Brookie4eva said:
Jono said:
The only change I see, other than the fact we will no longer be a part of those stupid Commonwealth Games, is that the Governor - General will be called President. That isn't enough in my eyes to call for a change in the system. The system isn't broken at the moment so why should we fix it?
For those who are saying becoming a republic will mean we will leave the Commonwealth, what a load of Bollocks, there are many republics in the Commonwealth.
I couldn't find exact figures but the I did read that the majority of the Commonwealth no longer has the Queen as their Head of State.
They might be republics but the Queen is still the head of state, defeating the purpose of them being a republic in the first place. The biggest nations within the commonwealth are still there, Canada and India being the most notable which are still Independent states of the Commonwealth like we are.
In the cases of these countries the name "Governor - General" was changed to President. That is it. Nothing else changed. The Queen is still their head of state (but has no power, which is the way it is now)
What we want is no British rule, which means us leaving the Commonwealth.
Ralphie said:
Jono said:
Mark from Brisbane said:
I respect the old dear Jono I really do....BUT the time to move on was about 10 years ago.
Besides when she does we'll have Charles and Camilla and the Monarchists will be saying "we have to give them a go as well".
I don't hate them, I just hate the system that sees a 2011 Australia cowtowing to the bloody Pommies!!
The only change I see, other than the fact we will no longer be a part of those stupid Commonwealth Games, is that the Governor - General will be called President. That isn't enough in my eyes to call for a change in the system. The system isn't broken at the moment so why should we fix it?
Oh and if anyone gets on here and says that because our system allows only 2 parties to rule means the system is broken, we use the same system as the UK. They have 3 parties and the 3rd (Liberal Democrats) have never ruled the nation on their own accord. They are currently a part of the Conservative Government which is the first time they have had any sort of power. Their system is not broken. Therefore, neither is ours. The people of our nation just decide that the 3rd choice are a bunch of idiots that don't deserve to rule....and I think 85% of this nation would agree with me on that one.
It's all about self respect. It's all about our own identity and having a Head of State that is an Australian, not the Head of State of a foreign country on the other side of the world.
I know we will never agree, but I for one am embarrassed that we have the Queen of England as our head of state. There doesn't need to be a big change to our system, simply rename the Governor General to be President and the appointment of the President to be by a simple majority of the Parliament. Let's face it, that role is almost purely ceremonial, the real power in this country, quite rightly, is with the Parliament and the house of review known as the Senate.
I'm a dopey simple bloke I know, but I just do not understand why it is all so hard. I just cannot believe that the majority of Australians would prefer Queenie as our Head of State over say Kim Beasley or Pat O'Shane etc etc (Make your own choice). Like I said I am a dopey simple man.
I agree that we won't agree and you make a very valid point, that model is essentially what I would be looking for if we were to become a republic, maybe even let the people vote for a President every 8 years or something, while a PM every 4 years.
However, even though the Queen is our Head of State by name, the Governor General is essentially our Head of State and the PM makes all the decisions. The GG is always an Aussie. The GG is appointed by the PM and the GG advises the Queen on what needs to be done. The Queen has never gone against the advice of the GG.
There are 2 jobs that the Queen has in this country: 1) accept the PM's appointment of the GG; and 2) Remove the GG from their postion if evidence from the PM says that they are no longer fit to be the Queen's representative. That's it. This means that all the power lies with the PM.
The only power the GG has is to sack a government if evidence proves that this is the only way to resolve an issue. This is usually done by a request from the Opposition and a lot of evidence. This has only happened in Australia once.
Therefore, even though the Queen is our Head of State, it is by name only. We are already run by our own people and Britain don't run anything on our end. The only difference is the GG is not called "President". Watching that wedding proved one thing to me: I don't want a republic until the Crown is on Charles' head. No offense to Charles but when the Queen's funeral is over, its time we cut all ties with the Commonwealth. Looking at how healthy the Queen looked today I still think that's a decade off from now (remember her mum lasted to 98) (Queen is 85 now)
