Quo Vadis?

[old man emu]

The Queen is dead. Long live the ... ?

 

During the debate of the topic, "Should Australia become a republic?", I have maintained that the governance of Australia severing itself from what was called the British Crown would be a gross insult to Elizabeth, Queen of Australia. Elizabeth provided the stabilising hand that kept the Australian Ship of State on an even keel through the tumult of the Years. Now that hand is lost to us. I as Australia, "Quo vadis? ...Where are you going?"

 

Elizabeth can no longer see or hear what we are doing. Whatever we do, it can no longer be a compliment nor insult to her lifelong conduct of the duty she vowed to carry out when she took the Crown. The Second Elizabethan Era has ended. We have awoken to a new dawn, a new Era. An Era that is suitable for Australia to be fledged. By negotiating the good times and bad, Australia has learned the lessons of good governance, through the guidance of Australia's Queen. Now is the time for the fledgling to leave the nest. 

 

I will not say, "Long live the King!". My cry is the echo from the streets of 1789 Paris, "Vive la République"

 

[onetrack]

IMO, the leadership abilities and personal qualities of the incoming King are not something that a lot of people seem to be enthused about - unlike Elizabeths style. I don't feel strongly about the monarchy, but when one looks at the leadership qualities of many of our erstwhile recent political leaders, one wonders what kind of Republic we could end up with. A Republic run by large corporations "for the general population good" is quite likely to be how it turns out.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon they had it right last time, minimal change, with the gov general selected by 2/3 of the parliament.

How many gg's would have passed this test of bipartisanship? Very few I guess. Certainly not Kerr ( is he still alive?)

I was saddened that this was argued against as " the politicians GG " and so we reverted to the state where ONE politician has the complete say. How could my fellow voters be so stupid?

I can't decide if Turnbull was dumb or a closet monarchist, so bad were the pro-republican ads.

In the meantime, I propose sentencing monarchists to travelling through Heathrow. When I did this , Australians had to line up for hours with turbaned undesirables and watch swarthy greeks etc walk right in.

[Old Koreelah]

27 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I don't feel strongly about the monarchy, but when one looks at the leadership qualities of many of our erstwhile recent political leaders, one wonders what kind of Republic we could end up with.

I agree that we are enering a new and dangerous era. Our forebears faced much greater challenges and they prevailed. 
Perhaps it’s time for more Australians to grow the sort of backbone shown by members of The Greatest Generation; Lizzie Windsor was one of them.

Has Australia the depth of leadersip to go alone? Of course!

Last night’s Q&A was the of the best and well worth watching again. https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/episodes/

One of the inspirational panel member impressed me as a suitable future GG or President of the Republic of Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cate_McGregor

Should Australia cut ties with Britain? There is a persuasive arguement for us to join with similar commonwealth nations to form a military and/or trade coalition.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

 

Another option, considering our major military ally and supplier is rapidly declining and approaching civil war, is to link up with other, independent nations. France’s Macron is shortly to visit us; why not ask if they could supply a fleet of nuclear subs any quicker than the UK or USA?

 

 

 

[onetrack]

Bruce, Sir John Kerr died in 1991 at the age of 77. The Whitlam dismissal was Kerr simply exercising his right to dismiss a highly unpopular Govt, staffed by a pack of deadbeat and even criminal Ministers (Al Grassby, Rex Jackson, Lionel Murphy, Rex Connor, Jim Cairns), which Govts unpopularity was shown in its resounding defeat at the next election.

The Whitlam Govt gave us 17% inflation as it pissed money up against the wall like a drunken sailor. The Whitlam Govt wrecked the Australian economy, doing idiotic things such as denying tax deductions to farmers for water supply improvements, along with tripling the size of the nations debt.

Then the desperate moves to acquire dodgy Govt funding from crooks like Khemlani, after major financial institutions refused to finance the Whitlam Govt, was the final straw that really angered most people.

The amusing thing to many was that Kerr was a Whitlam appointee, with the plan that Kerr would be too loyal to dismiss a Labor Govt.

[spacesailor]

IF !!!

We vote to leave the monarchy .

WHY IS THERE NO .

VOTE

for its return when the public decide it was .

WRONG.

Status quoe is safer than quick sand !.

spacesailor

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

when one looks at the leadership qualities of many of our erstwhile recent political leaders, one wonders what kind of Republic we could end up with

Herein lies the root of our problem. If Scomo had been the one to appoint the Head of State would we have been caught up in the current government funding scandal involving the current G-G who Scomo told the Queen was "Best in Show".

1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

Should Australia cut ties with Britain?

