Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[burge13]

Of course not, it was a light hearted dig.

An Australian as the Head of State is a perfectly coherent statement.

Given to are a Trump fan however, I can see why you would auricle struggle with coherent statements

How does it change your day to day life?

You're putting energy into fighting for something that changes exactly nothing. That's what I mean by coherent. Yes I understand what you're saying, it's just pointless. I couldn't think of a more pointless political change tbh. Nothing matters less of things to argue about than HeAd Of StAtE

 

[Cap]

So direct election of the President?

I think that will be what happens, it makes sense

Many republicans oppose the method of direct election of a President, arguing the position then becomes politicised.

That's why the role needs to be outlined, powers etc.

There is always some politicisation to a role though, especially the HOS.

It's interesting talking to people supportive of the monarchy, it's mainly down to 3 points.

They are old and like tradition, they are scared of other people's choices or they see Donald Trump and don't want that.

I get 2 of the 3.

 

[Cap]

How does it change your day to day life?

what difference does that make?

You're putting energy into fighting for something that changes exactly nothing. That's what I mean by coherent. Yes I understand what you're saying, it's just pointless. I couldn't think of a more pointless political change tbh. Nothing matters less of things to argue about than HeAd Of StAtE

That's nice, feel free to remove yourself from the discussion.

 

[burge13]

what difference does that make?

That's nice, feel free to remove yourself from the discussion.

Sorry what?! You're advocating change for change sake. If you desperately want something to change and you need people to vote for it, of course it matters LOL. Utter lunacy

Not much discussion. I just pop in to see if there's anything more meaningful developed for the ones that want change. Still nothing, unsurprisingly

head of state lol.

 

[Cap]

Sorry what?! You're advocating change for change sake. If you desperately want something to change and you need people to vote for it, of course it matters LOL. Utter lunacy

so the only driving force for you doing anything is a direct benefit to you?

that's not surprising.

Not much discussion. I just pop in to see if there's anything more meaningful developed for the ones that want change. Still nothing, unsurprisingly

head of state lol.

But there is no direct benefit to you.

So why bother, what a waste of time.

 

[burge13]

so the only driving force for you doing anything is a direct benefit to you?

that's not surprising.


But there is no direct benefit to you.

So why bother, what a waste of time.

There's no direct benefit to anyone ffs. IT DOESN'T MATTER

Nothing changes. Nothing happens. The onus is on you to warrant the change, failing miserably

 

[Cap]

There's no direct benefit to anyone ffs. IT DOESN'T MATTER

Nothing changes. Nothing happens. The onus is on you to warrant the change, failing miserably

Why are you wasting your time? There is no direct benefit to you in this forum

I never offered to change your mind. I've seen enough of your posting to understand that is a pointless excercise.

 

[Roylion]

I think that will be what happens, it makes sense

That's why the role needs to be outlined, powers etc.

You mean a model outlined in a Bill that must be presented to the people? As happened in 1999.

There is always some politicisation to a role though, especially the HOS.

There's very little politicisation of the current Head of State.

It's interesting talking to people supportive of the monarchy, it's mainly down to 3 points.

They are old and like tradition, they are scared of other people's choices or they see Donald Trump and don't want that.

Or they think the system of constitutional monarchy is superior to that of a republic.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I'd rather we become a more progressive, inclusive and empathetic society. The head of state is mostly an irrelevance, it's just symbolism. There's a place for symbolism, it's just not a very important one compared to material and social equity.

So I'd vote for a Republic, but I'm not going to give any effort towards bringing that vote about.

 

[Cap]

You mean a model outlined in a Bill that must be presented to the people? As happened in 1999.

No, they were given one choice selected by politicians.

There's very little politicisation of the current Head of State.

You missed the uproar about the latest GG?

Did you see what the last GG did with Scomo?

Haven't seen any articles about our Head of States alleged sex fiend brother?

There is always a level.

Or they think the system of constitutional monarchy is superior to that of a republic.

sure, usually based on those three reasons though.

It's just fear of change, which is understandable.

 

[Roylion]

No, they were given one choice selected by politicians.

