Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Reg Grundy35]

You have demonstrated no such thing.

The monarch's personal prerogative powers:

• the rights to advise, encourage and warn ministers in private
• to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers
• to assent to legislation
• to prorogue or dissolve parliament
• to act contrary to or without ministerial advice

Gordon Brown tried to reform these powers when he came to office in 2007.
- Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170 (London: HM Government, 2007), para 24


Parliament & the Executive exercises power under the supervision of the monarch.
The monarch sits above parliament and the Executive.

Educate yourself and stop talking shit.

exactly. It is quite bizarre. Roy appears to be making an argument that the monarch is basically quite powerless. Begs the question - why have them then? Of course, they and their agents are not powerless as we well know.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

A "simple vote" could technically happen, but that vote cannot be used to abolish the Constitution.
How the Constitution can be changed is 'double entrenched'.
Meaning it can only be changed by the manner & form outlined in the Constitution. (A referendum resulting in the support of the majority in the majority of states)

That same double entrenching prevents a state from seceding of its own volition, as WA tried to do in the 1930's.
The Constitution makes no provision for a state leaving, to change who is a part of the federation would require a change in the Constitution and therefore a referendum (the support of the majority in a majority of states).

Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that has been written up by humans can be undone by other humans. Given the will. Given a way. There will be legal loop-holes and step-asides and work-arounds that better legal minds than mine will be able to take full advantage of.

If there's a will there will be a way.

Up the Republic!!

 

[Roylion]

The monarch's personal prerogative powers:

• the rights to advise, encourage and warn ministers in private

Yes? I've said this previously. See below.

• to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers

The monarch appoints the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister holds that position by virtue of his or her ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons the makeup of which is expressed through a general election by the electorate. The monarch last used personal choice to appoint a prime minister in 1834, but this is no longer done. In the UK the Prime Minister is the accepted leader of the political party that commands the majority of the House of Commons. In the event that there is no majority political parties hold discussions to establish who is best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons they form the next government.

The monarch also appoints Ministers on the advice of the prime minister. Ministers exercise the bulk of the prerogative powers often through the advice that they provide to the Sovereign, which he or she is constitutionally bound to follow. The monarch exercises the prerogative powers only on the advice of the government either directly or through the Privy Council.

• to assent to legislation
• to prorogue or dissolve parliament
• to act contrary to or without ministerial advice

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, British political scientist, historian and research professor, in 1995 stated:

"In everyday speech, to offer advice to someone is to offer an opinion or make a suggestion as to how that person should act. The person to whom the advice is given is quite free to accept or to reject it. The term ‘advice’ used in connection with constitutional monarchy, however, has a quite different meaning. When ministers offer advice to the sovereign, that advice is binding and the sovereign has normally no option but to accept it."

In other words, formal advice is actually an instruction from ministers to the monarch to act in a certain way. Royal assent for a Bill passed by the two houses of Parliament and approved by Cabinet is formal advice.

Constitutional expert Anne Twomey makes the distinction between formal advice and informal advice

"The critical difference between formal and informal advice arises due to the application of the principle of responsible government ... when formal advice is given to the head of state by responsible ministers, the responsibility for the actions taken by the head of state pursuant to that advice is transferred from the head of state to the relevant ministers […] When informal advice is given, however, there is no obligation to act upon it and there is no shift in responsibility for the actions undertaken."

And of course the monarch has the right to advise, encourage and warn ministers when given advice.

Sir William Heseltine, Private Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II stated that:

"1. The Sovereign has the right — indeed a duty — to counsel, encourage and warn her Government. She is thus entitled to have opinions on Government policy and to express them to her chief Minister.

2. Whatever personal opinions the Sovereign may hold or may have expressed to her Government, she is bound to accept and act on the advice of her Ministers."

In regards to royal assent Herbert Asquith, wrote to King George V

"The part to be played by the Crown […] has happily been settled by the accumulated traditions and the unbroken practice of more than seventy years. It is to act upon the advice of the Ministers who for the time being possess the confidence of the House of Commons, whether that advice does or does not conform to the private and personal judgement of the Sovereign. Ministers will always pay the utmost deference, and give the most serious consideration, to any criticism or objection that the Monarch may offer to their policy; but the ultimate decision rests with them; for they, and not the Crown, are responsible to Parliament."


