Australian Politics Forum - Should Australia become a republic?

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #90 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 6:11am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:29pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 9:52pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 7:45pm:

But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate.

...

It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG.

A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. If the foreign monarch prefers an unpopular choice, what then? If she uses her considerable influence to advance the cause of this unpopular choice, what then? Another situation where the legal representative of the Australian people must insist on another candidate? No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State, without turning to a foreigner to see if it's OK with her.

Who should decide who the Australian head of state is and what process is used to make that decision?

<"But genius", he added, "Lies in asking the right questions">

An excellent question.... And so a debate begins...

Should we have a HOS appointed by the Head of Government (The PM - fundamentally as it is now except without Royal Assent)?

Should the HOS candidates be approved and one appointed by a majority in both houses of Parliament?

Should the HOS be directly elected?

Should the Head of Government and HOS be combined into a single role (i.e. the PM becomes in effect an executive President)?

Should Parliament appoint a "Sovereign Council" comprising of eminent Australians charged with appointing a HOS?

The question should not create more questions though. If it does it is not already answered. And if it is not already answered then it it is not worth considering or it becomes merely an academic exercise. This is not necessarily bad but it is not the right time to consider change if the answers to critical questions are unknown.

To debate it it is fun, to risk it is dangerous.

The only common theme in your posts helian is 'foreigner'. Are we, as a nation, so embarrassed by our past that we have to chnage it to . . . . what exactly?

Why does a 'foreigner' make you so uncomfortable?

Why are you so willing to throw out a perfectly good, and demonstrably superior, system of government because of embarrassment when the alternatives are as yet unknown?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48841
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #91 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:14am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 11:11pm:

mantra wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:49pm:

[quote]

I agree - but I don't believe the majority of Australians want a Republic. .

I believe they do.

Didn't we have a vote on this recently? Didn't it prove the exact same point I am trying to make - that until you come up with a better alternative, calls to overthrow our noble queen are somewhat vacuous. Until you replace your list of possible alternatives with a single one, you only have half of an idea.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #92 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:46am

The question should not create more questions though.

All great questions spawn others nearly as great.

The only common theme in your posts helian is 'foreigner'.

Because being foreign is the ironic prerequisite to becoming the Australian Head of State.

We ask…we expect of all immigrants that, after a time, they become Australian citizens. That they commit to this country, remain loyal and defend her with their lives against all enemies foreign and domestic including the country of their birth if necessary. Much is expected of those to whom much is bestowed.

It would be at the very least a courtesy to those from whom much is expected that we are consistent with what we ask of our leaders in fact or in name.

However, we do not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation in the same way. We may not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation by becoming an Australian citizen because the land of her birth (of which she is their natural born Head of State) would not permit her to do so and would discourage an Australian Parliament from making such a request. The British Parliament would forbid such an act and the British people of course would have a problem with a foreign Head of State. That would be a feature of a lesser state, I imagine they would think. Such as a colony, for example.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 25^th, 2008 at 8:16pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48841 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #93 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:53am Helian I think I mentioned this before. The Queen is not our HOS. Once we make people realise that the PM is actually our HOS, do you think this whole 'republic issue' will go away?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #94 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:58am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:46am:

The question should not create more questions though.

All great questions spawn others nearly as great.

The only common theme in your posts helian is 'foreigner'.

Because foreign is the ironic prerequisite to becoming the Australian Head of State.

We ask…we expect of all immigrants that, after a time, they become Australian citizens. That they commit to this country, remain loyal and defend her with their lives against all enemies foreign and domestic including the country of their birth if necessary. Much is expected of those to whom much is bestowed

We do not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation in the same way. We may not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation by becoming an Australian citizen because the land of her birth (of which she is their natural born Head of State) would not permit her to do so and would discourage an Australian Parliament from making such a request. The British Parliament would forbid such an act and the British people of course would have a problem with a foreign Head of State. That would be a feature of a lesser state... a colony, perhaps.

So that's it in its entirety - the old (and I thought forgotten) cultural cringe? That we will never be as good as everyone else while everyone else thinks we are a 'colony' with a 'foreign' head of state?

Let me tell you no one (with the obvious exception of an embarrassed few) thinks that way. Australia has defeated many a foe, we have shown the world how to run an economy and we have beaten all comers on the sporting field. We have nothing to be ashamed of and much to be proud of.

I feel no diminution by having a Head Of State who is the British Monarch. Because I am proud of our history and grateful for our heritage.

We have the best system of government in the world - there is no valid reason at all to change to an inferior system.

Back to top

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #95 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:59am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

Helian I think I mentioned this before. The Queen is not our HOS. Once we make people realise that the PM is actually our HOS, do you think this whole 'republic issue' will go away?

Actually she is. The PM is an elected representative. But the GG is our nominal Head of state as HM's representative.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #96 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:06am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

Helian I think I mentioned this before. The Queen is not our HOS. Once we make people realise that the PM is actually our HOS, do you think this whole 'republic issue' will go away?

