- Moderator
- #776
The government selects the GG now though, doesn't seem to be a problem?
The Governor-General isn't the head of state.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The government selects the GG now though, doesn't seem to be a problem?
I mean England should also be a republic.
Being ruled by birthright is so anachronistic when you really think about it.
Yeah I know that, but they essentially perform the function of what a president wouldThe Governor-General isn't the head of state.
This is true, but I dare say that no democratically elected* government would ever reducing spending on the royal family, or make any other decisions to their significant detriment. Hmmmm those reserve powers wouldn't be a coincidence would they?A constitutional monarch doesn't rule. They reign. They hold office as the head of state but possess little power, other than reserve powers being vested in their person.
No, it's identifying the practical problem with becoming a republic - enough people need to agree to a model so it passes a referendum.This is less an argument and more a Pavlovian response from monarchists every time the subject is raised.
It's a problem you have no interest in solving though. Your argument is completely disingenuous.No, it's identifying the practical problem with becoming a republic - enough people need to agree to a model so it passes a referendum.
This is true, but I dare say that no democratically elected* government would ever reducing spending on the royal family, or make any other decisions to their significant detriment.
Coincidence of what?Hmmmm those reserve powers wouldn't be a coincidence would they?
It's a problem you have no interest in solving though.
Coincidence of what?
Yeah I know that, but they essentially perform the function of what a president would
I don't have a problem with the current system. We have stable government in Australia, and our current structures and institutions are the primary reason for this.It's a problem you have no interest in solving though. Your argument is completely disingenuous.
We have unfortunately seen what can happen when you push a referendum with a perceived (unfortunately perceived is all that matters with the public) lack of specifics or detail.This is less an argument and more a Pavlovian response from monarchists every time the subject is raised.
spare me! same old palava. "whats the alternate model?" -they cry - then proceed to punch holes in every model proposed. Ignoring the fact that this "royal blood", "divine right" bullshit has more holes than a sieve. The sad thing is that much of the public buy that same old conservative mantra.No, it's identifying the practical problem with becoming a republic - enough people need to agree to a model so it passes a referendum.
no. lets do F**K all as usual. wouldn't want to change anything.We have unfortunately seen what can happen when you push a referendum with a perceived (unfortunately perceived is all that matters with the public) lack of specifics or detail.
Wouldn't want to do that with the Republic vote.
Great approach to take if you want the next referendum to fail as well.no. lets do F**K all as usual. wouldn't want to change anything.
spare me! same old palava. "whats the alternate model?" -they cry - then proceed to punch holes in every model proposed. Ignoring the fact that this "royal blood", "divine right" bullshit has more holes than a sieve. The sad thing is that much of the public buy that same old conservative mantra.
Always comes back to, how will this change affect day to day lives of Australians?no. lets do F**K all as usual. wouldn't want to change anything.
Worth pointing out that the two countries mentioned as Absolute Monarchies. The Kings/Emporers/Whatever North Korea has in those countries rule.The stability argument is always an interesting one. Saudi Arabia has stability, as does North Korea.
This is where I tend to agree, and where I think a Republic vote may ultimately fail, similar to how the voice failed. It's a symbolic action that really doesn't do much to improve the lives of Australians. Hard to sell people on saying yes to a change they don't really care about.Always comes back to, how will this change affect day to day lives of Australians?
Answer = it doesn't
Change for change sake, will never pass a referendum
the "HeAd of StAtE ShOuLd Be BoRn HeRe" the regulars of this thread holds no weight across the country because 99% of people wouldn't know what the HoS does or who it is if quizzed.
Ignoring the fact that this "royal blood", "divine right" bullshit has more holes than a sieve.
But the practical and unavoidable elements to Australia becoming a Republic are: you need a model, and then you need a majority of the country and a majority of the people in a majority of states to make that change
Stability with oppression? It's a crime to be a homosexual in Saudi Arabia. In North Korea the masses starve while Kim plays with nuclear missiles, and if you criticise Kim you're more than likely to disappear permanently.The stability argument is always an interesting one. Saudi Arabia has stability, as does North Korea.