Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Should Australia become a Republic?

  • YES

    Votes: 141 66.5%

  • NO

    Votes: 71 33.5%
  • Total voters
    212

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Reg Grundy35 said:
what exactly drew you to this thread if you don't give a :poo: who the head of state is?
Click to expand...
The absurdity of people caring tbh. It literally makes ZERO difference to your life or mine so it's equally as bizarre as it is interesting people care this much. The best part for me though is you guys can't list a single thing that affects you about it yet still care. You don't think that's weird?
 
burge13 said:
The absurdity of people caring tbh. It literally makes ZERO difference to your life or mine so it's equally as bizarre as it is interesting people care this much. The best part for me though is you guys can't list a single thing that affects you about it yet still care. You don't think that's weird?
Click to expand...
What difference would an lndigenous Voice to Parliament have made to your life? You were pretty vocal in your rejection of that.
 
Gough said:
What difference would an lndigenous Voice to Parliament have made to your life? You were pretty vocal in your rejection of that.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with anything but I wasn't 'vocal in rejection', I didn't care and voted accordingly, I didn't. I was vocal in pointing out it was a complete waste of time though. Which it was
 
burge13 said:
Nothing to do with anything but I wasn't 'vocal in rejection', I didn't care and voted accordingly, I didn't. I was vocal in pointing out it was a complete waste of time though. Which it was
Click to expand...
So you can have opinions on things things that won't effect you.
 
Reg Grundy35 said:
so - in your opinion - is every republic in the world an inferior model to this "born to reign" model?
Click to expand...

I've made it clear that I prefer a system of constitutional monarchy.

As I have repeatedly said, the very rarely exercised reserve powers are vested in the monarch and exercised for the most part by the governor-general. Those powers are not vested in the office of the governor-general. The King cannot over rule the assent of the Governor-General to a law without the advice of his Australian ministers, but has the option do so (Section 59), if advised to do so.

This is a check on the Governor-General's exercising of the reserve powers, by the monarch in whom the reserve powers are vested. Yet the King of Australia rarely exercises the reserve powers or gives the royal assent unless they are specifically referred to him.

The checks and balances on both the Sovereign and the office of the Governor-General works very well.
 
Roylion said:
That is absolutely not correct. Where are you getting this information from? It is blatantly incorrect. And I've explained why it is incorrect.

Parliament determines who is the monarch, the method of succession to the throne, the restrictions placed on the monarch's actions and even what the King must believe in and until recently who he/she can marry. There are all sort of restrictions placed on the monarch who must act under the Constitution. The monarch can't do whatever they like.



Acts of Parliament determine who is to be monarch and what powers he/she has. I've given you plenty of examples.


The monarch's powers come from Acts of Parliament. Read the Bill of Rights of 1689, read the 1701 Act of Settlement. The King wasn't even allowed to leave the United Kingdom between 1701-1716 without the consent of parliament.


No he does not. Where do you get this rubbish from? Between 1701 and 2015, the monarch couldn't marry a Roman Catholic and remain the monarch. The monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic. That's not doing "whatever the f he wants."


No he does not. The monarch's rights and actions are controlled by Acts of Parliament.

The monarchy itself can be abolished by Parliament and that has already been done once.

In Australia, the monarchy could be abolished by passing an Act of Parliament putting a referendum with a proposed republican model and receiving the approval of the people via a referendum. In the UK Parliament can abolish the monarchy overnight, if it wishes to, simply by an Act of Parliament. The monarch cannot abolish Parliament.


The King does not rule. The King reigns. There is a difference.


Royal assent is given by the UK's Head of State as per tradition and custom. Under an absolute monarch in the 11th-14th century legislative power was exercised by the monarch acting on the advice of the Curia regis.


The rights applied to the Barons and Church. "Freemen" was not the majority of the population such as villeins and serfs.


The Magna Carta is not about the rights of the people. The reference to freeman essentially referred to landowners those that held freehold and collectively was less than 10% of the population. It was to provide for the trial of a feudal landowner vassal by his peers in the court of their liege lord. In other words no freeman should be sanctioned except by a legitimate court of peers and by the law of the land.

