Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[barreness]

Imagine being so cucked you care who the head of state is

Do you know what cucked means?

You're happy with your country(in this instance an allegory for your wife) being under the control of someone that doesn't even live here.

You obviously do care about politics because you hate labor, you've chosen not care about this element of politics because you've been told it's fine. The ultimate cuck, just keep doing what you're told and your wife's boyfriend will be happy

 

[barreness]

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.

And hence why referendums never pass in a highly politicised society/media, so we are condemned to never make fundamental changes(required or not). An inherent problem in this system no? Unless you think it's currently and infinitely perfect

 

[barreness]

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?

Gough was kicked out by the monarchy(or their representative or the CIA, depending on where you want to go). If their was no higher power then this doesn't happen

Our most reformist govt that instituted things like socialised healthcare, highways/rail between capitals, maternity leave, sewerage, trade with china etc

He was removed before he could finish with the nationalisation of mines and kicking the Americans out, that does affect me and all Australians to this very day

 

[Roylion]

Gough was kicked out by the monarchy(or their representative or the CIA, depending on where you want to go).

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.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

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.

vested in the monarch of England don't you mean? which made her by some bullshit, monarch of australia

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Gough was kicked out by the monarchy(or their representative or the CIA, depending on where you want to go). If their was no higher power then this doesn't happen

Our most reformist govt that instituted things like socialised healthcare, highways/rail between capitals, maternity leave, sewerage, trade with china etc

He was removed before he could finish with the nationalisation of mines and kicking the Americans out, that does affect me and all Australians to this very day

exactly - no coincidence that the only time the powers were used were in the case of the most threatening govt to the conservative establishment in australia's history.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

And hence why referendums never pass in a highly politicised society/media, so we are condemned to never make fundamental changes(required or not). An inherent problem in this system no? Unless you think it's currently and infinitely perfect

they do because it means nothing ever changes - a conservative wet dream

 

[Reg Grundy35]

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.

then the constitution is f***ed sorry

 

[The Punter]

And hence why referendums never pass in a highly politicised society/media, so we are condemned to never make fundamental changes(required or not). An inherent problem in this system no? Unless you think it's currently and infinitely perfect

I think the referendum bar is probably too high in practicality, but I also acknowledge that constitutions should be more difficult to change than regular laws. The addition of a seventh state (ACT) would make referendums easier to pass.

 

[Roylion]

vested in the monarch of England don't you mean?

Once again. The Crown of Australia is legally separate to the Crown of the United Kingdom. Were the UK to become a republic tomorrow, that would not alter our own status as a constitutional monarchy. And the reverse is alaso true.

The monarch, if required, acts with regard to Australian affairs, exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers.

which made her by some bullshit, monarch of australia

The Australia Acts terminated the power of the United Kingdom to legislate for Australia and the Crowns were legally separated by the Statute of Westminster in 1942.

 

[Father Jack]

Once again. The Crown of Australia is legally separate to the Crown of the United Kingdom. Were the UK to become a republic tomorrow, that would not alter our own status as a constitutional monarchy. And the reverse is alaso true.

The monarch, if required, acts with regard to Australian affairs, exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers.


The Australia Acts terminated the power of the United Kingdom to legislate for Australia and the Crowns were legally separated by the Statute of Westminster in 1942.

I don't see what difference all that legalese makes if said separated Crown still sits on the head of a bloke whose arse is permanently parked in England. Why can't it be someone who lives here?

 

[Roylion]

I don't see what difference all that legalese makes if said separated Crown still sits on the head of a bloke whose arse is permanently parked in England. Why can't it be someone who lives here?

The checks and balances on both the Sovereign and the office of the Governor-General works very well.

The very rarely exercised reserve powers are vested in the monarch and exercised in Australia by the governor-general, who can reserve a decision royal assent to the monarch.

Those reserve 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 by those same Australian ministers, within a year of the governor-general's royal assent being granted. The Prime Minister can choose the governor-general but all he/she is doing is choosing the individual for a period of time who could - if needed - exercise those rarely-invoked reserve powers.

 

[Father Jack]

The checks and balances on both the Sovereign and the office of the Governor-General works very well.

The very rarely exercised reserve powers are vested in the monarch and exercised in Australia by the governor-general, who can reserve a decision royal assent to the monarch.

Those reserve 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 by those same Australian ministers, within a year of the governor-general's royal assent being granted. The Prime Minister can choose the governor-general but all he/she is doing is choosing the individual for a period of time who could - if needed - exercise those rarely-invoked reserve powers.

All well and good, but I think we can manage all that ourselves and not outsource it to our former colonial masters. It'd be nice to be truly independent, which we clearly won't be while the HoS is a foreigner living on the other side of the planet.

 

[Roylion]

All well and good, but I think we can manage all that ourselves and not outsource it to our former colonial masters. It'd be nice to be truly independent, which we clearly won't be while the HoS is a foreigner living on the other side of the planet.

We are truly independent now and have been since 1986. If we could have our own constitutional monarchy in the model of a number of European countries that I've mentioned earlier, I'd be all for it. It's the system of constitutional monarchy that I favour, rather than that of a republic.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

We are truly independent now and have been since 1986. If we could have our own constitutional monarchy in the model of a number of European countries that I've mentioned earlier, I'd be all for it. It's the system of constitutional monarchy that I favour, rather than that of a republic.

ah well. you'll be pleased to hear that OUR monarch of Australia has seen fit to visit us soon - his loyal subjects - he'll be making the 17,000 km trip with his Queen(ex bit on the side) making it the first time that an Australian monarch has set foot in Australia for over a decade. What a brilliant system!!

