Grendel wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 5:09am:


Poor Gough... He shoulda shot first.

Welcome to OzPolitic nasho. Congratulations on getting everything right in your very first post. It's all downhill from here 

liko, that is not 10 good reasons. You will have to try harder than that.

liko, now you are starting to think about it.

I'm not liko, but I agree with what he/she says.

Whilst it might seem like drivel and paranoia, if you were rehearsed on the issues (which would take a week of TALKING to get across), you yourself would be able to see what's going on.

I don't need 10 good reasons but a few would be nice. Who cares about the Royal family. Not me. They're a non entity as far as I'm concerned. So they don't even come into the equation. And as freediver says, to sack a PM now would be fait accompli and self defeating.

If we stick with the question pure and simple " Should Australia become a Republic". Sure, yes. absolutely. But not at any cost. And I for one have not been convinced by any of the models, nor do I think this should be left in the hands of politicians or celebrities and certainly not the rich.

If the pollies were serious, they would begin educating the broader public about political systems and models so everyone can vote on a model and Constitution and Bill of Rights if that were decided upon.

VETERAN LABOR LEFT WINGER  BOB ELLIS DECIDES CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
IS THE BEST SYSTEM

Bob Ellis from Your ABC 28/8/2008

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2348261.htm

If anybody asks me, and they usually don't, I always say I'm an
Australian republican, and I'd vote as I did in 1999 to end the
monarchy and 'break John Howard's heart'.

But I've yet to sort out a worry I've had for twenty years, and it's this.

The best countries in the world are monarchies.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia, all monarchies, are enviable
societies; and they're in sharp contrast with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Gaza,
Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Congo, Nigeria, Cuba, Mexico, Haiti,
Panama, North Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan,
Myanmar, Haiti, Russia, China and the United States, all of which are
republics and most of which overthrew their kings with violence.

There are some exceptions, of course. Austria and Germany, both
republics, are very good societies now, though they in recent times
produced Hitler. The monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait are very
bad societies, stoning adulteresses to death and banning alcohol.
Nepal in its pre-Maoist phase was pretty shocking but good to go
trekking in. Tonga, though it has pleasant ruritanian-socialist
qualities, line-ball.

Some republics are line-ball too. Greece since its king was evicted
has flirted with military dictators, and Italy likewise with colourful
short-arse fascists; and as for Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania,
Georgia, the Ukraine and East Timor it's perhaps too early to say.

India and Pakistan, though technically ruled by the British Queen, are
too confused in their present wobbly arrangements to classify either
way. Zimbabwe though theoretically under Elizabeth II has lately
acquired a usurping mad monarch of its own. And Monaco and
Liechtenstein, though theoretically monarchies, are more like
heightened municipalities. Thailand, remotely ruled by a thoughtful
king who interferes now and then, is probably line-ball too.

But you would still be hard put to find twelve republics to match
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia, my good monarchies. Venezuela?
Guatemala? Fiji? The United States? Give me a break.

Why is it constitutional monarchies work as well as they do? It's
because, I think, they provide a level of judgement above the level of
chiacking politicians, which dignifies the country. It's the
constitutional equivalent of an umpire.

However illusory, it gives the voters a comfort-zone which the
opposing system does not. In a Republic, Alan Jones can be elected
President, and for millions of Australians there is no joy in that. In
a Republic, a George Bush can be accorded god-like qualities, and this
can enrage decent civilised atheists everywhere.

A constitutional monarch is less like a god, or a Caesar or a Great
Dictator, and more like a Guardian Angel; and somewhere in the human
psyche there is room for this idea. It's what I call a sustaining
fantasy, the kind of thing we suspect isn't true, but it's what keeps
us going.

It needs good mild monarchs in the saddle however, Elizabeth not
Gyanendra, to keep the show on the road. And it needs, perhaps, the
kind of monarchs the Dutch and Scandinavians have, monarchs on
bicycles, monarchs with middle-class hobbies like stamp-collecting and
water-colours.

Or monarchs like Princess Di who hug AIDS patients and campaign
against cluster-bombs and show off their legs.

There may be an argument for preventing an eighty-year-old King
Charles from ascending the throne in 2028. But he seems, so far, to be
more modern and sympathetic in his beliefs – in multiculturalism,
sensible diet, architectural preservation, Spike Milligan, Buddha and
sustainable farming – than, say, Tony Blair or John Howard, who
prefer, on the whole, to slaughter heathens. And he's not a murderous
dipstick like the avid Republican George Bush.

He might be worth keeping, and impoverishing a little.

Or perhaps you disagree.