Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Cmarsh]

After the no vote for the Voice, referendums aren't going to be used as a political mechanism of change for a long time.

Hope for a Republic is dead for the forseeable future.

 

[Father Jack]

See below.


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


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.

Why can't we just pick a random Australian newborn and raise them to be Head of State? It would be exactly the same except we'd have an Australian living in Australia, so why not do that? In fact why haven't you monarchists already proposed the change?

 

[Cap]

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.

I can't actually believe people want Monarchs.

I blame the romanticism of what were essentially Dictators.

 

[Roylion]

Why can't we just pick a random Australian newborn and raise them to be Head of State?

The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 (which are now Australian law) limit the succession to the Australian throne to the natural legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (mother of King George I) and stipulate that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England upon ascending the throne. In 2000 there were 4,973 living descendants of Sophia.

It would be exactly the same except we'd have an Australian living in Australia, so why not do that? In fact why haven't you monarchists already proposed the change?

See above.

 

[Roylion]

I blame the romanticism of what were essentially Dictators.

Constitutional monarchs are not dictators.

 

[Cap]

Constitutional monarchs are not dictators.

Monarchs were dictators.

They got reigned in by the people and kept for nostalgic reasons.

And nostalgia is one the greatest human weaknesses.

 

[Roylion]

Monarchs were dictators.

There is a difference betwen the absolute monarchs of medieval and early modern times to the constitutional monarchies that exist in many countries today.

They got reigned in by the people and kept for nostalgic reasons.

They were kept for reasons I have described earlier.

The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament. The Divine Right of Kings as the origin of monarchial authority does not exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people.

 

[Father Jack]

The Bill of Rights 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1701 (which are now Australian law) limit the succession to the Australian throne to the natural legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (mother of King George I) and stipulate that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England upon ascending the throne. In 2000 there were 4,973 living descendants of Sophia.



See above.

Well then we change it. So aside from that, no objections?

 

[Cap]

There is a difference betwen the absolute monarchs of medieval and early modern times to the constitutional monarchies that exist in many countries today.



They were kept for reasons I have described earlier.

The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament. The Divine Right of Kings as the origin of monarchial authority does not exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people.

I dare say social contract is the polite way of saying, money, power and influence and that for for the average person status quo is a bigger determination that any need or want being fulfilled.(Edit- and now the process of trying to get rid of them)

Sorry, but the sooner they are gone the better. No one deserves a role just because their parents had it and because 1000 years ago their ancestors had the bigger army. (Yes an exaggeration)

 

[Gough]

A social contract is unwritten, fluid and at the mercy of both parties. People don't look at Charles and see a life of service as they did his mother, they see a life of unfettered privilege, a Kardashian with a posh accent who talks to plants and suddenly that social contract needs to be up for some serious renegotiation.

 

[Cap]

A social contract is unwritten, fluid and at the mercy of both parties. People don't look at Charles and see a life of service as they did his mother, they see a life of unfettered privilege, a Kardashian with a posh accent who talks to plants and suddenly that social contract needs to be up for some serious renegotiation.

It's also worth noting all the agreements and statutes were there to maintain the monarchy and give the parliament legitimacy, not to elect them.

Can you imagine if in 2023 the roles where reversed and we were looking to elect a Monarchy. It's absurd.

 

[ElectricG]

Yeah let’s just keep the $350m

 

[Ironmonger85]

No way should we become a republic, I think being part of England is the only thing that stopped the unvaccinated being sent to "wellness camps" never to be seen again during Covid times, the people have the same guaranteed protections English people do regarding what the govt can and can't do to them.

 

[Father Jack]

No way should we become a republic, I think being part of England is the only thing that stopped the unvaccinated being sent to "wellness camps" never to be seen again during Covid times, the people have the same guaranteed protections English people do regarding what the govt can and can't do to them.

To be honest that makes about as much sense as any other 'argument' for the monarchy.

 

[mcgarnacle]

On face value, a question - should Australia become a republic? - the answer is of course yes.

However, like 1999, and the voice 2023, the discourse will become polluted with geriatric monarchists and risk-averse campaigners wanting every detail of the republic system to be introduced. The Liberal party will obviously want to maintain the status quo, because as social conservatives, that's all they want.

The constitution gives government powers to legislate. For example, taxation. That's all. We don't know what tax a government is going to levy in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

 

[burge13]

On face value, a question - should Australia become a republic? - the answer is of course yes.

However, like 1999, and the voice 2023, the discourse will become polluted with geriatric monarchists and risk-averse campaigners wanting every detail of the republic system to be introduced. The Liberal party will obviously want to maintain the status quo, because as social conservatives, that's all they want.