Habeus corpus is common law. It originally stems from the Assize of Clarendon in 1166...not the Magna Carta of 1215. The Assize of Clarendon was a re-issuance of rights during the reign of Henry II. The Magna Carta merely restated the common law principles that preceded it. According to Robert Walker in his work "Habeas Corpus Writ of Liberty: English and American Origins and Development", the first recorded appearance of habeus corpus was in 1199.



Some of your claims about history are just laughable. An example..

"The people got out from under the King's supreme authority by giving King John an ultimatum, give us rights or we will chop your f'ing head off."

That just didn't happen. You just made it up, based on your garbled, skewed view of the Magna Carta and the events of 1215.
Click to expand...


LOL.
Keep digging.
 
Roylion said:
I've made it clear that I prefer a system of constitutional monarchy.

As I have repeatedly said, the very rarely exercised reserve powers are vested in the monarch and exercised for the most part by the governor-general. Those powers are not vested in the office of the governor-general. The King cannot over rule the assent of the Governor-General to a law without the advice of his Australian ministers, but has the option do so (Section 59), if advised to do so.

This is a check on the Governor-General's exercising of the reserve powers, by the monarch in whom the reserve powers are vested. Yet the King of Australia rarely exercises the reserve powers or gives the royal assent unless they are specifically referred to him.

The checks and balances on both the Sovereign and the office of the Governor-General works very well.
Click to expand...
so none of the republics around the world work well in your opinion?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Reg Grundy35 said:
so what should we spend our time worrying about in your learned opinion?
Click to expand...
There are probably > 1000000 things that affect you more than this. It has quite literally no affect on our lives whatsoever

And whilst I have explained many times why it doesn't matter you are still unable to explain why you worry about it...
 
Reg Grundy35 said:
so none of the republics around the world work well in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Not as well as we do. As I've said before, one constitutional crisis in 125 years. Peaceful transitions of power, governments with legitimacy, strong, respected institutions. As far as I am concerned, we are the gold standard.
 
The Punter said:
Not as well as we do. As I've said before, one constitutional crisis in 125 years. Peaceful transitions of power, governments with legitimacy, strong, respected institutions. As far as I am concerned, we are the gold standard.
Click to expand...
yeah i knew you'd love it but I didn't actually ask you.
 
Roylion said:
:rolleyes: Is that the best you can come up with?
Click to expand...


I can't help you any further.
You have once again demonstrated your complete lack of critical thought.
According to you the people got no rights from the Magna Carta.
King John ceding power was the beginning of the 'rule of law'.
Without the rule of law, it wouldn't matter what was written anywhere, including what is written in the Constitution.


2 words describe your posting.
Dunning.
Kruger.
 
Number37 said:
I can't help you any further.
You have once again demonstrated your complete lack of critical thought.
According to you the people got no rights from the Magna Carta.
Click to expand...

Not in 2015 they didn't. As I have explained.
Number37 said:
King John ceding power was the beginning of the 'rule of law'.
Click to expand...

The 'Curia Regis' existed before the Magna Carta. As I said, Magna Carta certainly put in writing the existing principle that the King and his government was not above the law, but this was not necessarily new. The Magna Carta was more about formalising and renewing the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people.

Before King John, kings were still subject to law and customs like everyone else. The Domesday Book of 1086 showed that even as early as the late 11th century landowners had rights and expected justice in the maintenance of those rights.

Later on, Henry II's Charter of Liberties in 1154 stated

"Wherefore I will and firmly command that the holy church and all the earls, barons and all my men, have and hold all these gifts, liberties and free customs freely and with immunity, fully, in peace and unimpaired from me and my heirs for themselves and their heirs, as freely, peaceably and fully in all things..."

In doing so Henry II is pledging to observe the "liberties and free customs" of the Kingdom of England.

King Henry II was publicly flogged and walked barefoot to Becket’s tomb in atonement for his household knights murdering Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He did so, because like his son John forty odd years later, he was facing his own baronial revolt and needed to address persistent public and political pressure on himself to atone for Becket’s murder as well as show the legitimacy of his kingship through adherence to ecclesiastical and lay law.

Henry's Chief Justiciar Ranulf de Glanvill sometime between 1187-1189 wrote or oversaw the writing a set of 14 books called the Treatise on the Laws and Customs of England. It defined for the first time the legal system of England, and it stated that justice and peace were the duties of the king.

