Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7856094.stm

This thread is all about the issue of republicanism and whether Australia should become a republic. Personally, I am against the matter as the alternative is becoming the lapdog of the US, a country we have share little close history with and even less in the way our country is run. I cringe every time Obama and Rudd hug each other, really twists my guts. This is due to my strong (or dogged) sense of loyalty, we owe nothing to the States and much more to the UK. I'd prefer that Australia sticks to it's historical roots with England and, perhaps even more importantly, the Crown.

What are the thoughts of fellow Dakka posters on this issue? All posts, including international opinions are welcome.

I think the powers of the Governor General should be wholly subsumed by the Prime Minister, other than that no change.

Unlike the Uk your relationship to the Queen is distant, so the benefits diluted. The cultural and societal tiers do not require the role and it is questionable because Prime Ministers have been removed in the past by the Governor General.

I do agree that removing the crown ties completely would be a retrograde move. It would remove safeguards regarding cultural absorbtion from elsewhere and the whole attitude of 'if it doesn't profit me remove it is mentally and morally unhealthy anyway, it is far better to say it doesnt profit me, but keep it for the sake of continuency' after all it doesnt cost Australia anything.

If you rid the ties to the Crown I think Australia will lose something of itself, and will gain nothing in return. You cannot actually be any more independant of us this way. The Uk has as much influence of Oz as it does over China. It's a different house now.

It's not for me to say that you folks should remain loyal to the Crown - but yeah, I'd like Australia to still be part of the gang. We like you.

What exactly are the pros/cons of being in the commonwealth?

Australians should make their own decision about whether to become a republic or not.

When the referendum was done a few years ago, the choices presented were basically;

1. Keep the Queen
2. Something much, much worse

so amazingly they voted to keep the Queen.

Any future referendum needs to have realistic options.

Kilkrazy wrote:Australians should make their own decision about whether to become a republic or not.

When the referendum was done a few years ago, the choices presented were basically;

1. Keep the Queen
2. Something much, much worse

so amazingly they voted to keep the Queen.

Any future referendum needs to have realistic options.

Do as thou wilt, but take note:

The trouble with multiple referendums is that they are set up to fail.
If you had one every few years and once the Republican vote gets into a majority and you have a republic do you keep having referendums to see if you switch back? Likely not.

The Australians will do what they like.

I think we should stay a constitutional monarchy.

Having a detatched head of state means we don't end up with party political hacks/yes men of either political spectrum bringing their agenda to yet another tier of government (presidential style).

Our prime ministers have become more presidential in style over the last 10 years.

We don't need another one.

What was with Kevin Rudd refusing to swear allegiance to the Queen when he became Prime Minister?

Anyway, the Referendum in 1999 could definitely have ended very badly. A President, who replaces a relatively non-politicised Governer-General and the Queen, selected by Parliament and not by the People? Yeah, thanks but no thanks, mate.

Does anyone know how often a referendum be held on the same subject?

You owe a gakload to us,without us you would be speaking japanese.

Grambo wrote:You owe a gakload to us,without us you would be speaking japanese.

I'm not even going to get into the statistical impossibilities of Japan conquering Australia, but on the flipside, the US didn't get into the war to help bail good ol' Aus out, no siree. We were fighting them long before that little incident in Pearl Harbour, weren't we?

Before it, I'm pretty sure that "saving the roo's!" was a couple of steps down on America's To-Do list.

Still,we saved you.

Not really. Do you really think that Japan would have mustered the forces to control the entirety of Asia *and* conquer and occupy Australia and NZ?

Even if they made it that far, we would have given them Tasmania anyway.

In short, yes.

You should be thankful the Queen hasn't gotten rid of YOU rather than the other way around!

You're gonna leave us before you finish the middle?

Grambo wrote:Still,we saved you.

You are forgetting 15th army and the Indian Ocean and Pacific fleets, and the quality job the ANZACs did in their own defence. There is a good reason the Japanese never got fully through the Indonesian archipelago.
However for some Yanks this is sort of crap is par for the course. At this rate it wont be long before they deny the Soviet role.

'Gee, if it werent for us y'all be speaking German.'
Go to Moscow and try that.

Orlanth wrote:

'Gee, if it werent for us y'all be speaking German.'
Go to Moscow and try that.

Who gives a gakk as long as we keep the Ashes

Orlanth wrote: At this rate it wont be long before they deny the Soviet role.

Oh, it already happens. In fact, I'd say its the dominant opinion with respect to WWII.

The Soviets were in WWII???

News to me!

Let the Aussies decide.

There are some benefits to staying in the good books of our monarch, but everyone's gotta grow up sometime....

Orlanth wrote:

Grambo wrote:Still,we saved you.

'Gee, if it werent for us y'all be speaking German.'
Go to Moscow and try that.

I think there's no doubt about it that Russia was the main reason the allies won the war.

But communists are bad! Associating with their kind is tacit to associating with the devil.

At least there's a foolproof method for discerning communist from capitalist: trials held in Salem! Maybe we can even get some Scarlet Letters involved.

Grambo wrote:Still,we saved you.

Yeah, you're right. Thanks. But, because of it, +1 Enemy to America and -1 Enemy to Australia.

I really don't care if we become a Republic. It doesn't help anyone to stay as we are, but it wouldn't help anyone to change. It doesn't mean anything.

