An Australian Republic

Well with Prince William's recent visit I, like many people, am wondering why we aren't a Republic yet... and for once I find something that I can agree with Malcolm Turnbull on. The former Leader of the Opposition and staunch Republican has written a piece in The Times looking at the nature of Australian Republicanism and sets forward good reasons from a cultural perspective about why we should become a Republic. This is in complete opposition to the news networks who are hailing this as some sort of resurgence in Monarchic thought in Australian circles and well worth a read for Australians, and anyone who is vaguely interested in the debate.

But it would be wrong to imagine that Prince William’s youthful charms are going to change the republican debate in Australia any more than his receiving a rapturous welcome in the US would indicate that the Americans are having second thoughts about 1776.

Australian republicans have never been anti-British. Throughout the republican campaign leading up to the 1999 referendum we did not denigrate or criticise the Queen or any of her family, let alone the British people, in any way. Our case was simply that our head of state should be one of us — an Australian living in Australia, not whoever happens to be King or Queen of the United Kingdom.

Over the years the monarchy has faded from view in Australia. We no longer see the Queen’s portrait in every classroom, letters from the Government — usually demanding money — no longer arrive marked “OHMS”, meaning “On Her Majesty’s Service”. Our national anthem hasn’t been God Save the Queen for nearly 40 years.

Even the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General, now always an Australian, is crowded out as prime ministers of all political complexions become more and more presidential.

Our nation’s independence has evolved to the point where, ironically, given Britain’s obligations to the EU, Australia is a more independent, sovereign state than the mother country herself.
[...]
A key element in Australia’s success has been that we do not define our nationhood by reference to a common religion, ethnicity or race. Our culture has always been very open to new ideas. Australia’s dynamism, its readiness to embrace change is very republican and very similar to the culture of the US.
[...]
The republican debate here has always been about the symbols of nationhood. William may be as charming a king as he is a prince but he can never represent Australia in the way that he will represent his own country.

So are there any other thoughts from Australians/Monarchists/Brits-who-don't-want-to-give-up-our-god-forsaken-rock-in-the-middle-of-nowhere?

We don't need em.

I think about 50% at least, of Australia's youth, wouldn't be able to name 2 members of the royal family.

Then again, half wouldn't know the name of the Gov-Gen, or the Leader of the Fed. opposition.

The Royals and the Governer General have no real impact here anymore.

Would we want a potential Howard with full power over the country? That is an issue I'd like to see covered somehow.

I do think, however, the country will be the deciding factor, if we were to hold another vote. The country, as is its nature, is conservative. (DST? Screw that!. [I actually agree with them in that regard though])

To any Australian that may be here that supports us keeping the Queen, I ask you: What does she do for us?

I was given a good reason to stay under the queen though. If we left, we wouldn't be able to win every medal at the Commonwealth games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

So are there any other thoughts from Australians/Monarchists/Brits-who-don't-want-to-give-up-our-god-forsaken-rock-in-the-middle-of-nowhere?

---

Well, I'm none of those categories, but I certainly agree with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MT

But it would be wrong to imagine that Prince William’s youthful charms are going to change the republican debate in Australia any more than his receiving a rapturous welcome in the US would indicate that the Americans are having second thoughts about 1776.

---

Que??? I had no idea Australia was a monarchy. All royals should piss of(f) imho(.) (T)he French had the right idea and the proper tools. Arrogant so-and-so's, I live close to them and they are pretty loathed by the local middle class,(.) (P)paying is something that is for ordinary people,(;) in the best case you get a note that it has pleased her majesty. I truly hate this family, more the(a)n 200.000 people died in Indonesia because they couldn't give up their colonial possesions,(.) (S)some even served in the SS, and now a(n) Argentina :daisy: for the crown-prince, where just about every war-criminal resides.

There is no logical reason for Australia not to be a Republic. I wouldn't worry about it though, it'll happen in due time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

A key element in Australia’s success has been that we do not define our nationhood by reference to a common religion, ethnicity or race. Our culture has always been very open to new ideas. Australia’s dynamism, its readiness to embrace change is very republican and very similar to the culture of the US.

---

This bit made me laugh. I don't really think that is strictly true. Australia isn't really exceptionally dynamic, it's too isolated to be so. But, that's another matter entirely.

One simple reason, you should be thankful to even have the opportunity to be our vassals. Unfortunately as a country you refuse to acknowledge your place under the thumb of our glorious Monarchs.

