# Should Australia become a Republic?



## Superfly (19 April 2008)

Much more important issues going on, but Rudd seems to be pushing this... is it a cover a take attention away from any future poor performance by his Labour government... like the Koyoto signing... lots of noise and no change after signing it, they can't even organise a national ban on plastic bags.. but lets talk about a Republic..!!


----------



## Lucky_Country (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*

The time is right to stand alone !


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

If yes, the question becomes - "what sort of republic"?

This was the stumbling block last time. The model presented was rejected, not because people wanted to retain the constitutional monarchy, but because the model proposed was bollox, concentrating power in the wrong hands.

So a better question is - What sort of republic should Australia become?


----------



## Superfly (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*

No change to the flag... No Republic... Rudd should promote Anzac day and maybe make the another terrible event that was the fall of Singapore a national holiday as well... Australia has a history, be it short... 

Travel around Australia and rarely do you see a Australian flag flying...compared to many of our neighbours who are proud of their flag and history...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

yes to republic.
simple as possible, role of President comparable to the current GG.  
who decides the President? - a team of voted-in eminent persons maybe? - and then I guess you ask, why not make this by a joint sitting of parliament ?  
(perhaps towards the end of their own term, rather than at the beginning )

here's a flag as well


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*



Superfly said:


> ...Rudd should promote Anzac day and maybe make the another terrible event *that was the fall of Singapore a national holiday as well*... Australia has a history, be it short... ...



I guess we could celebrate the first occasion we said "no" to the poms ..

Curtin bringing the troops home (rather than to Burma).  
(but careful Superfly - Curtin was another of those communists remember  )

"Though Curtin's desire to overrule Churchill 'irked the Brits', he 'stood tall in the eyes of all thinking Australians, and the troops came home".

PS I wonder what Curtin would have voted on this thread - independence from Britain maybe ?  



> Curtin's insistence that Australian troops return home was one symbol of Australia's changed relationship with the UK, but another more important change was the removal of the Australian land forces from British command.  Curtin's decision to use an American, General MacArthur, to oversee Australian land troops could be seen as a clever ploy to gain direct links to the US high command that he would not have otherwise had.
> 
> In hindsight, bringing home the troops of Australia's 6th and 7th Division was in Australia's best interests because otherwise those troops would have been lost to Japanese prison camps like those of Australia's 8th Division.  *Though Curtin's desire to overrule Churchill 'irked the Brits'1, he 'stood tall in the eyes of all thinking Australians, and the troops came home*.'2


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

PS If it wasn't for venetian blinds, it would be curtains for all of us 

and
If it wasn't for Curtin, it would be curtains for all of us (as well) 

PS I'm sure you'll recall that Menzies wasn't up to the task of leading us through the war  
http://john.curtin.edu.au/ww2leaders/politics.html


> The wartime prime ministership of Robert Menzies was bedevilled with party political difficulties from the outset. *These dated back to events even before he succeeded to the position in April 1939 and his administration came to an end when an internal party revolt forced his resignation*.
> 
> By contrast, Curtin, although he became party leader at a time when his party was deeply divided, was able to nurture party unity before a parliamentary vote made him the last person to date to become Prime Minister of Australia in the wake of a successful no confidence motion in the House of Representatives.
> 
> Furthermore, within two years he had secured a dominant position electorally and within the party despite strong opposition from at least one powerful press baron. Subsequently, despite the setback of the 1944 referendum, it was only ill health that prevented him from continuing to dominate his political opponents and the electorate until his death in July 1945.


----------



## juw177 (19 April 2008)

Oh dear. Another another quality thread by Superfly defending all things right wing.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

btw, Menzies was able to use his time in opposition during the war to sow the seeds of the Liberal Party.  

this was incidentally after he had visited Germany in 1938 and had "expressed his admiration for the regime". 

According to wiki, there was even speculation (albeit disputed by other historians) that he really wanted to be PM of Britain   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Menzies



> He did his best to rally the country, but the bitter memories of the disillusionment which followed the First World War made this difficult, and the *fact that Menzies had not served in that war *and that *as Attorney General and Deputy Prime Minister, Menzies had made an official visit to Germany in 1938 and had expressed his admiration for the regime *undermined his credibility. At the 1940 election, the UAP was nearly defeated, and Menzies' government survived only thanks to the support of two independent MPs. The Australian Labor Party, under John Curtin, refused Menzies's offer to form a war coalition.
> 
> In 1941 Menzies spent months in Britain discussing war strategy with Winston Churchill and other leaders, while his position at home deteriorated. *The Australian historian David Day has suggested that Menzies hoped to replace Churchill as British Prime Minister,* and that he had some support in Britain for this. Other Australian writers, such as Gerard Henderson, have rejected this theory.
> 
> ...




Meanwhile these commentaries on Curtins time in office ( and he died in harness - i.e. the stress killed him remember. ) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin


> General Douglas MacArthur said that Curtin was "one of the greatest of the wartime statesmen".[2]






> His Prime Ministerial predecessor, Arthur Fadden of the Country Party wrote: "I do not care who knows it but in my opinion there was no greater figure in Australian public life in my lifetime than Curtin."


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*



2020hindsight said:


> I guess we could celebrate the first occasion we said "no" to the poms ..




Then again we already have a holiday on 26 Dec 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Curtin


> ... the Pacific War broke out. Curtin took several crucial decisions. *On 26 December,* the Melbourne Herald published a New Year's message from Curtin, who wrote: "without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom."
> 
> This was received badly in Australia, the UK and the U.S.;[5] it angered Winston Churchill, and President Roosevelt said it "smacked of panic". `The article nevertheless achieved the effect of drawing attention to the possibility that Australia would be invaded by Japan.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

menzies (on the queen) : "I did but see her passing by, and I shall love her till I die"
the queen (on rudd) :  refer cartoon


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

No, just no. Ugh, simply no :

What is the point? It's painfully obvious that it's only of ceremonial consequence; our connection to the old country, that is.

Why change it? Will we reap any benefits of becoming a republic? More money? Will our military improve? Will *my* life change? Will any of yours? What will happen though, is a bunch of new expenditures! New money being made, new documents / constitutions being written, new uniforms, heck - wouldn't we even need a new flag? Holding the referendum wouldn't be cheap, either.

Tom, Dick, & Harry certainly don't _care_ enough about it ... although, I'm sure if put up to vote in recent years, blind patriotism may be enough to get it through, sigh 

I do realise it probably wouldn't cost all that much, but once again, I pose the question of why? I rather enjoy our ties to the monarchy, & I believe such historical connections are important for long-term stability of friendship (alliances).


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*



Superfly said:


> Travel around Australia and rarely do you see a Australian flag flying...compared to many of our neighbours who are proud of their flag and history...




Since when does not plastering the flag over everything equate to not being proud of our country?

Most of the (excessive) flag waving I've seen is related to fanaticism... not pride.


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> I do realise it probably wouldn't cost all that much, but once again, I pose the question of why? I rather enjoy our ties to the monarchy, & I believe such historical connections are important for long-term stability of friendship (alliances).




That's true, but consider it like growing up and getting married. 

One's centre of focus changes a bit, but one still recognises and values one's family roots.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*



Whiskers said:


> 1. Since when does not plastering the flag over everything equate to not being proud of our country?
> 
> 2. Most of the (excessive) flag waving I've seen is related to fanaticism... not pride.



1. agreed - mind you, there is invariably a lot of flagwaving in repressed countries where the rent-a-crowds are forced to turn up. 

2. fanaticism sure but also (sometimes) compulsion 

Meanwhile 
 Anthem (Recording Season 1983)
"when no flag flew when no army stood my land was born"
"my land's only borders lie around my heart"


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

Whiskers said:


> That's true, but consider it like growing up and getting married.
> 
> One's centre of focus changes a bit, but one still recognises and values one's family roots.