I voted for the Republic last time, as I liked the new model. It put a level of control on the appointed President while keeping the position as a final check on the running of government and nothing more. If we tried again with another model, such as a popularly elected President I'd vote against it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anyway, the Referendum in 1999 could definitely have ended very badly. A President, who replaces a relatively non-politicised Governer-General and the Queen, selected by Parliament and not by the People? Yeah, thanks but no thanks, mate.

That's a pretty bizarre understanding of the referendum proposed in '99. How do you complain about politicising the role in one point, then argue it should be popularly elected in the next?

The amendment actually looked to put another level of control on the appointment, rather than the Prime Minister nominating a person, then receiving a rubberstamp from the Queen, we would have had the position confirmed by parliament. Given the only real role of the position was to ensure parliament was functioning properly and to call an election if it is not, it makes sense it is approved by parliament as a whole. Basically, the person who acts as a final overseer of parliament should really be someone respected by parliament as a whole, not someone selected from an entirely seperate process. If you've ever followed local government you'd have noticed that the councils that fail to run council meetings properly are almost always the ones with popularly elected mayors.

The recognition of that responsibility as the primary, and perhaps only real duty in practice of the role, has a long tradition in Australia. This would be continued under the model proposed in '99. If the position were to be popularly elected this could be threatened, having received the popular vote the new President is likely to see their role as something more, possibly vetoing bills or using the position to lobby for new legislation. If you want to avoid an active President, you don't want a popularly elected one.

Grambo wrote:You owe a gakload to us,without us you would be speaking japanese.

Your knowledge of the ambitions of Imperial Japan and their logistic capabilities is very poor. You need to read more.

The Japanese were handed emphatic defeats by the US at Guadalcanal and by the Australians at the Kokoda trail, in the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea respectively. These emphatic defeats were suffered in large part due to the logistic capabilities of Japan reaching their absolute limit, troops at the front line were poorly supplied and fed. Suggesting they would have been able to move troops another 3,000kms from either battlefront to Sydney is just plain silly.

The US, like many other countries, did great things during the war. We should honour the men who fought by knowing about their war, not falling for easy sounding national myths.

Grambo wrote:You owe a gakload to us,without us you would be speaking japanese.

Yeah, it was nice of you to eventually join in.

Emperors Faithful wrote:This thread is all about the issue of republicanism and whether Australia should become a republic. Personally, I am against the matter as the alternative is becoming the lapdog of the US, a country we have share little close history with and even less in the way our country is run.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

Becoming a republic != becoming America lite.

We're already going down that road. Dropping the monarchy isn't necessarily going to accelerate it.

That said, the Queen is the only reason I like that we're joined to Britain. As soon as she carks it, so does my desire for us to remain in the Commonwealth.

Grambo wrote:You owe a gakload to us,without us you would be speaking japanese.

Dude, shut up. We know what happened, no need to rub it in.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:This thread is all about the issue of republicanism and whether Australia should become a republic. Personally, I am against the matter as the alternative is becoming the lapdog of the US, a country we have share little close history with and even less in the way our country is run.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

Becoming a republic != becoming America lite.

We're already going down that road. Dropping the monarchy isn't necessarily going to accelerate it.

That said, the Queen is the only reason I like that we're joined to Britain. As soon as she carks it, so does my desire for us to remain in the Commonwealth.

And America is a Democratic Republic, we have all sorts of irritating things that regular republics don't have


For a good example of a republic look at france *giggles*

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:This thread is all about the issue of republicanism and whether Australia should become a republic. Personally, I am against the matter as the alternative is becoming the lapdog of the US, a country we have share little close history with and even less in the way our country is run.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

Becoming a republic != becoming America lite.

We're already going down that road. Dropping the monarchy isn't necessarily going to accelerate it.

That said, the Queen is the only reason I like that we're joined to Britain. As soon as she carks it, so does my desire for us to remain in the Commonwealth.

I guess you're right. Remaining part of a constitutional monarchy won't really stop Rudd sucking up to Obama. But it will make me feel (slightly) better about it.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Anyway, the Referendum in 1999 could definitely have ended very badly. A President, who replaces a relatively non-politicised Governer-General and the Queen, selected by Parliament and not by the People? Yeah, thanks but no thanks, mate.

That's a pretty bizarre understanding of the referendum proposed in '99. How do you complain about politicising the role in one point, then argue it should be popularly elected in the next?

The amendment actually looked to put another level of control on the appointment, rather than the Prime Minister nominating a person, then receiving a rubberstamp from the Queen, we would have had the position confirmed by parliament. Given the only real role of the position was to ensure parliament was functioning properly and to call an election if it is not, it makes sense it is approved by parliament as a whole. Basically, the person who acts as a final overseer of parliament should really be someone respected by parliament as a whole, not someone selected from an entirely seperate process. If you've ever followed local government you'd have noticed that the councils that fail to run council meetings properly are almost always the ones with popularly elected mayors.

The recognition of that responsibility as the primary, and perhaps only real duty in practice of the role, has a long tradition in Australia. This would be continued under the model proposed in '99. If the position were to be popularly elected this could be threatened, having received the popular vote the new President is likely to see their role as something more, possibly vetoing bills or using the position to lobby for new legislation. If you want to avoid an active President, you don't want a popularly elected one.

But I, the- ...DAMN your logic, sebster!

To be honest I had never even thought about it that way. At all. Although I am against a republic in principle, having read this, I can see that this model is prefferable to a popularily elected president. But I am ignorant as to how candidates for presidency would have been put forward. Would each party have thier own candidate? If so, then that isn't very much to be happy about at all with each party backing thier own horse.