On a serious note though, why does it make a huge difference either way? All the Monarch does is act as the head of sate, from what I gather you pay very little upkeep towards the monarchy and you would probably end up paying more for a republic. I just don't see what significant advantages becoming a republic would produce but hey, it's not really my place to say.

Personally I feel the parliamentary system of government is far more desirable than the republican system of government. I don't even really like the Monarchy either, I just don't really like the concept of a powerful presidential executive branch of government. it creeps me out..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

On a serious note though, why does it make a huge difference either way? All the Monarch does is act as the head of sate, from what I gather you pay very little upkeep towards the monarchy and you would probably end up paying more for a republic. I just don't see what significant advantages becoming a republic would produce but hey, it's not really my place to say.

---

The freedom to choose my own leaders. I can't put a price on that.

@ Psychonaut - Yeah I struggled with that bit as well, but it didn't surprise me because Turnbull has always struck me as a bit of a dreamer and idealist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Personally I feel the parliamentary system of government is far more desirable than the republican system of government. I don't even really like the Monarchy either, I just don't really like the concept of a powerful presidential executive branch of government. it creeps me out..

---

The governing system wouldn't change. Just the Head of State would be some Joe Bloggs from the land of Aus, not some Joe Bloggs in a palace 10562 miles/16997 km/9178 nautical miles away.

Lead the way ~;)

What use is having a royal family if nobody (well me lol) knows you have one. When I think of Australian queens only the adventures of Prascilla comes to mind.

Isn't the GG or a Royal useful for all of the ceremonial figurehead rituals of state stuff? I mean, it's not as though there has been any de facto royal power exercised in Oz for a goodly bit of time, no?

I read the article t'other day. Interesting comments below the line from Aussies.

It's up to the Aussies if they want to become a republic or not. You've been a country for about a 100 years IIRC, so you don't need anyones permission how you choose to be governed. As someone who doesn't really favour the Royal Family, I will say this though. Be careful what you wish for and if it aint broke, why try and fix it? The Aussies have done more than OK with the present form of governance. Remember that a politician would be President, and that's never a good thing IMO. :book:

CA congrats on going in purdah. When did this happen and how much did it cost? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What use is having a royal family if nobody (well me lol) knows you have one. When I think of Australian queens only the adventures of Prascilla comes to mind.

---

We are still a part of the British Commonwealth so Queen Elizabeth II is our Head of State. However, we have a Governor-General that is picked by Parliament as her Representative and our practical Head of State. I believe that the Queen still acts as our Head of State when she travels here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Isn't the GG or a Royal useful for all of the ceremonial figurehead rituals of state stuff? I mean, it's not as though there has been any de facto royal power exercised in Oz for a goodly bit of time, no?

---

It's true, there isn't much that a President would actually be required to do (And I favour a very limited Presidential role), though it would always be useful to have an elected Representative that we can send abroad. The most important thing is just a matter of self-governance though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Remember that a politician would be President, and that's never a good thing IMO. :book:

---

Oh yeah I am hesitant about that, but as long as the position is a fairly limited one then I don't have too much problem with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

CA congrats on going in purdah. When did this happen and how much did it cost? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

---

Thanks. It happened about 4 hours ago, and they had to pay me to take the position :laugh4:

God shave the queen

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...gony/queen.jpg

It's John Macririck. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Que??? I had no idea Australia was a monarchy. All royals should piss of imho the French had the right idea and the proper tools. Arrogant pricks, I live close to them and they are pretty loathed by the local middle class, paying is something that is for ordinary people, in the best case you get a note that it has pleased her majesty. I truly hate this family, more then 200.000 people died in Indonesia because they couldn't give up their colonial possesions, some even served in the SS, and now a Argentina :daisy: for the crown-prince, where just about every war-criminal resides.

---

Finally something we can agree on, how disgusting the Dutch royal family is, they are the prime example of parasitism.

Coming from a Dutch republican, let 'm stay in Britain and with a bit of luck they'll be removed there too.

I don't get the whole commonwealth monarchy thing... does it actually serve a purpose now other than being a black-hole for taxpayers?

Please, don't become a republic. This will deny a lemur one of my favorite pastimes, asking Australians "How's your Queen doing?" Never fails to get a rise.

Maybe we could send Scott Brown over to Oz to lead the revolution. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

I don't get the whole commonwealth monarchy thing... does it actually serve a purpose now other than being a black-hole for taxpayers?

---

Only UK taxpayers. And it's some minimal amount, 60p per person. Which is about how much it'd cost to keep the old traditional buildings maintained if they were not in use and were museums or similar instead.