 

[burge13]

ah well. you'll be pleased to hear that OUR monarch of Australia has seen fit to visit us soon - his loyal subjects - he'll be making the 17,000 km trip with his Queen(ex bit on the side) making it the first time that an Australian monarch has set foot in Australia for over a decade. What a brilliant system!!

Are you hoping to go see them when they come?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Are you hoping to go see them when they come?

Maybe. hoping there'll be a few there to "greet" them.

 

[Roylion]

ah well. you'll be pleased to hear that OUR monarch of Australia has seen fit to visit us soon - his loyal subjects - he'll be making the 17,000 km trip with his Queen(ex bit on the side) making it the first time that an Australian monarch has set foot in Australia for over a decade. What a brilliant system!!

Then it's fortunate we have the governor-general working here exercising the monarch's powers, but of course not having those powers actually vested in the governor-general's office which means that checks and balances exist for the stable working of our governmental system.

 

[Father Jack]

Then it's fortunate we have the governor-general working here exercising the monarch's powers, but of course not having those powers actually vested in the governor-general's office which means that checks and balances exist for the stable working of our governmental system.

This could easily happen with a republican system, many countries manage it and they even do it themselves without outsourcing it to someone else.

btw I am in no way advocating anything like the American system which is completely broken, but at least is demonstrating the risks of relying on convention.

 

[Roylion]

This could easily happen with a republican system, many countries manage it and they even do it themselves without outsourcing it to someone else.

In a republican system, heads of state have the reserve powers vested in their office AND exercise them. And of course they are more political given that presidential candidates canvas for votes.

btw I am in no way advocating anything like the American system which is completely broken,

Indirectly elected by the people via the Electoral College. That system was a compromise between a popular vote by citizens and a vote in Congress. It is possible for the successful Presidential candidate to win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

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

A vote to keep the nation a Constitutional Monarchy OR end the Commonwealth of Australia and give birth to a new Republic. I'd imagine it would run like any ordinary election - compulsory for all Australians eligible and enrolled to vote. What would be different this time is that a vote for the Republic means an end to what is the current Commonwealth of Australia as a political construct.

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.

Because as near enough as I can tell there is no actual process for the Constitution to end itself entirely, only alter itself. Therefore a new process will need to be drawn up. Think of it like an elder, knowing their own mortality at the very last, getting their own affairs in order knowing that, after a certain point, there is no more.

Only in this case, reincarnation is very real!

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.

Oh, I'm fully aware it doesn't HAVE to be along those lines. Never forget I'm presenting this as someone who actively wants a Republic of Australia, and am putting forward what I believe is the best way of achieving that aim.

Depending on the democratic wishes of the Australian voting public that is. Nothing happens without them. Without us.

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

Yeah it can. Restricting itself to the existing framework like it did last time, yeah it can. It will die again too, like last time.

No it doesn't necessarily do that.

If it is done the way I envision it, a vote for a Republic kills the Commonwealth of Australia stone dead. Something new is born. It may share the DNA of its predecessor but it is not the same entity at all.

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.

True, change does not make new. Ending does, though. From a Republican standpoint, the folly of our last attempt means a re-calibration is in order. I don't think organising within the existing framework is fit for our purpose.

Death and rebirth is a more suitable process than just changing the furniture.

 

[Roylion]

What would be different this time is that a vote for the Republic means an end to what is the current Commonwealth of Australia as a political construct.

But it wouldn't be. It's fanciful.

A general vote for a republic does not automatically end the Commonwealth of Australia. Even if the existing government of the Commonwealth of Australia legislate a Bill to be voted on to end the Commonwealth of Australia (which I dount would ever happen), then the federation of the six states ends and Australia as an entity ceases to exist with the six states remain their own political entities.

The only realistic way for Australia to ever become a republic, is to alter the existing Constitution that federated the States.

"WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth...."

End the constitution and Australia ceases to exist as a nation state.

Yeah it can. Restricting itself to the existing framework like it did last time, yeah it can. It will die again too, like last time.

Then it's up to the republican movement to propose a model that will be accepted by the majority of the population and the majority of the states.

a vote for a Republic kills the Commonwealth of Australia stone dead.

It doesn't. The Constitution that all states have agreed to does not automatically end just because the people decide via a plebiscite that they might like a republic.

True, change does not make new. Ending does, though.

But it wouldn't end.

 

[Gethelred]

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

Again: I'm not interested in their opinions. When I'm on here as a poster - not a mod - I'm here to try to understand, and that includes the way other people see the world, especially when they disagree with me significantly.

Are you trying to tell me that your perspective is purely oppositional: you post purely to oppose here? There's no underpinning other than that? It would be consistent across both supplied opinions: you oppose Allen's potential remuneration via government pension, and you oppose a republican movement.

Is it that you don't believe in advocacy at all?

 

[burge13]

Again: I'm not interested in their opinions. When I'm on here as a poster - not a mod - I'm here to try to understand, and that includes the way other people see the world, especially when they disagree with me significantly.

Are you trying to tell me that your perspective is purely oppositional: you post purely to oppose here? There's no underpinning other than that? It would be consistent across both supplied opinions: you oppose Allen's potential remuneration via government pension, and you oppose a republican movement.

Is it that you don't believe in advocacy at all?

Read the thread ffs. If you did you'd question the madness of not answering why it matters as opposed to asking why it does

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Read the thread ffs. If you did you'd question the madness of not answering why it matters as opposed to asking why it does

Oh I've got answers. Ive just chosen to not give them to you as you treat the whole debate like a waste of time. In my book, youre lucky to even get this much. Youre just white noise in this discussion really.