Republic of Australia

[Arachnid]

If there was a split the the Coalition, then what would happen in the states where the two parties have actually merged?

In 1998 they had only merged in the NT, the Nats never existed in Tassie and in Qld the LNP hadn't happened and presumably won't happen.

The 1999 rerefendum question, in the event of it passing, is signed, sealed and delivered. I don't see what the Coalition government could do to amend it and keep it minimalist (the constitutional amedment is this, after all: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.)

A President appointed by 2/3rd of the house is a minimalist model, i.e. basically no change, but you are right that the wording of the referendum means that even if Howards gets run over by a bus you aren't going to get a popularly elected President.

 

[Rickshaw]

A President appointed by 2/3rd of the house is a minimalist model, i.e. basically no change, but you are right that the wording of the referendum means that even if Howards gets run over by a bus you aren't going to get a popularly elected President.

Howard clevery made sure that the whole Republican issue would collapse. Rather than saying, "OK, lets hold a referendum to see if the people want a Republic" (which IMHO could have been passed in a flash), he said, "OK, lets present the people with a model which they hate and so it will be knocked back!" And so the farce of a constitutional convention was held. Parliament was never going to agree to a popularly elected el Presidente, while the people were never going to agree to a Parliamentary elected el Presidente. Howard's solution played on the impasse and made sure that the Republican issue was killed, at least for a generation IMHO. Howard always was a clever bastard and knew how to play the odds to get what he wanted (which was invariably another term in power). Problem was, in the end he proved too clever for himself and the result was WorkChoices which got him booted out. A classic case of over-confidence and over-reach.

 

[jeckl]

I don't see why people want to be a republic, nothing good would come of it. the main reason I hear is so or leader would be 'Australian', but neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were born is oz, and I find the whole idea xenophobic and Americanizing. Two things I hate with all my heart and all my mind and all my soul.

 

[Seldrin]

I don't see why people want to be a republic, nothing good would come of it. the main reason I hear is so or leader would be 'Australian', but neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were born is oz, and I find the whole idea xenophobic and Americanizing. Two things I hate with all my heart and all my mind and all my soul.

Mate I agree completely. I personally will secede my property when the republicans inevitably win.

 

[Arachnid]

Mate I agree completely. I personally will secede my property when the republicans inevitably win.

I think you are wrong about that. If you look at the figures for the referendum the Republican vote was highest among inner city Anglo's with Monarchist majorities from Southern European and Vietnamese heavy suburbs. That suggests to me that the demographics are heading against the Republic. Also most of the recent polling suggests increased support for the monarchy as the generations who remember and care about the dismissal shrink.

 

[Rickshaw]

I don't see why people want to be a republic, nothing good would come of it. the main reason I hear is so or leader would be 'Australian', but neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were born is oz, and I find the whole idea xenophobic and Americanizing. Two things I hate with all my heart and all my mind and all my soul.

Well, the idea of a Republic in Australia is nearly as old as the colonisation of the continent actually, so claiming its "Americanising" is beyond me.

My personal problem with us having the Queen (and by extension her brood) as our HoS is that they have a considerable conflict of interest. The Queen wears many crowns. Her primary one though, is as the Queen of the UK. She and members of her family have often acted as part of trade missions to other nations, promoting the UK at the detriment of us and other members of the Commonwealth which she is the HoS of. Further, when it comes to other conflicts, particularly political and constitutional, the Queen is constitutionally bound to act in favour of the UK. Where does that leave us or the other members of the Commonwealth?

This is an issue of the Monarchist/Republic debate that rarely gets addressed unfortunately but its an important one.

Now, I'm not particularly wedded to the idea of us having a Republic, per se. I'd be quite happy to have a _real_ Australian monarchy. It would be an excellent compromise IMHO. It would answer the Monarchists' ideal - they'd have someone to bow and scrape to when the occasion calls for it and the new Monarch could be (theoretically at least) impartial and above the humdrum of day-to-day politics. It would also answer the Republicans' calls that we must absolutely have an Australian HoS.

The best solution as to who should be the monarch would be to follow the time honoured tradition of inviting a spare Royal to take up the post. I'd actually like to see Anne get the guernsey. She's the most sensible of the lot, IMO. Takes after her Mum and isn't so silly as to let her genitals do her thinking for her as the males of that family seem prone to. She'll never be Queen under the present laws of succession and might like the opportunity to have her own Kingdom (Queendom?). Her sprog, Zara seems semi-sensible as well, like her Mum and so would be a good successor. Anyway her hubby plays Rugby so he can't be all bad and I can't imagine anything better than a consort who's willing to get out on the playing field!

Oh, and one last thing, our Monarch and consort would have to be citizens of our Nation, not of some foreign one and would have to renounce all ties to the UK and it's Monarchy - just so we know where their loyalties lie, understand?