Anne Twomey says [the term 'royal assent'] "suggests that an underlying discretion may continue to exist, albeit one that is heavily circumscribed by constitutional convention."

This would: "prohibit such a discretion being exercised on policy grounds alone. It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts."

In other words, royal assent must always be given, except in cases where courts could not deal with any breaches of the constitution by the government and even then only to uphold constitutional principles. It can't be withheld because the monarch disagrees with the policy.

So, the monarch cannot withhold royal assent on his/her personal discretion. The monarch cannot do as he or she likes.

Gordon Brown tried to reform these powers when he came to office in 2007.
- Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170 (London: HM Government, 2007), para 24


Parliament & the Executive exercises power under the supervision of the monarch.
The monarch sits above parliament and the Executive.

Where there is a conflict between the royal prerogative and statute, statute prevails. Parliament can pass legislation to abolish a prerogative power or restrict how that prerogative power can be exercised. Advice to the monarch can come from the Cabinet, Parliament, the Privy Council and judges. Formal advice is constitutionally binding and must be followed by the monarch.

Educate yourself and stop talking shit.

You should take your own advice.

 

[IlovethePies]

Who cares? Will make no difference to the cost of living crisis.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Who cares? Will make no difference to the cost of living crisis.

you might have wandered into the wrong thread. Its pretty much for people who care. Thats why it was started.

 

[IlovethePies]

you might have wandered into the wrong thread. Its pretty much for people who care. Thats why it was started.

But they shouldn't care. A republic of Australia will be just as detrimental to the interests of the working population as the current set up.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

But they shouldn't care. A republic of Australia will be just as detrimental to the interests of the working population as the current set up.

how do you know that?

 

[The Punter]

how do you know that?

Care to make the case that an Australian Republic will improve people's lives? Or is it just a case of it being Schrodinger's System of Government?

Those who want change need to make the case, and in my view, the case needs to be stronger than "I can't be the Head of State because I am not a Windsor" because that hasn't worked in the past and we've run the experiment.

 

[burge13]

Care to make the case that an Australian Republic will improve people's lives? Or is it just a case of it being Schrodinger's System of Government?

Those who want change need to make the case, and in my view, the case needs to be stronger than "I can't be the Head of State because I am not a Windsor" because that hasn't worked in the past and we've run the experiment.

The reason he won't answer anything is because he can't think of a reason to back him up...

 

[The Punter]

The reason he won't answer anything is because he can't think of a reason to back him up...

The inherent unfairness of a role such as the Head of State being unavailable to almost everyone, or only being available to someone because of accident of birth, I can understand as a criticism.

I just don't care. The current system works. We have enduring stable government and institutions. We have peaceful and orderly transitions of power. We've had one constitutional crisis in 123 years. I've made my case for the status quo, as have others.

 

[Gough]

Philosophical concepts like patriotism can be applied to more things than just sport and supporting a foreigner as our state always seems slightly odd in a country that all but weaponised the term unAustralian.

 

[Roylion]

The inherent unfairness of a role such as the Head of State being unavailable to almost everyone, or only being available to someone because of accident of birth, I can understand as a criticism.

I see it as a strength of the system, for reasons I have already explained.

 

[The Punter]

I see it as a strength of the system, for reasons I have already explained.

Yes, and I acknowledge your explanation. I can just understand the issue some have with a governmental system where a central role is based on birth. I just don't have the same depth of feeling because I can concede how well the system works in spite (or because of, as you have advocated) that fact.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Care to make the case that an Australian Republic will improve people's lives? Or is it just a case of it being Schrodinger's System of Government?

Those who want change need to make the case, and in my view, the case needs to be stronger than "I can't be the Head of State because I am not a Windsor" because that hasn't worked in the past and we've run the experiment.

that case will never be made to full-blown monarchists and the "don't care" merchants like you. The referendum system and the usual demolition job will be implemented on any model other than the status quo and well you know it. You must be devastated at the health reports on Australia's king? I assume his once a decade visit to his loyal subjects is now in jeopardy.

 

[The Punter]

You must be devastated at the health reports on Australia's king?

