Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Reg Grundy35]

You asked me how. I told you how. The Crown of Australia and the Crown of the UK are legally separate.

I'm happy to keep it as it already is. There are plenty of constitutional monarchies around the world that have hereditary succession.

what proportion of them have their monarch living 17,000 km away and visiting once a decade?

 

[Roylion]

what proportion of them have their monarch living 17,000 km away and visiting once a decade?

Not many. Hence my previous comments.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Not many. Hence my previous comments.

home grown royalty. rightttt. Should go down well

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So you're now suggesting it wouldn't be just a simple vote to vote for a republic. That it would involve an Act of Parliament to repeal the existing constitution (which in itself would have to be a binding vote) and then replace it with a new constitution. Does that dissolve the federation of six states that form the existing Commonwealth of Australia? Would that new constitution be written beforehand for the citizens of Victoria, NSW. Qld, SA, WA and Tasmania to examine and consider before any vote? What happens if a State votes against the new Constitution and hence declines to join a new Federation?

Good question, especially the bolded! Would a vote for a Republic also be an opportunity for State secession? I'd actually like to think not. I'd like to think that what happens is;

1 The path to keep/abolish the Constitution first must go through a Federal election. A party with open intent, right across Australia's States and territories, to start the process gets elected. They getting elected means they have a mandate to start the process.

Should States have the right to secede at this point? Again, I'd like to think not. The way I'd see the 'mandate election' going is that the results would speak for themselves. Even if a State returned more Federal seats to the party standing against the one pushing for the Republic the process would stay the same as any regular election. The Party returning the most overall seats wins.

In this hypothetical scenario the party pushing for a Republic wins. It would need to win by absolute majority.

2 The 'simple vote' is drawn up. It will be binding. Should Australia remain a Constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic? All interested parties start campaigning for their preferred outcome. Maybe a year-long phase of campaigning so the electorate has time to get informed on the pros and the cons of each.

3 'Simple Vote' day happens. In this scenario, the Republicans win. It's not 51 to 49 but unanimous.

4 Now that the 'function' question has been settled by binding vote the fun begins. Form! What shape will the new nation take? After the top choice is settled by the will of the Australian electorate the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is hereby dissolved and the Constitution for a New Australian Republic (content pending) takes immediate effect.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

home grown royalty. rightttt. Should go down well

In fairness we've already got a King... Parrot

 

[peetoo]

what proportion of them have their monarch living 17,000 km away and visiting once a decade?

It is cheaper that way, but offset by having so many state GGs

 

[peetoo]

Good question, especially the bolded! Would a vote for a Republic also be an opportunity for State secession? I'd actually like to think not. I'd like to think that what happens is;

1 The path to keep/abolish the Constitution first must go through a Federal election. A party with open intent, right across Australia's States and territories, to start the process gets elected. They getting elected means they have a mandate to start the process.

Should States have the right to secede at this point? Again, I'd like to think not. The way I'd see the 'mandate election' going is that the results would speak for themselves. Even if a State returned more Federal seats to the party standing against the one pushing for the Republic the process would stay the same as any regular election. The Party returning the most overall seats wins.

In this hypothetical scenario the party pushing for a Republic wins. It would need to win by absolute majority.

2 The 'simple vote' is drawn up. It will be binding. Should Australia remain a Constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic? All interested parties start campaigning for their preferred outcome. Maybe a year-long phase of campaigning so the electorate has time to get informed on the pros and the cons of each.

3 'Simple Vote' day happens. In this scenario, the Republicans win. It's not 51 to 49 but unanimous.

4 Now that the 'function' question has been settled by binding vote the fun begins. Form! What shape will the new nation take? After the top choice is settled by the will of the Australian electorate the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is hereby dissolved and the Constitution for a New Australian Republic (content pending) takes immediate effect.

Recently ‘states’ in the UK notably Scotland got brexited against the apparent will of their governments and voters

Different fish but it’s a contemporary example

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Recently ‘states’ in the UK notably Scotland got brexited against the apparent will of their governments and voters

Different fish but it’s a contemporary example

Yeah. It's a good example too. How big are State secessionist movements here though? It would make for an interesting poll question in itself - would you vote for your State to leave the (hypothetical at this stage) Federal Republic of Australia to retain Constitutional Monarchy?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

A constitutional monarchy is just a monarchy, as far as I can see. Some suggest that the adjective makes it sound less ridiculous and more like a sophisticated model of having someone born to reign.