"60p per taxperson" becomes a lot less reassuring when you realize it's millions of pounds better spent somewhere else. And the fact that a president would be cheaper (assuming it doesn't devolve into an Italianesque situation).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

"60p per taxperson" becomes a lot less reassuring when you realize it's millions of pounds better spent somewhere else. And the fact that a president would be cheaper (assuming it doesn't devolve into an Italianesque situation).

---

A President cheaper? Really? I doubt it.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

"60p per taxperson" becomes a lot less reassuring when you realize it's millions of pounds better spent somewhere else. And the fact that a president would be cheaper (assuming it doesn't devolve into an Italianesque situation).

---

Actually the Royal family are the biggest land owners in the country. I don't even want to think about how much land they own combined. They're pretty self sustaining really.

Also, if Australia becomes a republic does that mean your going to change your flag?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

The freedom to choose my own leaders. I can't put a price on that.

---

Don't you already do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Don't you already do that?

---

The alien overlords are not democratically elected, you should know that.

I favour a Westminster-style constitutional monarchy, but it is ultimately the will of the people that should decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

"60p per taxperson" becomes a lot less reassuring when you realize it's millions of pounds better spent somewhere else. And the fact that a president would be cheaper (assuming it doesn't devolve into an Italianesque situation).

---

It isn't cheaper. The German President costs more than many monarchs, and he does even less than most of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Well with Prince William's recent visit I, like many people, am wondering why we aren't a Republic yet... and for once I find something that I can agree with Malcolm Turnbull on. The former Leader of the Opposition and staunch Republican has written a piece in The Times looking at the nature of Australian Republicanism and sets forward good reasons from a cultural perspective about why we should become a Republic. This is in complete opposition to the news networks who are hailing this as some sort of resurgence in Monarchic thought in Australian circles and well worth a read for Australians, and anyone who is vaguely interested in the debate.

But it would be wrong to imagine that Prince William’s youthful charms are going to change the republican debate in Australia any more than his receiving a rapturous welcome in the US would indicate that the Americans are having second thoughts about 1776.

Australian republicans have never been anti-British. Throughout the republican campaign leading up to the 1999 referendum we did not denigrate or criticise the Queen or any of her family, let alone the British people, in any way. Our case was simply that our head of state should be one of us — an Australian living in Australia, not whoever happens to be King or Queen of the United Kingdom.

Over the years the monarchy has faded from view in Australia. We no longer see the Queen’s portrait in every classroom, letters from the Government — usually demanding money — no longer arrive marked “OHMS”, meaning “On Her Majesty’s Service”. Our national anthem hasn’t been God Save the Queen for nearly 40 years.

Even the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General, now always an Australian, is crowded out as prime ministers of all political complexions become more and more presidential.

Our nation’s independence has evolved to the point where, ironically, given Britain’s obligations to the EU, Australia is a more independent, sovereign state than the mother country herself.
[...]
A key element in Australia’s success has been that we do not define our nationhood by reference to a common religion, ethnicity or race. Our culture has always been very open to new ideas. Australia’s dynamism, its readiness to embrace change is very republican and very similar to the culture of the US.
[...]
The republican debate here has always been about the symbols of nationhood. William may be as charming a king as he is a prince but he can never represent Australia in the way that he will represent his own country.

So are there any other thoughts from Australians/Monarchists/Brits-who-don't-want-to-give-up-our-god-forsaken-rock-in-the-middle-of-nowhere?

---

i read that article yesterday, and its pretty good.

i am a monarchist, and i'd be delighted if Oz stuck with it, but Oz is also a confident nation in its own right and wants to carve its own path in history, so my response is go get 'em tiger!

while i like the monarchy, i like the anglosphere more, and Australia should know that that attitude won't change regardless of who their head of state is.
likewise, i know that the ties that bind will not disolve if Oz becomes a republic, and that you guys will always be dependable friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

I don't get the whole commonwealth monarchy thing... does it actually serve a purpose now other than being a black-hole for taxpayers?

---

lol, do you know how much the commonwealth costs to run?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...tre-stage.html

Commonwealth: Relic of empire returns to centre stage
The once-derided Commonwealth could now wield real influence in the changing landscape of global politics, says Robert Colvile.

By Robert Colvile
Published: 7:39AM GMT 26 Nov 2009

It has welcomed democrats and dictators, Botswanans and Barbadians, but this weekend, the Commonwealth will receive its most unexpected guest of all – a French president.

