Republic (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Cape
- Start date
Bannanafish
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Messages
- 153
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2003
dear god, howard as head of state?
psycho_mushy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 661
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 1998
uh.. I mean before hong kong was handed back to china.. look at how good it was before compared to now
what's wrong with having the British here?!!?!? They're good!
...I think Honk Kong is in a transitional phase. Full power goes to China in 2050 if im not mistaken.
However, the '97 loss of Hong Kong clearly spelt the end of the Empire on which the sun never set.
In terms of Australia though, we'd long turned from the UK for any physicall protection (since Singapore '42) The states are the new mummy, but our system rocks!
However, the '97 loss of Hong Kong clearly spelt the end of the Empire on which the sun never set.
In terms of Australia though, we'd long turned from the UK for any physicall protection (since Singapore '42) The states are the new mummy, but our system rocks!
From what I know our Republican system would be much the same as the current constitutional monarchy, in that the head of state would only serve a symbolic role... There is little point in thinking that the Prime Minister would gain extra powers through the nation becoming a Republic. Besides, Howard is against it, and by the time we dump the British crown he would no longer be the Prime Minister.
Edit: Mushy, the British haven't held power in Australia for a long time (apart from the Anglo-Celtic majority and the current Liberal Government)...
Edit: Mushy, the British haven't held power in Australia for a long time (apart from the Anglo-Celtic majority and the current Liberal Government)...
Last edited:
Howard could remain PM, alongside a president, he would just be robbed of the credit and considering the GG roles Howard has been warming too, he wouldnt like that.
re. Brit rule, I think you answered ur own q. generator.
The British GOVERNMENT haven't ruled since 1901 (fed.), but BRITISH (i.e us, the majority anglo-celtics) have ruled the whole time--eg total support in the great wars.
I dont know why people seem to view Aust. history as a battle against British control, i dont like it, please explain, etc.
re. Brit rule, I think you answered ur own q. generator.
The British GOVERNMENT haven't ruled since 1901 (fed.), but BRITISH (i.e us, the majority anglo-celtics) have ruled the whole time--eg total support in the great wars.
I dont know why people seem to view Aust. history as a battle against British control, i dont like it, please explain, etc.
B
Bambul
Guest
<start rant>
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you can point to the Peter Hollingworth affair and still say that, then I don't think anything is broke.
2. Don't break relations with UK.
Australia has no significant relations to UK through the fact that our head of state is the British monarch by our constitution. It is purely a symbolic relation and by removing that you are doing nothing to the actual good relationship that has been held between Australia and UK.
3. The HK example.
Hong Kong was actually under British rule. The HK governor had actual powers similar to the colonial governors in the early 19th century in Australia. Today the head of state and their representatives in Australia are purely symbolic positions. Additionally HK was put under the umbrella of a country that is still in many views a one party repressive regime. I would hardly compare that to Australia.
4. Extra stuff.
I'm not too concerned about changing to a republic, but I want the system improved. Currently the constitution states that the queen chooses a representative to be GG, but in practice the PM gives someone a good reference and the queen chooses that person. There is nothing in the constitution that says that there can't be a vote in the House of Reps and that recommendation is passed onto the Queen. This would be similar to the method suggested in the 99 referendum, which is more democratic thatn the current method as it is a 2/3 bipartisan vote, not 1 person choosing.
The Australian head of state holds almost no real power. There is power, but it has rarely been used (1975 being the pbvious occassion). Real power is held by the PM. Changing the system to make it a direct election system would give the GG a mandate and more likely to destabilise the status quo (I think changing the name to president gives conotations of a US/French system where the pres has real power, I think the name should stay GG).
Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe not. But a lot of people have been oversimplifying things or overlooking obvious facts in their arguments.
<end rant>
1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you can point to the Peter Hollingworth affair and still say that, then I don't think anything is broke.
2. Don't break relations with UK.
Australia has no significant relations to UK through the fact that our head of state is the British monarch by our constitution. It is purely a symbolic relation and by removing that you are doing nothing to the actual good relationship that has been held between Australia and UK.
3. The HK example.
Hong Kong was actually under British rule. The HK governor had actual powers similar to the colonial governors in the early 19th century in Australia. Today the head of state and their representatives in Australia are purely symbolic positions. Additionally HK was put under the umbrella of a country that is still in many views a one party repressive regime. I would hardly compare that to Australia.
4. Extra stuff.
I'm not too concerned about changing to a republic, but I want the system improved. Currently the constitution states that the queen chooses a representative to be GG, but in practice the PM gives someone a good reference and the queen chooses that person. There is nothing in the constitution that says that there can't be a vote in the House of Reps and that recommendation is passed onto the Queen. This would be similar to the method suggested in the 99 referendum, which is more democratic thatn the current method as it is a 2/3 bipartisan vote, not 1 person choosing.
