The Queen's Death

[Woodsie]

Possibly quite fitting then.

Just when I thought I may have goaded those rare and remarkable beasts ... the Whitlam lovers out of hibernation ...

Like Bears supporters, they are the last true adherents of emotion over reason ..

 

[Bearfax]

To me , being a republican , the only way I’d vote for it is if it’s kept as simple as this.

The GG just becomes the Governor, and he’s purely ceremonial only ( zero power just there for the installation of the pollies and the awarding of honours ).

The Westminster system of government remains , the only change needed is to change the constitution so that no side of politics can restrict supply ( a la 1975).

We remove all requirements to swear allegiance to the King , and drop the “ Royal” from everything.

We remain a Commonwealth of nations country , still participating in the Comm Games.

None of the above is contentious, most will agree with that.

The part where there will be disagreement is the flag , I would propose simply taking off the Union Jack and replacing with the emblem we see on many things ( is it the emu / kangaroo ). Simple , not divisive and largely sees the flag remaining the same.

I'm for a republic as well Mark, but following Turnbull's original minimalist system where as you say, the GG is ceremonial and the Westminster system remains. My only caveat is that I think the GG should be elected by 2/3s of the two parliamentary houses which would be the best way to ensure a non political figure. If he was elected by the people, he would become a political figure and that would lead to the problems they have in the US. Our system isn't perfect, but it seems the best in ensuring stability in government. I wouldn't even oppose an Australia Monarchy on ceremonial grounds if that makes the royalists happy. But that person would have to be Australian and preferably Australian born, to ensure his or her loyalty is to this country alone.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I'm for a republic as well Mark, but following Turnbull's original minimalist system where as you say, the GG is ceremonial and the Westminster system remains. My only caveat is that I think the GG should be elected by 2/3s of the two parliamentary houses which would be the best way to ensure a non political figure. If he was elected by the people, he would become a political figure and that would lead to the problems they have in the US. Our system isn't perfect, but it seems the best in ensuring stability in government. I wouldn't even oppose an Australia Monarchy on ceremonial grounds if that makes the royalists happy. But that person would have to be Australian and preferably Australian born, to ensure his or her loyalty is to this country alone.

Look the Governor would be just a political appointment and if Labor were in it would be a Labor person and vice versa.

But with no power , it doesn’t really matter.

Change them every 5-6 years , whoever is in power gets to pick.

They’d just be ceremonial in my opinion.

 

[Nuttybott]

If the 1999 referendum had simply been constructed as - Australian republic: yes or no? Then it would have gotten up.

"Australian republic: yes or no?" Are you KIDDING? That would be like walking into a real estate agent's office and buying "a house", without being offered any choice or even an idea of the kind of house you were being sold, leaving it entirely up to the estate agent to decide what you ended up with. I don't think a republic offered on that basis would have "gotten up" at all...

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

"Australian republic: yes or no?" Are you KIDDING? That would be like walking into a real estate agent's office and buying "a house", without being offered any choice or even an idea of the kind of house you were being sold, leaving it entirely up to the estate agent to decide what you ended up with. I don't think a republic offered on that basis would have "gotten up" at all...

My assumption is you do not remember.

Never mind.

 

[Nuttybott]

Whatever.

Indeed.

 

[Nuttybott]

My assumption is you do not remember.

Never mind.

On the contrary...I remember it very well. Perhaps YOU do not.

Never mind.

 

[Scorpio]

The late Clive James once pointed out that every country in the world that has a constitutional monarchy is a democracy...every.single.one.

A claim the various republics around the world cannot even begin to match.

So be careful what you wish for...

I would point out that Australia made each of the following pragmatic steps in its history without the sky falling in:

• Changed from being a group of British colonies to being a federation in 1901
• Adopted its own currency which eventually stopped being tied to the value of the British Pound
• Changed the National Anthem from God Save the Queen in 1984
• Removed existing legislation linked to the British legal system in 1986

We are nearly a quarter of the way through the 21st century... You don't have to be either left or right wing to believe that having someone from your own country as the head of state (and not a monarch of another country) is an entirely pragmatic thing to do.

 

[Uk eagle]

Look, from an outsider looking in, I do think it's ridiculous that you have the British monarch as your head of state. But I also think that it's ridiculous that by an accident of birth someone gets to be a ruler of other people anyway. Looks like you just need to come up with a concept that will please the majority and I'm sure that within the next decade that will be the case as it now will be for most of the other nations still under the spell of the Windsor's

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

I wonder if monarchists out there still see Australia as a constitutional monarchy (CM) in 100 years time?

What if the UK, or what might be left of it, decides it wants to become a republic in the meantime? Would Australia look childish (you might argue we do now) hanging onto the apron strings of an Anglo-Germanic family on the other side of the world?

Of course most Commonwealth nations are republics. One of those prior to becoming a republic, introduced an arrangement known as apartheid. South Africa - from the late 1940s until 1961, when it became a republic - wasn’t exactly a poster boy for Clive James’s theory.

Tiny Barbados recently ditched the monarch as head of state. Jamaica looks set to follow. They’re not afraid of a significant change that will enhance a sense of who they are in the world, so what are you afraid of?

It’s time to accept that we are no longer a British outpost, but increasingly a fusion of many peoples - including (belatedly) our indigenous ones. Having a head of state living on the other side of the world does not reflect that reality.

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Great piece by Richard Flanagan:

Perhaps, behind the crown lies nothing at all

We lie to ourselves when we indulge in a mass hysteria proclaiming that at the centre there is something greater than ourselves. But perhaps a mass hysteria is exactly what is needed to make us continue to believe that eternal lie.

www.smh.com.au

L.Frank Baum was onto a similar theme in ‘The Wizard of Oz’.