In a curtain-raiser for the Copenhagen climate talks – and a reversal of centuries of imperial rivalry – Nicolas Sarkozy will join the UN Secretary-General and Danish prime minister in making the case for an agreement on carbon emissions. There have even been excitable reports – swiftly denied – that Barack Obama will jet in, hoping to woo the 53 members before the real bargaining begins.

Such diplomatic hurdy-gurdy reflects the fact that the Commonwealth has a membership unlike any other world body. As Tony Blair said in 1995, it "includes five of the world's 10 fastest-growing economies... It is the only organisation, outside the UN itself, to transcend regional organisations and bring together north and south. The issues that dominate post-Cold War relations are at its heart; refugees, drug trafficking, international crime, terrorism, Aids, debt and trade."

Since then, the rise of India has only increased the organisation's potential significance – especially for a Britain struggling to keep its place in an increasingly turbulent world.

In the old days, talk of the Commonwealth as "modern" or "vital" would have been bizarre. It was sometimes joked that "CHOGM" – the acronym for the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings – stood for "cheap holidays on government money", given that the centrepiece was a weekend retreat at which leaders chatted and negotiated as equals, free from the supervision of interpreters or civil servants.

Which other summit would see Margaret Thatcher waltzing arm in arm with the president of Zambia, the Queen offering cocktails to journalists on the Royal Yacht, or Tony Blair lining up tennis matches against anyone his officials thought he could beat?

It wasn't exactly that CHOGM was just a jolly – apart from the networking, there was serious business to attend to. In Trinidad tomorrow, leaders will discuss the readmission of Zimbabwe, and the arrival of Rwanda, which has proved its enthusiasm for Commonwealth affairs by forming a cricket team.

There will also be warm talk about historic links and shared democratic values. But underpinning it all will be the perennial question: what is the Commonwealth actually for? A report to be published today by the Royal Commonwealth Society warns that it has "a worryingly low profile" among both public and policy-makers: less than a third of people in the Commonwealth could name anything the association did, and the majority of those could cite only the Commonwealth Games.

Certainly, from the British perspective, the organisation has usually played second fiddle. In October 2001, the Brisbane CHOGM was abruptly postponed, partly because of security fears, but mostly because Mr Blair was scurrying around Asia, laying the groundwork for the assault on the Taliban. Given the choice between standing at the head of the Commonwealth or at the side of the Americans, the PM plumped instinctively for the latter.

By his lights, it was the right decision – but it was part of a familiar pattern. In opposition, New Labour claimed that the Commonwealth would be one of its foreign-policy "pillars". Mr Blair insisted that "we cannot let a priceless legacy like this fade into nostalgia" – but nothing happened. Similarly, William Hague recently promised the Tories' "unwavering support" – but specific proposals were thin on the ground.

The Commonwealth's supporters point out that its two billion inhabitants make up roughly 30 per cent of the world's population, and between a quarter and a fifth of its economy – a proportion that can only grow, given the membership of a resurgent India.

The connections between its members – in particular, the linguistic, administrative and cultural legacy of British rule – mean that it costs 15 per cent less to trade within the organisation than with outsiders. So why does Britain not embrace the opportunity the Commonwealth offers?

Part of the problem is that the relationship has always been slightly troubled. While we are rarely now at loggerheads with other members – in contrast to Mrs Thatcher's isolation over South Africa – we still have to perform a tricky balancing act. Do too much, such as chivvying members to improve their human rights record, and we are accused of being neocolonialist. Do too little, and we are accused of neglecting our historic allies.

"From the British perspective, there can be a bit of a mendicant flavour to proceedings," says Richard Bourne, the former head of the Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit. "There are all these small countries, begging for resources and favours."

As it stands, Britain provides the lion's share of the Commonwealth's budget, alongside Australia and Canada. But that budget is relatively tiny, especially compared with French largesse towards La Francophonie, France's rather smaller club of former colonies.

Despite the grandeur of the its headquarters on Pall Mall, in a mansion loaned by the Queen, the Commonwealth Secretariat rubs along on just £14.9 million a year, barely enough to pay for a Premiership footballer. As a result, most of its work is valuable but low level: development, election observation, mutual offers of scholarships and the like.

And despite the criticisms in the new report, the Commonwealth has tried hard to find a role. Back in 1991, after the collapse of Communism, the organisation proclaimed that it was no longer a fuddy-duddy relic of Empire, but a club of democracies. Under this new arrangement – unique among international bodies – the military strongmen who used to populate the meetings would find a bouncer at the entrance: no elections, no entry.