Yes, but; this isn't like growing up, & getting married? Marriage has it's advantages, as does growing up - freedom, sex, financial benefits ... I see marriage as more of an investment, & anything that has detrimental consequences without benefit (or long term returns) frankly isn't worth it. An example would be; I wouldn't marry a penniless, gambling, drug addict - too many liabilities, too few benefits.

Same situation here; lots of costs, too few benefits?

There's a reason religion has pride down as a sin. Too much pride for country can create disbelief that it's capable of doing wrong ... much like what happened in the US, before the people started becoming ashamed of their president.


... Just because you move out of home, doesn't mean you go out, & change your surname, does it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> What is the point? It's painfully obvious that it's only of ceremonial consequence; our connection to the old country, that is.
> 
> Why change it? Will we reap any benefits of becoming a republic?



nyden,
nothing will change, and hence - I might turn the question back the other way ....
why not? 

I think you'll find it will probably be no difference or even cheaper (but that's a guess - let's say on par with current situation).  Not as if the current GG and State Governor positions are free. 

http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/topics/republic/



> What is a republic?
> What do people mean when they talk about Australia becoming a republic? At the 1998 Constitutional Convention, the Prime Minister said, “I oppose Australia becoming a republic”. The Leader of the Opposition said, “Our nation is a republic in all but name”. And a number of other speakers said Australia is already a republic. These conflicting statements can be understood by considering the different meanings of the term “republic”. According to the Webster dictionary, there are two relevant definitions:
> 
> *The first definition of a republic *is, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order.”
> ...



PS I'm not gonna lose any sleep if we don't immediately become a republic - but rest assured that I will go to my rest assured that we will be a republic one day 



Nyden said:


> . An example would be; I wouldn't marry a penniless, gambling, drug addict - too many liabilities, too few benefits.



yes but what about if she was super hot !


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yes but what about if she was super hot !




Well, that would have to be a very short-term trade then. Tight prenup as well! Long term she simply wouldn't be a good pick; something akin to a fantastic mine with only a few years left in 'er :

(Made that mistake with Zinifex! Married her when she was hot ... look at her now : Old, & ravaged by time.)

We should follow the wisdoms of the past; if it isn't broken, don't fix it!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser - Yes ad

These blokes even agreed on this one. 
Gough Whitlam : "Malcolm ... it's time ! "
Malcolm Fraser : "It is!"   



			
				nyden said:
			
		

> Well, that would have to be a very short-term trade then. Tight prenup as well! Long term she simply wouldn't be a good pick; something akin to a fantastic mine with only a few years left in 'er




I get the feelin if she accidentally pricked herself in one of those boobs it would explode 

PS I found that "ad"   in amongst a heap of poetry quotes and rhyming words and stuff.  http://www.rhymezone.com/


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Yes, but; this isn't like growing up, & getting married? Marriage has it's advantages, as does growing up - freedom, sex,




Undeniaby! 



> financial benefits ...




Speak for yourself. I drew a dud there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Whiskers said:


> Speak for yourself. I drew a dud there.



but is she  hot etc? lol

correction
I meant to say "but do you love her" 

PS and likewise ""do you (or rather Nyden) love Aus enough to want her to stand AUTONYMOUS? and proud amongst independent nations?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> If yes, the question becomes - "what sort of republic"?
> 
> This was the stumbling block last time. The model presented was rejected, not because people wanted to retain the constitutional monarchy, but because the model proposed was bollox, concentrating power in the wrong hands.
> 
> So a better question is - What sort of republic should Australia become?





The only republic that will get up is an elected persidential model, as the Irish have. I'd vote for that.

If a mob of dills like our federal reps have the right to choose the president I'll be voting against it again.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> but is she  hot etc? lol
> 
> correction
> I meant to say "but do you love her"




Well... I refuse to answer on the grounds that I might incriminate myself... 

except to say she was hyper-AUTONYMOUS... greener grass etc and didn't do anyone proud, least of all the values of our country... and especially the Queen.  

I'm with Garpal Gumnut. Unless we have a voter elected president, with real power, we will be no better off.

And include the proposition by Julian Burnside I think it was, that lying by politicans be made a criminal offense.


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> but is she  hot etc? lol
> 
> correction
> I meant to say "but do you love her"
> ...




Australia isn't an entity. Australia is a piece of land, where I (gratefully) reside. I love the land I live in, enough to wishfully maintain the gratitude towards the nation that (newly) discovered it; by keeping historical ties intact. We're already independent, we're just keeping those ties.

As previously stated though; one should not develop too much love, or pride. Make no mistake, were Australia to ever get to a point where I no longer agreed with the philosophies / values of the land ... I would up, & leave : 

In this modern era of globalisation, & ease of transport ... a country is nothing more than a place to live, & call home.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> In this modern era of globalisation, & ease of transport ... a country is nothing more than a place to live, & call home.



****!!!
straight away we differ  - !!
I consider my vote more meaningful than yours nyden 

 Love the One You're With


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ****!!!
> straight away we differ  - !!
> I consider my vote more meaningful than yours nyden




Alright; so - in 30 years time, if the philosophies of Australia have changed to the point where you no longer recognize "her"; to the point where it's all about working 7 days a week, minimal rates of home ownership, minimal employee rights (starting to sound a lot like China ... hint, hint  ... would you still consider "her" the love of your life? I know I wouldn't.

Australia, & any other country; is nothing more than *land*. It is the people, it is the government, that make a home. People / generations are dynamic, not static, & philosophies have, & *always* will change.

You only need to look at any country of Europe to see how they've changed over the generations.

As previously mentioned, I do love the current situation that is Australia, & I don't want any element of it to change (aside from health, education, etc


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The only republic that will get up is an elected persidential model, as the Irish have. I'd vote for that.
> 
> If a mob of dills like our federal reps have the right to choose the president I'll be voting against it again.
> 
> gg



I think that would be a pretty widespread view as well. I would vote against the previously proposed model as well.


2020hindsight said:


> PS and likewise ""do you (or rather Nyden) love Aus enough to want her to stand AUTONYMOUS? and proud amongst independent nations?



LOL.

ummmm... Oz was pretty autonomous last time I checked. 



2020hindsight said:


> ****!!!
> straight away we differ  - !!
> I consider my vote more meaningful than yours nyden



Ludicrous! You are not a true democrat then. That is such an obnoxiously nationalistic and cognitively biased comment...unbelievable.


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Alright; so - in 30 years time, if the philosophies of Australia have changed to the point where you no longer recognize "her"; to the point where it's all about working 7 days a week, minimal rates of home ownership, minimal employee rights (starting to sound a lot like China ... hint, hint  ... would you still consider "her" the love of your life? I know I wouldn't.
> 
> Australia, & any other country; is nothing more than *land*. It is the people, it is the government, that make a home. People / generations are dynamic, not static, & philosophies have, & *always* will change.




Totally agree. I asked this question on this forum before: What exactly is a nation?

The government?
The people?
The land?
An imaginary line on a map?

What is Australia?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Ludicrous! You are not a true democrat then. That is such an obnoxiously nationalistic and cognitively biased comment...unbelievable.



wayne 
ludicrous indeed
In my books , the true Aussie diehards count more than the passing itinerant opportunists 

PS I happen to agree with both Malcolm Fraser and Gough Whitlam.

PS Is Canada a republic? - you'd know


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Ludicrous! You are not a true democrat then. That is such an obnoxiously nationalistic and cognitively biased comment...unbelievable.




Yes, his comments only enforce what I said before about "blind patriotism" (too much pride / love). Overwrites even the basic foundations of the original values held by the country. I don't think we're free anymore, the very basis of democracy was wiped out years ago ... sure, you can burn a flag, but you can bet that A Current Affair would smear your face all over the nation, with some with malicious-sounding music in the background (not that I would ever do such a thing). Not to mention being labelled Un-Australian!