How could we consider cutting the cultural ties that a proportion of the population has through its ancestors, and the historical ties that even a great number of our non-Anglo people have?  The Commonwealth of Nations, simply referred to as the Commonwealth, is a political association of 56 member states, the vast majority of which are former territories of the British Empire.  It was originally created as the British Commonwealth of Nations through the Balfour Declaration at the 1926 Imperial Conference, and formalised by the United Kingdom through the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The current Commonwealth of Nations was formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which modernised the community and established the member states as "free and equal".

 

There are only three things to do to formalise Australia's becoming a republic - work out a way to appoint a Head of State that is not tainted by party politics, and secondly, get the British Crown to repeal its Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900  and pass an Act similar to the Indian Independence Act [1947 c. 30 (10 & 11. Geo. 6.)

 

[old man emu]

10 minutes ago, onetrack said:

staffed by a pack of deadbeat and even criminal Ministers

I'm sorry, Onetrack, but your post is a red rag to me and reads as a regurgitation of Conservative propaganda. What the Whitlam Government tried to do, but too much, too fast, was to try to right to put right many of the failures to attend to the common people that the Liberal-Country Party governments had done for near on a quarter of a century.  The Whitlam Government's plans were white-anted by the bunyip aristocracy. 

 

There, I've responded to one post and I don't want to side=track a more important conversation. If you want to take me to task over this particular post, then I'll join you in another thread. But not here, I beg you.

[facthunter]

There's a lot we don't know about the Kemlani affair. I'm pretty sure it was a set up.   Nev

[rgmwa]

6 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Another option, considering our major military ally and supplier is rapidly declining and approaching civil war, is to link up with other, independent nations. France’s Macron is shortly to visit us; why not ask if they could supply a fleet of nuclear subs any quicker than the UK or USA?

I'm not sure that would go down at all well with Macron, although it would seem to make good sense. I believe the design we were buying was a nuclear sub that they had to re-design to use diesels, just for us.

[Jerry_Atrick]

FnCaNzAuk.. has a nice ring to it.

[willedoo]

19 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

FnCaNzAuk.. has a nice ring to it.

If anyone attacks us, we can tell them to FnCaNzAuk off.

[octave]

6 hours ago, onetrack said:

Bruce, Sir John Kerr died in 1991 at the age of 77.

Ah yes Sir John complete with top hat.  This is Sir John  inspecting the band I played in although this picture was taken a couple of years before I joined up.  Because we did so many performances at viceregal events I have many stories about the various GGs and Governors of NSW.   The longer serving members say the Sir John at official functions was, often shall we say "tired and emotional"  

 

 

[facthunter]

Prior to being appointed to GG he had done some excellent legislative  legal work and was generally well regarded in that respect. Frazer refused supply to the Whitlam government creating a real crisis. The Army was not getting wages as well as public servants and Fraser played it real hard. Kerr didn't make the crisis that he became involved in. He sought advice from Garfield Barwick, and (possibly the Queen) and had to keep what he decided  secret from Whitlam who would have had him dismissed if He had wind of it.. Frazer and Whitlam became good friends later in life and Frazer resigned from the Liberal party as he said he didn't recognise what it had become. Some suggested the CIA must have been involved in this as I'm sure what Whitlam wanted to do (Buy back the Farm) would have very much upset them, but nothing came out about that.  Later Kerr sought solace in alcohol. as his career and life were ruined.  There's no suggestion he was  a BAD drunk but the Media savaged him non stop.. Frazer was only appointed as a caretaker Gov't to run a new election but the tide/opinion had been turned against Whitlam and Frazer got in.(with a fair bit of Media help .) Nev

Edited September 9, 2022 by facthunter

[old man emu]

According the the authors of the book "The Dismissal", Kerr convinced himself early in his governorship that he had the power to dismiss a government. That was before Fraser started playing politics with the Supply Bills. So you can't really blame Fraser for making the ammunition that fitted the artillery piece that Kerr had constructed. Once the cannon went "BANG", Fraser merely moved in to occupy the ruins.

[facthunter]

None the less Frazer precipitated the circumstance by withholding supply which I believe is now not possible. Kerr or any other GG at the time did have the power to dismiss.. Note my reference to the Queen. I read the Dismissal at the time which is pretty favourable to Kerr. Nev

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Some suggested the CIA must have been involved in this as I'm sure what Whitlam wanted to do (Buy back the Farm) would have very much upset them, but nothing came out about that. 

Norway got control of it’s mineral wealth, while Whitlam was prevented from doing so.
Norway now has over a trillion dollars in national savings, while Australia is a trillion dollars in debt…

Meanwhile, foreign companies are making massive profits here, but paying little or no tax.

 

[Marty_d]

Let the dust settle.  Charlie may surprise us all.  Look at all the negative commentary about Albo prior to the election, but in harness he's been remarkably statesman-like so far - a thousand times better than the previous donkey.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think Charles will make a reasonably good King.. He has made some gaffes, buyt they are not that common. He has been a prince for a long time, whikle the queen was hardly a princess for her adult years, and has had the benefit of a lot more support as the monarch. Charles has, as not being the monarch, a lot more lattitude to say what he thinks is allowed, and he has said many things way ahead of their time - such as climate change, pollution, and, of course, organics.

