Mozz why do we need to make it a leap of faith? What can't we expect to know what we are changing to, before we commit to a change? Surely it's not that difficult.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:


I believe that those who are the most insistent that the foreign HOS remain in place would be those who either identify as white anglo-saxon protestants or are the near descendants of WASPs. Persisting with a foreign HOS to non-WASPS (or those who do not identify themselves as such) is a ridiculous and senseless anachronism.

I don't believe it is about being Australian. I believe it is about clinging to what are anachronistic ethnic sensibilities.

If a referendum were put to the people in the form of one simple question : "Should Australia become a republic?" (i.e. should we sever the ties to a foreign Head of State), I believe the vote would be more like 70 to 80 % in favour.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2008 at 9:37am:



I strongly doubt very many people who arrived here 50 years ago or just yesterday believe the place they came from had a superior form of governance than Australia's.   If they do they are free to return to their chosen form of governmental control.

Chances are they love what we have and now call themselves proud Australians.  And if they came here before 1993 they would have pledged allegiance to our Queen.  After 1993 they pledged commitment to Australia, of which the Queen is head of state.

I think you will find that, unless they all told porkies, they meant it.

I strongly doubt they also took on an inferiority complex about it at that time.

In my view - the vote would be conservatively 65% against - and most of those selling a republic , would consider themselves elite to some extent (real or imagined) and that's fine - each to their own.

I think you overestimate the feelings of continental Europeans, the Irish, Africans and Asians (including those from the Indian subcontinent) towards Britain (and England in particular). Most (if not all) nations that make up these areas do not have a fawning admiration for the UK or its monarchy. The monarchy for many has very negative connotations, being considered a symbol of British imperial domination. Unquestioning admiration for the monarchy is only prominent among WASP-descent populations.

Even in Scotland, the English Crown is seen as a symbol of all that the Scots had taken from them. Their independent identity, their separate political system, their language... hence the popular move towards complete separation from England in the current form of devolution. In Scotland, there is no great love for their foreign head of state. They are even chagrined that QE2 style herself as such in Scotland where QE1 never ruled.

If a referendum were put to the people in the form of one simple question : "Should Australia become a republic?" (i.e. should we sever the ties to a foreign Head of State), I believe the vote would be more like 70 to 80 % in favour.

I don't think so. We already voted against it. By not stating what we will change to, you increase the risk. Plus, even if it did succeed, you would still have to hold another referendum to actually change the constitution. No-one would be happy about that sort of waste. Maybe you could hold a summit about holding a referendum to ask the people whether they want to vote on thinking about doing something.

We are a pretty young country, but we do have high standards of education, social justice, and individual freedom.

We are also world leaders in electoral reform, being one of the first countries to adopt preferential voting - something the yanks are only just getting around to doing. Australians are all for change, if there are practical benefits. I myself have a very suitable model that could allow us to ditch the Queen, but the national government would be the last place I would test it on.

Most (if not all) nations that make up these areas do not have a fawning admiration for the UK or its monarchy.

I think you misunderstand people's reasons for rejecting a republic.

The monarchy for many has very negative connotations, being considered a symbol of British imperial domination.

And yet we still vote for it.

Unquestioning admiration for the monarchy is only prominent among WASP-descent populations.

For practical Australians, ie the vast majority, it has nothing to do with monarchists vs republicans. They are the extremists in this debate, because they misrepresent the cause and ignore the practical issues. This anti-monarchist sentiment you want to bring into Australia from Scotland or wherever is just another useless European import that Australians have rejected. We reject both the monarchists and the anti-monarchists, which is why you cannot get any traction with your movement. Australians don't care. We got the Queen of our back already so there's no point carrying a grudge for over a century.

Freediver

The referendum was cynically manipulated to ensure a negative outcome. The majority of Australians, it was clear were uneasy about a head of state being appointed by politicians but much less so about the question of Australia becoming a republic. The question put to the people fused the two issues (should we become a republic and should politicians appoint the Head of State). An honest referendum would have first asked the people “Should Australia become a republic?”. If the answer to that simple question was NO then that would have been the end of the debate probably for our lifetimes. A second referendum (to achieve a positive result) under those circumstances would have been political suicide and out of the question. Had it been YES then the debate about the Head of State could have begun. Instead the nation is still in limbo about the simple question, “Do the people want a republic”.