 

[Roylion]

Good question, especially the bolded! Would a vote for a Republic also be an opportunity for State secession? I'd actually like to think not. I'd like to think that what happens is;

1 The path to keep/abolish the Constitution first must go through a Federal election. A party with open intent, right across Australia's States and territories, to start the process gets elected. They getting elected means they have a mandate to start the process.

The Labor Party is well known for its support for a republic and they are in government now.

2 The 'simple vote' is drawn up. It will be binding.

Under what law? A seperate Bill introduced under this Constitution?

4 Now that the 'function' question has been settled by binding vote the fun begins. Form! What shape will the new nation take? After the top choice is settled by the will of the Australian electorate the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is hereby dissolved and the Constitution for a New Australian Republic (content pending) takes immediate effect.

And if there are states that didn't vote for a republic, do they immediately become independent the moment the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is dissolved? Do the states have to agree to federate under the Constitution for a New Australian Republic as they did in the 1890s for the Commonwealth of Australia?

Every Australian state is also a constitutional monarchy with a governor who is the King's representative in that state. Unless a state changes its own constitution to become a republic, the existing arrangements remain in place in that state, irrespective of whether the Commonwealth of Australia becomes a republic or not.

 

[Roylion]

A constitutional monarchy is just a monarchy, as far as I can see. Some suggest that the adjective makes it sound less ridiculous and more like a sophisticated model of having someone born to reign.

As opposed to an absolute monarchy where the monarch has absolute powers to rule as well as reign and who rules who rules by their own right, such as by divine right. Unfortunately some on here can't tell the difference.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Symbolically? Yes, in a heart beat, I don't think you'd find anyone who would not want a republic from a symbolic view point.

Good to see, itt, patriotism isn't demonized in this subject like it usually is in other topics / threads.

Practically? Don't know.

I would need to know, in detail and with confidence knowing that detail, how a republic model would work.

How much would it cost? I'm sure, given our current constitutional monarchy works well, I'd rather have those $ directed to more pressing issues.

Yes, I know, govts. are experts at wasting our tax dollars, still two wrongs don't make a right, don't see the point in throwing however many dollars on something that doesn't need fixing.

The argument, is it broken? No, is it wrong? Symbolically yes, don't care, we're doin just fine the way it is.

If someone can convince me of a republic model that would be practically better than what we've got now, then I'd vote yes in a heart beat. I imagine Jan and Joe public would also.

It has to be practical, not just patriotically motivated.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

If someone can convince me of a republic model that would be practically better than what we've got now, then I'd vote yes in a heart beat. I imagine Jan and Joe public would also.

It has to be practical, not just patriotically motivated.

There'd be plenty working overtime that make sure you, Jan and Joe are never convinced. Thats how we handle our referendums here.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There'd be plenty working overtime that make sure you, Jan and Joe are never convinced. Thats how we handle our referendums here.

Really? Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Really? Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

were you away for the last one?

 

[Carringbush2010]

were you away for the last one?

No I voted yes, I was convinced.

 

[peetoo]

Yeah. It's a good example too. How big are State secessionist movements here though? It would make for an interesting poll question in itself - would you vote for your State to leave the (hypothetical at this stage) Federal Republic of Australia to retain Constitutional Monarchy?

Various recen secessionist movementsaround the world have been funded by big mining, to get favourable conditions.

They already get everything they want here so may not apply

 

[barreness]

Whitlam was removed from office by an Australian citizen, exercising the reserve powers of his office which were vested in the monarch of Australia. The ability of the governor-general to exercise those powers are established in the Australian Constitution.

I know, that's the issue

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

And if there are states that didn't vote for a republic, do they immediately become independent the moment the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is dissolved? Do the states have to agree to federate under the Constitution for a New Australian Republic as they did in the 1890s for the Commonwealth of Australia?