They weren't all politicians. Half of the Constitutional Convention were elected by the Australian people.

You missed the uproar about the latest GG?

The Governor-General is not the Head of State.

Did you see what the last GG did with Scomo?

I've already commented on this.

The Governor-General's role is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. He exercising the reserve powers if necessary. Scott Morrison's actions in taking on multiple ministries had nothing to do with the reserve powers.

Haven't seen any articles about our Head of States alleged sex fiend brother?

What's that got to do with the politicisation of the Head of State?

It's just fear of change, which is understandable.

Or a belief that the system of constitutional monarchy is superior.

 

[Cap]

They weren't all politicians. Half of the Constitutional Convention were elected by the Australian people.


The Governor-General is not the Head of State.


I've already commented on this.

The Governor-General's role is limited to acting on the advice of the government of the day, as he is required to do. He exercising the reserve powers if necessary. Scott Morrison's actions in taking on multiple ministries had nothing to do with the reserve powers.




What's that got to do with the politicisation of the Head of State?

Lol.

Honestly, you are good for a laugh.

The role of the Governor-General | Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia

The Governor-General of Australia is His Majesty The King’s representative. In practice, they are Australia

www.gg.gov.au

The Governor-General of Australia is His Majesty The King’s representative. In practice, they are Australia’s Head of State and have a range of constitutional and ceremonial duties. The Governor-General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

Someone needs to let the GG know

Or a belief that the system of constitutional monarchy is superior.

Yes, based on fear.

We know its not simply by the number of countries moving away from it and the fact if we were fortunate enough that the Royal Family was wiped out, the replacement would be Australian Head of State, because even Monarchists approach a different Monarchy to fill the role.

It's really that simple.

As with a lot of things in this country, it was it is because it is. Not because its the best option.

 

[burge13]

I hope you can get some sleep tonight, the stress of the head of state being from overseas appears to be weighing on you greatly

Imagine if they were born here though. We'd be living with hoverboards and time machines. Oh how things would be great if the HOS changed

 

[Cap]

I hope you can get some sleep tonight, the stress of the head of state being from overseas appears to be weighing on you greatly

why are you stll here ?

Imagine if they were born here though. We'd be living with hoverboards and time machines. Oh how things would be great if the HOS changed

For a guy who doesnt care you spend a lot of time talking about it.

I can only assume you spend a lot of time imaging things.

 

[burge13]

why are you stll here ?



For a guy who doesnt care you spend a lot of time talking about it.

I can only assume you spend a lot of time imaging things.

Just taking the piss out of a ridiculous argument

 

[Cap]

Just taking the piss out of a ridiculous argument

Thats not true, you made no mention of any argument

But it's a bit wierd you lurk on topics you have no interest in....

Its almost like everyone else ignores you

 

[Roylion]

Lol.

Honestly, you are good for a laugh.

Just stating facts. The Governor-General isn't the Head of State. The monarch is the Head of State. "Head of state" is the description used in official government sources for the monarch. Parliament House, the Departments of the Attorney-General, Immigration and Citizenship, and Foreign Affairs all describe the monarch as "head of state".

Even the current Governor General Michael Jeffery has said that about the late Queen. "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role."

In relation to Scott Morrison....

Recommendations relating to appointments of ministers of state, or to appoint a minister to have administrative responsibilities over another department, are not, by convention, considered by the Federal Executive Council.

The Federal Executive Council exists to advise the Governor-General on the matters of the federal government. The Governor-General is bound by convention to follow the advice of the Council. What happens is this is used to legally enact the decisions already made by Federal Cabinet.

Recommendations, in writing, made relating to appointments of ministers of state by the prime minister to the governor-general is the responsibility of the the Department of the Prime Minister and Federal Cabinet, The governor-general signs an instrument to act on the advice of the government of the day and so in Morrison's case did exactly what he was required to do.

Yes, based on fear.

Not in my case.

because even Monarchists wouldnt be pathetic enough to approach a different Monarchy to fill the role.

The line of succession stretches a long way.

As with a lot of things in this country, it was it is because it is. Not because its the best option.