As you say, Australians are a practical people. There is nothing practical about maintaining a legal singularity such that all immigrants to Australia are expected to become citizens except the foreign head of state.

You suggest Australians are apathetic about their system of government. I suggest to you that they are not.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/should-australia-become-republic.html

I am starting to believe that there are very few true republicans in Australia. What we have instead is a bunch of wandering, aimless anti-monarchists who will latch onto any label to cover up the fact that they only have half an idea. When you ask these anti-monarchists what a republic is, they respond in unison 'not a monarchy'. A true republican would be aghast at their lack of interest, lack of knowledge and lack of support for a living, breathing republic.

The republicans had their chance in 1999. They blew that chance because they still hadn't come up with an acceptable model. Only the most naive among them would expect a second chance when they still haven't learned from their mistake. Only the most naive would expect a commitment to a republic from the Australian people without a commitment from the republicans on what the model will be. Nearly a decade out and they are still bleating about becoming a republic while ignoring the reason for their rejection.

Many republicans blame John Howard for their loss, but it is far from Howard's fault. It is true that the proposal put forward by Howard was a bad idea and was doomed to fail, but the same thing would have happened regardless of which model was put forward. Many suggest that we should have first had a referendum on whether to become a republic. However, such a referendum would be pointless. It would not commit the government to any action. If the republicans could not come up with an acceptable model before such a pointless referendum, getting a bunch of people to sit around a table for a summit is hardly going to produce an acceptable model after the referendum. You do not need a referendum to hold a summit. You do not need to commit to a republic before finding out what you are committing to.

What the republicans are desperate to prevent people from realising is that a republic sounds good in theory, but bad in practice. They want to make Australians commit to a republic and create enough political momentum behind the movement so that by the time people realise that the devil is in the detail, it will be too late and no politician will be prepared to reneg on a promise and put a stop to it.

What republicans fail to realise about the Australian people is that they don't care about the labels monarchy or republic. One thing we do care about is democracy, but we already have democracy - one of the most functional and stable democracies in the world. Unfortunately you cannot change from a monarchy to a republic without changing how our democracy works. So far, all the proposals for how to actually go about this change make the democracy less functional.

To get an idea of what a republic is in practice, ask an American. They get it drummed into them at school that America is not a democracy, but a republic. Australians, being practical people, can't make much sense of such an absurd statement. It sounds just as absurd as if our local anti-monarchist mobs tried to insist we were not a democracy because we are technically a monarchy.

We need to keep our focus on what matters, which is ultimately democracy. The anti-monarchists are prepared to sacrifice our democracy in order to become a republic. They inevitably try to sweep the practical issues about becoming a republic under the carpet, instead insisting that so long as we get rid of the Queen everything will work out fine in the end. Well, it won't.

We are a democracy. The democratically elected Prime Minister runs the country, not the Queen. The position of Governor General is a largely ceremonial position, but still an important one. If giving the Queen technical authority over approving a candidate for a ceremonial position is what it takes to have a functioning democracy then I am more then happy to swallow my pride and call myself a democrat.

Until such time as the republicans stop bleating about a republic and start communicating about democracy, they stand no chance of convincing everyday Australians to make an unnecessary change that may well leave them far worse off.

We are a democracy and will always remain a democracy.

OIC, you think all democracies are equal do you? I guess if you think that whether we are technically a monarchy is so important, then it makes sense that you would be satisfied with what is only technically a democracy.

Utter drivel. Americans are in no doubt that their system of government operates as a democracy

Yet I frequently have Americans tell me that they are a republic and not a democracy. Apparently that's what they are taught in school. It is no more drivel then you going on about our HOS being a foreigner. Technically correct drivel of course, just like America being a republic, but still drivel.