Is it time for Australia to become a Republic?

[Marty_d]

2 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Does this refer to Camilla, or the Queen maintaining control?

 

Ewww.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I did indicate not in a physical way (as in the three person in the bed is a metaphor)..

 

 

[old man emu]

27 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

the three person in the bed is a metaphor

I wonder if it was a King Coil?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Better than pocket sprung.

[facthunter]

The answer is Yes and soon. Before Charles wife Camilla changes his mind. Nev

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

Is it christianity,Or British ROYALTY?  Nev

Probably both.

[spacesailor]

I was born under the, King George,  then had to learn 'God save the Queen ' .

In those days adulterers were criminals. 

Even thou I don't like republic,  I am not liking this monarch. 

spacesailor

[Old Koreelah]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

I was born under the, King George,  then had to learn 'God save the Queen ' .

In those days adulterers were criminals. 

Even thou I don't like republic,  I am not liking this monarch. 

spacesailor

I’ll defend Charles; he’s a cut above the average royal and definitely more in tune with the needs of our future than most politicians.

[facthunter]

But HE has a wife. You get her in the Package.  He may also lose his mind. Get the Monarchy out of the equation. We were either sent here to be gotten rid of or came freely Either way we can't risk something we don't  and can't vote for.  Nev

[Old Koreelah]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

… we can't risk something we don't  and can't vote for.  Nev

Neither you or I can vote for most of the people and entities that control our lives.

[facthunter]

America HAD a war to get away from Britain. When they Joined the EU they wiped us like dirty er. face. Their current government borders on dysfunctional. WE CAN VOTE for a Republic and no one should quote the US as a good example of a well functioning republic. to deter the proposition.  Nev

[nomadpete]

I don't perticularly like the monarchy. True, we can't vote the monarcist in or out. However, as Old K points out, we don't actually vote for our PM either. Furthermore, the monarchy has not been responsible for selling Australia out to all and any multinational that comes in an sprays money around.

 

We need to drain our own swamp more than we need to change deckchairs up at the top.

[facthunter]

 Electing a leader by the masses would be a retrograde step. Any group must have the right to choose their leader. It's fundamental to the process and structure.  Nev

[nomadpete]

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 Electing a leader by the masses would be a retrograde step...... Nev

But that is the cherished model of democrazy...... in the USA

[facthunter]

Proof it doesn't work.   Look at the Presidents they get..   They also shoot many of them. Nev

[nomadpete]

Good point. Maybe we'd get better PM's if we were allowed to use that incentive method.

 

But then again, the possibility doesn't seem to motivate the USA leaders to be nice anyway.

Edited May 5, 2023 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Money is their GOD and they find that unremarkable. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

They shoot too many people, full stop!

 

My view is usually if it aint broke, don't fix it. Our system is relatively stable and has its issues, but is not fundamentally flawed as are others. What needs to be fixed won't be fixed by becoming a republic, no matter what form it takes; what is required are some tweaks to the constitution, and laws with teeth that are designed to work for the majority, not the snouts at the trough.

 

Symbolism is rarely important to me. But, for some reason, I just wonder if changing what is effectively the symbolic head of state wouild work. The model the Aussie Republican Movement is claimed to be the preferred one according to polls, but when you boil it down, it is pollies selecting candidates that the people get to vote on. Personally, I see it as a wste of time as you only get to vote on people your state government and federal government put up.

 

Even in 1975, I coudln't see the monarch acting on her own volition to exercise what power she had over Australia, and I certainly can't see it now; the idea that they will act to protect us should our government go rogue is a furphy. Therefore, the PM (or cabinet) effectively appoint a head of state today, and they appoint people they want. Whitlam didn't appoint Kerr as a defender of the people in political breakdown any more than whoever appointed whoever is there now.  Whitlam was dirty that Kerr turned against him should evidence that.

