Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Gethelred]

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

Why are you so... afraid (for want of a better word) to share even that sliver of a piece of yourself on here?

I don't understand, and I'd like to.

 

[burge13]

Why are you so... afraid (for want of a better word) to share even that sliver of a piece of yourself on here?

I don't understand, and I'd like to.

Read through the ****ing thread mate, honestly. I've asked a question and no clown answered. Look at reg last reply to this.

Pester the non answerers rather than the person asking a pretty valid question and getting nothing (because there is nothing, hence the non answers)

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It's fanciful.

Of course it's fanciful. Everything I've written is speculative in that it hasn't happened yet. Nothing you have written is factually incorrect because it maps what is already written and maps how the last Republican referendum went.

By its very nature ALL talk of the future is speculative. It is fanciful.

Having said that, given everything you know can you say that everything I've put forward a 100% impossibility to carry out? Given a political party has the will and the support of the electorate through promises made at election to actually see it through the way I've outlined, to

a) repeal the existing Constitution and therefore ending the Commonwealth of Australia as a Constitutional Monarchy

and following that

b) establish a new Republic with a new Constitution

can you honestly say that it is an impossibility? Or is it just unlikely? Not necessarily possible?

 

[The Punter]

Just on Geelong_Sicko 's idea, the vote would need to be legislated by parliament to be compulsory, much like there had to be legislation to conduct the Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite. And that would be the stage where the idea would die.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Just on Geelong_Sicko 's idea, the vote would need to be legislated by parliament to be compulsory, much like there had to be legislation to conduct the Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite. And that would be the stage where the idea would die.

It would be an all-ducks-in-a-line thing, yes. But a majority in both houses is NOT an impossibility, is it?

 

[The Punter]

It would be an all-ducks-in-a-line thing, yes. But a majority in both houses is NOT an impossibility, is it?

The ALP's rules (so ably demonstrated through the Senator Payman business) should keep their numbers locked in for such a vote. Although I would think there might be the odd member or two who is a Monarchist or a status-quo-ist or would have an issue with the proposed process.

The Senate would be a different kettle of fish entirely.

So my analysis would be that it isn't an impossibility (perhaps for this government it would be) but remains highly unlikely.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

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.

I just re-read this. Wow. Are you actually suggesting that if the Brits dumped us you'd be all for starting our own monarchy???? with a designated family to breed future bloodlines i assume? Where would we find the right person? I'd nominate Peter Daicos - throws good stock. You aren't serious are you Roy? taking the piss surely?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The ALP's rules (so ably demonstrated through the Senator Payman business) should keep their numbers locked in for such a vote. Although I would think there might be the odd member or two who is a Monarchist or a status-quo-ist or would have an issue with the proposed process.

The Senate would be a different kettle of fish entirely.

So my analysis would be that it isn't an impossibility (perhaps for this government it would be) but remains highly unlikely.

Oh I agree. As it stands right now, what I've outlined is unlikely. I believe the Australian Republican Movement needs to explore as many options open to it as it can. Sticking to existing structures isn't working, but legal frameworks in themselves will present other opportunities and work-arounds.

 

[Gough]

I just re-read this. Wow. Are you actually suggesting that if the Brits dumped us you'd be all for starting our own monarchy???? with a designated family to breed future bloodlines i assume? Where would we find the right person? I'd nominate Peter Daicos - throws good stock. You aren't serious are you Roy? taking the piss surely?

From a republican perspective I favour Gina Rinehart, she'd last about a year before her subjects gave her the Louis XVI treatment.

 

[The Punter]

I just re-read this. Wow. Are you actually suggesting that if the Brits dumped us you'd be all for starting our own monarchy???? with a designated family to breed future bloodlines i assume? Where would we find the right person? I'd nominate Peter Daicos - throws good stock. You aren't serious are you Roy? taking the piss surely?

I think in many other posts Roylion has made his case as to why he thinks the hereditary nature of the monarchy is an advantage. Although more than most posters on here, I'd back him to patiently repeat himself if required.

 

[Roylion]

By its very nature ALL talk of the future is speculative. It is fanciful.

Well it's not really. Holding a referendum to alter the existing Constitution for a republic isnt fanciful. We know how the mechanism for such will work.

Having said that, given everything you know can you say that everything I've put forward a 100% impossibility to carry out? Given a political party has the will and the support of the electorate through promises made at election to actually see it through the way I've outlined, to

a) repeal the existing Constitution and therefore ending the Commonwealth of Australia as a Constitutional Monarchy

So you're now suggesting it wouldn't be just a simple vote to vote for a republic. That it would involve an Act of Parliament to repeal the existing constitution (which in itself would have to be a binding vote) and then replace it with a new constitution. Does that dissolve the federation of six states that form the existing Commonwealth of Australia? Would that new constitution be written beforehand for the citizens of Victoria, NSW. Qld, SA, WA and Tasmania to examine and consider before any vote? What happens if a State votes against the new Constitution and hence declines to join a new Federation?

can you honestly say that it is an impossibility? Or is it just unlikely? Not necessarily possible?

