Australia: The Queen and the Republic Debate (1 Viewer)

[bazrah]

I can't wait till we become a republic! Ah the things I'll do with my new found freedom I'll ahh .. I'll umm .....yeah ah maybe get a new holiday.

 

[BigBoyJames 007]

dont give a fuck.

however I do hope the governor general (Bryce) and the Queen get rapped by the same perp.

Also, charles needs to be man fucked from behind.

 

[cem]

That would take a unanimous vote by every nation in the Commonwealth.

No it wouldn't.

It would take an Act of Parliament in Britain to remove Charles from the throne (or for him to abdicate). The Constitutions of the Queen's realms simply state that the monarch of Britain is also the monarch of these realms but they have no say.

I am a lot older than probably anyone else here and I can remember the press stories from the 1970s when Charles was the most popular royal and there were calls for the Queen to abdicate in his favour because he was so popular. He later made a bad marriage and his popularity plummeted. Just because William is popular now doesn't mean that in 20 years time he still will be.

 

[BigBoyJames 007]

fucking pedo m8

 

[Existential]

that assertion is unfounded bullshit

firstly you're a fucktard because you associate the Australian constitutional monarchy only with 'the queen' when in fact The Crown is an integral component of our constitution and our parliamentary executive. you forget about the governor-general and state governors who have an important role to play, far more important than the queen herself.

at present the function of the Crown serves as an important brake on government power in this country. the governor-general can dismiss the government but they themselves are regulated by the ability of the Queen to recall the gg on the advice of the Prime Minister. this has an important role to play in preventing power struggles between the head of state and Parliament.

thus the Queen and the Crown retain great significance to the running of government in this country. they are highly significant to the institutions of this country. the people of australia affirm their belief in these institutions. therefore the Queen and Crown are highly relevant to the people of this country because of their essential role in government.

your suggestion that somehow changing cultural values invalidate the monarchy is utter bunk. australia has been culturally changing for years and this is not influenced IN ANY WAY by the institution of the monarchy, which is above politics, so to speak.

you have no fucking idea what you're talking about

i know enough to say that you are looking at things with a glass eye.

governor generals and state governors just sign and tick all boxes, with a few exceptions - so dont tell me their important because those roles are not taken seriously.

and again you misunderstand my cultural debate, probaly tl;dw'd the videos i posted.
anyways forget that if you must, but note the second part of my argument - a republic is inevitable. there is a good chance that australia will be a republic after the queen's reign. a good enough chance to make monarchists like you bicker over cultural change.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

i know enough to say that you are looking at things with a glass eye.

governor generals and state governors just sign and tick all boxes, with a few exceptions - so dont tell me their important because those roles are not taken seriously.

ok you obviously have not read the constitution so why the fuck do you make such stupid uneducated comments

and again you misunderstand my cultural debate, probaly tl;dw'd the videos i posted.
anyways forget that if you must, but note the second part of my argument - a republic is inevitable. there is a good chance that australia will be a republic after the queen's reign. a good enough chance to make monarchists like you bicker over cultural change.

i actually did watch your videos

you continue to state stupid bullshit like that a republic is 'inevitable' without supporting it or addressing any of my points in a rational way

i am done with you :wave:

 

[Existential]

ok you obviously have not read the constitution so why the fuck do you make such stupid uneducated comments

the practice of the constitution is more relevant than what is written in black and white.

i actually did watch your videos

you continue to state stupid bullshit like that a republic is 'inevitable' without supporting it or addressing any of my points in a rational way

i am done with you :wave:

i happily accept that goodbye, because if i was being irrational then i shudder to think what you were being.

 

[aussie-boy]

you completely misunderstand me;

im not saying that we should become a republic to achieve a,b,c,d ect.
im saying that because of these recent factors a,b,c,d ect. (ie. cultural change inclu. values) the monarchy system has become less relevant to australia. therefore as time goes on i see australia moving further away from the "monarchy culture". sure it's our heritage, but that's no justification for holding onto the queen one hundred and ten years after we became a federation. it was fine then, but now.... the new generations are heading in different directions.

You don't get what I'm saying.

I realise and agree that our culture is moving away from its traditional roots, but I'm asserting that that's a bad thing and that we need to do everything we can to maintain the foundations that made Australia so great.

Current trends are seeing the beginning of a decline in QOL measures, stemming from things like shonky immigration procedures which see the development of disadvantaged ethnic enclaves which act as breeding grounds for criminal activity. We're also seeing the decline of good social etiquette and social disconnection within communities

Becoming a republic is akin to getting behind and supporting these changes, with the notion that our institutions will adapt to whatever's happening at the present (because what's happening now is good by default). It is saying to ourselves (and the world) that the foundation on which our system is built is not strong enough to withstand social change - and hence bringing into question all the values which an early Australia, strongly tied to the monarchy, developed (e.g. egalitarianism, mateship, fair go, humour etc...)

