Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Gough]

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.

We could have a simple yes/no question there needn't be anything more than that. You just think by mentioning a model every time the subject is raised that you've hit some sort of home run.

 

[The Punter]

We could have a simple yes/no question there needn't be anything more than that. You just think by mentioning a model every time the subject is raised that you've hit some sort of home run.

You need specifics to amend the constitution - these are the rules. There's little getting around them. The constitution is our foundational document - amending it is really important. The rules around amending it make it extraordinarily difficult to make amendments, and I'm happy to concede too difficult at times, but those are the rules.

Rather than argue back and forth with constitutional monarchists and status-quo-ists like myself and Roylion, I think republicans would be better off spending their time working through their differences to develop wide-ranging support for a model for change. Then you might get somewhere.

 

[Gough]

Yeah, that's not patronising at all.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

We could have a simple yes/no question there needn't be anything more than that. You just think by mentioning a model every time the subject is raised that you've hit some sort of home run.

But the Monarchists HAVE hit a home run (baseball), smashed it into the carpark for six (cricket), kicked it three rows back straight over the umpire's hat (footy) and got it in from way downtown with nothing but net (basketball) and they always will with the way the Republican vote must be split before a result is passed.

I too believe that function (Monarchy or Republic?) should be locked in before form (type of Republic if voted for). It is the sole fair way to decide this. If the majority want a Republic it should be done. If the majority want to remain under the Crown so be it. Decide on form AFTER function has been decided.

Of course Monarchists will argue otherwise. It suits them that the Republican vote is divided thus.

Keep in mind that a vote for a Republic will nullify the Constitution of the Commonweath of Australia Constitution Act, not alter it. A Republic may decide to adapt much of the Constitutional wording but the Commonwealth of Australia will in effect cease to exist as a political entity upon a vote for the Republic.

This shouldn't be a referendum on changing the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, but ending the Commonwealth altogether and embracing a new Australian future.

 

[Gethelred]

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...

Out of interest, do you live in Victoria, Burge?

 

[burge13]

Out of interest, do you live in Victoria, Burge?

No - How is that at all relevant?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You need specifics to amend the constitution - these are the rules. There's little getting around them. The constitution is our foundational document - amending it is really important. The rules around amending it make it extraordinarily difficult to make amendments, and I'm happy to concede too difficult at times, but those are the rules.

Rather than argue back and forth with constitutional monarchists and status-quo-ists like myself and Roylion, I think republicans would be better off spending their time working through their differences to develop wide-ranging support for a model for change. Then you might get somewhere.

sorry but you don't get to dodge being a monarchist.

 

[The Punter]

sorry but you don't get to dodge being a monarchist.

You don't get to dodge the Monarchy. It's obvious what you want is the opportunity to be angry.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You don't get to dodge the Monarchy. It's obvious what you want is the opportunity to be angry.

You can't dodge the Monarchy but you can punt it, Punter

 

[Falchoon]

But the Monarchists HAVE hit a home run (baseball), smashed it into the carpark for six (cricket), kicked it three rows back straight over the umpire's hat (footy) and got it in from way downtown with nothing but net (basketball) and they always will with the way the Republican vote must be split before a result is passed.

I too believe that function (Monarchy or Republic?) should be locked in before form (type of Republic if voted for). It is the sole fair way to decide this. If the majority want a Republic it should be done. If the majority want to remain under the Crown so be it. Decide on form AFTER function has been decided.

Of course Monarchists will argue otherwise. It suits them that the Republican vote is divided thus.

Keep in mind that a vote for a Republic will nullify the Constitution of the Commonweath of Australia Constitution Act, not alter it. A Republic may decide to adapt much of the Constitutional wording but the Commonwealth of Australia will in effect cease to exist as a political entity upon a vote for the Republic.

This shouldn't be a referendum on changing the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, but ending the Commonwealth altogether and embracing a new Australian future.

It has to be the other way around, the vote has to be Monarchy vs Republic model x.

Decide on which Republic model goes up for a vote vs Monarchy.

 

[burge13]

sorry but you don't get to dodge being a monarchist.

You are yet to explain, or give a tangible example of how this affects you ffs.

 

[Roylion]

Keep in mind that a vote for a Republic will nullify the Constitution of the Commonweath of Australia Constitution Act, not alter it. A Republic may decide to adapt much of the Constitutional wording but the Commonwealth of Australia will in effect cease to exist as a political entity upon a vote for the Republic.

No. A popular vote for or against a republic would be a plebsicite and would neither repeal the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, nor alter the Australian Constitution.

The only way the Constitution can be altered is via a referendum. The Australian government is not going to repeal the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

No. A popular vote for or against a republic would be a plebsicite and would neither repeal the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, nor alter the Australian Constitution.

The only way the Constitution can be altered is via a referendum. The Australian government is not going to repeal the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900.