What is most likely is that the existing Constitution would be altered by a referendum. That's not fanciful.

 

[Roylion]

I just re-read this. Wow. Are you actually suggesting that if the Brits dumped us you'd be all for starting our own monarchy???? with a designated family to breed future bloodlines i assume? Where would we find the right person? I'd nominate Peter Daicos - throws good stock. You aren't serious are you Roy? taking the piss surely?

You appear to be against the monarch of the UK being also the monarch of Australia. I personally don't care either way. What I care about is having a head of state as apolitical as possible and has I have posted elsewhere is the hereditary aspect is the means by which a head of state can remain apolitical.

Once again.

"The advantages of a hereditary Monarchy are self-evident. Without some such method of prescriptive, immediate and automatic succession, an interregnum intervenes, rival claimants arise, continuity is interrupted and the magic lost. Apart from the imponderable, but deeply important, sentiments and affections which congregate around an ancient and legitimate Royal Family, a hereditary Monarch acquires sovereignty by processes which are wholly different from those by which a dictator seizes, or a President is granted, the headship of the State. The monarch personifies both the past history and the present identity of the Nation as a whole. In an epoch of change, he [she] remains the symbol of continuity; in a phase of disintegration, the element of cohesion; in times of mutability, the emblem of permanence. Governments come and go, politicians rise and fall: the Crown is always there. He [she] is not impelled as usurpers and dictators are impelled, either to mesmerise his people by a succession of dramatic triumphs, or to secure their acquiescence by internal terrorism or by the invention of external dangers. The appeal of hereditary Monarchy is to stability rather than to change, to continuity rather than to experiment, to custom rather than to novelty, to safety rather than to adventure.

The Monarch, above all, is neutral. Whatever may be his [her] personal prejudices or affections, he [she] is bound to remain detached from all political parties and to preserve in his own person the equilibrium of the realm. An elected President – whether, as under some constitutions, he be no more than a representative functionary, or whether, as under other constitutions, he being the chief executive – can never inspire the same sense of absolute neutrality. However impartial he may strive to become, he must always remain the prisoner of his own partisan past; he is accompanied by friends and supporters whom he may seek to reward, or faced by former antagonists who will regard him with distrust. He cannot, to an equal extent, serve as the fly-wheel of the State.”

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You appear to be against the monarch of the UK being also the monarch of Australia. I personally don't care either way. What I care about is having a head of state as apolitical as possible and has I have posted elsewhere is the hereditary aspect is the means by which a head of state can remain apolitical.

Once again.

"The advantages of a hereditary Monarchy are self-evident. Without some such method of prescriptive, immediate and automatic succession, an interregnum intervenes, rival claimants arise, continuity is interrupted and the magic lost. Apart from the imponderable, but deeply important, sentiments and affections which congregate around an ancient and legitimate Royal Family, a hereditary Monarch acquires sovereignty by processes which are wholly different from those by which a dictator seizes, or a President is granted, the headship of the State. The monarch personifies both the past history and the present identity of the Nation as a whole. In an epoch of change, he [she] remains the symbol of continuity; in a phase of disintegration, the element of cohesion; in times of mutability, the emblem of permanence. Governments come and go, politicians rise and fall: the Crown is always there. He [she] is not impelled as usurpers and dictators are impelled, either to mesmerise his people by a succession of dramatic triumphs, or to secure their acquiescence by internal terrorism or by the invention of external dangers. The appeal of hereditary Monarchy is to stability rather than to change, to continuity rather than to experiment, to custom rather than to novelty, to safety rather than to adventure.

The Monarch, above all, is neutral. Whatever may be his [her] personal prejudices or affections, he [she] is bound to remain detached from all political parties and to preserve in his own person the equilibrium of the realm. An elected President – whether, as under some constitutions, he be no more than a representative functionary, or whether, as under other constitutions, he being the chief executive – can never inspire the same sense of absolute neutrality. However impartial he may strive to become, he must always remain the prisoner of his own partisan past; he is accompanied by friends and supporters whom he may seek to reward, or faced by former antagonists who will regard him with distrust. He cannot, to an equal extent, serve as the fly-wheel of the State.”

so how would we go about getting a hereditary monarch if the Poms pulled the pin, Roy? Which family would get tapped?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I think in many other posts Roylion has made his case as to why he thinks the hereditary nature of the monarchy is an advantage. Although more than most posters on here, I'd back him to patiently repeat himself if required.

he hasn't really explained why heritage is a basis for any important role at all - just that he prefers it. Does he think these individuals are superior because of their DNA. I like that explained. Why DNA trumps qualification?

 

[The Punter]

he hasn't really explained why heritage is a basis for any important role at all - just that he prefers it. Does he think these individuals are superior because of their DNA. I like that explained. Why DNA trumps qualification?