This is wrong. We need to affirm that Australia's culture is based on an unchanging set of ideals, morals and ethics, developed well before WWII and able to withstand the test of time. France has 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' - every new law, convention etc has to pass the test of that maxim.... Australia's equivalent is deeply entwined with our monarchistic institutions.

Flowing from this, if "younger generations are heading in new directions" which are incompatible with the monarchy, then we should be questioning those new directions, not the monarchy.

-------------
EDIT: And furthermore, to justify a republic you need to show how the changes you've talked about will make Australia a better place - because only then could we consider removing one of their major obstacles.

 

[BigBoyJames 007]

which are incompatible with the monarchy, then we should be questioning those new directions, not the monarchy.
.

hahaha You fascist scum.


You're a good poster but didnt expect something like the above from you.

 

[aussie-boy]

hahaha You fascist scum.


You're a good poster but didnt expect something like the above from you.

I realise most people don't agree, but at least its all reasoned out

 

[thongetsu]

if you can justify that she does mean something to the 21st Century Australia, then be my guest.

She lives in a palace :O

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Current trends are seeing the beginning of a decline in QOL measures, stemming from things like shonky immigration procedures which see the development of disadvantaged ethnic enclaves which act as breeding grounds for criminal activity. We're also seeing the decline of good social etiquette and social disconnection within communities

People, especially younger people are socially disconnected from their communities for a variety of reasons, most stemming from the capitalist system and reliance on technology. Personally, I don't feel connected to my community because none of the people in it are unique or intellectually stimulating - a disheartening byproduct of our socially intrusive economic system. Capitalism promotes looking after oneself, and there are many who have an agenda in keeping people placid and complacent. This senseless egoism is strongly manifested in the day to day lives of everybody. The only remedy for this is the promotion of mutual aid and the benefits of working and living communally. This cannot occur in a meaningful fashion under the boot of a corporate run government.

Becoming a republic is akin to getting behind and supporting these changes, with the notion that our institutions will adapt to whatever's happening at the present (because what's happening now is good by default). It is saying to ourselves (and the world) that the foundation on which our system is built is not strong enough to withstand social change - and hence bringing into question all the values which an early Australia, strongly tied to the monarchy, developed (e.g. egalitarianism, mateship, fair go, humour etc...)

This is wrong. We need to affirm that Australia's culture is based on an unchanging set of ideals, morals and ethics, developed well before WWII and able to withstand the test of time. France has 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' - every new law, convention etc has to pass the test of that maxim.... Australia's equivalent is deeply entwined with our monarchistic institutions.

Firstly, Australian does not have a single culture that is accepted by everyone, as we are a multicultural society full of different races, age groups and political ideology (or lack thereof). The system should not 'withstand social change', it should change as the structure of society changes, or you are faced with the social problems we have today. Look at the social values held by most young people today (pro gay marriage, etc) and compare them with institutions like government who adopt your view. You are left with a rift of young people ('our future') who just do not give a fuck about politics or anything important because nothing ever changes.

Flowing from this, if "younger generations are heading in new directions" which are incompatible with the monarchy, then we should be questioning those new directions, not the monarchy.

Hell no. Some aging monarchy should have no say in our day to day lives. This is exactly the type of thinking that needs to be discarded if we're ever going to live in a free society. Conserving backwards, arbitrary 'values' held by a minority of Australians in the hope of reverting to some Australian utopia that did not exist is foolish.

 

[Existential]

You don't get what I'm saying.

I realise and agree that our culture is moving away from its traditional roots, but I'm asserting that that's a bad thing and that we need to do everything we can to maintain the foundations that made Australia so great.

Current trends are seeing the beginning of a decline in QOL measures, stemming from things like shonky immigration procedures which see the development of disadvantaged ethnic enclaves which act as breeding grounds for criminal activity. We're also seeing the decline of good social etiquette and social disconnection within communities

Becoming a republic is akin to getting behind and supporting these changes, with the notion that our institutions will adapt to whatever's happening at the present (because what's happening now is good by default). It is saying to ourselves (and the world) that the foundation on which our system is built is not strong enough to withstand social change - and hence bringing into question all the values which an early Australia, strongly tied to the monarchy, developed (e.g. egalitarianism, mateship, fair go, humour etc...)

