Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Gralin]

Gralin, I've been giving it some thought. In the Lydia Thorpe thread, while seemingly not against the idea of a Republic (correct me if I'm wrong!) you seem pretty pessimistic about what it might actually bring, especially with regards to Aboriginal Australia. I think it will introduce a positive political base structure that they feel they can actually BELONG TO, rather than the still-alien colonial relic they live on the periphery of right now.

I don't think it will change anything material day to day about how the country is run

Yes, knowing Australia's penchant for 'she'll be right, mate' political apathy there IS the danger that the public will think "right, job's done let's down tools" but I'd like to think that the prospect of a brand new nation might light a fire, a political fire, in a good few bellies that are just currently going through the motions.

That's just it, it won't be a brand new nation, it will be the same nation with a different head of state

I don't know, maybe I'm too optimistic. Your skepticism though, I can't quite see things that way either.

I know you can't

 

[Gough]

Be interesting to see the reaction of the suckhole monarchists like Abbott and Dutton when their King describes climate change as an existential threat.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I don't think it will change anything material day to day about how the country is run

Would you vote for any kind of a Republic yourself?

 

[Gralin]

Would you vote for any kind of a Republic yourself?

yes

I'm not saying a republic is bad I'm saying your view of what a republic will mean and do is to me very far from the reality of this country

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

yes

I'm not saying a republic is bad I'm saying your view of what a republic will mean and do is to me very far from the reality of this country

I can see where you're coming from

 

[barreness]

Its not just due to generational change. Thats been happening for millions of years. Likewise its too simple to say education. Education has also been happening for centuries.

Its due to western democratic capitalism which has rejected religion/gods and king/queen/nationalism as its key social driver in favour of human individidualism.

The very system you are against is the very system that has opened up and embraced minorities as equal members of society and humanity. China and Russia arent supportive of such minorities yet they also have very high education rates and the same rate of generational change. And why is that? Their systems dont embrace individualism and the rights of humans.

I literally don't know if you're taking the piss here?

 

[Seeds]

I literally don't know if you're taking the piss here?

Maybe you should read up more on the history of democracy, humanism and capitalism and find out what drove it.

 

[barreness]

Maybe you should read up more on the history of democracy, humanism and capitalism and find out what drove it.

Perhaps you should look into the USSR and CCP's atheism, anti monarchy views, and fights against nationalism


Xi is embracing nationalism and Russia isn't a socialist project anymore, the point stands though

 

[Gough]

Step 1. Have your family pillage the world for 150 years
Step 2. Live off the stuff they pinched

Prince William: ‘I’ll show people how to prevent homelessness’

Heir to the throne responds to criticism about his Homewards programme in two-part ITV documentary

www.theguardian.com

 

[peetoo]

Duchy of Cornwall? I know the holdings aren’t strictly Cornwall, but Cornwall is the poster county for inequity, with all the seconfpd homes held by rich londoners, and poorly paid locals priced out of the marker


Mayme he could start there and not just with flimflam virtue signalling

 

[Roylion]

Duchy of Cornwall? I know the holdings aren’t strictly Cornwall, but Cornwall is the poster county for inequity, with all the seconfpd homes held by rich londoners, and poorly paid locals priced out of the marker

The hereditary Duchy of Cornwall estate consists of 54,521 hectares - 0.2% of UK land. Only 13% of the Duchy of Cornwall is actually in the county of Cornwall.



It is not the county of Cornwall.

 

[Gethelred]

Gralin, I've been giving it some thought. In the Lydia Thorpe thread, while seemingly not against the idea of a Republic (correct me if I'm wrong!) you seem pretty pessimistic about what it might actually bring, especially with regards to Aboriginal Australia. I think it will introduce a positive political base structure that they feel they can actually BELONG TO, rather than the still-alien colonial relic they live on the periphery of right now.

Yes, knowing Australia's penchant for 'she'll be right, mate' political apathy there IS the danger that the public will think "right, job's done let's down tools" but I'd like to think that the prospect of a brand new nation might light a fire, a political fire, in a good few bellies that are just currently going through the motions.

I don't know, maybe I'm too optimistic. Your skepticism though, I can't quite see things that way either.