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne
> ludicrous indeed
> In my books , the true Aussie diehards count more than the passing itinerant opportunists
> 
> ...




They have the Queen on their coins, so probably not.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Yes, his comments only enforce what I said before about "blind patriotism" (too much pride / love). Overwrites even the basic foundations of the original values held by the country. I don't think we're free anymore, the very basis of democracy was wiped out years ago ... sure, you can burn a flag, but you can bet that A Current Affair would smear your face all over the nation with malicious-sounding music in the background (not that I would ever do such a thing).




OK 
1. I said that I wouldn't lose any sleep over this ., however,

2. you were the one who proposed a bumpless transition to living somewhere other than Aus.

3. So if/when YOU hypothetically go to some other country because it suits you better ( and although I've spent a few years as an expatriate myself, I've still called Australia home etc) I will continue to vote for a republic.   
PS you could say that that 's how my vote will  in the end, mean more than yours !! - perseverence 

Maybe you will have done the right thing and given up your citizenship by then 

PS Or will you , whilst living in some hypothetical overseas country, continue to vote in an Aussie referendum?
ahh
why would you??, after all you said that 


			
				nyden said:
			
		

> "a country is nothing more than a place to live, & call home"


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne
> ludicrous indeed
> In my books , the true Aussie diehards count more than the passing itinerant opportunists
> 
> ...



In a democracy, you are dead wrong, just totally wrong. Passing opportunist itinerants must become citizens to vote yes. By definition, they have made as much a commitment to Oz as any native born... certainly ceremoniously more so.  Many "die-hard Aussies" are also passing opportunist itinerants in other parts of the world. Would you deny them the vote also.

Totally ludicrous.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy like Oz, and quite happy to be so... apart from the francophones who are agin anything Anglo.


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> OK
> 1. I said that I wouldn't lose any sleep over this ., however,
> 
> 2. you were the one who proposed a bumpless transition to living somewhere other than Aus.
> ...



So you are a passing itinerant opportunist. Your vote should count less than those who have always stayed in Oz, by your cognitively biased logic.


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> OK
> 
> 
> Maybe you will have done the right thing and given up your citizenship by then




So, you are suggesting I should leave the country simply because I love (have I ever once said I didn't love it?) it for its current values, as opposed to worshipping it as the eternal, & undisputed "greatest nation on earth"? Funny, so many countries have that claim.

For one who loves Australia so much, you seem to not particularly enjoy freedom of speech / equal rights, strange that, isn't it?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 April 2008)

A nice way to divert attention from anything that's actually important.

Forget it. Oil's at $117, we've got a credit crunch, climate change, drought and all the rest. Flags and republics just don't rate as an issue compared to any of those.


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Or will you , whilst living in some hypothetical oversaes country, continue to vote in an Aussie referendum?
> ahh
> why would you??, after all you said that




Perhaps we have different priorities, but having a *home* (not a house), & being able to call a place *my* home, is my number 1. So please, stop acting as if I labelled what I have here as unimportant.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> So you are a passing itinerant opportunist. Your vote should count less than those who have always stayed in Oz, by your cognitively biased logic.



hey
Nyden can happily vote on whether New Zealand ( or whether he hypothetically goes to ) becomes a republic


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Perhaps we have different priorities, but having a *home* (not a house), & being able to call a place *my* home, is my number 1. So please, stop acting as if I labelled what I have here as unimportant.



nyden, ok 
if you want to reword that , the by all means do so.


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Maybe you will have done the right thing and given up your citizenship by then



Did you, when you were an expat?

I'm thinking of two words here, one begins with H, the other with J.


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> nyden, ok
> if you want to reword that , the by all means do so.




Re-word what? I do stand by what I said, it is nothing more than a home (which is my number 1), but that is all it is ... A country isn't an entity, that is forever sacred, & worshipful. They say home is where the heart is, my heart currently resides here, with the current ideals, values, & philosophies. I once again repeat, should these things change, my heart will no longer be here ; why does this make me a bad person?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Did you, when you were an expat?
> 
> I'm thinking of two words here, one begins with H, the other with J.




yep 
 Hiawatha Junkie once


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Re-word what? I do stand by what I said, it is nothing more than a home (which is my number 1), but that is all it is ... A country isn't an entity, that is forever sacred, & worshipful. They say home is where the heart is, my heart currently resides here, with the current ideals, values, & philosophies. I once again repeat, should these things change, my heart will no longer be here ; why does this make me a bad person?




Well I was thinking of this ... (as already posted )  - and presumably your assumed right to stlll vote back "home" / "in your last home" whatever 


			
				nyden said:
			
		

> "a country is nothing more than a place to live, & call home"


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Re-word what? I do stand by what I said, it is nothing more than a home (which is my number 1), but that is all it is ... A country isn't an entity, that is forever sacred, & worshipful. They say home is where the heart is, my heart currently resides here, with the current ideals, values, & philosophies. I once again repeat, should these things change, my heart will no longer be here ; *why does this make me a bad person?*



It doesn't.

It makes you an independent thinker, not subject to the atrocious propaganda shoved down our neck. People have left their home country for a better life since the year dot. It is only nationalistas who view it as a heresy 

To them, I repeat my question - What is a nation? What is Australia?


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Well I was thinking of this ... (as already posted )  - and presumably your assumed right to stlll vote back "home" / "in your last home" whatever




Yes, and in the post you just quoted of mine, I reiterated that point? So, what's yours? 

Stop trying to make me out to be some kind of "un-Australian". You wouldn't happen to be a "journalist" of ACA by any chance, would you? :


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> To them, I repeat my question - What is a nation? What is Australia?



And I repeat my question
what right have people who leave to vote in a referendum?
(morally if not legally )


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> yep



You renounced your citizenship?


I don't believe you

If so, you have less weight as a voter, by your logic.

Capital H is now what I'm thinking.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Yes, and in the post you just quoted of mine, I reiterated that point? So, what's yours?
> 
> Stop trying to make me out to be some kind of "un-Australian". You wouldn't happen to be a "journalist" of ACA by any chance, would you? :




nope just someone who takes offence at sloppily expressed statements that discount Australian citizenship as "comme si comme sa"

All you have to do is reword that sentence btw.


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> And I repeat my question
> what right have people who leave to vote in a referendum?
> (moraly if not legaly )




That is not what you said.


			
				2020hindsight said:
			
		

> I consider my vote more meaningful than yours nyden



There was no such qualification in your comment


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> nope just someone who takes offence at sloppily expressed statements that discount Australian citizenship as "comme si comme sa"



But you said you renounced yours.

You appear to be hoist by your own petard once more.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> You renounced your citizenship?
> 
> 
> I don't believe you
> ...



wayne
 since you are coming with the snide remarks
 am I allowed to say 
 capital G is what I'm thinking?


PS I have as much knowledge of what capital G means as I do of what capital H means 


wayneL said:


> But you said you renounced yours.
> 
> You appear to be hoist by your own petard once more.



no I didn't 
 I simply travelled abroard for some years in my youth .



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> Did you, when you were an expat?
> 
> I'm thinking of two words here, one begins with H, the other with J.






			
				2020 said:
			
		

> yep
> Hiawatha Junkie once



ahh - you thought I said I renounced my citizenship. - not so 
I just agreed with "Hiawatha Junkie"


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> And I repeat my question
> what right have people who leave to vote in a referendum?
> (moraly if not legaly )




Why is that your question? I never once stated leaving, & voting from afar?  I stated, that should things in this country one day change (the ideals, the values ... ), to the point where I no longer loved it (the ideals, the values ... ), I would leave. Becoming a republic wouldn't make me up, & leave! I was merely stating the pointlessness of it, then you started coming at me with questions of whether or not I loved Australia enough.

I will not reword my statement, because I believe what I said, & stand by it.