This is wrong. We need to affirm that Australia's culture is based on an unchanging set of ideals, morals and ethics, developed well before WWII and able to withstand the test of time. France has 'liberte, egalite, fraternite' - every new law, convention etc has to pass the test of that maxim.... Australia's equivalent is deeply entwined with our monarchistic institutions.

Flowing from this, if "younger generations are heading in new directions" which are incompatible with the monarchy, then we should be questioning those new directions, not the monarchy.

-------------
EDIT: And furthermore, to justify a republic you need to show how the changes you've talked about will make Australia a better place - because only then could we consider removing one of their major obstacles.

so you are against change.
unfortunately change is inevitable.

i haven't actually presented the republican argument in this thread - all i am doing is responding to statements such as 'the monarchy is good by default'.
while this may be true, there is no evidence to suggest a republican structure would be detrimental to the governing of australia. and as i have outlined that the monarchy may be 'surviving the test of time', it will not always be like this. even today, the system doesn't make complete sense to australians growing up in the 21st century.

an example today would be that we share more with the US than we do with the UK.

 

[Existential]

She lives in a palace :O

well yeah that's completely foreign to australia - which furthers my point.

 

[aussie-boy]

so you are against change.
unfortunately change is inevitable.

Massive assertion, proven wrong in the context we are debating by the French example I offered + the way our monarchistic institutions have remained rock solid for 110yrs now

i haven't actually presented the republican argument in this thread - all i am doing is responding to statements such as 'the monarchy is good by default'.
while this may be true, there is no evidence to suggest a republican structure would be detrimental to the governing of australia. and as i have outlined that the monarchy may be 'surviving the test of time', it will not always be like this. even today, the system doesn't make complete sense to australians growing up in the 21st century.

Give me some examples of specific incompatibilities between "australians growing up in the 21st century" and our British heritage, and then justify why young Australians have the correct approach to these issues

Unless this can be done comprehensively, this argument completely falls down

an example today would be that we share more with the US than we do with the UK.

That's another massive assertion - and besides superficial pop culture and military alliances, I don't see how it can be justified at all. Our legislative/judicial systems, defence forces, sport, bureaucracies, etc are all much more similar to UK counterparts than US ones. Tons of British expats live here; tons of Aussies live in the UK - the same cant be said for the US.

 

[SylviaB]

Taco: In a stateless society/free market, people of similar views/beliefs would be far better equipped to form their own communities. In today's society it is very costly to pack up and move, but given the increased advantages of moving to people with similar beliefs to you in a stateless society then on net balance it would be beneficial to move.

For example, there might be whole geographic regions where syndicalists all move to and permit only non-heirarchial firms (as in, they would refuse to trade with traditional firms and so they wouldn't be able to operate), and so you get the kind of community you want without everyone else being forced into it.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

There is actually strong evidence that a republican government would fundamentally alter the balance of Australian political power and anyone who tells you that a republic would not be detrimental to the governing of Australia is talking out of their ass.

Time for a lesson in constitutionalism:

The Governor General is head of the executive according to the Constitution. They can appoint and dismiss ministers as they please. They can also call elections under certain circumstances. Obviously in practice these decisions are made on advice by the Prime Minister who can also advise the Queen to dismiss the GG.

Because the Crown itself is trusted and normally only operates on the advice of democratically elected advisers, the Governor-General has been entrusted with vast powers. These include the command of the armed forces, the power to call and prorogue Parliament and the power to choose the Ministry, whether the ministers be in Parliament or not. The brake on undue or improper exercise of the Governor-General's power is the threat of his or her instant recall by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

But just imagine that we abolished the monarchy and became a republic. Our GG would be replaced with a President who we shall say is directly elected by the people but otherwise fulfils the same functions as the GG does now: they represent Australian executive power, they are in control of the military and so on.

What happens when a President chooses to use their reserve powers? On whose authority do they use them? What if the use of these powers is a flagrant breach of convention and seriously destabilises the government? Can they somehow be removed from office? Should they be dismissed given that they will have an electoral mandate? Whose electoral mandate is superior: theirs, or the governments? Does the government even have the authority to do this? If the government does somehow undermine the office of the President, how will that be resolved given that they are constitutionally Australia's head of state? Doesn't that represent a gross overreach of government power? There are no clear answers to these questions because the elegant balance of power between Parliament and the executive/head of state that we now have would be utterly destroyed.

These are just a few important questions that can be raised if one adopts the 'minimalist republican' approach that is very clearly totally incompatible with the Constitution as it stands. Imo, to successfully implement a republican government would require a major redesign of the Constitution, something night on impossible and which should not be done given that it is the fundamental law of our land.