 

With a republic, I think the PM/cabinet appointing them is fine, but as mentioned I think the constitution would have to be amended to compel the GG to act to dismiss the government under certain situations or exercise whatever power they have; to ensure that whoever is appointed does in fact defend the poeple against politics going rogue.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

Money is their GOD and they find that unremarkable. Nev

Look at what has been happening in politics in Aus over the last 20 years (or, in reality, more), and the way we vote.. Money would also appear to be the new messiah here, too.

[facthunter]

Money and a God who likes money designed and invented by capitalists. Makes Greed not only acceptable but compulsory for success.  "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the banknotes. SOME Australian Pollies wanted to copy the TEA Party. Nick Minchen and  Corey Bernardi) and spent a lot of time studying it..  in the states.  Most of us don't want the worst of what America has to Offer currently.  There IS a difference.  Nev

[spacesailor]

9 hours ago, facthunter said:

" America had a war to get away from Britain "

 

And,  Britain had a War to get away from it's Republic !.

Eddi Amin for President. 

 spacesailor

9 hours ago, facthunter said:

 

 

[Marty_d]

Heard a reporter interviewing Albo this morning, who's in England for the coronation.  Asked him why he was going to give the oath of allegiance, given he's not a monarchist.  Albo quite sensibly said that his private thoughts aside, he didn't think he as Australia's PM should cause controversy by refusing to speak the oath.

 

However the reporter brought up a good point - the oath is not just allegiance to Charlie; it's also to his successors and descendants - and "successors" includes Andrew!!

[willedoo]

The Queensland government has announced they are not changing the state flag at this stage. Does anyone know if Victoria is changing theirs? Liz used St. Edward’s Crown for her official symbol and Charlie is changing back to the Tudor crown. The Queensland flag changed from the Tudor crown to St. Edward’s crown in 1962.

[onetrack]

No kowtowing to monarchy on our State flag, we worship the original big black duck.

 

https://flagsofallnations.com.au/products/wa-flag

[old man emu]

If you cast your eyes around the World at the many republics, you will soon get a sense of their instability. Even that icon of democracy, the USA, appears to be tottering towards disaster for its citizens due to its leadership. Ever since the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, Britain has had a more political stability that elsewhere in the world. There's no denying that there have been some good stoushes in Westminster, but they have been sorted without the overt intervention of the Head of State. No one has spilled a drop of blood in attempts to eliminate the Monarchy.

 

What is never pressed is that the person who is the Sovereign of Great Britain is separately the Sovereign of Australia. Great Britain can become a republic and dissolve the monarchy, but that does not mean that we have to follow suit. It would be complicate and we might have to fork out ten pound to get the unemployed Had of State here. We have already in our history rejected a Bunyip Aristocracy.

 

Bunyip aristocracy is an Australian term satirising attempts by William Wentworth to establish a system of titles in the colony of New South Wales. It was coined in 1853 by Daniel Deniehy in what came to be known as the Bunyip Aristocracy speech which he delivered in the Victoria Theatre and on the soapbox at Circular Quay.

 

It was almost universally condemned by the people and a large public meeting was called to oppose it. In the advertisement convening the meeting were the following paragraphs:

Colonists ! Will you submit to be robbed of your rights? A committee of the Legislative Council has framed a new Constitution for the colony, by which it is proposed:

To create a colonial nobility with hereditary privileges.

To construct an Upper House of Legislature in which the people will have no voice.

To add eighteen new seats to the Lower House, only one of which is to be allotted to Sydney while the other seventeen are to be allotted among the country and squatting districts.

To squander the public revenue by pensioning off the officers of the Government on their full salaries, thus implanting in our institutions a principle of jobbery and corruption.

To fix irrevocably on the people this oligarchy in the name of free institutions so that no future Legislature can reform it even by absolute majority.

The Legislative Council has the hardihood to propose passing this unconstitutional and anti-British measure with only a few days notice, and before it can possibly be considered by the colonists at large.