Australian Politics Forum - Should Australia become a republic?

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51223 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #225 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:52pm The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. NB. EXTEND TO. Haven't we been over this already nef?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #226 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:56pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:52pm:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

NB. EXTEND TO.

Haven't we been over this already nef?

Are you saying that 'extend to' in the Constitution has some other meaning than 'extend to' in crikey?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51223 At my desk.	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #227 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:03pm No, I'm saying it has the plain english meaning. That is, it does not mean 'apply exclusively to'.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #228 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:09pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:03pm:

No, I'm saying it has the plain english meaning. That is, it does not mean 'apply exclusively to'.

So you are saying, let's get this clear, you are saying that you (with the help of crikey) have spotted what no one else in the country has before. A loophole in the Constitution?

That the Queen's position in the parliament could be any old tool that steps up and claims to be her successor? That being the UK sovereign is irrelevant? Nothing is stopping the Reverend Fred Nile, for example, from announcing himself to be the Queen's successor as succession is not exclusive to anyone in particular?

That's awesome. Why hasn't anyone else seen that glaring loophole before do you think freediver?

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #229 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:09pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:52pm:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

NB. EXTEND TO.

Haven't we been over this already nef?

"extend to" is irrelevant, it's the "heirs and successors" that is meaningful. The British Monarchy "succession" is the key.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Monarchy#Succession

Prince Charles is QE2's "heir apparent". Wills is second "in line".

Are you arguing the term "extend to"? The above clearly states (to me) that when QE2 dies, Charles will immediately become our HOS, although we would have to pass some legislation rather quickly to make him KING of Oz. I am sure he would like being called Queen of Australia.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51223
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #230 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:15pm

That the Queen's position in the parliament could be any old tool that steps up and claims to be her successor?

No. It has to be passed by parliament.

That being the UK sovereign is irrelevant?

Not necessary.

"extend to" is irrelevant

No it isn't. It is in the constitution. You can't just say it is irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #231 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:19pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:15pm:

That the Queen's position in the parliament could be any old tool that steps up and claims to be her successor?

No. It has to be passed by parliament.

That being the UK sovereign is irrelevant?

Not necessary.

"extend to" is irrelevant

No it isn't. It is in the constitution. You can't just say it is irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument.

Hang on a sec, why does the parliament get to decide? It doesn't mention that the Queen's successor is decided by the commonwealth parliament? How did you come up with that new constitutional clause which isn't in the old constitution we have relied on for over 100 years? And does that change the UK sovereign at the same time? That will surprise the poms.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51223
At my desk.

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #232 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:24pm

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work.

It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

deepthought

Gold Member

Offline

In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #233 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:28pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:24pm:

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work.

It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

It isn't up to Parliament to decide though. Though I keep saying it, it appears you put your hands over your ears. The Constitution may only be amended by referendum.

Parliament doesn't get a say. The people do.

Back to top

IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #234 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:43pm

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Goodness me!

As I see it, "extend to" merely means covers. It is the current Monarch in Britain (through a change in OUR Constitution, since it was Queen Victoria on the Throne when it was legislated) that our Constitution refers to and the "heirs and successors" (i.e Charles, William, Harry).

Freediver,

Quote:

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work.

You have no idea about British History, do you?

Quote:

It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

Back to the drawing board for you, mate. Wink

A PM is voted in by a Democratic society. A Monarch's "position" is passed down through heirs (and successors). Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #235 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:45pm

Good point DT, except that the pollies do get to frame the question, and that plays a huge part in whether a referendum will be able to pass or not.
Howard's shameful manipulation of the last referendum on this issue is a perfect case in point.
After virtually assuring no chance of a positive vote, we proceeded to waste all that effort so he could blithely, and with his not unusual disingenuousness, claim that the people agreed with him.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Yes or No reply only allowed.
How you phrase a question, and what options you offer do have a determining effect on the outcome.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Neferti Gold Member Offline Posts: 7965 Canberra Gender:	Re: Should Australia become a republic? Reply #236 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:47pm Oh, by the way Freediver. In the British Parliament the Queen just "opens parliament", the same as our GG does. She "sees" the PM when necessary (as our GG does) but QE2 has NOTHING to do with the Governing of the UK.
Back to top	IP Logged

Neferti

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7965
Canberra
Gender: female

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #237 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:48pm

deepthought wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:28pm:

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:24pm:

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work.

It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

It isn't up to Parliament to decide though. Though I keep saying it, it appears you put your hands over your ears. The Constitution may only be amended by referendum.

Parliament doesn't get a say. The people do.

Exactly!

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #238 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:50pm

Neferti wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:47pm:

Oh, by the way Freediver. In the British Parliament the Queen just "opens parliament", the same as our GG does. She "sees" the PM when necessary (as our GG does) but QE2 has NOTHING to do with the Governing of the UK. Cheesy

Don't be so sure of that. Officially that is true but unofficially she has an enormous influence over the speech she reads in Parliament despite the fact that it is "officially" the Prime Minister's speech.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Should Australia become a republic?
Reply #239 - May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:51pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:12pm:

There is nothing in the bits you quoted that dictates who may succeed the Queen.

Mate, stop acting like a fool. If you want to discuss a viable republican model, then propose one or support a viable process towards the institution of an Australian head of state. Stop playing games by pretending the constitution can be subverted. It is dishonest and the act of a shyster, a bush lawyer or just a plain idiot.

Constitutions exit in law such that they cannot be altered by mere legislation. They must be above that, otherwise they would have no authority over the whims of the government of the day. They are rarely altered and when they are, they require either referenda or something like a two thirds majority in the lower house and the upper house where one exists.

Let's discuss a viable model that guarantees to all Australian citizens that no foreigner shall reign or preside over this nation.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2008 at 8:04pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should Australia become a republic?
YES NO MAYBE « Created by: DILLIGAF on: Mar 6^th, 2007 at 10:11pm »