 

[MRegent]

I would have probably sulked, then again considering I was only eight at the time I might not have noticed until I started researching this sort of thing in high school.
Still, even if I believed in republicanism if I was as of voting age at the time I still would have voted against it. Not because of the Parlimentary appointment you understand, but because of my sheer discust of the majority of australian federal politicians.
Suffice it to say I would support niether Gillard or Abbot for President, and I doubt they would select someone worthy of the position.

-MRegent

 

[ColeMercury]

I don't see why people want to be a republic, nothing good would come of it. the main reason I hear is so or leader would be 'Australian', but neither the PM nor the leader of the opposition were born is oz, and I find the whole idea xenophobic and Americanizing. Two things I hate with all my heart and all my mind and all my soul.

They're both Australian citizens, though. Is it too much to ask that our head of state is an Australian citizen, as well as our head of government?

And I find the idea that a non-hereditary head of state is in any way "American" absolutely fucking ridiculous. It's not like they invented the idea. And, I might add, that your claim of it being "Americanizing" is itself xenophobic. (I'm not sure, but I think that's irony right there...) But let me just say this: if getting rid of an anachronistic, undemocratic, oligarchic institution and replacing it with one that is democratic and egalitarian is "American", then the Americans have had a good idea for once and we need to steal it.

My personal problem with us having the Queen (and by extension her brood) as our HoS is that they have a considerable conflict of interest. The Queen wears many crowns. Her primary one though, is as the Queen of the UK. She and members of her family have often acted as part of trade missions to other nations, promoting the UK at the detriment of us and other members of the Commonwealth which she is the HoS of. Further, when it comes to other conflicts, particularly political and constitutional, the Queen is constitutionally bound to act in favour of the UK. Where does that leave us or the other members of the Commonwealth?

This is an issue of the Monarchist/Republic debate that rarely gets addressed unfortunately but its an important one.

I have two main issues with the monarchy -- in order of importance, this one is #2. But it's still important. A monarchy is bad enough, but a foreign monarchy?

Now, I'm not particularly wedded to the idea of us having a Republic, per se. I'd be quite happy to have a _real_ Australian monarchy. It would be an excellent compromise IMHO. It would answer the Monarchists' ideal - they'd have someone to bow and scrape to when the occasion calls for it and the new Monarch could be (theoretically at least) impartial and above the humdrum of day-to-day politics. It would also answer the Republicans' calls that we must absolutely have an Australian HoS.

The best solution as to who should be the monarch would be to follow the time honoured tradition of inviting a spare Royal to take up the post. I'd actually like to see Anne get the guernsey. She's the most sensible of the lot, IMO. Takes after her Mum and isn't so silly as to let her genitals do her thinking for her as the males of that family seem prone to. She'll never be Queen under the present laws of succession and might like the opportunity to have her own Kingdom (Queendom?). Her sprog, Zara seems semi-sensible as well, like her Mum and so would be a good successor. Anyway her hubby plays Rugby so he can't be all bad and I can't imagine anything better than a consort who's willing to get out on the playing field!

Oh, and one last thing, our Monarch and consort would have to be citizens of our Nation, not of some foreign one and would have to renounce all ties to the UK and it's Monarchy - just so we know where their loyalties lie, understand?

You know what? If support for a republic really does die out like the monarchists here seem to be hoping for, I'm going to start campaigning for this. If we must have a monarch, let them actually live here and be citizens of this country for a change.

(Oh, except that if Princess Anne became Queen her heir apparent would be her son Peter, not Zara -- he's the elder sibling, and also male. Unless he willingly excluded himself from the line of succession or something.)

 

[Rush Tarquin]

(Oh, except that if Princess Anne became Queen her heir apparent would be her son Peter, not Zara -- he's the elder sibling, and also male. Unless he willingly excluded himself from the line of succession or something.)

It'd be our monarchy. We could always make it matrilineal and...reverse chronological?

 

[Arachnid]

It'd be our monarchy. We could always make it matrilineal and...reverse chronological?

Or to recognise the "tall poppy syndrome" sadly so prevalent in Australia make it the shortest (height) of eligible adults.

 

[Rickshaw]

(Oh, except that if Princess Anne became Queen her heir apparent would be her son Peter, not Zara -- he's the elder sibling, and also male. Unless he willingly excluded himself from the line of succession or something.)

She has another one? Well there you go. Just goes to show how much I pay attention to the Royals!

 

[Cockroach]

Anyway her hubby plays Rugby so he can't be all bad and I can't imagine anything better than a consort who's willing to get out on the playing field!

Given the traditional AFL-Rugby Union-Rugby League rivalries this sounds like the perfect means to provoke an Australian Civil War

 

[Arachnid]

Given the traditional AFL-Rugby Union-Rugby League rivalries this sounds like the perfect means to provoke an Australian Civil War

He's got a point.