Not really, but I wish him well and hope he is able to beat it.

Either way, the system will endure his eventual death, just like it did two years ago when his mother passed away.

 

[burge13]

that case will never be made to full-blown monarchists and the "don't care" merchants like you. The referendum system and the usual demolition job will be implemented on any model other than the status quo and well you know it. You must be devastated at the health reports on Australia's king? I assume his once a decade visit to his loyal subjects is now in jeopardy.

You do realise you only make yourself look a complete flog right? No one has been unreasonable asking you to make the case which you've repeatedly been unable to do

 

[Number37]

Yes? I've said this previously. See below.


The monarch appoints the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister holds that position by virtue of his or her ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons the makeup of which is expressed through a general election by the electorate. The monarch last used personal choice to appoint a prime minister in 1834, but this is no longer done. In the UK the Prime Minister is the accepted leader of the political party that commands the majority of the House of Commons. In the event that there is no majority political parties hold discussions to establish who is best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons they form the next government.

The monarch also appoints Ministers on the advice of the prime minister. Ministers exercise the bulk of the prerogative powers often through the advice that they provide to the Sovereign, which he or she is constitutionally bound to follow. The monarch exercises the prerogative powers only on the advice of the government either directly or through the Privy Council.


Sir Vernon Bogdanor, British political scientist, historian and research professor, in 1995 stated:

"In everyday speech, to offer advice to someone is to offer an opinion or make a suggestion as to how that person should act. The person to whom the advice is given is quite free to accept or to reject it. The term ‘advice’ used in connection with constitutional monarchy, however, has a quite different meaning. When ministers offer advice to the sovereign, that advice is binding and the sovereign has normally no option but to accept it."

In other words, formal advice is actually an instruction from ministers to the monarch to act in a certain way. Royal assent for a Bill passed by the two houses of Parliament and approved by Cabinet is formal advice.

Constitutional expert Anne Twomey makes the distinction between formal advice and informal advice

"The critical difference between formal and informal advice arises due to the application of the principle of responsible government ... when formal advice is given to the head of state by responsible ministers, the responsibility for the actions taken by the head of state pursuant to that advice is transferred from the head of state to the relevant ministers […] When informal advice is given, however, there is no obligation to act upon it and there is no shift in responsibility for the actions undertaken."

And of course the monarch has the right to advise, encourage and warn ministers when given advice.

Sir William Heseltine, Private Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II stated that:

"1. The Sovereign has the right — indeed a duty — to counsel, encourage and warn her Government. She is thus entitled to have opinions on Government policy and to express them to her chief Minister.

2. Whatever personal opinions the Sovereign may hold or may have expressed to her Government, she is bound to accept and act on the advice of her Ministers."

In regards to royal assent Herbert Asquith, wrote to King George V

"The part to be played by the Crown […] has happily been settled by the accumulated traditions and the unbroken practice of more than seventy years. It is to act upon the advice of the Ministers who for the time being possess the confidence of the House of Commons, whether that advice does or does not conform to the private and personal judgement of the Sovereign. Ministers will always pay the utmost deference, and give the most serious consideration, to any criticism or objection that the Monarch may offer to their policy; but the ultimate decision rests with them; for they, and not the Crown, are responsible to Parliament."


Anne Twomey says [the term 'royal assent'] "suggests that an underlying discretion may continue to exist, albeit one that is heavily circumscribed by constitutional convention."

This would: "prohibit such a discretion being exercised on policy grounds alone. It could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts."

In other words, royal assent must always be given, except in cases where courts could not deal with any breaches of the constitution by the government and even then only to uphold constitutional principles. It can't be withheld because the monarch disagrees with the policy.

So, the monarch cannot withhold royal assent on his/her personal discretion. The monarch cannot do as he or she likes.



Where there is a conflict between the royal prerogative and statute, statute prevails. Parliament can pass legislation to abolish a prerogative power or restrict how that prerogative power can be exercised. Advice to the monarch can come from the Cabinet, Parliament, the Privy Council and judges. Formal advice is constitutionally binding and must be followed by the monarch.


You should take your own advice.

LOL
LOL
LOL

You are once again parroting things without knowing what you are saying nor are you engaging in any critical thinking.