I mean, I said it before in the Referendum thread: instead of having a Governor-General, have the Voice to Parliament. Keep the Westminister system, two party stuff, but give a First Nations body, department etc the power of Royal Assent.

You could adjust certain aspects of the base WM system:

• the Voice is allowed to table bills for parliament to consider.
• the Voice is allowed more open use of Royal Assent than the current GG possesses.
• the Voice can exercise the Reserve powers to dismiss a government if that government is proven to be unfit.

One wonders if John Howard's NT intervention would've gotten past a First Nations person with the powers of the GG and the power to kick his government on its arse.

 

[peetoo]

I mean, I said it before in the Referendum thread: instead of having a Governor-General, have the Voice to Parliament. Keep the Westminister system, two party stuff, but give a First Nations body, department etc the power of Royal Assent.

You could adjust certain aspects of the base WM system:

• the Voice is allowed to table bills for parliament to consider.
• the Voice is allowed more open use of Royal Assent than the current GG possesses.
• the Voice can exercise the Reserve powers to dismiss a government if that government is proven to be unfit.

One wonders if John Howard's NT intervention would've gotten past a First Nations person with the powers of the GG and the power to kick his government on its arse.

No surprises the usual suspects when debating ‘extra power by virtue of birth’ would condemn that for indigenous, but defend wiypth last breath similar for the Windsors


What is so special about the windsors by the way? German immigrants

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I mean, I said it before in the Referendum thread: instead of having a Governor-General, have the Voice to Parliament. Keep the Westminister system, two party stuff, but give a First Nations body, department etc the power of Royal Assent.

You could adjust certain aspects of the base WM system:

• the Voice is allowed to table bills for parliament to consider.
• the Voice is allowed more open use of Royal Assent than the current GG possesses.
• the Voice can exercise the Reserve powers to dismiss a government if that government is proven to be unfit.

One wonders if John Howard's NT intervention would've gotten past a First Nations person with the powers of the GG and the power to kick his government on its arse.

That's an interesting direction that a future Republic might take. I actually don't mind it. Gina and the Magnates on the other hand...

 

[Leeda]

Bettinghouse....we are struck by the ridiculously untrue sources of halloween....

 

[Leeda]

No surprises the usual suspects when debating ‘extra power by virtue of birth’ would condemn that for indigenous, but defend wiypth last breath similar for the Windsors


What is so special about the windsors by the way? German immigrants

Gethy is loving the excuse to resort to flybirds and brickhardmoats

 

[Roylion]

No surprises the usual suspects when debating ‘extra power by virtue of birth’ would condemn that for indigenous, but defend wiypth last breath similar for the Windsors

Keep it outside politics....why not.

What is so special about the windsors by the way? German immigrants

Invited by the English Parliament, on account of being the senior Protestant descendant of James I, to assume the throne. Every monarch since 1760 has been born in Britain.

 

[peetoo]

Keep it outside politics....why not.


Invited by the English Parliament, on account of being the senior Protestant descendant of James I, to assume the throne. Every monarch since 1760 has been born in Britain.

18 years before our convict roots?

And it’s far from ‘outside politics’ you know that

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Be interesting to see the reaction of the suckhole monarchists like Abbott and Dutton when their King describes climate change as an existential threat.

No one cares apart from you.

 

[Roylion]

18 years before our convict roots?

28 years. Before George III, only William I, William II, Stephen, Henry II, Richard II, Edward IV (all born in France) and William III (born in the Netherlands.) were born outside Britain. Excluding also George I and George II, who of course were born in Hanover located in what is now Germany, all other 31 monarchs since 1066 were born in Britain.

And it’s far from ‘outside politics’ you know that

As Harold George Nicholson said

"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....."

"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 be 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.”

 

[peetoo]

28 years. Before George III, only William I, William II, Stephen, Henry II, Richard II, Edward IV (all born in France) and William III (born in the Netherlands.) were born outside Britain. Excluding also George I and George II, who of course were born in Hanover located in what is now Germany, all other 31 monarchs since 1066 were born in Britain.



As Harold George Nicholson said

"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....."

"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 be 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.”

Well now britain has returned to screwing the working poor and just poor classes, I guess continuity is real.

Debatable if it’s a virtue though