It feels as if you have been attacking me for nearly an entire page, whilst I (well, I believe!) have been nothing but polite towards you, & your different views?





wayneL said:


> It doesn't.
> 
> It makes you an independent thinker, not subject to the atrocious propaganda shoved down our neck. People have left their home country for a better life since the year dot. It is only nationalistas who view it as a heresy
> 
> To them, I repeat my question - What is a nation? What is Australia?






Thank you wayne


----------



## Prospector (19 April 2008)

Australia needs to grow up.  Hopefully before I die, a child growing up in Australia can live the dream that they can aspire to one day being Australia's Head of State!


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne
> since you are coming with the snide remarks
> am I allowed to say
> capital G is what I'm thinking?




No you can't, because the basis of your argument is rooted in a monumental Hypocrisy. You apply principles to others that you clearly don't apply to yourself.

Furthermore, your comments fly in the face of the principles of democracy, decency, and the Aussie fair go. It is a model completely at odds with any fair minded free country, an outrage, without being able to answer the basic tenant of what you are proposing.


----------



## Nyden (19 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> Australia needs to grow up.  Hopefully before I die, a child growing up in Australia can live the dream that they can aspire to one day being Australia's Head of State!




Does a child even know the difference between Head of State, & prime minister?  I know I certainly didn't at the age of dreaming of such things! : Heck, does the average adult even know?


----------



## Julia (19 April 2008)

Leaving aside the personal squabbles and returning to the original question:

will becoming a Republic -
solve homelessness?
fix the joke which is supposed to be health care?
sort out the credit crunch?
make politicians truthful?
limit inflation?
offer equality of opportunity for everyone and care for those who can't care for themselves?

No?  
Then I simply don't care.  Not a bit.


----------



## wayneL (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Maybe you will have done the right thing and given up your citizenship by then






wayneL said:


> Did you, when you were an expat?






2020hindsight said:


> yep






2020hindsight said:


> no I didn't
> I simply travelled abroard for some years in my youth .
> ahh - you thought I said I renounced my citizenship. -




In the flow of conversation, that's exactly what you said.

Either way, you have destroyed your own argument.


----------



## onemore (19 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Leaving aside the personal squabbles and returning to the original question:
> 
> will becoming a Republic -
> solve homelessness?
> ...






DITTO


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Leaving aside the personal squabbles and returning to the original question:
> 
> will becoming a Republic -
> solve homelessness?
> ...




Julia I seriously believe that being a republic would help gel Australia together more.

There are so many divisions as you point out that a focus on moving forward as an independent nation with our own elected president might motivate a better esprit de corps, etc etc.

Sorry I'm not good on this sort of stuff but you know what I mean.

Not having a King in the future who was once fixated on his mistresses tampons, and electing a popular head may keep prevaricators such as the Dear Leader Lu Kewen and his elites more focussed on what everone knows are the problems with the country.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (19 April 2008)

Julia said:


> Leaving aside the personal squabbles and returning to the original question:




Yeah, didn't this thread build up a decent head of steam! :



> will becoming a Republic -
> 
> make politicians truthful?




If I had my way it would. It could provide an opportunity for people to insist that something be put into law or even a new constitution.

Then, probably many of the other problems would not be so significant.



Whiskers said:


> I'm with Garpal Gumnut. Unless we have a voter elected president, with real power, we will be no better off.
> 
> And include the proposition by Julian Burnside I think it was, that lying by politicans be made a criminal offense.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Does a child even know the difference between Head of State, & prime minister?  I know I certainly didn't at the age of dreaming of such things! : Heck, does the average adult even know?




Nyden, whether President or GG mightn't mean much now - but EVEN IF it’s only symbolic – it will unquestionably mean a lot in the future if it actually happens. (imo)

whether that “TRUE stand-alone independence” means more to us 
or to the rest of the world 
is for a future day to reveal.  


Prospector said:


> Australia needs to grow up.  Hopefully before I die, a child growing up in Australia can live the dream that they can aspire to one day being Australia's Head of State!




:iagree:


----------



## Julia (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> Either way, you have destroyed your own argument.



No!  Who'd have thought it possible!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> In the flow of conversation, that's exactly what you said.
> 
> Either way, you have destroyed your own argument.




to be honest wayne
 you started talking H's and J's 
I didn't have a clue what you were talking about .


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Julia said:


> No!  Who'd have thought it possible!



good on you Julia 
hey does J stand for Julia? maybe?

PS On other discussions - (rather than use up a new post here), ...

I hereby declare that I accept the reality that Australian citizens, wheresoever situated, and whatever their true allegiance to Australia, will all (in the end) have an equal vote in the referendum under discussion. 

I accept that democracy comes first 

(of course that assumes that  those who hypotheticaly leave can be bothered voting)


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Nyden, whether President or GG mightn't mean much now - but EVEN IF it’s only symbolic – it will unquestionably mean a lot in the future if it actually happens. (imo)
> 
> :




Should we ever get an elected president I will change my signature from GG to EP........El Presidente, with Joe's permission of course.

gg


----------



## kloid (19 April 2008)

*Re: Should Australia become a Republic*



Superfly said:


> No change to the flag... No Republic... Rudd should promote Anzac day and maybe make the another terrible event that was the fall of Singapore a national holiday as well... Australia has a history, be it short...
> 
> Travel around Australia and rarely do you see a Australian flag flying...compared to many of our neighbours who are proud of their flag and history...




I disagree.  Drive around any UK town or city and you will rarely see a flag flown except during any international sporting event (mainly during the Euro or World soccer championship).  On the other hand, I will see at least 3 Aussie flags in the 800 metre stroll from my house to the local bottleshop.  And having travelled a lot more in Australia than my native England I think that national pride is far greater than you'd find in the UK.  As for our neighbours (which ones?  NZ, PNG, SE Asia?) I can't comment.

As for Australia becoming a Republic I tend to think similarly to others in that it wouldn't achieve anything, other than creating a huge cost in changing everything.  Maybe this wouldn't be a bad thing - many of us will own stocks that would benefit from such as change.  Practically though, Australia is independant.  The only thing we rely on from our "mother"  country is some decent TV shows.  In my 6 years living in this wonderful country that is the only thing I can complain about openly 

Kloid


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 April 2008)

Whiskers said:


> And include the proposition by Julian Burnside I think it was, that lying by politicans be made a criminal offense.



not much point in quoting from the 2020summit whiskers 

more here are bored stiff by it


----------



## nioka (19 April 2008)

Prospector said:


> Australia needs to grow up.  Hopefully before I die, a child growing up in Australia can live the dream that they can aspire to one day being Australia's Head of State!




 Probably the last thing 99.999999999999999999999999999% of people would dream about. Let's face it, the power is with the Prime Minister and the head of state is symbolic and ceremonial. Leave it the way it is and let us spend our efforts in changing the habits of pollies. Id sooner spend time trying to get rid of the state gonernments than the monarchy. But then my Grandfather came from Plymoth and my great grandfather on my grandmother's side, from Glasgow. After them, all the others in between were born in Aussie. 
 (And We do fly the Aussie flag most of the time)

 If I dream it is more likely to be about fishing and the one that got away. Who in their right mind would want to be "The President" and have to work with polititions.


----------



## tadpole (20 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> And I repeat my question
> what right have people who leave to vote in a referendum?
> (morally if not legally )




are you aware that neither frazer or whitlalm were living in australia in the lead up to the republican referendum? both came back to fight the cause then promptly left again. if they received any $'s for the t.v. commercial good luck to the old blokes, i wish them well in their overseas ventures.
leave our country the way it is, there is no need to change. i'm with you nyden.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (20 April 2008)

The system we have is great, lets not mess with it.

Our current system works,... i stable,... and is tried and tested.

and if we do have to have a republic,.... lets not model it off USA, we can't afford to waste money on presidential elections.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

tadpole said:


> … i wish them well in their overseas ventures.
> leave our country the way it is, there is no need to change. I’m with you nyden.