With this in mind, the fact that the constitutional monarchy has provided us with decades upon decades of stable, democratic government, is cheap to maintain (and the costs of transitioning to a republican government would be enormous), has adapted well so far to shifting cultural values, and provides a tangible link to the institutions that all Australians identify with, means that there is no logical or rational reason why this country should become a republic.

 

[Existential]

Massive assertion, proven wrong in the context we are debating by the French example I offered + the way our monarchistic institutions have remained rock solid for 110yrs now

we are obviously talking about two different things. i gave a general, well-known comment on change and the fact that it is inevitable in society, and you say it's a massive assertion. you need to back yourself up in a way that doesn't involve saying 'well the current system is working'. just because it has worked for over a century doesn't mean that it will do the same for this century. dispute that all you like but you lack logic but most importantly a good grasp on reality.

Give me some examples of specific incompatibilities between "australians growing up in the 21st century" and our British heritage, and then justify why young Australians have the correct approach to these issues

Unless this can be done comprehensively, this argument completely falls down

we are moving away from british culture and into americanisation (also stronger links with Asia). this is the direction we are heading. we have been moving away from britian since WW2 and we continue to do so. i say to everyone that they can make their own judgements on those facts. however it is obvious that the relevance of the monarchy has been diminished in recent decades, and probaly will continue to do so.

That's another massive assertion - and besides superficial pop culture and military alliances, I don't see how it can be justified at all. Our legislative/judicial systems, defence forces, sport, bureaucracies, etc are all much more similar to UK counterparts than US ones. Tons of British expats live here; tons of Aussies live in the UK - the same cant be said for the US.

i understand that and embrace it - i am not saying change our way of life significantly.

but i think we will at some later stage independently control our gov't as a republic.
many people agree with me. you obviously lack that optimism.

 

[Existential]

There is actually strong evidence that a republican government would fundamentally alter the balance of Australian political power and anyone who tells you that a republic would not be detrimental to the governing of Australia is talking out of their ass.

Time for a lesson in constitutionalism:

The Governor General is head of the executive according to the Constitution. They can appoint and dismiss ministers as they please. They can also call elections under certain circumstances. Obviously in practice these decisions are made on advice by the Prime Minister who can also advise the Queen to dismiss the GG.

Because the Crown itself is trusted and normally only operates on the advice of democratically elected advisers, the Governor-General has been entrusted with vast powers. These include the command of the armed forces, the power to call and prorogue Parliament and the power to choose the Ministry, whether the ministers be in Parliament or not. The brake on undue or improper exercise of the Governor-General's power is the threat of his or her instant recall by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

But just imagine that we abolished the monarchy and became a republic. Our GG would be replaced with a President who we shall say is directly elected by the people but otherwise fulfils the same functions as the GG does now: they represent Australian executive power, they are in control of the military and so on.

What happens when a President chooses to use their reserve powers? On whose authority do they use them? What if the use of these powers is a flagrant breach of convention and seriously destabilises the government? Can they somehow be removed from office? Should they be dismissed given that they will have an electoral mandate? Whose electoral mandate is superior: theirs, or the governments? Does the government even have the authority to do this? If the government does somehow undermine the office of the President, how will that be resolved given that they are constitutionally Australia's head of state? Doesn't that represent a gross overreach of government power? There are no clear answers to these questions because the elegant balance of power between Parliament and the executive/head of state that we now have would be utterly destroyed.

These are just a few important questions that can be raised if one adopts the 'minimalist republican' approach that is very clearly totally incompatible with the Constitution as it stands. Imo, to successfully implement a republican government would require a major redesign of the Constitution, something night on impossible and which should not be done given that it is the fundamental law of our land.

With this in mind, the fact that the constitutional monarchy has provided us with decades upon decades of stable, democratic government, is cheap to maintain (and the costs of transitioning to a republican government would be enormous), has adapted well so far to shifting cultural values, and provides a tangible link to the institutions that all Australians identify with, means that there is no logical or rational reason why this country should become a republic.

you are describing the powers of british influence in our democratic systems.

however, these figures rarely use their powers (only on the freak occassion eg. whitlam dismissal).

because of this, their position is, in a way, not regarded that important by australia.

as i said, they are "figures". and when a figure like the queen dies, im certain that many australians will be reluctant to have another.

this whole thing goes down to timing and sense.

 

[mirakon]

Even assuming their role is not that important, as you state, what is the point of going through the trouble of changing it then? If it is superficial but cheap, their is no need to do anything about it ,p articularly as it has been working effectively for the last many years.

tbqh, i am not for or against it per se, but simply see no point to changing a system when it seems to be working fine.