Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Reg Grundy35]

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.

which is the point of the exercise. the "loyal subjects can't" fathom anyone wanting to do that.

 

[Roylion]

'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.

Establishment of an Australian Republic is an amendment (or amendments) to the existing Australian Constitiution. Read the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 Bill which details all the alterations that would have been made to establish a republic.

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

The Commonwealth of Australia is a federation of six states that act together for their common good. It literally means "common well-being" so whether a constitutional monarchy or republic, the term 'commonwealth can still be used.

 

[Roylion]

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

A referendum does exactly that. Changes the constitution.

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.

It does nothing of the sort.

What sort of vote are you referring to?

 

[The Punter]

A referendum does exactly that. Changes the constitution.

It does nothing of the sort.

What sort of vote are you referring to?

I think he's referring to a non-referendum vote to basically start Australia again constitutionally. So a referendum wouldn't be necessary as the vote would be to put the current constitution in the bin in its entirety. Happy to be corrected.

 

[The Punter]

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"

IMO you're on stronger ground with the "wrong" argument, because it is not broken. I think a lot of Republican support derives from the issue people have with "how come I can't be the head of state".

And that is where I and Roylion differ. My esteemed colleague argues the King of Australia is the head of state. I'm in the David Smith school - the GG is our head of state, with their power derived from the Constitution of Australia and not the Crown as is the case in Canada or New Zealand.

 

[Number37]

Not in 2015 they didn't. As I have explained.


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.


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.



Yeah, whatever. 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.

None of that cut and pasting has anything to do with what I wrote.
That's just you, again, demonstrating Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

Do you even know, or understand, what the rule of law is?

 

[burge13]

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.

By all means take an interest, Sicko. I haven't once said otherwise

If you're interested surely you can muster up ONE example of how this affects you or a single reason as to why you care. None of you have been able to. That is my confusion as to why you care

Your life will not change one iota so please, for the last time, one tangible reason you want this or how it affects your daily life?

 

[burge13]

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

What a brainless response. Embarrassing actually

I look forward to voting no despite no

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Establishment of an Australian Republic is an amendment (or amendments) to the existing Australian Constitiution. Read the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999 Bill which details all the alterations that would have been made to establish a republic.

That's not an overall blueprint though, is it? It was a very specific bill about a very specific instance of challenge

Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999

Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by

www.aph.gov.au

Summary

Proposes to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament...

The wording itself starts "A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament..."

That's still asking to alter an existing document. That's still asking for continued permittance to exist as the Commonwealth of Australia.

It's like being on life support.

No, a vote for a Republic pulls that plug. It repeals and annuls what currently exists and gives birth to something new and not seen before on this continent.

Existing law doesn't account for it so an interpretation must be made along these lines. A Republic doesn't alter the existing Constitution. A vote for the alternative by necessity consumes it and a Republic is birthed as something new and its own legal and political entity on this continent.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

By all means take an interest, Sicko. I haven't once said otherwise

If you're interested surely you can muster up ONE example of how this affects you or a single reason as to why you care. None of you have been able to. That is my confusion as to why you care

Your life will not change one iota so please, for the last time, one tangible reason you want this or how it affects your daily life?

Because it's the future direction of our nation! Some of us actively want to see an Aussie at the helm of if not actively steering the ship of state (figurehead President vs active legislator President, etc).

If its not your bag fair enough. Some of us LIKE to speculate around political possibilities though.

 

[burge13]

Because it's the future direction of our nation! Some of us actively want to see an Aussie at the helm of if not actively steering the ship of state (figurehead President vs active legislator President, etc).

If its not your bag fair enough. Some of us LIKE to speculate around political possibilities though.

At least, after asking multiple people, multiple times, someone answered as to why they care. I genuinely don't see it changing your daily life and IMO there are 98379283572987 bigger issues to care about. But FINALLY someone answered even I I don't see it myself. Thanks, smarter than Reg by quite some distance

You're right though, it's not my bag. You'd still need my vote though and the vast majority like me who see this as a non issue. I'd bet this failed harder than the voice tbh

Personally, I'd prefer we legislate no overseas coaches of national teams before this haha

As for the nuffies who care who the head of state is, I bet most don't even know what the position does. I'd wager 90% of people don't know who it is let alone what it does. How do you overcome that level of sheer indifference when needing votes?

 

[Gethelred]

No - How is that at all relevant?

Because you've posted on Jacinta Allen's premier-ship, despite it not affecting you at all.

Why are you allowed to care about something, but others aren't?

 

[burge13]

Because you've posted on Jacinta Allen's premier-ship, despite it not affecting you at all.

Why are you allowed to care about something, but others aren't?

The low bar for politicians affects us all

That isn't the gotchya you think it is but I hope you feel smart, that's the main thing

I asked, repeatedly, for one tangible example of why people care about the HOS. No one answered. Some abused, many ignored, none who want people to vote on this could answer. Pathetic really but "you posted in this thread", oh so genius you are

Can you find a post where I said people can't care? I asked why, very different. The fact no one could answer told me everything I need to know

 

[tandino]

I think if it was that important to the political class, it wouldn't be beyond them to come up with a model that would achieve success in a referendum.

I think the reality is that absent of any popular support for a minimalist model, it's not that important to them as to whether the King is the Head of State or not. And if it's not that important to them, why would the general public be engaged on the issue? and if they are not engaged, then who will bother prosecuting the need for change? Albo sure put it on the back burner, even turned the burners off, to slay the beast that is COL. As far as it goes it's a niche, disposable issue.

