- Moderator
- #776
The Governor-General isn't the head of state.
-
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round FW1 Winner: TBA!
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Politics Should Australia become a Republic?
- Thread starter Groupie_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The Governor-General isn't the head of state.
- Moderator
- #777
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.
Yeah I know that, but they essentially perform the function of what a president would
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?
*The less said about the House of Lords the better
No, it's identifying the practical problem with becoming a republic - enough people need to agree to a model so it passes a referendum.
- Moderator
- #783
In 1982 the monarch agreed to pay tax. In 2012 a new 'Sovereign Grant replaced the Civil List which meant the Royal Household had to be subject to the same audit scrutiny as other government expenditure. The profits of the Crown Estate - a property business owned by the monarch - but is not the monarch's private property and hence the King cannot sell its assets or keep any profits for himself - go to the Treasury. 15% of this profit makes up the Sovereign Grant. The amount is reviewed every five years by the British government.
Coincidence of what?
- Moderator
- #784
The government needs to propose the model to be put to the Australian people in a referendum.
The spectre of getting the arse hanging over them.
- Moderator
- #786
They exercise the reserve powers of the monarch in Australia when necessary. Those reserve powers aren't vested in the office of the governor-general which is an important difference. Under a presidency, the reserve powers would be vested in the office of the President who would be selected by some model. Either elected directly by the people or by some indirect method (e.g. two thirds of Parliament)
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.
But if I am being called disingenuous from Big Footy's Master of Whimsy...
- Mar 20, 2007
- 29,323
- 26,758
- AFL Club
- West Coast
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.
- Jul 27, 2013
- 2,394
- 3,391
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
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.
- Jul 27, 2013
- 2,394
- 3,391
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Mar 20, 2007
- 29,323
- 26,758
- AFL Club
- West Coast
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.
It's because you haven't convinced them. I couldn't care less about how monarchs get their jobs. The system serves us well. I don't want something because someone else has it. I think you are different in that way based on your posts on other topics as well.
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. The onus on clearing that bar lays solely on those advocating for change. I am clearly not advocating for change, as I believe the system serves us well and the best we can hope for from becoming a Republic is a system that will serve us just as well.
If that annoys you, that's how it is. You seem easily annoyed.
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.
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.
The stability argument is always an interesting one. Saudi Arabia has stability, as does North Korea.
Fair to say it works better for us though - but stability for its own sake should be scrutinised.
To me, the benefits of stability can be compared to trying to find local vs global maximums of mathematical functions in multi-dimensional space. Stability ensures you never stray too far from a local maximum, but also ensures you never find a better maximum.
For the non-mathematically inclined, that translates roughly to: stability is like keeping the same job and getting a small pay rise each year and kind of being happy you can pay the bills and buy a beer or two. The benefits are clear: you have a sturdy base from which to act on all other aspects of life.
The risks of this stability are twofold: one, well you never know how much better things could be if you do not try something else. The second risk is more pernicious - like the boiling frog, the change that exists in the world around you may slowly but surely leave you in its dust (losing job due to technology for example)
In the context of government, that's the discussion between conservatism and progressivism. I agree with most that a republic v kings n queens seems to not have much material difference, but who really knows.
Personally, I'm Republican. But the main benefit I see with monarchy is it avoids the shitfight around getting elected leader. I mean look at what the system does to our politicians - it hardens them beyond their true selves I recon. A King or Queen doesn't have to worry about all the game playing as much.
Fair to say it works better for us though - but stability for its own sake should be scrutinised.
To me, the benefits of stability can be compared to trying to find local vs global maximums of mathematical functions in multi-dimensional space. Stability ensures you never stray too far from a local maximum, but also ensures you never find a better maximum.
For the non-mathematically inclined, that translates roughly to: stability is like keeping the same job and getting a small pay rise each year and kind of being happy you can pay the bills and buy a beer or two. The benefits are clear: you have a sturdy base from which to act on all other aspects of life.
The risks of this stability are twofold: one, well you never know how much better things could be if you do not try something else. The second risk is more pernicious - like the boiling frog, the change that exists in the world around you may slowly but surely leave you in its dust (losing job due to technology for example)
In the context of government, that's the discussion between conservatism and progressivism. I agree with most that a republic v kings n queens seems to not have much material difference, but who really knows.
Personally, I'm Republican. But the main benefit I see with monarchy is it avoids the shitfight around getting elected leader. I mean look at what the system does to our politicians - it hardens them beyond their true selves I recon. A King or Queen doesn't have to worry about all the game playing as much.
Worth pointing out that the two countries mentioned as Absolute Monarchies. The Kings/Emporers/Whatever North Korea has in those countries rule.
We have a Constitutional Monarchy. The King doesn't rule, he reigns (as pointed out by Roylion more often than he would like to count).
- Mar 20, 2007
- 29,323
- 26,758
- AFL Club
- West Coast
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.
A Republic isn't going to solve the housing crisis, inflation or crime.
The Royals don't really have much of a presence here.
- Moderator
- #798
"Divine right" hasn't been a thing since 1689.
The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament, not 'Divine Right'. The concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings' as the origin of monarchial authority does not exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.
Britain and Australia are constitutional monarchies and the concept of 'Divine Right of Kings' is completely irrelevant.
England was a republic between 1649 and 1660. The monarchy was restored in 1660 when Parliament invited King Charles II to take the throne. The elected Convention Parliament proclaimed that Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the death of Charles I in January 1649.
Parliament also decided who was to be the monarch by determining the law of succession and the conditions a prospective monarch must meet to be the monarch.
Parliament also decides the role and powers of the monarch.
Last edited:
There's that, but have a model that both major parties get behind and it becomes a lot easier.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
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.
Similar threads