'Not going to' does not mean 'can't' though. Does it? The referendum process is purely and squarely a means to alter the existing Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, the political entity that currently occupies this continent.

An Australian Republic isn't an amendment though, nor an alteration. It's something new. It's something different. As a National Constitution can be said to be the birth certificate of a nation, what of its death notice?

As The Republic is born the Commonwealth dies. A new birth certificate is needed.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You are yet to explain, or give a tangible example of how this affects you ffs.

Do you not get that people can be interested, even passionate about things? Going by the transgender thread I gather you have a pretty substantial interest in combat sports. Mixed Martial Arts. That sort of thing.

Is it wrong to take an interest in things? No. No its not.

 

[happy_eagle]

Do you not get that people can be interested, even passionate about things? Going by the transgender thread I gather you have a pretty substantial interest in combat sports. Mixed Martial Arts. That sort of thing.

Is it wrong to take an interest in things? No. No its not.

The issue though is whether there are enough Australians that are passionate enough about this to vote yes on it.

I worry you will have a large number of Australians that don't care enough about the issue to vote for a change, so a neutral vote will result in a no vote.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The issue though is whether there are enough Australians that are passionate enough about this to vote yes on it.

I worry you will have a large number of Australians that don't care enough about the issue to vote for a change, so a neutral vote will result in a no vote.

That's democracy though. If a free and fair election - that is just a straight vote without all the dubious vote-splitting machinery that dogs the current 'alteration' setup - if that doesn't deliver the Republic then that is fair enough. A majority don't want it.

Again, that's democracy.

 

[happy_eagle]

That's democracy though. If a free and fair election - that is just a straight vote without all the dubious vote-splitting machinery that dogs the current 'alteration' setup - if that doesn't deliver the Republic then that is fair enough. A majority don't want it.

Again, that's democracy.

Didn't we have this vote in the 90s ?

 

[The Punter]

That's democracy though. If a free and fair election - that is just a straight vote without all the dubious vote-splitting machinery that dogs the current 'alteration' setup - if that doesn't deliver the Republic then that is fair enough. A majority don't want it.

Again, that's democracy.

That vote would give the idea of an Australian Republic a legitimacy it currently doesn't have if it did indeed pass. I can see why it is an attractive option to those who want change. But legally it wouldn't mean much. That doesn't make it meaningless - the same could be said of the same sex marriage plebiscite.

 

[The Punter]

Didn't we have this vote in the 90s ?

No, we voted on a model of a republic (the minimalist change model, where 2/3rds of the Parliament pick the President who retains all the powers of the GG).

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You are yet to explain, or give a tangible example of how this affects you ffs.

and don't intend to. you add absolutely zero to this debate. you and your DGAF kind are the reason referendums are rooted.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

No, we voted on a model of a republic (the minimalist change model, where 2/3rds of the Parliament pick the President who retains all the powers of the GG).

don't worry. it doesnt matter what models goes up -they'll still tear it down. They prefer some random pom who came out of the "right" birth canal to literally anything else.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That vote would give the idea of an Australian Republic a legitimacy it currently doesn't have if it did indeed pass. I can see why it is an attractive option to those who want change. But legally it wouldn't mean much.

Why wouldn't it mean much legally? The birth of a new nation is fairly momentous across ALL legislative lines I would have thought.

 

[The Punter]

Why wouldn't it mean much legally? The birth of a new nation is fairly momentous across ALL legislative lines I would have thought.

Because under our current laws a referendum needs to pass to alter the constitution. There is no accepted legal process for ripping it all up and starting again. The only model ever to get to the referendum stage was the "change as little as possible" model. Politically it should be easy to defeat a "decide the details later" vote - it sure was easy last year.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Because under our current laws a referendum needs to pass to alter the constitution. There is no accepted legal process for ripping it all up and starting again. The only model ever to get to the referendum stage was the "change as little as possible" model. Politically it should be easy to defeat a "decide the details later" vote - it sure was easy last year.

Exactly! This is the great thing about that for us Republicans - all the existing laws and legislation solely applies to amending or altering an existing legal document, in this case the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. If we were to stay a Commonwealth and a Constitutional Monarchy we would indeed have to stay within this framework or follow existing due process to alter or amend it.

But a vote for an Australian Republic doesn't alter the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. It doesn't change it.

A vote for an Australian Republic kills the Commonwealth of Australia. By way of popular vote it annuls the Constitution Act 1900, centered around the Governor-General as de-facto Head of State as it is, entirely.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Because under our current laws a referendum needs to pass to alter the constitution. There is no accepted legal process for ripping it all up and starting again. The only model ever to get to the referendum stage was the "change as little as possible" model. Politically it should be easy to defeat a "decide the details later" vote - it sure was easy last year.

yeah. we know the "if it ain't broke" trope will win any referendum here in the land of "who gives a " unless both sides miraculously back it. The thing here is its not a matter of it being "broke" it's just plain "wrong"