It's just a tiny bunch of weird types who give this any real attention, present company included.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

By all means take an interest, Sicko. I haven't once said otherwise

If you're interested surely you can muster up ONE example of how this affects you or a single reason as to why you care. None of you have been able to. That is my confusion as to why you care

Your life will not change one iota so please, for the last time, one tangible reason you want this or how it affects your daily life?

I guarantee it won't be the last time. It's all you've got.

 

[happy_eagle]

If people are given the choice between a system where some old codger is a non-active head of state, vs a system whereby we open ourselves up to the possibility of a Trump/Clive Palmer as head of state.

A lot of people will vote for the status quo.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

If people are given the choice between a system where some old codger is a non-active head of state, vs a system whereby we open ourselves up to the possibility of a Trump/Clive Palmer as head of state.

A lot of people will vote for the status quo.

plenty of republics manage to survive pretty well but I guess we're too stupid eh? can't take the risk

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I think if it was that important to the political class, it wouldn't be beyond them to come up with a model that would achieve success in a referendum.

I think the reality is that absent of any popular support for a minimalist model, it's not that important to them as to whether the King is the Head of State or not. And if it's not that important to them, why would the general public be engaged on the issue? and if they are not engaged, then who will bother prosecuting the need for change? Albo sure put it on the back burner, even turned the burners off, to slay the beast that is COL. As far as it goes it's a niche, disposable issue.

It's just a tiny bunch of weird types who give this any real attention, present company included.

another vote for the "No one gives a flying f*** argument " . what a country!!

 

[happy_eagle]

another vote for the "No one gives a flying f*** argument " . what a country!!

You seem to have a difficult time handling the idea that not everyone cares about this issue as equally as you do.

 

[Gethelred]

The low bar for politicians affects us all

That isn't the gotchya you think it is but I hope you feel smart, that's the main thing

I wasn't actually looking for a gotcha. What I was wondering is why you draw the line at something others choose to care about when you yourself don't see the same distinction.

Do you justify your interest purely on 'I'm losing out from this' (even if extremely indirectly) or is there more to it?

I asked, repeatedly, for one tangible example of why people care about the HOS. No one answered. Some abused, many ignored, none who want people to vote on this could answer. Pathetic really but "you posted in this thread", oh so genius you are

Can you find a post where I said people can't care? I asked why, very different. The fact no one could answer told me everything I need to know

You've implied the shit out of it that they shouldn't.

I'm not interested in them, burge. I'm interested in your opinion. Isn't the point of a forum to seek to understand a point of view you disagree with?

 

[burge13]

I wasn't actually looking for a gotcha. What I was wondering is why you draw the line at something others choose to care about when you yourself don't see the same distinction.

Do you justify your interest purely on 'I'm losing out from this' (even if extremely indirectly) or is there more to it?

You've implied the shit out of it that they shouldn't.

I'm not interested in them, burge. I'm interested in your opinion. Isn't the point of a forum to seek to understand a point of view you disagree with?

Read the thread, specifically replies like Reg above. They have stated no reasoning whatsoever yet expect us to be passionate about it when they cant even explain why. Its nonsensical

Even his last reply was complete rubbish. "its all youve got", as if hes responded with any great logic or thought. The republic argument ITT is absolutely pathetic. Instead of expecting me to explain my position yet again, read through and as those who want change to explain why

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You seem to have a difficult time handling the idea that not everyone cares about this issue as equally as you do.

no not at all. it explains how we got here. f**king apathy

 

[Gough]

no not at all. it explains how we got here. f**king apathy

Donald Horne's Lucky Country.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Read the thread, specifically replies like Reg above. They have stated no reasoning whatsoever yet expect us to be passionate about it when they cant even explain why. Its nonsensical

Even his last reply was complete rubbish. "its all youve got", as if hes responded with any great logic or thought. The republic argument ITT is absolutely pathetic. Instead of expecting me to explain my position yet again, read through and as those who want change to explain why

its been done time and time again and is wasted on the disinterested. Its usually met with " there are bigger issues to worry about at moment" as if there ever wont be. All the tired, conservative tropes have been given a run in this thread. Hopefully one day we will get elected leaders with the nads to brush these blockers aside.

 

[Roylion]

No, a vote for a Republic pulls that plug.

What sort of vote are you talking about? What body intiates it? Who is eligible to vote? Compulsory? Voluntary? Under what law/s?

It repeals and annuls what currently exists and gives birth to something new and not seen before on this continent.

How does it do this? How binding is this vote? Because in the end the Constitution is an Act of Parliament. And it is now an Australian Act of Parliament.

Existing law doesn't account for it so an interpretation must be made along these lines.

No it doesn't have to be upon these lines. The relevant Act of Parliament hasn't benen be repealed by the Australian parliament, under which that parliament operates. The UK repealing the relevant Act doesn't extinguish it either as past the Acts of Parliament the UK government decides to repeal has no legal standing in Australia.

A Republic doesn't alter the existing Constitution.

The Constitution can be altered for Australia to become a republic.

A vote for the alternative by necessity consumes it

No it doesn't necessarily do that.

and a Republic is birthed as something new and its own legal and political entity on this continent.

A vote of the people of an existing legal and political entity to change its method of governance does not necessarily establish its own legal and political entity. The people undertake a vote as part of an existing legal and political entity.