The Australian head of state holds almost no real power. There is power, but it has rarely been used (1975 being the pbvious occassion). Real power is held by the PM. Changing the system to make it a direct election system would give the GG a mandate and more likely to destabilise the status quo (I think changing the name to president gives conotations of a US/French system where the pres has real power, I think the name should stay GG).
Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe not. But a lot of people have been oversimplifying things or overlooking obvious facts in their arguments.
<end rant>
Melbournian, Bambul said THROUGH the monarchy, not in general. Historical connections are important, but so is the idea of moving beyond a stagnant idea.
Edit: Too tell the truth, that post was slightly confusing...
Edit: Too tell the truth, that post was slightly confusing...
No one compaired Honk Kong to Australia. The major difference is a white, British rule, with an obviouse difference in the race of the subjects (leading to resentment etc)
Australia: Brits come, Brits stay, Brits say it would be easier to govern from Aust, rather than London, WW2, Brits in Aust. turn to US, any beginnings of a culture/civilisation left in ruins.
Bambul...no. I think we've covered most things already.
In short...'it's not time'
Australia: Brits come, Brits stay, Brits say it would be easier to govern from Aust, rather than London, WW2, Brits in Aust. turn to US, any beginnings of a culture/civilisation left in ruins.
Bambul...no. I think we've covered most things already.
In short...'it's not time'
B
Bambul
Guest
Just changing the words gg to president wouldn't be fixing the system. You said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well I say it needs fixing, in fact I alluded later in my post that we could keep a GG/Queen status quo but still make changes to improve the system.
Generator mainly answered for me (thanks
). You could also argue that Australia should change its name back to New Holland because it would "improve" relations with the Dutch. Well, as much as would keeping QE2 our head of state would maintain good relations with the UK.For the 40millllllionth time, our history did not start in 1788.
We are predominantly a people who are poms. The poms have had a monarch as a leader (later constitutional) for hundreds and hundreds of years. You could argue that these monarchs (and their efficient system) made Britian the world power, capable of claiming OZ. This leader typically personifies the country and people.
The cultural link is priceless--the practical link isnt really the issue.
Maybe when Prince Charles takes over, the monarch and the situation for Australia will be different, but there is NO PROBLEM with the current system, or monarch. NOT BROKE YET.
We are predominantly a people who are poms. The poms have had a monarch as a leader (later constitutional) for hundreds and hundreds of years. You could argue that these monarchs (and their efficient system) made Britian the world power, capable of claiming OZ. This leader typically personifies the country and people.
The cultural link is priceless--the practical link isnt really the issue.
Maybe when Prince Charles takes over, the monarch and the situation for Australia will be different, but there is NO PROBLEM with the current system, or monarch. NOT BROKE YET.
Last edited:
Im warning you guys, if you vote for a republic...i'll...i'll...move to England! That'll learn ya.
What's that? nonono please dont? well...OK. But ill be a bit moody, soooo WATCH OUT.
At least let's start a war. It doesnt have to be very long... think of all the original phrases we'll have "freedom", "liberty" ummm..."justice". Hey, the frogs might even give us a statue...
What's that? nonono please dont? well...OK. But ill be a bit moody, soooo WATCH OUT.
At least let's start a war. It doesnt have to be very long... think of all the original phrases we'll have "freedom", "liberty" ummm..."justice". Hey, the frogs might even give us a statue...
B
Bambul
Guest
Once again, if you can mention that and Peter Hollingworth in the same sentence then I'll have no problems. But I find it hard to believe your statement of "not broke yet" (in capital letters).
B
Bambul
Guest
I don't quite understand what your saying. Bill Clinton was involved in a sex scandal a few years back so the current system in Australia is all fine and dandy?
It seems that your trying to make comparisons to a US style presidential system. It has never been suggested that Australia change to that style of system. In fact in my post I even said that I didn't think that changing to a republic itself was as important as reforming the current system. So I have a bit of trouble following your argument, as I have had with a number of previous arguments in this thread.
It seems that your trying to make comparisons to a US style presidential system. It has never been suggested that Australia change to that style of system. In fact in my post I even said that I didn't think that changing to a republic itself was as important as reforming the current system. So I have a bit of trouble following your argument, as I have had with a number of previous arguments in this thread.
Xayma
Lacking creativity
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2003
- Messages
- 5,953
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Just because a person was born into a family does not necessarily make a good ruler, I agree that just because someone is elected it doesnt make them a good leader but at least people had a say. The potential power that the queen can draw on a whim is enough to change to a republic. Admittily no-one in the foreseeable future would use that power but the power is still there.