..wish them well in their overseas ventures ? ..  hey so do I. !
and sure , these blokes get around.  And both are exceptional Aussies.

btw, there’s a difference between an expatriate (which I don’t believe either of them is / was),  and an ex-patriot. 
btw there are a few meanings for expatriate - this is the one I would reckon most appropriate to the modern era of easy travel.  


> expatiate, noun   1. a person who is voluntarily absent from home or country




Fraser is even (apparently) a Privy Councillor , which I assume means he can give advice to the Queen.   Appropriate advice of course 


> Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is a body of advisors to the British Sovereign.





> In retirement Fraser served as Chairman of the United Nations Panel of Eminent Persons on the Role of Transnational Corporations in South Africa 1985, as Co-Chairman of the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons on South Africa in 1985-86, and as Chairman of the UN Secretary-General's Expert Group on African Commodity Issues in 1989-90. Fraser became president of the foreign aid group Care International in 1991, and worked with a number of other charitable organisations. In 2006, he was appointed Professorial Fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, and in October 2007 he presented his inaugural professorial lecture, Finding Security in Terrorism’s Shadow: The importance of the rule of law.[7]
> …..
> Fraser was made a Privy Councillor in 1976, a Companion of Honour in 1977 and a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1988. In 2000 he was awarded the Human Rights Medal. He received the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun from the Emperor of Japan in 2006.[14]…..honorary doctorates from Deakin University, Murdoch University and the University of South Carolina, and is a Professorial Fellow at the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law at the University of Melbourne.




And both he and Whitlam have been awarded the Grand Cordon (careful of the spelling there) of the Rising Star apparently



> Whitlam was appointed  … a Companion of the Order of Australia in 1978.[21] In 2005 He was created an honorary Grand Commander of the Order of the Star of Melanesia by the Governor General of Papua New Guinea.[22]
> In 2006 both he and Malcolm Fraser were awarded the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun by the Emperor of Japan, in recognition of their role in improving relations between Japan and Australia.[23]  Whitlam is an honorary Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities.[24]



And I agree with you and Nyden to some extent – let’s call it “ if the wheel ain’t broke – other than the tyre is a worn out model , don’t reinvent it, just change the tyre”   . i.e. “that giving the president unprecedented powers would definitely risk ‘breaking it’” (imo and I think yours)

I feel that to massively turn the status quo around, e.g. were we to vote for a powerful president rather than continue the 400 year old figurehead role (since Charles I lost his head over this)  would be a mistake, and invite disaster. 

In conclusion I feel that it would have an appropriate “ring” if…
given that the last king of England (prior to Parliament taking over the reins after a horrific Civil War ) was Charles I, 1649 (just after QEI and then James I ) ..

that the last Queen of Aus should be Queen Elizabeth II or possibly Charles III. 

PS - or is one proper Charlie enough maybe?


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

btw, here’s what Bob Carr had to say on this yesterday.. – for yet another opinion.  - a dead simple republic !

What do you blokes think of this suggestion?.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/19/2221785.htm


> For New South Wales premier Bob Carr is not coy about his contribution.
> "A lot of big ideas - *an easy way to get a republic *... *simply making the governor-general the head of the state of Australia," he said.
> "That resolves all the arguments about presidents and elected presidents or non-elected presidents*.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

Note the bold bits .... 

http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/150757/head_of_the_commonwealth/


> Head of the Commonwealth
> The London Declaration of 1949 stated that the British monarch would be a symbol of the free association of independent countries, and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. *These words meant that republics could be members *- they could accept the monarch as Head of the Commonwealth without being their own Head of State. Thus when Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952 she became Head of the Commonwealth.
> 
> Today the Queen is head of state in 16 of the 53 Commonwealth member countries, all of them fully independent in which – apart from the UK – she is represented by a governor-general.
> ...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles,_Prince_of_Wales


> Charles is Heir Apparent, equally and separately, to the thrones of sixteen sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms; he will most likely reside in and be directly involved with the United Kingdom. *He will not, however, necessarily inherit the title Head of the Commonwealth*.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

nioka said:


> Probably the last thing 99.999..9% of people would dream about. Let's face it, the power is with the Prime Minister and the head of state is symbolic and ceremonial.




so nioka (et al) - 
is this also about our external image perhaps?
do you think that Asia / China etc would prefer to deal with a country that insists for some unknown reason (unknown to us as well probably) on holding a British apron string. 

or with a country that is totally autonymous. ?

I personally think India would also smile in our direction


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 April 2008)

LOL....

Strangely, for a "topic" not worthy of discussion compared to all Oz's other woes (as many pundits here proclaim) THIS one in particular seems to still generate a LOT of heated discussion - so maybe some "pundits" on the subject of what constitues a "worthy topic" are actually un-witting hypocrites! 

So before I proceed, to refresh everyone's memory I've attached the results of the failed 1999 Referendum.

Maybe we could consider the following points in the (continuing) debate:

(1) So much hot air is being expelled over this Republic issue that we risk increasing the level of toxic greenhouse gases! 

(2) Now, referring (sic) to the 1999 Referendum results, in fact Victoria at 49.84% was VERY close to gaining a majority YES vote and NSW at 46.43 wasn't all that far behind. Given that 9 long years have passed since then (during which time many aged pro-Monarchist voters have passed on and during which time a significant number of new young pro-Republic voters have come on line) I wouldn't be at all suprised if the balance had actually tipped into a pro-Republic stance for VIC, NSW, ACT & NT (which collectively in 1999 would have represented 7,259,945 (62%)of issued ballots). SA voter sentiment today might also be close to the tipping point, which could make 3 states plus 2 territories. The big unknown is how much support pro-Republic Rudd would have garnered from his own beloved QLD electors - with QLD being by far the most pro-Monarchist state in the last referendum. If Rudd's massive support base in QLD tripped over the Republic line in any future referendum, the preceding results table would indicate it will be game over for the Monarchist camp....

With what must be a fairly significant changeover of pro-Republic/pro-Monarchist demographics over the last 9 years, I think the very best that Monarchists can hope for in any future referendum (remembering of course that as each year passes, it is probable that more Monarchists pass OUT of the voter lists than new Republicans are listed IN) would be for an extremely "close" result with QLD barely holding out by a percent or two. And I have already indicated the likely worst scenario for them.

On a personal note.... I was born in 1951. My mother & father took me to see the newly crowned Queen Elizabeth in her parade in Sydney in 1954 when I was only three. I don't remember it personally, but they bought lots of commemorative books and paraphernalia and always reminded me how massive the event was and how much the people loved her to bits (she was a symbol of post-war unity and hope, remember?) So I always tended to have what might be termed "fond" reflections of her and what she stood for and achieved. 

Until very recently (post Diana's death) I still regarded myself as leaning toward the Monarchist camp. However, with the ever-impending closure of Lizzie's reign and the resultant handover of the Realm to God-knows-whom (depends on the various candidates' states of mind or relationships, or both, at the time!) I find I have become somehwat dis-illusioned with the whole Monarchy thing and indeed have become somewhat "Republicanised". 

I know. I suggested prior to this revelation that maybe older, more hardline Royalists are dying out. However, maybe like me, some are becoming just a tad dis-illusioned as well with what the Monarchy has come to represent - possibly just a shadow of it's former self. IMO if the reigning Queen passes away between now and the next referendum, the result will be a foregone conclusion and we will all have to get on with life as before. I'm sure the sky will not fall.....


AJ

PS: Like Garpal Gumnut and some others here, I would support the model of a publicly elected president. Hey, maybe a "peoples forum" a bit like the current 2020 Summit could come up with a final list of suitable candidates?