One of the monarch's reserve powers is to act without, or contrary to, ministerial advice.
Are you that incapable of critical thinking that you do not understand that "without, or contrary to" means that the monarch does not have to follow ministerial advice.
Like I have tried to explain to you for months now...if the monarch says "yeah nah" nobody knows what happens.
Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff. The ace the monarch holds is that they can sack the govt.
Again, for the 5 millionth time, what you continue to post as fact, is no more than supposition.
Nobody can say for sure what happens if the monarch decides that they will ignore advice.

 

[Roylion]

One of the monarch's reserve powers is to act without, or contrary to, ministerial advice.

I've made it clear that the monarch must act on the receiving of formal advice from their ministers

Are you that incapable of critical thinking that you do not understand that "without, or contrary to" means that the monarch does not have to follow ministerial advice.

That's not what the constitutional experts say

Once again...

Sir Vernon Bogdanor, British political scientist, historian and research professor
"When ministers offer advice to the sovereign, that advice is binding and the sovereign has normally no option but to accept it."

Constitutional expert Anne Twomey made the distinction between formal advice and informal advice

"The critical difference between formal and informal advice arises due to the application of the principle of responsible government ... when formal advice is given to the head of state by responsible ministers, the responsibility for the actions taken by the head of state pursuant to that advice is transferred from the head of state to the relevant ministers […] When informal advice is given, however, there is no obligation to act upon it and there is no shift in responsibility for the actions undertaken."

Sir William Heseltine, Private Secretary to Queen Elizabeth II stated that:

"Whatever personal opinions the Sovereign may hold or may have expressed to her Government, she is bound to accept and act on the advice of her Ministers."

In regards to royal assent Herbert Asquith, wrote to King George V

"It is to act upon the advice of the Ministers who for the time being possess the confidence of the House of Commons, whether that advice does or does not conform to the private and personal judgement of the Sovereign. Ministers will always pay the utmost deference, and give the most serious consideration, to any criticism or objection that the Monarch may offer to their policy; but the ultimate decision rests with them; for they, and not the Crown, are responsible to Parliament."

Anne Twomey says that refusal of royal assent..."could only be legitimately exercised to uphold fundamental constitutional principles such as representative and responsible government, and then, only in circumstances where the matter could not be dealt with by the courts."

In other words, royal assent must always be given, except in cases where courts could not deal with any breaches of the constitution by the government and even then only to uphold constitutional principles. It can't be withheld because the monarch personally disagrees with the policy.

Like I have tried to explain to you for months now...if the monarch says "yeah nah" nobody knows what happens.

The monarch is constitutionally bound to accept formal advice.

Lots of Constitution experts would say that in the event that the monarch won't accept the advice of the govt, then it becomes a Mexican standoff.

Who?

Here's what some constitutional experts have said about the monarch rejecting the advice of his ministers.

Sir Vernon Bogandor says the consequence of the monarch rejecting formal advice “would be the resignation of the government. The consequence would be to put the sovereign in a position in which he or she was opposed by one of the great parties of the state. No constitutional sovereign can survive for long once he or she comes to be seen as a partisan."

Anne Twomey considered that was "most unlikely to occur in practice" In other words the monarch would not reject formal advice from their ministers.

Reginald Baliol Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher and courtier to George V wrote
"If the Sovereign believes advice to him to be wrong, he may refuse to take it, and if his minister yields the Sovereign is justified. If the minister persists, feeling that he has behind him a majority of the people’s representatives, a constitutional Sovereign must give way."

Harold Nicholson wrote in 1952

"when [the monarch] feels the advice given him is either dangerous or opposed to the wishes of the people as a whole, [the King] is to insist that the Cabinet shall furnish him with that advice in written form so that he also may have the opportunity of recording, in writing, that he follows that advice with misgiving and reluctance."

In other words the monarch knows he MUST follow the formal advice of his ministers.

The ace the monarch holds is that they can sack the govt.

A Prime Minister (and therefore his or her government) can be dismissed by the monarch, although this last occurred in 1834. In the UK this can only be done if that Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the House of Commons and refuses to resign as a result. The monarch is hence not bound to act on the advice of a person who has ceased to be a responsible adviser. Responsible advisers are those ministers who hold the confidence of the lower House of the Parliament and who are responsible to the people through the Parliament for the advice that they give to the monarch or her vice-regal representatives (say in Australia).

