you? Given that Reserve Powers can theoretically be set up and vested in any figurehead either inside or outside of politics what is it about a sitting Monarch that seems so attractive?

 

[Roylion]

What is it about a Monarch in particular that appeals to you? Given that Reserve Powers can theoretically be set up and vested in any figurehead either inside or outside of politics what is it about a sitting Monarch that seems so attractive?

My views and reasons are summed up as such

Winston Churchill argued that a constiutional monarchy
"places the supreme position in the State beyond the reach of private ambition, but…assures to a political leader, in fullfilment of the wishes of the electors, a freedom and confidence of action unsurpassed in any land. Above all, we have that separation of pomp from power, which is perhaps one of the most important practical principles in the organization of a political system."

[it is] "... a practical instrument and means of national self-preservation against every type of republic and every degree of dictatorship. No one can presume to set himself up as national representative against the hereditary rights of the King."


Harold George Nicholson, who at various stages of his public career, was a politician, diplomat, historian, biographer, diarist, novelist, lecturer, journalist and broadcaster argued the following.

"The advantages of a hereditary [constitutional] 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 he 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.”

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That's the thing - what if you get a bad one? Would Parliament force abdication if a sitting Monarch brought the nation's standing into disrepute? Reserve Powers work one way, but would they work the other?

I still think I'd rather pick our own rather than have one who just got the job from simple hereditary claim.

 

[Roylion]

That's the thing - what if you get a bad one?

See below.

Would Parliament force abdication if a sitting Monarch brought the nation's standing into disrepute?

It could and has happened. Edward VIII was 'forced' to abdicate in 1936 when his intent to marry an American divorcee was considered to be unacceptable by the UK government, as well as the governments of Australia, Canada and South Africa and the Church of England

I still think I'd rather pick our own rather than have one who just got the job from simple hereditary claim.

Because of the hereditary aspect, future monarchs are trained from a young age to fulfil the constitutional duties required by the the monarch. I've already said both Charles and William had intensive training in constitutional law by the late Queen exposing them to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments as well going through through the state boxes and guiding them through state papers. That also included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like former and current Prime Ministers. Prince George will be put through the same process.