----------



## metric (20 April 2008)

by ditching the monarchy, we are effectively ditching the 'elite' figurehead of the commonwealth. as a republic we will be voting in nothing more than an admission we have come under the control of the global elite.

so we have effectively grown from a colony of the brittish elite, to a nation under the control of the international ruling elite (which includes beth). so what will we gain? more masters. and more rules, laws and less freedoms. 

i have no boubt that the westminster system and our constiution has mechanisims in place that protect our freedoms that the ruling elite want removed. 

hindsight may not be so wonderful in this case...


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> so nioka (et al) -
> is this also about our external image perhaps?
> do you think that Asia / China etc would prefer to deal with a country that insists for some unknown reason (unknown to us as well probably) on holding a British apron string.
> 
> ...




External image !! ..... what about the external image that China portrays... do you think that China is going to change to do business... look at the torch relay to see China's deserved image... 


Unknown reason... well probably is to the many new Australians with PR or a new passport, most of them would not even know and do not care what ANZAC day is all about and would be very happy to see Australia cut of it's
history at 1980.. they are here for the money and do not care about how this country got to be what is today. 

This government can not even get a national ban on plastic shopping bags...! 

...so many more important issues, dead rivers, cane toads, feral cats, etc etc than a Republic... maybe "Penny Wong", Rudd etc want a Republic... and it maybe a very useful tool in distracting public attention away from their governments poor performance... wasn't banning plastic bags an election promise by St Kevin...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 April 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> 1. Given that 9 long years have passed since then (during which time many aged pro-Monarchist voters have passed on and during which time a significant number of new young pro-Republic voters have come on line) ..
> 
> 2. I wouldn't be at all suprised if the balance had actually tipped into a pro-Republic stance for VIC, NSW, ACT & NT (which collectively in 1999 would have represented 7,259,945 (62%)of issued ballots). SA voter sentiment today might also be close to the tipping point, which could make 3 states plus 2 territories.
> 
> ...



1.  good point about the demographics changing
also the politics incidentally  
 like, both Turnbull and Costello are republicans for instance,  (probably leaving Nelson the only Monarchist) (?)

2. NSW etc - yep - the big states will definitely follow the ACT trend ( I agree fwiw), in fact everyone except possibly Qld..

3. Qld? - lol - Joh's ghost might be dead as well . So I'm also guessing (like you) that even Qld will crawl across the line.  

4. I also saw the queen then - I apparently said she was "like an apple on a fence" -  mainly because there were lots of fence-post-like people between me and her, and all I saw was her head. 

btw, Bill Leak explained this cartoon (from the Australian newspaper) this morning on Insiders - that in his understanding, Quentin is a closet republican 

and possibly easier for the public to accept a new woman head of state - since we've grown accustomed to the last one over the last 50 odd years


----------



## noirua (20 April 2008)

The U.K. is becoming increasingly part of the European Common Market, and some say being dragged kicking and screaming into it. The pound sterling will disappear and the Euro introduced, and in time, the Eurozone will have its own armed force. Where now Australia and the Commonwealth. Who knows, the Union Jack on the Aussie Flag may become a European Flag. 

As a Republic it's all a matter of who the hell will be President and what powers will that person have. The Queen just signs Government papers and sends members of the Royal family abroad touting for trade for the U.K., NOT for Australia. So the Royal Family has ZERO worth to the people of Australia. 

Will a President be like the American President or the French President, or a ceremonial version like the Queen. How long will the President stand, 6 years in France, 4 years in America, or God forbid, President Rudd until he's 105 years old.


----------



## Superfly (20 April 2008)

juw177 said:


> Oh dear. Another another quality thread by Superfly defending all things right wing.




Bored at the Chinese embassy today... not enough Tibetin protestors to keep u on ur toes !!!
....maybe it's the Chinese security that Kevin Rudd said would not be allowed in Australia but now are, has taken them elsewhere...


----------



## Prospector (20 April 2008)

Nyden said:


> Does a child even know the difference between Head of State, & prime minister?  I know I certainly didn't at the age of dreaming of such things! : Heck, does the average adult even know?




Um, I think you downplay how much teenagers of this world, those who give a damn anyway, think about such issues.  Ask any group of well educated Year 11 and 12 students what they think about Australia being a Republic and you will get some mighty fine responses, both pro and anti.



nioka said:


> Probably the last thing 99.999999999999999999999999999% of people would dream about.
> 
> If I dream it is more likely to be about fishing and the one that got away. Who in their right mind would want to be "The President" and have to work with polititions.




I disagree, or maybe I just know a lot of very politically astute teenagers and young adults.  And maybe people dont have this dream because they can't do it yet anyway!

If we used the reasoning that Australia becoming a Republic would not solve 'world poverty', then why do we then bother with things like building an Opera House, fireworks on New Years Eve, building sporting stadiums, or even following our favourite sporting teams.  

The previous referendum was totally, and cleverly, hijacked by Howard!

My grandparents were born in England and I qualify for a British Passort but there is no way I can support a Monarchy.


----------



## Conza88 (20 April 2008)

Yes. If its a constitutional republic. A system based on the US's, but with fixed elements. (If you are going to think I'm nuts, and mention something along the lines of "But the US system is so FKED UP!" - yes it is, for the exact reason - the consitution has not been followed, its been shredded. The current administration belongs in goal.

Our elected representatives need to spend less time in Canberra, and more time in their districts. A concentration of power is EXACTLY, what we Do NOT want.

The people should have the final word as to who represents them. No more, no less


----------



## doogie_goes_off (20 April 2008)

Connza, you make a point that has impressed me more than any on this forum so far. I' going to take part of this decentralisation of power concept to another thread.


----------



## Tisme (19 December 2016)

I don't quite see the logic Malcolm uses when he uses the welded loyalty of the majority to the Queen as an excuse for a republic? 

The other thing I don't get is the republican movement he once headed hasn't sorted out what the republic is, so it needs a plebiscite to get ideas of a model?

I'm guessing this is just another one of those attacks on the status quo rather than any noble thoughts of progressiveness. A vehicle for men seeking notoriety to have their names attached to a major national event?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...is-support-for-an-australian-republic/8129764


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2016)

Tisme said:


> I don't quite see the logic Malcolm uses when he uses the welded loyalty of the majority to the Queen as an excuse for a republic?
> 
> The other thing I don't get is the republican movement he once headed hasn't sorted out what the republic is, so it needs a plebiscite to get ideas of a model?
> 
> ...




Personally I think we should be a Republic, but if that is not the vox populi at the moment then maybe we should start by chipping away at the edges, like changing the oath of office to remove "the monarch, her heirs and successors", removing the Union Jack from our flag etc.

It will happen one day but the politicians shouldn't press it just let it happen naturally.


----------



## Tisme (19 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Personally I think we should be a Republic, but if that is not the vox populi at the moment then maybe we should start by chipping away at the edges, like changing the oath of office to remove "the monarch, her heirs and successors", removing the Union Jack from our flag etc.
> 
> It will happen one day but the politicians shouldn't press it just let it happen naturally.




I think the Whitlam sacking inspired Australia Act by Bob Hawke ,which abolished the British appeals and legislation interference, pretty much gave us a republic.

For a country that prides itself on being secular why introduce a mangod into the equation? It might start out non partisan, but the position will become a party politik position... we all know that.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 December 2016)

Tisme said:


> I think the Whitlam sacking inspired Australia Act by Bob Hawke ,which abolished the British appeals and legislation interference, pretty much gave us a republic.
> 
> For a country that prides itself on being secular why introduce a mangod into the equation? It might start out non partisan, but the position will become a party politik position... we all know that.




Yes, I dread the though of an elected President. Years of posturing, fund raising, influence peddling, President vs Parliament, no thanks.

The Head of State (if we have one at all) should be purely ceremonial with no powers to dismiss governments or reject legislation.


----------



## luutzu (19 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Personally I think we should be a Republic, but if that is not the vox populi at the moment then maybe we should start by chipping away at the edges, like changing the oath of office to remove "the monarch, her heirs and successors", removing the Union Jack from our flag etc.
> 
> It will happen one day but the politicians shouldn't press it just let it happen naturally.