There was, however, the problem of enforcing this – and of massaging the divisions that are inevitable among such a diverse array of nations. Given how touchy former colonies are about their independence, the Commonwealth ethos is, in Bourne's phrase, "one of co-operation where at all possible" – the maximum progress compatible with the minimum offence.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), the rotating committee that monitors breaches of democratic norms, was only given any real authority because it was set up in response to a diplomatic crisis.

It was not just that Nigeria executed Ken Saro Wiwa and eight other environmental activists in the middle of the 1995 CHOGM, but that this contravened promises made to other leaders in private. As a result, John Major denounced it as "murder, callous and brutal", while Nelson Mandela fumed that General Abacha, the Nigerian dictator, was "sitting on a volcano, and I am going to explode it under him".

In general, however, the Commonwealth does not really do volcanic: indeed, Britain has been so hands-off that more than one Foreign Secretary has failed to attend CMAG's meetings, even when held in London.

Yet in the long term, as Amartya Sen writes in the foreword to another new report, Democracy in the Commonwealth: "The evolution of the Commonwealth from an Empire on which the sun used not to set to an alliance of free nations... has been nothing short of spectacular."

The authors of that report would like to see the Commonwealth continue down this road – to focus on development, human rights, and redressing the failure of many members "to encourage, or even countenance, open political competition".

Yet the Commonwealth has another kind of potential, which from a British perspective could be even more valuable. Amid the West's obsession with China, it is easy to forget that India – with its far more savoury political system – is also on the path to becoming a great power, hailed this week by President Obama as a nation whose relationship with the US would help define the 21st century.

"I've been predicting for years that India is going to be the leading player in the Commonwealth," says Derek Ingram, a journalist and leading Commonwealth observer, "and it's now coming to pass. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is putting it at the centre of Indian foreign policy."

Within the organisation itself there has been no struggle for power – it is far too gentlemanly a body for that – but India is nevertheless starting to flex its muscles: it provides the current secretary-general, will host the next Commonwealth Games, and is increasing its funding for a number of the group's initiatives.

"From the Indian point of view, the Commonwealth is an attractive field, particularly in terms of its rivalry with China," says Bourne, "It offers access to raw materials and investment opportunities, especially in Africa, and the ability to connect to the Indian diaspora across the world."

For Britain, a Commonwealth in which India took a lead would be more of a club of equals, a better reflection of the changing world. It would also, economically speaking, be a way to hitch a ride on the back of the Indian tiger – just as in cricket, where India now calls the shots, but the best British players still get a slice of the massive revenues from its Twenty20 competition.

Yet whatever happens, Britain's diplomats can reflect, as they bask in the Trinidadian sun, that what many have written off as an imperial relic has turned out to be a consensual, informal and adaptable organisation – and one that could, if policy-makers show some vision, be uniquely useful in a world whose problems are beyond the scope of individual countries, or even continents.

anyone want to compare the commonwelath budget of £14.9m to the EU budget now ammounting to untold squillions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

"60p per taxperson" becomes a lot less reassuring when you realize it's millions of pounds better spent somewhere else. And the fact that a president would be cheaper (assuming it doesn't devolve into an Italianesque situation).

---

lol, when has a president ever been cheaper?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Oh yeah I am hesitant about that, but as long as the position is a fairly limited one then I don't have too much problem with this.

---

Just rename the current office of Governor General "President" and leave the Commonwealth. Instant republic :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It isn't cheaper. The German President costs more than many monarchs, and he does even less than most of them.

---

I've heard this before, and I seriously question this. I don't feel like looking it up though.
Fortunately it's you who made the claim here, wich means you get to do the work ~;)
Remember, you must also include the costs for all the monarch's useless relatives in your calculations :whip:

Still, even if it costs more...take the President of Iceland, for example. The veto he cast on the Icesave bill was highly unusual. But at least he was elected to his job (by their parliament)
In contrast, this guy and this guy got where they were by virtue of birth and deluded themselves into thinking it was acceptable for them to refuse signing a law passed by the legislature. That alone is a good reason to be in favour of a republic :juggle2:

You should find an old, illustrious Aborigine family and crown its paterfamilias your king. :crowngrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Also, if Australia becomes a republic does that mean your going to change your flag?

