Should Australia become a Republic?

[Prospector]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.