The constitution gives government powers to legislate. For example, taxation. That's all. We don't know what tax a government is going to levy in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

Why? If you mention the 'head of state' or 'being under the monarchy' you have shoe sized IQ. What tangible benefit will Australian people see in their day to day lives?

No one in 23 pages has been capable of answering anything other than HoS... which really does say there's no thought to the argument, just regurgitating rubbish they saw on tiktok

 

[schneebly111]

Why? If you mention the 'head of state' or 'being under the monarchy' you have shoe sized IQ. What tangible benefit will Australian people see in their day to day lives?

Not have the technical ability for a foreigner to interfere with our country if they wanted to would be a good start.

 

[tandino]

On face value, a question - should Australia become a republic? - the answer is of course yes.

However, like 1999, and the voice 2023, the discourse will become polluted with geriatric monarchists and risk-averse campaigners wanting every detail of the republic system to be introduced. The Liberal party will obviously want to maintain the status quo, because as social conservatives, that's all they want.

The constitution gives government powers to legislate. For example, taxation. That's all. We don't know what tax a government is going to levy in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

The details that will be up for debate and discussion belong in the Constitution. There's no getting around it.

 

[Roylion]

However, like 1999, and the voice 2023, the discourse will become polluted with geriatric monarchists and risk-averse campaigners wanting every detail of the republic system to be introduced.

The model of the republic, including the powers of the President, the length of term, and most importantly the way the President is chosen must be detailed in the Constitution. The proposed model for a republic detailing these things therefore MUST be put up against the existing model for the Australian people to debate and then decide via referendum whether they want that new system of republican government. By its very nature, the detail of the new model must be provided as it will be that that is inserted into the Constution.

In 1999 the question was accompanied by the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 Bill, whicn was passed by both houses of Parliament by 12th August 1999. This laid out the detail before the referendum on 6th November 1999.

So the Australian people knew exactly what they were voting 'Yes' or 'No' to, at least eleven weeks beforehand.

 

[schneebly111]

So the Australian people knew exactly what they were voting 'Yes' or 'No' to, at least eleven weeks beforehand.

Doesn’t matter, conservatives will still muddy the waters with “what if” isms as a distraction tool. And it’ll work.

Maybe a good thing about not being a republic is it means we can continue not having to like the head of state or fly a uniquely Australian flag. So we can be patriotically apathetic with the great excuse that the symbols of this country are aligning us to another one.

 

[Roylion]

Doesn’t matter, conservatives will still muddy the waters with “what if” isms as a distraction tool.

Get your model right and get all republicans to agree on the model the next time.

Maybe a good thing about not being a republic is it means we can continue not having to like the head of state or fly a uniquely Australian flag.

Yeah ok.

 

[Rob R]

On face value, a question - should Australia become a republic? - the answer is of course yes.

However, like 1999, and the voice 2023, the discourse will become polluted with geriatric monarchists and risk-averse campaigners wanting every detail of the republic system to be introduced. The Liberal party will obviously want to maintain the status quo, because as social conservatives, that's all they want.

The constitution gives government powers to legislate. For example, taxation. That's all. We don't know what tax a government is going to levy in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

They have to provide detail for such a major change - that wasn't the reason that thr referendum failed in 1999, it failed because the republicans couldn't and largely still can't work out how it should work. It should be pretty easy, replace GG and Queen with an Australian citizen chosen by a 2/3 sitting of both houses. No changes to powers of the position essentially jist different selection means and criteria.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Cmarsh]

On face value, a question - should Australia become a republic? - the answer is of course yes.

However, like 1999, and the voice 2023, the discourse will become polluted with geriatric monarchists and risk-averse campaigners wanting every detail of the republic system to be introduced. The Liberal party will obviously want to maintain the status quo, because as social conservatives, that's all they want.

The constitution gives government powers to legislate. For example, taxation. That's all. We don't know what tax a government is going to levy in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years time.

A problem with switching to a republic is that it provides no real tangible benefits. The econony will stay the same, it won't provide real social benefits or genuinely improve peoples lives.

A republic offers little else but symbolisim.

 

[Cap]

Doesn’t matter, conservatives will still muddy the waters with “what if” isms as a distraction tool. And it’ll work.

Maybe a good thing about not being a republic is it means we can continue not having to like the head of state or fly a uniquely Australian flag. So we can be patriotically apathetic with the great excuse that the symbols of this country are aligning us to another one.

Three things I hope we address in the future

Our head of state (a paedophile protecting family from the UK)
Our horrendous national anthem
Our boring flag

 

[Father Jack]

A problem with switching to a republic is that it provides no real tangible benefits. The econony will stay the same, it won't provide real social benefits or genuinely improve peoples lives.

A republic offers little else but symbolisim.

What's wrong with intangible benefits then?