Well, he might but I don't have an answer for you on why by accident of birth they deserve it, but he's made his case as to why it being awarded through accident of birth leads to the best outcome: they are neutral because they owe their position to no political or popular whim.

In my view the "why them and not us" argument is not possible to be made. I also care more that other aspects of the system work, and in my view, the current system works despite this inherent unfairness that the role is not open to everyone.

Roylion has also made the case in the past that the future heir gets trained in their duty from a very early age leaving more than qualified in the work they one day will be required to do (the government-related stuff, not the ribbon cutting).

 

[Roylion]

so how would we go about getting a hereditary monarch if the Poms pulled the pin, Roy? Which family would get tapped?

Change the line of succession to the Australian Crown to break the personal union of the Crowns.

Edward VIII would have still been the King of Australia in 1936, if the Australian government had not given its consent to his abdication. His brother George VI would still have been monarch of the UK, thus breaking the personal union between the British and Australian crowns.

Great Britain and Ireland (the Irish Free State) had this situation in 1936, when Edward remained King of Ireland for one day extra than in Great Britain...until their "Executive Authority Act" was passed.

 

[Roylion]

he hasn't really explained why heritage is a basis for any important role at all - just that he prefers it. Does he think these individuals are superior because of their DNA. I like that explained. Why DNA trumps qualification?

History and tradition as to the family.

And because of the hereditary aspect, future monarchs are trained from a young age to fulfil the constitutional duties and royal role required by the monarch and indeed often assists the existing monarch to carry out his/her royal duties, until they step into the full role themselves.

For example, from his teenage years, Charles had training in Constitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments.

When William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

I've explained this to you before.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Change the line of succession to the Australian Crown to break the personal union of the Crowns.

Edward VIII would have still been the King of Australia in 1936, if the Australian government had not given its consent to his abdication. His brother George VI would still have been monarch of the UK, thus breaking the personal union between the British and Australian crowns.

Great Britain and Ireland (the Irish Free State) had this situation in 1936, when Edward remained King of Ireland for one day extra than in Great Britain...until their "Executive Authority Act" was passed.

Change the line of succession to the Australian Crown to break the personal union of the Crowns.

Edward VIII would have still been the King of Australia in 1936, if the Australian government had not given its consent to his abdication. His brother George VI would still have been monarch of the UK, thus breaking the personal union between the British and Australian crowns.

Great Britain and Ireland (the Irish Free State) had this situation in 1936, when Edward remained King of Ireland for one day extra than in Great Britain...until their "Executive Authority Act" was passed.

sorry but you might have a few cards missing from your deck. you cannot be serious.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

History and tradition as to the family.

And because of the hereditary aspect, future monarchs are trained from a young age to fulfil the constitutional duties and royal role required by the monarch and indeed often assists the existing monarch to carry out his/her royal duties, until they step into the full role themselves.

For example, from his teenage years, Charles had training in Constitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different governmental departments.

When William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

I've explained this to you before.

and i thought it was bullshit then. We train the first born even if he's an imbecile - because he was first born. This is madness.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Well, he might but I don't have an answer for you on why by accident of birth they deserve it, but he's made his case as to why it being awarded through accident of birth leads to the best outcome: they are neutral because they owe their position to no political or popular whim.

In my view the "why them and not us" argument is not possible to be made. I also care more that other aspects of the system work, and in my view, the current system works despite this inherent unfairness that the role is not open to everyone.

Roylion has also made the case in the past that the future heir gets trained in their duty from a very early age leaving more than qualified in the work they one day will be required to do (the government-related stuff, not the ribbon cutting).

you hitched your wagon to some loopy shit here Punter. good luck. Its madness and you know it.

 

[The Punter]

you hitched your wagon to some loopy shit here Punter. good luck. Its madness and you know it.

I live in a stable representative democracy. Plenty of alternatives around if you prefer them.

I'd say the fact that I don't care would make you angry, but can you make an already angry person angry? Perhaps too philosophical for these parts, but not for BigFooty's manifestly inadequate swear filter.

Everyone have a good weekend - try to relax.

 

[Roylion]

and i thought it was bullshit then.

Then why did you ask me again?

We train the first born even if he's an imbecile - because he was first born. This is madness.

I've already said there are mechanisms to get around this.

 

[Roylion]

sorry but you might have a few cards missing from your deck. you cannot be serious.

You asked me how. I told you how. The Crown of Australia and the Crown of the UK are legally separate.

I'm happy to keep it as it already is. There are plenty of constitutional monarchies around the world that have hereditary succession.

 

[NSWCROW]

Yes it should

But fat ****en chance of it happening anytime soon after all those " 'straya first " pAtrIoTs shot down the voice
No Labor leader's gonna try it now and we know the bootlicker conservatives certainly won't.

 

[NSWCROW]