 

His latest faux par, collecting cash in poerson, in plastic shopping bags, for his charities from wealthy middle easterners is not good. Apart from the optics, which can be handled, when someone from, let's face it, a mefarious part of the world is donating literally millions in cash, it does raise a slight conflict of interest.

 

And, while Lizzy has been a model monarch of public duties, I wonder if she did take it too far with her family. We know Charlie loved Camilla long before he was wed to Dianna, so I wonder how much of the marriage was forced upon Charlie for the sake of the country (and, yes, FWIW, I don't think Camilla is that bad).

 

So, I agree with Marty.. let him settle into the new role. The Womans Day readers may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Marty_d]

I don't know whether "The Crown" is an entirely dependable data source, but I think the main problem with Camilla was she was already married to someone else when Charlie started tupping her.

[facthunter]

I have little doubt Charlies first Marriage was decided for him and he was never happy in it.   Nev

[Yenn]

I don't know if Charles collected money in plastic shopping bags, but what if he did. He has not been in a position to benefit anyone donating to him and he will no be in that position as King. A large part pf the population would like to see Harry or William as king and maybe they will see William at some time, but Kingship is not an elected position.

From what I see of the republics around the world,most of them do not stand out as models to follow, in fact the main feature seems to be their corruption.

[facthunter]

Better you elect someone than they get it just by birth. Plenty of crook Kings and Queens, even in British History. AS Churchil was reported to have said." Democracy is the worst system EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHERS' The tendency to  corruption is unlimited.  Where MAN is involved (and God too it seems). Nev

[old man emu]

That is the beauty of what we have at the moment. A Constitutional Monarchy with a predetermined Monarch. In the 21st Century does it matter if our Head of State resides half a world away? Jerry Attrick  does and can participate in a conversation here as quickly as anyone who is online at the same time. 

 

People keep making the mistake that our Head of State is the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland. Not so! Our Head of State is the King of Australia who wears this crown

   which differs from the Crown of Elizabeth II 

 

We do not pay the Monarch any money for upkeep or even for  duties as Queen of Australia.  We do pay a salary to the Governor-General and pay for the upkeep for the official residences.  However, the amounts involved pale into insignificance when compared with heads of state of most countries.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Re the money bags: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/25/prince-charles-is-said-to-have-been-given-3m-in-qatari-cash

 

I agree, there is little that the prince, or the king can do, as they do not really weild power. However, it's the old cash for access conflict, and the prince, now king, can open doors otherwise not really there..  And why would a Qatari pollie want  to donate to a British charity?

 

While, I agree, the head of the state should be chosen by the people, I can't see a way that it cannot be politicised. One of the benefits of Lizzie in the UK is that the PM had a meeting with her every Tuessday. While, by convention, she remains politically neutral in public, she advises the PM, and often, they take that advice on board...

 

In terms of Australia, and many other constitutional monarchies where the poltiical power rests in an elected legislature, the systems are generally quite stable and moderate. America is thje self-proclaimed bastion of demoncracy with an elected head of state, and supoosedly severed from religious institutions  - yet is is arguably heading towards a facist state, and has not, in my living memory. Religion permeates their thinking, and. well, I can't recall a terribly balanced society for a wealthy democratic society that purports to follow the rule of law.

 

Here is a list of the constitutional monarchies in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchies. There are a dfew middle east ones which I would rather not visit, bust most are peaceful and balanced nations. The ones that I wouldn't like to attend tend to have actual political power vested in the monarch - e.g. Kuwait, Lesotho, etc.

 

My view is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Australian model until the last government has shown itslef more or less democratic, following the rule of law, transparent (in a relative sense), and balanced (but could do better). The previous government exposed flaws that need to be fixed - but these are not flaws of the relationship with the sovereign - these are flaws ion the constitutional arrangements and administrative leghal system that can be fixed by the elected representatives. For example, the Albanese government passed legislation to amend house debates for uregency motions to shorten debate time, but allow more debate across differing representatives of the house. Sadly, they didn';t change transparency laws of cabninet meetings and the state cabinet or whatever it is called.

 

One of the other things to look at is the appointment of the GG as, it is looking  like it can be politicised. One can argue this is a flaw of the constitutional monarchy model, but I can't see how an elected head of state can be structured to mitigate politicisation.

 

The other thing to think about, is the military are loyal to the monarch, and not the government.. When I did work with the ADF, officers made that very clear to me.. as did those in the UK. A system that forced the monarch to be benign and no residual political power, other than largely symbolic (yes, I know they can dismiss governments) seems not to be a bad thing.