The Prime Minister is our Head of Government.

QE2 is our nominal Head of State with her reserve powers vested in the Governor General.

Head of Government and Head of State are two separate roles.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #97 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am

So that's it in its entirety - the old (and I thought forgotten) cultural cringe? That we will never be as good as everyone else while everyone else thinks we are a 'colony' with a 'foreign' head of state?

Closer to the crux of the issue is that it would be at the very least a courtesy to those from whom much is expected that we are consistent with what we ask of our leaders in fact or in name, such as being an Australian citizen when you are bestowed the privilege and honour of becoming the Australian HOS.

Let me tell you no one (with the obvious exception of an embarrassed few) thinks that way.

Do you speak for "we the People"? regardless of age, gender, ethnicity political belief?

Australia has defeated many a foe, we have shown the world how to run an economy and we have beaten all comers on the sporting field. We have nothing to be ashamed of and much to be proud of.

OK... The Americans are pretty good at running an economy and defeating people (well, used to be good at defeating people) . and the Chinese aren't bad at it these days either. They're both not too foul at sports if Olympic medal tallies are anything to go by.

I feel no diminution by having a Head Of State who is the British Monarch. .

Are you a WASP?

We have the best system of government in the world - there is no valid reason at all to change to an inferior system.

Who is suggesting an inferior model?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48841 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #98 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:33am OK, if you want to be pedantic, the queen is our 'nominal' head of state and the PM is the real HOS.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #99 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:47am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:33am:

OK, if you want to be pedantic, the queen is our 'nominal' head of state and the PM is the real HOS.

It is not being pedantic. The roles are entirely separate and defined in law. The HOG is subordinate to the HOS, hence the reason Kerr could successfully dismiss Whitlam and order the dissolution of Parliament.

Not all political systems recognise two roles. The Americans after the revolution decided that the separate roles were problematic and combined them both into a single role, that of the President who is in effect both HOG and HOS.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48841
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #100 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 11:45am

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS

Not in any real sense.

You seem to be getting hung up on purely technical and ideological problems, while ignoring what is really happening. If you could fix the technical 'problems', whatever you think they are, without changing what really happens and without incurring any real cost, it wouldn't bother me. But I don't think you can do that. Any ideologue who demands change while ignoring reality is a danger to society.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 25^th, 2008 at 11:52am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #101 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 12:07pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS

Not in any real sense.

You seem to be getting hung up on purely technical and ideological problems, while ignoring what is really happening. If you could fix the technical 'problems', whatever you think they are, without changing what really happens and without incurring any real cost, it wouldn't bother me. But I don't think you can do that. Any ideologue who demands change while ignoring reality is a danger to society.

Please read something on the Westminster system of government and its adaptation in the form of the Australian system of government.

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS. This is not a technical or ideological nicety. It is a constitutional fact.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:52pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #102 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:29pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Closer to the crux of the issue is that it would be at the very least a courtesy to those from whom much is expected that we are consistent with what we ask of our leaders in fact or in name, such as being an Australian citizen when you are bestowed the privilege and honour of becoming the Australian HOS.

It is the other way around. Before there was an Australia there was a monarch. The monarchy came first. We are fortunate it is so.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Do you speak for "we the People"? regardless of age, gender, ethnicity political belief?

Not only do I speak for the people, the people speak for the people when in 1999 a republican model was rejected.

And, apart from Cardboard Kev's love-fest, I don't recollect it ever being brought up in any conversation. In my experience Australians are damned proud to be Australian, they don't have any hang up about 'foreigners'.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

OK... The Americans are pretty good at running an economy and defeating people (well, used to be good at defeating people) . and the Chinese aren't bad at it these days either. They're both not too foul at sports if Olympic medal tallies are anything to go by.

The Americans have multi trillion dollar debt, the Americans have a whacking great divide between rich and poor and the Americans have a social welfare system that is invisible. They also have a population more than ten times ours and have a huge military. We still beat them at some sports despite our tiny population - and we do it all with a constitutional monarchy.

The Chinese? I don't think for a moment you can compare our lives to that of the Chinese. And they do not have a constutional monarchy.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Are you a WASP?

No, I am a bumble bee.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Who is suggesting an inferior model?

The republicans are.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 40714 Gender:	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #103 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:39pm Still so far I see no specific fact as to any advantage a republic has over the monarchy. Sure, discuss a "foreign" HOS, if it is appropriate or not. What advantage would a voted in aussie have, over the system that has been stable for 200 years ?
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #104 - Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:39pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS

Not in any real sense.

You seem to be getting hung up on purely technical and ideological problems, while ignoring what is really happening. If you could fix the technical 'problems', whatever you think they are, without changing what really happens and without incurring any real cost, it wouldn't bother me. But I don't think you can do that. Any ideologue who demands change while ignoring reality is a danger to society.

In every sense.

The Constitution is clear in this regard.

Quote:

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

Back to top

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should Australia become a republic?
YES NO MAYBE « Created by: DILLIGAF on: Mar 6^th, 2007 at 10:11pm »