---

Probably. A lot of people (myself included) favour changing it to the Eureka Flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Just rename the current office of Governor General "President" and leave the Commonwealth. Instant republic :yes:

---

At the previous referendum the question was whether we wanted to remain a Monarchy or whether we wanted to change to a Republic. The problem with it was that the design chosen for a Republic was the one you just suggested, which was unpopular amongst a lot of people. I would have voted against it at the time, as did quite a number of more reformist Republicans. The most likely step forward is the two-step process, where we are first asked if we want to be a Republic and then asked what form it would take. I can't find the data but I believe that 70 or so percent of Republicans want the leader directly elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

A President cheaper? Really? I doubt it.

~:smoking:

---

Depends on wether or not you take a 4 your term over a lifetime of preparation to cut ribbons.

So you get rid of the monarchs, and suddenly you find that a whole industry has gone bankrupt and bored housewives go and riot on the streets during the times they used to read the, now gone, yellow press. -> country collapses!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Probably. A lot of people (myself included) favour changing it to the Eureka Flag.

---

Too many pointy bits on that one. Looks like you're crucifying a bunch of shuriken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Too many pointy bits on that one. Looks like you're crucifying a bunch of shuriken.

---

Ninjas on a flag has to count for something, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Depends on wether or not you take a 4 your term over a lifetime of preparation to cut ribbons.

---

And don't forget that every one requires state paid for security guards for the rest of their life.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

The freedom to choose my own leaders. I can't put a price on that.

---

This proud freedom is worth a century of revolutions, reactionary counter-revolutions, and the whole of Europe declaring war against you. :yes:

Do away with Monarchy, sooner the better.

It is not as if she is British anyway, she is German. As Evil_Maniac from Mars really wants a monarchy, we can send him our Queen back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This proud freedom is worth a century of revolutions, reactionary counter-revolutions, and the whole of Europe declaring war against you. :yes:

---

and god knows that a frenchman, above anyone else, is well qualified to offer this bit of wisdom to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Just rename the current office of Governor General "President" and leave the Commonwealth. Instant republic :yes:

---

For all the jokes that are made about not being able to play in the games anymore, we wouldn't actually leave the commonwealth if we became a republic. I'm in the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" crowd, but if someone showed me a system that was superior to what we have now then I'd go with it. Gaining some freedom which we already have isn't enough of a reason for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

For all the jokes that are made about not being able to play in the games anymore, we wouldn't actually leave the commonwealth if we became a republic. I'm in the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" crowd, but if someone showed me a system that was superior to what we have now then I'd go with it. Gaining some freedom which we already have isn't enough of a reason for me.

---

That comment is quite oxymoronic. The "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is against progress and advancement as it is a very 'status quo' belief.

Just letting you know. You can't really declare to be two opposites. You can be some where in the middle, though.

:sweatdrop: Well I'm against progress for progress' sake, if there's going to be a change then it should be better. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That comment is quite oxymoronic. The "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is against progress and advancement as it is a very 'status quo' belief.

Just letting you know. You can't really declare to be two opposites. You can be some where in the middle, though.

---

that's because you believe progress for the sake of progress is an end in itself.

The very word "Progress" implies that you are moving towards something. Isn't that a goal worth exploring?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

The very word "Progress" implies that you are moving towards something. Isn't that a goal worth exploring?

---

sure it is, but too many people mistake change for progress.

and progress itself is in the eye of the beholder.

and if you accept that change is not necessarily a good thing, and that the appreciation of progress is subjective, what does "explore" actually mean; an intellectual study of the new idea, or a wholesale gutting of extant institutions that already function very well in the hope that some new change/progress will be 'better'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that's because you believe progress for the sake of progress is an end in itself.

---

Nope, it is a strive for perfection. In order to get some where, you got to do something. Either through studying, physical training and other things.

You study so you can progress to the state of being a doctor, for incidence. You practise running till you become a track record winner. You do things constantly and bit by bit, you get to this things. Cars didn't suddenly just appear on the roads, neither did roads appear there magically either. It was years of progress, from seeing the advantage of having a flat surface to travel on, to horse and carts, to generation of energy without beast. It is this progress that got us from running over rocky, muddy, and uneven surfaces taking days to reach a destination, to cutting down the time significantly.

The whole idea of standing still is counter-productive, it is meaningless, it is goal-less. For clarification, slow progress doesn't equal standing still. Progress is a constant process.

regardless of the fact that i am willing to separate social 'science' from engineering............ see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It is not as if she is British anyway, she is German. As Evil_Maniac from Mars really wants a monarchy, we can send him our Queen back.

---

She isn't German anymore. An outstanding leader though she is, I don't want her to rule my country. I want the legitimate dynasty back, to replace the useless, expensive, undemocratic, and ineffectual President.

