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?
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
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.
Originally Posted by TosaInu
The org will be org until everyone calls it a day.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
but I joke. Some of my best friends are Vietnamese villages.
Originally Posted by Lemur
Anyone who wishes to refer to me as peverlemur is free to do so.
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:
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 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.
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.
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
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..
Last edited by tibilicus; 01-23-2010 at 15:33.
"A lamb goes to the slaughter but a man, he knows when to walk away."
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.
Last edited by CountArach; 01-23-2010 at 15:34.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
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.
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
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?
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
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.
CA congrats on going in purdah. When did this happen and how much did it cost?
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
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.
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.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Remember that a politician would be President, and that's never a good thing IMO.
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.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
CA congrats on going in purdah. When did this happen and how much did it cost?
Thanks. It happened about 4 hours ago, and they had to pay me to take the position
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Nothing established by violence and maintained by force, nothing that degrades humanity and is based on contempt for human personality, can endure.
There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.
"The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."
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 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.
"When the candles are out all women are fair."
-Plutarch, Coniugia Praecepta 46
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.
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.
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
"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 ain't where you're from / it's where you're at."
"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.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind. Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
"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?
"A lamb goes to the slaughter but a man, he knows when to walk away."
I favour a Westminster-style constitutional monarchy, but it is ultimately the will of the people that should decide.
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.
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.
Last edited by Furunculus; 01-23-2010 at 20:30.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
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!
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
"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?
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
An Australian Republic
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Reply With Quote
for the crown-prince, where just about every war-criminal resides.
#Hillary4prism 
- Horseman of the 
Bookmarks