Whether it is the 'best option' is a matter of opinion.

My opinion is that the current system of Constitutional Monarchy is the best option.

 

[Father Jack]

There's no direct benefit to anyone ffs. IT DOESN'T MATTER

Nothing changes. Nothing happens. The onus is on you to warrant the change, failing miserably

How do you know there's no direct benefit to anyone? Why wouldn't Australia be better off if the highest job in the land was conceivably open to every Australian instead of to absolutely none of us?

 

[Father Jack]

...

My opinion is that the current system of Constitutional Monarchy is the best option.

Why can't the Constitutional Monarch be Australian?

 

[burge13]

How do you know there's no direct benefit to anyone? Why wouldn't Australia be better off if the highest job in the land was conceivably open to every Australian instead of to absolutely none of us?

Go ask random punters in the shops who the HOS is. I'd guess half don't know, many would guess correctly. Of those that guess, ask what the HOS does. The overwhelming majority wouldn't have a clue

Of every possible issue there is going on in this country I'd put the HOS being born overseas below whether a random primary school in outback WA gets a grant for a new swing set. The majority of people would agree.

What day to day changes to anyone's life would there be if it changed? I'll wait

The best answer I've seen in here for a republic is "because I want it". Oh wow, compelling stuff. Your day to day life doesn't change when the PM does let alone this symbolic nothing position

 

[Father Jack]

Go ask random punters in the shops who the HOS is. I'd guess half don't know, many would guess correctly. Of those that guess, ask what the HOS does. The overwhelming majority wouldn't have a clue

Of every possible issue there is going on in this country I'd put the HOS being born overseas below whether a random primary school in outback WA gets a grant for a new swing set. The majority of people would agree.

What day to day changes to anyone's life would there be if it changed? I'll wait

The best answer I've seen in here for a republic is "because I want it". Oh wow, compelling stuff. Your day to day life doesn't change when the PM does let alone this symbolic nothing position

Okay fair enough, you're happy to live in ignorant bliss, that's fine, but it does beg the question as to why are you even bothering to read and post in a thread about the subject though

 

[Roylion]

Why can't the Constitutional Monarch be Australian?

Sure.

 

[burge13]

Okay fair enough, you're happy to live in ignorant bliss, that's fine, but it does beg the question as to why are you even bothering to read and post in a thread about the subject though

I'm trying to see what the other side sees but no one can offer any insight. There has been quite literally nothing other than 'HoS should be from here' and I say 'who gives a ****, how does this really affect you'?

 

[Father Jack]

I'm trying to see what the other side sees but no one can offer any insight. There has been quite literally nothing other than 'HoS should be from here' and I say 'who gives a *, how does this really affect you'?

Because Government and the symbols of Government are important, and no one in the rest of the world thinks of Australia when they see King Charles III. I think that as long as we have a foreign medieval relic representing us it prevents us from having that conversation about what kind of country we want to be, and we remain stuck in a colonial mindset. We're too scared to provide our own Head of State in our own way.

But if you disagree or consider that meaningless then that's fine too. Doesn't matter, neither of us get a say anyway.

 

[burge13]

Because Government and the symbols of Government are important, and no one in the rest of the world thinks of Australia when they see King Charles III. I think that as long as we have a foreign medieval relic representing us it prevents us from having that conversation about what kind of country we want to be, and we remain stuck in a colonial mindset. We're too scared to provide our own Head of State in our own way.

But if you disagree or consider that meaningless then that's fine too. Doesn't matter, neither of us get a say anyway.

I think of all the things to change which would/could/should push us towards the country we want to be, that would change very little, if anything. There's bigger and better things to focus on that would actually affect people. I really don't think I'm in the minority in not giving a single iota of care to who the HOS is. If I had to guess, over half wouldn't know what it is. Mystifying to me people do actually care but at least you gave a reason even if I disagree with it's importance.

If it went to a mandatory vote this weekend, it would have no chance. Well over half the population would just be annoyed at having to vote than the result. I doubt this could ever be sold as important to the majority when CPI, rents, bills etc are rising...