But I only want it if that is the will of the people, to be decided in a referendum, after thoughtful and open debate on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Actually the Royal family are the biggest land owners in the country. I don't even want to think about how much land they own combined. They're pretty self sustaining really.

Also, if Australia becomes a republic does that mean your going to change your flag?

---

"Self-sustaining"? :laugh4: Have a care, read up a bit. Your tax money pays it and that land is private property. Most presidents, moreover, are a lot cheaper than royalty with all their crowns, thrones, palaces, and fancy marriages. Except in Italy, of course, but hey. You can't take that as an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And don't forget that every one requires state paid for security guards for the rest of their life.

~:smoking:

---

Don't they do that anyway despite having a monarchy or not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Except in Italy, of course, but hey. You can't take that as an example.

---

Germany as well. I haven't yet found the statistics, but I know I have found and quoted them in the past. The Backroom doesn't have a search function, does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

"Self-sustaining"? :laugh4: Have a care, read up a bit. Your tax money pays it and that land is private property. Most presidents, moreover, are a lot cheaper than royalty with all their crowns, thrones, palaces, and fancy marriages. Except in Italy, of course, but hey. You can't take that as an example.

---

As it has already been mentioned, the upkeep is fairly minimal.

It will happen at some stage, bloody Howard set it back by decades. Though really only a ceremonial post we should definitely have our own president. Come on, Warnie for president!!

The press were falling over themselves to cover the visit because they didn't want to cover any real news. Why would they want to cover something important when the could cover what Paris/brangelina/willy have been wearing? That is of earth shattering importance.

@CA: I would vote against the Eureka Flag.

Chuck the abo flag instead of the British one and we'll be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

@CA: I would vote against the Eureka Flag.

---

I have some qualms about it, mostly that the Southern Cross is a badge of pride for racists, but I think the historical implications of the flag are an important lesson worth remembering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Chuck the abo flag instead of the British one and we'll be fine.

---

That would be a nice idea for sure, but on the other hand can you see many people supporting that?

I can actually. If the media got into it, they could just saturate the idea that to not accept it would be unaustralian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I can actually. If the media got into it, they could just saturate the idea that to not accept it would be unaustralian.

---

Except that Murdoch owns a good half of our media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I have some qualms about it, mostly that the Southern Cross is a badge of pride for racists, but I think the historical implications of the flag are an important lesson worth remembering.

---

that would seem a fairly facile and spineless reason to reject a symbol of historical and cultural significance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that would seem a fairly facile and spineless reason to reject a symbol of historical and cultural significance?

---

You can understand the frustration of Buddahists in some Western Democracies then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that would seem a fairly facile and spineless reason to reject a symbol of historical and cultural significance?

---

Note that I just have qualms, but that I also said I would support changing to it. I'm sure racists will use whatever nationalist badge they can get regardless of what the flag is changed to (except probably the Aboriginal one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You can understand the frustration of Buddahists in some Western Democracies then.

---

why do buddhists get het up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

why do buddhists get het up?

---

I assume he is referring to the swastika.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I assume he is referring to the swastika.

---

ah, same as the finns then.

well yes, i do understand and i live in a country that rightly decided not to outlaw the use of such symbols.

I can say from personal observation that they do, at least in my country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Note that I just have qualms, but that I also said I would support changing to it. I'm sure racists will use whatever nationalist badge they can get regardless of what the flag is changed to (except probably the Aboriginal one).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

The whole idea of standing still is counter-productive, it is meaningless, it is goal-less. For clarification, slow progress doesn't equal standing still. Progress is a constant process.

---

So, using your own analogy, you never stop at a road before crossing it? Standing still forever can generally be regarded as counter-productive, but there are often times when standing still does have a purpose and achieves a goal (e.g. not getting yourself killed). Now, you may argue that what I call standing still is what you'd call slow progress but, as you say yourself, progress is a constant process. If you stop that process, even for a short time, it is no longer constant and therefore can't be defined as progress using your own definition.

On the topic at hand, it is of course up to the Australians on who they choose to be Head of State, but I would make a similar argument which others have. If you just want to swap one figurehead for another, is it really worth it in terms of increased cost, etc (and for the record, the UK monarchy cost the British taxpayer just £35 million last year, try to find me a President of a similarly sized country who costs significantly less)? If you want an active President then are you unhappy with the Parliamentary system you have? If you feel the current system works and the country is making progress in other areas (economic, social, etc) is there a need to force political 'progress' too when it may not make any difference and could have adverse consequences?