 

[BOZO]

The Queens sister Princes Margaret was not a bad sort either
She had beautiful enticing eyes
She was also a bit of a Party Queen and a wild child

 

[BOZO]

Princess Kate The Dutches of Cambridge

Is the epitome of all Grace and Beauty

Absolute Stunner

 

[BOZO]

I guess we all have favourites

My Favourite Princes was Princess Grace

She was Beauty Beyond the eyes

 

[Bearfax]

Look the Governor would be just a political appointment and if Labor were in it would be a Labor person and vice versa.

But with no power , it doesn’t really matter.

Change them every 5-6 years , whoever is in power gets to pick.

They’d just be ceremonial in my opinion.

Not entirely Mark. 1932 the NSW Governor dismissed the Lang government. 1975 the Governor General dismissed the Whitlam Government. Rare but they have that power.

There have been concerns that the present GG allowed Morrison actions that may or may not have been legal and apparently kept secret regarding his assumption of control of several departments.

The issue is for the present that GGs are selected by the Prime Minister and therefore there is a risk of political bias. Generally not going to happen but the potential is there, though I acknowledge Kerr was a Labor Party nominee. His action may or may not have had justification brought about by a block of supply from the Senate which had been manipulated by the Queensland premier when a Labor senator had left his post and was replaced by a Liberal senator thus giving the Liberals control of the Senate.

Could happen with 2/3s of parliament voting in a GG but just reduces the potential of bias.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Not entirely Mark. 1932 the NSW Governor dismissed the Lang government. 1975 the Governor General dismissed the Whitlam Government. Rare but they have that power.

There have been concerns that the present GG allowed Morrison actions that may or may not have been legal and apparently kept secret regarding his assumption of control of several departments.

The issue is for the present that GGs are selected by the Prime Minister and therefore there is a risk of political bias. Generally not going to happen but the potential is there, though I acknowledge Kerr was a Labor Party nominee. His action may or may not have had justification brought about by a block of supply from the Senate which had been manipulated by the Queensland premier when a Labor senator had left his post and was replaced by a Liberal senator thus giving the Liberals control of the Senate.

Could happen with 2/3s of parliament voting in a GG but just reduces the potential of bias.

I get that but in my concept the Gov is just ceremonial with zero powers.

He / she is just there to invest the politicians each 4 years , or invest new ministers after some have to resign in disgrace.

And to present the OAM / AM medals.

Otherwise spends their time doing the usual stuff they do ( which isn’t much).

If the Gov has zero power then who he or she is , is irrelevant, and I get it would be “ jobs for the boys ( or girls )”.

You could still go the 2/3 of parliament if you wish.

But we need to change the constitution so that no one party can restrict supply , to my knowledge it’s only happened once and highly unlikely but you need to cover that so it just cannot happen.

 

[Woodsie]

I am not a monarchist ...

But my desire and enthusiasm for a republic is based solely on what is good for Australia and an Australian democracy ..

Saying you don't like the Royal family is not going to get you anywhere with intelligent people ... only the bedwetters and Rudd voters are dumb enough to think that is a good reason.

 

[Bearfax]

I am not a monarchist ...

But my desire and enthusiasm for a republic is based solely on what is good for Australia and an Australian democracy ..

Saying you don't like the Royal family is not going to get you anywhere with intelligent people ... only the bedwetters and Rudd voters are dumb enough to think that is a good reason.

Not a question of like or dislike for many I know who want a republic. Effectively we are self governing any way, though the GG is required to seek the Monarch's OK in certain emergency situations, even if only ceremonial.

Like most people, I admired Elizabeth and think she did an excellent job. I think most respected her. I think Charles will have a battle but his heart seems in it and I think basically he's a good person. William I suspect would make an ideal King when his time comes.

Its not about the people, its about the role of technically Australia being beholden to another country's monarch, even though the influence is minimal. Its about Australia being seen as a fully independent nation making its own decisions. Doesnt mean we forget our heritage. Just means we've grown up and left the nest.

Of course in reality we are heavily influenced, though mainly by the U.S. But its about symbolism, perception of others outside and our own awareness that we are no longer seen as an English colony and anglo-centric. When Penny Wong was made Foreign Minister I cheered, not just because she's damned smart and of Chinese heritage, but because it symbolically said we are growing up and are a totally separate increasingly multi-cultural nation. I wouldnt even, as I said, oppose a symbolic Monarchy here, but only if it is purely Australian.

 

[Leader of the Flock]

Bearfax,

I’m available these days, I’ve got a bit more time on my hands with retirement, and as a Manly supporter, I’m obviously of the superior classes, who probably won’t disgrace myself in public with excess consumption of all the free booze and food, privately is another matter altogether. So, in a nutshell, I’ll accept your offer.

 

[Bearfax]

Bearfax,

I’m available these days, I’ve got a bit more time on my hands with retirement, and as a Manly supporter, I’m obviously of the superior classes, who probably won’t disgrace myself in public with excess consumption of all the free booze and food, privately is another matter altogether. So, in a nutshell, I’ll accept your offer.

Yes, you have the job with that CV, LOTF. I'll have a quick chat with Albo on Monday and see if he can whip up a throne for you. You're not fussy like Barrett are you about the quality of the furnishings. We're a little short of cash now that we're committed to buy a couple of Nuke subs. Now about the crown. We're got design experts working on the Acubra hat style, maybe with opals and a spiffy lyrebird tail feather array. And we are looking carefully regarding the proper thong colour, though maroon and white seem the favourites. We'll have the opening ceremony at the Manly Hotel early next year. Would that suit?