Every Australian state is also a constitutional monarchy with a governor who is the King's representative in that state. Unless a state changes its own constitution to become a republic, the existing arrangements remain in place in that state, irrespective of whether the Commonwealth of Australia becomes a republic or not.

It's an interesting question. As part of this momentous national dialogue maybe this too is a question we should be asking. Can States secede? Can a State or Territory declare itself a Republic even as other States/Territories remain in Federation? Can it remain a Constitutional Monarchy in case of the reverse?

It would be a great question to ask the nation. Do we want to remain one country, the sum of all its parts?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Various recen secessionist movementsaround the world have been funded by big mining, to get favourable conditions.

They already get everything they want here so may not apply

Yeah. The W.A mining concerns would be throwing all kinds of shapes I'd imagine.

 

[peetoo]

Slightly aside, the title is ‘commonwealth of Australia’ which I’d like to see retained.

It was the title of England when they booted the monarchy for a while, so the term republic is not required.

It has enough ‘of the people’ vibe anyway

 

[Number37]

As opposed to an absolute monarchy where the monarch has absolute powers to rule as well as reign and who rules who rules by their own right, such as by divine right. Unfortunately some on here can't tell the difference.

You are not capable of understanding that the ONLY difference between the 2 is the will of the monarch.

 

[Number37]

Good question, especially the bolded! Would a vote for a Republic also be an opportunity for State secession? I'd actually like to think not. I'd like to think that what happens is;

1 The path to keep/abolish the Constitution first must go through a Federal election. A party with open intent, right across Australia's States and territories, to start the process gets elected. They getting elected means they have a mandate to start the process.

Should States have the right to secede at this point? Again, I'd like to think not. The way I'd see the 'mandate election' going is that the results would speak for themselves. Even if a State returned more Federal seats to the party standing against the one pushing for the Republic the process would stay the same as any regular election. The Party returning the most overall seats wins.

In this hypothetical scenario the party pushing for a Republic wins. It would need to win by absolute majority.

2 The 'simple vote' is drawn up. It will be binding. Should Australia remain a Constitutional Monarchy or become a Republic? All interested parties start campaigning for their preferred outcome. Maybe a year-long phase of campaigning so the electorate has time to get informed on the pros and the cons of each.

3 'Simple Vote' day happens. In this scenario, the Republicans win. It's not 51 to 49 but unanimous.

4 Now that the 'function' question has been settled by binding vote the fun begins. Form! What shape will the new nation take? After the top choice is settled by the will of the Australian electorate the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is hereby dissolved and the Constitution for a New Australian Republic (content pending) takes immediate effect.

A "simple vote" could technically happen, but that vote cannot be used to abolish the Constitution.
How the Constitution can be changed is 'double entrenched'.
Meaning it can only be changed by the manner & form outlined in the Constitution. (A referendum resulting in the support of the majority in the majority of states)

That same double entrenching prevents a state from seceding of its own volition, as WA tried to do in the 1930's.
The Constitution makes no provision for a state leaving, to change who is a part of the federation would require a change in the Constitution and therefore a referendum (the support of the majority in a majority of states).

 

[Roylion]

You are not capable of understanding that the ONLY difference between the 2 is the will of the monarch.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

As I've demonstrated time and time again, that the powers of the monarch are extremely limited and are at the will of Parliament. Even the person of the monarch is by the will of Parliament, as Parliament decides the method of royal succession. The monarch will not act unless on the advice of his ministers. That includes refusing royal assent.

 

[Number37]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

As I've demonstrated time and time again, that the powers of the monarch are extremely limited and are at the will of Parliament. Even the person of the monarch is by the will of Parliament, as Parliament decides the method of royal succession. The monarch will not act unless on the advice of his ministers. That includes refusing royal assent.

You have demonstrated no such thing.

The monarch's personal prerogative powers:

• the rights to advise, encourage and warn ministers in private
• to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers
• to assent to legislation
• to prorogue or dissolve parliament
• to act contrary to or without ministerial advice

Gordon Brown tried to reform these powers when he came to office in 2007.
- Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170 (London: HM Government, 2007), para 24


Parliament & the Executive exercises power under the supervision of the monarch.
The monarch sits above parliament and the Executive.

Educate yourself and stop talking shit.