We're pretty much a Republic in all but name and custom.

Being a land of endless bounty but having few people and little investment in manufacturing know-how or much of an industrial complex of any sort, having a formal connection to a Queen who work for the Boss helps with security. At least the appearance of familial ties where blood is thicker than money and all that.

Would help in intelligence sharing, military bases and enough handshakes and photo-ops to scare off would-be imperial power/s up north.


----------



## Tisme (19 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I dread the though of an elected President. Years of posturing, fund raising, influence peddling, President vs Parliament, no thanks.
> 
> The Head of State (if we have one at all) should be purely ceremonial with no powers to dismiss governments or reject legislation.




You know and I know, if it isn't a blue blood or head turned Liberal Party hack the press news would be an an unending attack on the fabian, pinko, socialist, morally corrupt, etc useless tit.

This country does not have the maturity/will to think outside of a two party antagonism. You see it in this forum all the time, where commonsense and common courtesy is weaponised for the sake of winning a political argument. We are simply a bloody minded binary society, with the few of us who don't care for it labelled anyway. That or they take their bat and ball and go home sulking.


----------



## noco (21 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Personally I think we should be a Republic, but if that is not the vox populi at the moment then maybe we should start by chipping away at the edges, like changing the oath of office to remove "the monarch, her heirs and successors", removing the Union Jack from our flag etc.
> 
> It will happen one day but the politicians shouldn't press it just let it happen naturally.




No, that is too Socialistic...The Fabians have been chipping away for years to convert us to Socialism.....Then you will have a dictatorial left wing President......There has to be a safe guard in any constitution they may arise to prevent that from happening.

Can you imagine a Daniel Andrews as President...OMG...He is already a dictator.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 December 2016)

noco said:


> No, that is too Socialistic...The Fabians have been chipping away for years to convert us to Socialism.....Then you will have a dictatorial left wing President......There has to be a safe guard in any constitution they may arise to prevent that from happening.
> 
> Can you imagine a Daniel Andrews as President...OMG...He is already a dictator.




Oh right , let's have a dictatorial Right wing President instead, like the US soon will have.


----------



## noco (21 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Oh right , let's have a dictatorial Right wing President instead, like the US soon will have.




What proof do you have on that statement?

Another Rumpy PIE IN THE SKY....Nothing more than hearsay.


----------



## IrishDigger (21 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I dread the though of an elected President. Years of posturing, fund raising, influence peddling, President vs Parliament, no thanks.
> 
> The Head of State (if we have one at all) should be purely ceremonial with no powers to dismiss governments or reject legislation.




And while we are at it, get rid to all the State Governors.


----------



## Bill M (21 December 2016)

I am not of British stock, neither is anyone else from my family. I would like to see Australia become a Republic, most people do. The only reason it didn't happen when we had the vote was because the public didn't like the idea of 2 thirds of parliament agreeing to the new President.

Although we are pretty much all alone and do everything for ourselves I just can't see the point of having a foreign Monarch as the head of of state. Just change the figure head to someone who is a fully fledged Australian citizen. What kind of dingbat country has a foreigner as the head of state anyway? We are a strange lot.


----------



## noco (21 December 2016)

Bill M said:


> I am not of British stock, neither is anyone else from my family. I would like to see Australia become a Republic, most people do. The only reason it didn't happen when we had the vote was because the public didn't like the idea of 2 thirds of parliament agreeing to the new President.
> 
> Although we are pretty much all alone and do everything for ourselves I just can't see the point of having a foreign Monarch as the head of of state. Just change the figure head to someone who is a fully fledged Australian citizen. What kind of dingbat country has a foreigner as the head of state anyway? We are a strange lot.




It is not so much the Monarchy but the Westminster system which will have to be changed and there lies the problematic future of Australia.

A completely new constitution will have to be instigated and when the vote comes we must be careful to absorb and understand what may or may not be in it....The Westminster system will be gone.

Just how a republican constitution model would based would be an unknown quantity at this stage.

There is lots of easy talk that we should become a republic, and I dare to say it will happen one day, but nobody at this stage understands what the implication may be for us all.


----------



## Logique (21 December 2016)

wayneL said:


> If yes, the question becomes - "what sort of republic"?
> This was the stumbling block last time. The model presented was rejected, not because people wanted to retain the constitutional monarchy, but because the model proposed was bollox, concentrating power in the wrong hands.
> So a better question is - What sort of republic should Australia become?



Remember it well. 

Lord Wentworth (God's gift to politics) from the medium-density zoned neighbourhood of Potts Point, was politically outflanked by John Howard.

Should Australia become a republic? I don't care.


----------



## noco (21 December 2016)

Logique said:


> Remember it well.
> 
> Lord Wentworth (God's gift to politics) from the medium-density zoned neighbourhood of Potts Point, was politically outflanked by John Howard.
> 
> Should Australia become a republic? I don't care.




Well my friend I think you should care if you have children, grand children and great grand children like yours truly.

Don't you care about their future?

I certainly don't want a republic that may  fall into the wrong hands due to some loophole is a mish mash constitution.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 December 2016)

noco said:


> Well my friend I think you should care if you have children, grand children and great grand children like yours truly.
> 
> Don't you care about their future?
> 
> I certainly don't want a republic that may  fall into the wrong hands due to some loophole is a mish mash constitution.




Maybe we could all vote for our own "Royal Family" and pledge allegiance to all their heirs and successors for all time. 

After all, the monarchy had to arise from somewhere. We don't have civil wars anymore to decide leadership, so a vote would seem appropriate.

King Malcolm the First ?


----------



## noco (21 December 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe we could all vote for our own "Royal Family" and pledge allegiance to all their heirs and successors for all time.
> 
> After all, the monarchy had to arise from somewhere. We don't have civil wars anymore to decide leadership, so a vote would seem appropriate.
> 
> King Malcolm the First ?




I don't really see your point or are just trying to be the clown in a three circus.....You also praised the fact by thanking God that we have the Westminster system....Then in another post you state     "I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A REPUBLIC".

I am not really sure where you stand ATM.


----------



## sptrawler (21 December 2016)

We need to have a republic, the same as we need same sex marriage, the same as we need open borders, the same as we need more money for welfare, the same as we need more money for infrastructure, the same as we need more money to give a tax cut for business, the same as we need more money for a tax cut on PAYG employees.

Jeez we just seem to need.

I can tell you who needs a Republic, the media, it would give them new food for the next fifty years.

The only people that keep the U.K media in check is the Royal Family.


----------



## noco (21 December 2016)

sptrawler said:


> We need to have a republic, the same as we need same sex marriage, the same as we need open borders, the same as we need more money for welfare, the same as we need more money for infrastructure, the same as we need more money to give a tax cut for business, the same as we need more money for a tax cut on PAYG employees.
> 
> Jeez we just seem to need.
> 
> ...




This Republican crap is just another diversion from the real issues facing Australia.....THE ECONOMY...Perhaps we should be concentrating our efforts in a bi-partisan way to sort out the mess we find ourselves in....Both major parties seem to have very little concern or know what to do...One says we want to do so and so and the left says, no way......Nobody seems to care about the National interest.....It is all about who can throw the most mud.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2016)

noco said:


> This Republican crap is just another diversion from the real issues facing Australia.....THE ECONOMY...Perhaps we should be concentrating our efforts in a bi-partisan way to sort out the mess we find ourselves in....Both major parties seem to have very little concern or know what to do...One says we want to do so and so and the left says, no way......Nobody seems to care about the National interest.....It is all about who can throw the most mud.




The media love chaos, noco, if they don't have chaos they have nothing to write about.

This wasn't a problem 20 years ago, there was only the daily papers, now there is social media.