I still don't get to pick and that, by its very defenition, is undemocratic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I still don't get to pick and that, by its very defenition, is undemocratic.

---

que?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Isn't the GG or a Royal useful for all of the ceremonial figurehead rituals of state stuff? I mean, it's not as though there has been any de facto royal power exercised in Oz for a goodly bit of time, no?

---

Actually royal power is exercised is ever day in Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand. You see the position of Prime Minister has many perks, not the least of which is the right to use royal prerogative. Or as you would call it, executive power. What the Queen and her GG's over the globe have (along with many presidents) is reserve powers.

Our GG was told to use ond such reseve power by that slimey weasel Harper around new years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

"Self-sustaining"? :laugh4: Have a care, read up a bit. Your tax money pays it and that land is private property. Most presidents, moreover, are a lot cheaper than royalty with all their crowns, thrones, palaces, and fancy marriages. Except in Italy, of course, but hey. You can't take that as an example.

---

Actually, the Crown Revenues go directly into the Coffers of the Treasury, in exchange for which the Treasury funds the Civil List, irrc the Revenues are about double the List, so the Treasury makes a very tidy profit. The 60p per tax-payer goes on the upkeep of Royal Residences, those which are not private property.

As tibilicus mentioned, these would need to be maintained in the event of a Republic and one would probably become the Presidential Residence. You seem to be under the illusion that "crowns, thrones, and palaces" are things regularly bought, the Crown jewels are hundred of years old, and Buckingham Palace is in serious need of repair. I doubt any president would be as tollerant as the Queen is regarding the dillapidated state of her official residence.

How much do you suppose the US president costs? Or the French president?

Furthermore, the Queen is much wealthier than any potential president, and so she buys her own clothes.

Rather like the arguments to scrap part of Trident: "if 4 subs costs 2 billion, then scrapping one will save 500 million"...

A President, elected by the people has not only the Right to spend the money as s/he sees fit, but a limited length of time to do so. better get cracking!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Actually, the Crown Revenues go directly into the Coffers of the Treasury, in exchange for which the Treasury funds the Civil List, irrc the Revenues are about double the List, so the Treasury makes a very tidy profit. The 60p per tax-payer goes on the upkeep of Royal Residences, those which are not private property.

As tibilicus mentioned, these would need to be maintained in the event of a Republic and one would probably become the Presidential Residence. You seem to be under the illusion that "crowns, thrones, and palaces" are things regularly bought, the Crown jewels are hundred of years old, and Buckingham Palace is in serious need of repair. I doubt any president would be as tollerant as the Queen is regarding the dillapidated state of her official residence.

How much do you suppose the US president costs? Or the French president?

Furthermore, the Queen is much wealthier than any potential president, and so she buys her own clothes.

---

Well, technically all English (or even British?) soil is property of the crown. People who say "I own a house" are just tenants, technically.
I assume that when you Brits speak of the Queen's personal property, you mean those possessions of wich she personally, i.e. not in the capacity as queen, "owns"? Otherwise, this whole line of reasoning is disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This proud freedom is worth a century of revolutions, reactionary counter-revolutions, and the whole of Europe declaring war against you. :yes:

---

Don't tell me about it.

Ha the good memory :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Our GG was told to use ond such reseve power by that slimey weasel Harper around new years.

---

Slimy beaver is more appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Our GG was told to use ond such reseve power by that slimey weasel Harper around new years.

---

It wasn't a slimy move at all, or at least was considerably less slimy than the other alternative.

There's no logical justification for any Monarchy at all. Neither for Dictatorships. But then, they have always existed someplace or another because "people want to be led" is an axiomatic statement.

The British Kingship de facto has no political value or weight ever since the XIX century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lol, when has a president ever been cheaper?

---

Our president is cheaper and is only a figurehead who functions in a role very like your Queen it is largely ceremonial and the Taoiseach (prime minister) is the real power. Problem solved and the roles of state hardly change which is good come on Australia chuck out those Germans.

Heard on the radio this morning:

Ray Martin has joined a group that is against the Union Jack in our flag.

Interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Well, technically all English (or even British?) soil is property of the crown. People who say "I own a house" are just tenants, technically.

---

Move to a republic and don't pay your rates, see how long you last before they kick you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Our president is cheaper and is only a figurehead who functions in a role very like your Queen it is largely ceremonial and the Taoiseach (prime minister) is the real power. Problem solved and the roles of state hardly change which is good come on Australia chuck out those Germans.

---

If money were the only issue then there wouldn't be a debate at all, she doesn't cost us a cent.