"The Regal Power should not merely be decorated with Arms to restrain Rebels and Nations making head against it and its realm, but ought likewise to be adorned with Laws for the peaceful governing of its Subjects and its People."

The point of the above is that early medieval kings had obligations to their subjects. They owed them good governance which entailed not just defense but also the administration of justice, i.e. the maintenance of 'law and order.' A king who failed to deliver good governance could (and was) legitimately challenged by his barons, essentially for breach of contract by violating their rights.
Number37 said:
Without the rule of law, it wouldn't matter what was written anywhere, including what is written in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Rights and liberties existed in England before the Magna Carta.

In 1100, after his coronation, Henry I, the son of William the Conqueror, issued a decree known as the 'Charter of Liberties', in which he promised to "abolish all the evil customs by which the Kingdom of England has been unjustly oppressed," a list of customs that appear, all over again, in Magna Carta. The Charter sought to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals. One of the things he promised was to restore the law of King Edward the Confessor (1042-1066). These were restated by his grandson Henry II in 1154 as described above.

Number37 said:
2 words describe your posting.
Dunning.
Kruger.
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever. :rolleyes: Medieval British/French history was my speciality during my tertiary studies, in particular about the lives and times of the Angevin Kings between 1154-1216. I also have a large personal library of non-fiction works on the lives and times of early Plantagenet kings including:
  • Frank Barlow - 'Thomas Becket'
  • W.L. Warren - 'King John'
  • W.L. Warren - 'Henry II'
  • Several works on the life and times of Eleanor of Aquitaine by Desmond Seward, Regine Pernoud and Alison Weir
  • John Gillingham - 'Richard the Lionheart'
  • Matthew Strickland - 'Henry the Young King'
  • Michael Prestwitch - 'Edward I'
  • Seymour Phillips - 'Edward II'
  • Michael Packe - 'King Edward III'
as well as various general histories on the Plantagenets from 1154-1485.

Your comments on King John and the Magna Carta are laughable. You have no idea what the Magna Carta was about in 1215.
 
Personally, with all feeling removed from the question I think neither one system is any better or worse than the other. Having said that, I personally hold no value for nor have any use for a Monarchy. Position and title should NEVER be awarded nor held by any person by decree of birth.

I'd vote for an Australian Republic in any form, whether us voters pick the Prez or the pollies do. Just get that Crown gone.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Personally, with all feeling removed from the question I think neither one system is any better or worse than the other. Having said that, I personally hold no value for nor have any use for a Monarchy. Position and title should NEVER be awarded nor held by any person by decree of birth.

I'd vote for an Australian Republic in any form, whether us voters pick the Prez or the pollies do. Just get that Crown gone.
Click to expand...
amen!! enough of these forelock tuggers and their weasel words. Enough of these plonkers who don't give a :poo: . I want my grandkids to grow up in a country where they can potentially one day become or have one of their peers become head of state. It is appalling that people try and justify this as a bad idea. Its an old playbook that gets trotted out every time. "What models do you propose/" We all know that there is no model that anyone could propose that they wouldn't tear down. They live to love and protect their beloved monarch - from the other side of the world. It is an embarrassment that we got to the 2020s under this nonsensical system. We owe no more to Britain in 2024 than any other foreign entity. Grow up.
 
Two unavoidable, difficult to disagree with points:

  • the model needs to be able to pass a referendum
  • the details of the model are important because they are the rules for how our entire democracy works

Acknowledging these truths is the very definition of maturity.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Similar threads

Aristotle Pickett
  • Locked
Moved Thread Should the AFL do more to prevent climate change?
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
3K
Gethelred
Gethelred
CM86
  • Locked
Society/Culture Should SRP exist?
Replies
7
Views
764
evolved2
evolved2
Cmarsh
The Law Should assisted dying access be extended to the mentally ill?
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Leeda
L
R
Religion Should I have to celebrate Diwali?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
ferball
ferball
S
Society/Culture Which is the best unbiased media outlet in Australia?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
ElectricG
ElectricG
peetoo
Politics TikToc is evil…..but if it becomes an US company…..no problem
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Markfs
Markfs
Gough
Trump Bibles and trainers, what products should other Presidents have endorsed?
Replies
15
Views
1K
blackshadow
blackshadow
Back
Top