The decision by the monarch to remove a Prime Minister (and hence the sitting government) can only occur in the event of the above situation.

Again, for the 5 millionth time, what you continue to post as fact, is no more than supposition.

The monarch can only summon, prorogue or dissolve Parliament on minsterial advice. See above for what happens if a PM has lost the confidence of the lower house of Parliament.

Nobody can say for sure what happens if the monarch decides that they will ignore advice.

The monarch cannot ignore advice from responsible advisers who have given formal advice to the monarch. Informal advice can be ignored.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You do realise you only make yourself look a complete flog right? No one has been unreasonable asking you to make the case which you've repeatedly been unable to do

The case is simple - the head of state of a country should be a resident of that country. Not a citizen of a foreign country on the other side of the planet who comes over and waves once a decade. Only then will that country be an independent and mature nation and not a cringing laughing stock with someone else's brand stamped on their flag. Apparently this is a completely unreasonable position to take for the anglophiles and forelock tuggers in here. So be it.

 

[burge13]

The case is simple - the head of state of a country should be a resident of that country. Not a citizen of a foreign country on the other side of the planet who comes over and waves once a decade. Only then will that country be an independent and mature nation and not a cringing laughing stock with someone else's brand stamped on their flag. Apparently this is a completely unreasonable position to take for the anglophiles and forelock tuggers in here. So be it.

Only the bolded is unreasonable, no one cares that much. Not even you deep down

It's not unreasonable to want a local, I guess. Not enough reason for me to care or want change. It'd be a no vote unless someone can prove it actually, tangibly improves our day to day lives. Also not an unreasonable stance

If you polled every Aussie, how many do you think know who the HOS is? Then how many know what it does? To care so much about such meaningless shit I actually enjoy knowing this isn't getting up in our lifetime. Not that it'd matter if it did either, its just hilarious how angry some of you are over something that doesn't actually affect you in the slightest

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Only the bolded is unreasonable, no one cares that much. Not even you deep down

It's not unreasonable to want a local, I guess. Not enough reason for me to care or want change. It'd be a no vote unless someone can prove it actually, tangibly improves our day to day lives. Also not an unreasonable stance

If you polled every Aussie, how many do you think know who the HOS is? Then how many know what it does? To care so much about such meaningless shit I actually enjoy knowing this isn't getting up in our lifetime. Not that it'd matter if it did either, its just hilarious how angry some of you are over something that doesn't actually affect you in the slightest

The "dumbarse" argument. It'll probably get up actually

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Only the bolded is unreasonable, no one cares that much. Not even you deep down

It's not unreasonable to want a local, I guess. Not enough reason for me to care or want change. It'd be a no vote unless someone can prove it actually, tangibly improves our day to day lives. Also not an unreasonable stance

If you polled every Aussie, how many do you think know who the HOS is? Then how many know what it does? To care so much about such meaningless shit I actually enjoy knowing this isn't getting up in our lifetime. Not that it'd matter if it did either, its just hilarious how angry some of you are over something that doesn't actually affect you in the slightest

also i suggest telling people what they should or shouldn't care about and that in fact they deep down "don't really care" is either the height of arrogance or evidence of some social disability or possibly both. Do better.

 

[Demons09]

The reason he won't answer anything is because he can't think of a reason to back him up...

He has made a case it’s called the vibe lol.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

He has made a case it’s called the vibe lol.

I'm waiting for someone to make an intelligent case for kissing the arse of a foreign king and having his flag stuck on ours.

 

[IlovethePies]

how do you know that?

Do you really think that changing the ultimate head of the nation from a king to a president in any way would change the current state of global economic crisis, mounting xenophobia, and the growing international rise of fascist political tendencies?

The policies of the Albanese goverment follow the international trend of growing attacks on democratic rights and ballooning spending on the military along with cutbacks to essential social spending (hospitals, schools etc)

Albanese, and his loyal opposition (Dutton) are being driven by the imperatives of a global crisis.

This crisis will not differentiate between PM Albo or President Albo.