So the mainstream media have to drive the issues, then they are in front of the wave, the problem is the silent majority don't listen.

That is the problem, the major Parties are having trouble coming to terms with, they think the media represents majority opinion.

When in fact they only represent the opinion they support, that is why Channel 10 wallows around in the doldrums, they think someone gives a $hit what the project has to say.
The only thing that has saved channel 10's ar$e was family feud, easy to digest.

What sane person, with a brain, wants to listen to a group of "project wannabies" tell us what we should be thinking and telling us why we should be thinking it.
I for one hate some reporter telling me what I should be thinking and then telling me what action I should be adopting.
Jeez is there any wonder, Trump and Hanson are doing well. FFS

My rant for the day.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 December 2016)

noco said:


> I don't really see your point or are just trying to be the clown in a three circus.....You also praised the fact by thanking God that we have the Westminster system....Then in another post you state     "I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A REPUBLIC".
> 
> I am not really sure where you stand ATM.




Just putting some alternatives out there noco. Pity you don't know what tongue in cheek means, but I couldn't find an emojie for it.

If we want a Royal Family, why not have our own instead of another country's ?


----------



## Tisme (22 December 2016)

sptrawler said:


> The media love chaos, noco, if they don't have chaos they have nothing to write about.
> 
> This wasn't a problem 20 years ago, there was only the daily papers, now there is social media.
> 
> ...




Excellent rant


----------



## sptrawler (1 January 2018)

It's back on the agenda, Captain FW, cheer leader for the I want to be a Legend Club, wants now to put the Republic back on the agenda.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...australian-republic-vote-20180101-h0bzlu.html

How the hell could we operate as a country with President Rudd, President Gillard, President Abbott, President Turnbull? FFS
Even Kim Beasley a Labor man through and through, is saying Rudd was a goose.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-24hour-media-obsession-20171218-h06qbh.html

I hope Turnbull at least gives us a vote that matters, and is reviewable, not some half arsed post it out and see how it pans out postal vote.
At least it could end his career, which IMO, would be doing Australia a favour.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 January 2018)

I voted for it last time, but seeing how much trouble a bad President has got the US into, I doubt if I would vote for it again, unless the President had purely ceremonial powers.

In a country that names a ferry "Ferry McFerryface", I have little faith in my compatriots to make a sensible decision in this important matter.


----------



## sptrawler (1 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I voted for it last time, but seeing how much trouble a bad President has got the US into, I doubt if I would vote for it again, unless the President had purely ceremonial powers.
> 
> In a country that names a ferry "Ferry McFerryface", I have little faith in my compatriots to make a sensible decision in this important matter.




Just having the underlying fact, they can be sacked, is a godsend. IMO
Kerr may have been an idiot, I don't know, but the fact he could dissolve the Parliament, and make them face the people is something that should be cherished and not given away lightly.
I haven't seen a many Statesmen, in the position of Prime Minister, I've seen fewer that I would give absolute power to.
I know it will mean a big pay rise for the "big Chair", but to me it doesn't mean the outcomes will be any better.
Stuff them, why make their position any more secure and less answerable, than ours?
Just my opinion, that of a disillusioned voter.


----------



## Tisme (1 January 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I voted for it last time, but seeing how much trouble a bad President has got the US into, I doubt if I would vote for it again, unless the President had purely ceremonial powers.
> 
> In a country that names a ferry "Ferry McFerryface", I have little faith in my compatriots to make a sensible decision in this important matter.




I have no doubt the appointment would be an equity nomination, rather than merit based or popular vote. Something like Australian of the year selections. How that plays out when we are in need of a warrior leader would be concerning, especially if Delta Goodrem is the el presidente because she is quota female, sings songs and overcame cancer


----------



## wayneL (2 January 2018)

Wrong question. 

What sort of Republic is the primary question. A plebiscite with the question "do you want a republic?", may as well be "would you like to give us a blank cheque?".

Let's see the proposed Republican model first, then we can all talk.


----------



## Dona Ferentes (6 April 2020)

The Queen person addressed her country. Britons. 

Chips down, and it's _sauve qui peut. _(themselves)

I understand the language, and some of the culture, but have little affinity with much else..


----------



## SirRumpole (6 April 2020)

Dona Ferentes said:


> The Queen person addressed her country. Britons.
> 
> Chips down, and it's _sauve qui peut. _(themselves)
> 
> I understand the language, and some of the culture, but have little affinity with much else..




She actually specifically mentioned Australia as well.

The context of her remarks was "you'll be right mates".


----------



## Dona Ferentes (6 April 2020)

Tokenism


----------



## Logique (7 April 2020)

The UK is finally out of the EU, and will be looking for new trade deals in the Antipodes. 

I don't think it's the right time to thinking Republic.  And in any case not within the reign of the Queen.


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2020)

Republic or not I'm pretty ambivalent. Like I said before what sort of Republic?Lets see a model first, if it's a good model which benefits all, I'm in, otherwise let's just keep our constitutional monarchy thanks.

As far as trade with us it wasn't the monarchy which screwed us over, it was the parliament when they joined the EEC.

And I agree with @Logique, let's wait till Liz is gone before seriously talking about it. The window of opportunity for Republicans is when the egregious Charles is king, but before William takes the throne.

But I stress, for me, it had better be a bloody good model.


----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2020)

I'm yet to be convinced a Republic is any better than what we have, I don't see any Republics around the World, that I would be rushing to emulate.
Maybe someone could point to someone in recent history, that would make a good President?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 April 2022)

The Australian Republican Movement ARM has finally worked out a model sort of based on Ireland.

Basically we would get to choose from 11 candidates, one picked by each state and 3 from the Feds.
The President would have reduced powers  as they couldn't sack a Government if it had a majority of the house.

I can see a lot of problems with this.
Thumbs down from me, need more convincing. 

I understand why you wouldn't want say Kylie Minogue or Clive Palmer becoming President then sacking the Government over some point of contention but if the Government tries to circumvent Democracy then the power to sack could be really useful.


----------



## Humid (3 April 2022)

I'm up for a new flag.....


----------



## sptrawler (3 April 2022)

The Westminster system has stood centuries of testing and is yet to be shown to be flawed, a group of outspoken, overpowering, self opinionated people want to have the dream of ultimate control.
El Presidente, if people think branch stacking is rampant now, wait and see the shenanigans that will go on to get preselection for the 'Big Hat", Turnbull would be first out of retirement IMO, followed closely by 'look at me Kev'. 😂
There's an old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.


----------



## sptrawler (3 April 2022)

Here is an article on the issue:








						‘Charles will be King ... and no Australians can apply’: Republicans launch presidential plans
					

The Australian Republican Movement has finalised its proposed changes to the Australian constitution.




					www.theage.com.au
				



From the article:
The proposed model and constitutional changes have been designed after extensive consultations with legal experts and are similar to the Irish Republic, which vests limited powers in a future President, who would replace the Governor-General - the Queen’s representative in Australia.
Each state and territory would be able to propose one candidate for president, with how that person was chosen up to the jurisdiction, while the federal government would propose up to three candidates - with a popular vote to follow.

A future president would appoint a prime minister who had a majority in the House of Representatives, as the Governor-General currently does, but could not terminate a prime minister who had a majority in the House, as Sir John Kerr did to Gough Whitlam in 1975.
Other functions such as the issuing of writs for an election and summoning the House to determine confidence in the government would be retained but assent from the head of state for new laws endorsed by voters would be automatic after seven days.
In practice, a President would have fewer powers than the Governor-General currently does.

The hybrid model proposed by the ARM seeks to unify supporters of a republic who were divided in 1999 between people who wanted a directly elected president and those who wanted a head of state chosen by Parliament.


----------



## sptrawler (3 April 2022)

One thing I have noticed is, the republican push, is by self opinionated bigots, that complain and bitch endlessly that mainstream don't agree with them.


----------

