Didn't you get stung enough on yahoo greens 

Roll on King William 

Happy to vote for Republic Australia...but not just for the sake of it. Haven't seen a model that is transparently better than the system we currently have or a model that hasn't been hijacked by the politicians left or right.

Until then, they can leave our current system alone.

locutius wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 12:33pm:


I am with locutius on that.
Can not see we can afford it either.

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 5:23pm:

locutius wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 12:33pm:


Agree.

I also think it would be nice to become a repulbic, but am yet to see a better model put forward. Until then, no point really. Surely climate change etc are much bigger issues?

One reason for establishing an Australian republic would be to shed the cultural infantilism that drives the obsession with a foreign monarchy.

Deborahmac09 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 12:50pm:

if we do become a republic if and when Turnbull becomes PM (who is hell bent on us becoming one so he can hopefully be president) it will be a  banana republic because by then we wont own any thing after the libs finish selling off the rest of our assetts overseas and privatising everything else.

muso wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 12:59pm:

I agree with this, I cant see that much needs to be changed, we can run the place very much the same as a republic.We could use the same political system the only difference would be the way in which the GG was appointed/elected, that is the question that needs to be sorted,first.
I'm a republican, but its not a big deal for me, in fact i'm not that certain that i'll see a republic in my life time.

The only thing good about the Queen is that she can't be bribed
like so many other leading people in Australia.
I don't trust any politicians or big businessmen & they
are the types who would end up as Presidents as someone
else with huge power instead of her.

On the other hand - it's not really fair that someone should
govern us by birth right.

Quote:


Considering that Prince Charles talks to flowers the
Dalai Lama would probably be better.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 9:14pm:


Oh yeah - and Australia will invade New Zealand too. I saw it in a movie once.   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RenRILqwhJs

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2010 at 11:49am:


The only people obsessed with the monarchy are the republicans.

It is not the monarchists that the republicans are up against. It is the republicans who want a workable solution before taking the leap. Most nominal monarchists in Australia are just reacting to the silly ideas coming from the republicans, rather than people who actually like the monarchy. What is infantile is expecting republicans to setlle for any old solution so long as it isn't a monarchy, as if this is some kind of tribal battle. We are talking about our democracy here -  not something to be taken lightly and modified without serious thought.

It is not 'wise caution'. I am not saying we should take things slowly. I am saying that I am opposed to making any change until you come up with something better. There is nothing false or superficial about it. The lack of a better alternative is not some minor issue you can deal with along the way. It is a fundamental flaw in the republican movement.

Why don't you promote a better solution? The vaccuous rhetoric is coming from the republicans. It is people like you who focus on the the issue of whether the system is laballed a republic or monarchy, who try to label your opposition with silly slogans. All you have to do is come up with something that works better and it wouldn't matter whether it was republic or monarchy.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 3:32pm:



Why not adopt something that is essentially the same, as I have suggested, ie exactly the same structure, but have the GG of Australia and each of the States sit in a Presiding Council with exactly the same rights as before - including the right of veto? In other words, the head of State is a council, similar to the Swiss Model.

The main objection that many people have an issue with is that of having a foreign head of State as monarch.   

There is absolutely no  reason why we can't have a totally home-grown government.

Call it the Commonwealth of Australia, exactly as it is now. There is no reason to leave the Commonwealth.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 4:26pm:


Why bother changing the system we have?? It's not like we're 'paying' wages or taxes to the Queen..Basically we're getting a 'Head of State' without having to PAY for a Head of State....

Any change we make will involve an increase in the taxpayer outlay...
We'd need to pay wages to a head of State, which we currently don't...

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

A Sovereign Council (say comprising all state governors including perhaps, the Prime Minister) nominates a candidate. The candidate is endorsed by Parliament.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 5:47pm:

Cultural infantilism resulting in the conviction that Australians cannot be trusted to do the job.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:

It has everything to do with whether they are Australian or not... That is the main point of Australia's Republic debate. Your argument boils down to "Australians aren't up to it".

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:

You are a cringing crypto-monarchist whose only suggestions are idiocy in practice (Yes, that's right... your old Queen Kate debate)...

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 9:49pm:

And you're a regular poster to an Australian politics forum...  

Aren't you also a nationalist?

Refresh, Helian -- I didn't even finish my post when I made that (accidentally clicked).

Don't roll your eyes at me, infant.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 10:07pm:

Friendship with the UK will not end with the monarchy in Australia... Nor will the affections of those Australians who maintain close personal ties with Britain.

aikmann4 wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 10:16pm:

I guess that's what I mean by cultural infantilism (and no disrespect intended... i.e. not that you're an infant)... Being we haven't really grown up such that we don't realise the British monarchy was never and is not now about being Australian and, due to the Hanover usurpation, its almost as much about being German as British.

I'm continental European and Irish descent, so I have no genetic allegiance to Britain and by cultural memory no reason to admire British royalty... Not that I hate the Windsors (or should I say the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas / Battenburgs) as such... But they are not representative of  Australian society and never will be.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 10:48pm:

The Westminster system works fine with a citizen President as ceremonial head of state.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 9:19pm:


The danger is that the government will do all the consultation in the world and come up with a system that nobody likes. You know? - a bit like how they handle everything else?

I don't have any major objection to a system without the English monarch as long as they don't totally screw things up. Unfortunately Australian public servants and politicians have a great talent for legislation that totally screws things up.

Maybe they should contract it out. I'm sure there are consultants in India  

Maybe we should wait until we get a talented government.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 5^th, 2010 at 9:31am:

And implies we maintain a sense of cultural inferiority (infantility) to a parental culture.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 5^th, 2010 at 9:39am:


Precisely, Helian.
Now whilst we can agree that the actual model we eventually employ must be an improvement, otherwise change for changes sake alone is just bloody minded optimism, we certainly should be able to produce a system which incorporates the best of the Westminster System, while also incorporating some of the elements from other systems which could compliment it.

The fact is that changing would give us a chance to start from the ground up, and totally reinvent our system of government, from which we could hope to see a more efficient, streamlined system.

I like any proposal that may help us get rid of state governments.

Like I said.
It doesn't matter if you want to hold on for dear life to the Westminster UK system or have a President for a Head of State, in the name of the USA influence.
The UK is part of the USA anyway.
Its like voting Labor or Liberal. Channel 2 or the Commercial Stations, either way its Twiddle-Dee and Twiddle-Dum ...either way its just Television and not the Internet.

If you wish to have a valid Republic, it can't exist on behalf of Channel 2 or Channels 7/9/10 ...it can't exist on behalf of Television at all.
It has to exist on behalf of the Internet (so to speak), which is all about Art.

I guess it must be the hardest path to take for Australian Politics, to suddenly represent your 'Fellow Australian', who is an Artist, rather than continue to serve 'Foreign' Political expressions.
Maybe its a PRO-RACIST act that Australian Anglo-Saxons would rather serve fellow Anglo-Saxons in other parts of the world, rather than 'politically represent' fellow Australians who are not Anglo-Saxons and do not practice politics?

Thats one thing I did like about Rudd, he believed in the United Nations as the future and not the USAnglo-Saxon Empire (and its UK partner in crime) ...no wonder he was shafted!

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST ANGLO-SAXONS.
POLITICS IS FOR EVERY NATION AND NOT JUST THE ANGLO-SAXON EMPIRE.
"...let the Ring go Frodo."

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jul 6^th, 2010 at 12:00am:

The Westminster system works with an elected/appointed ceremonial President as Head of State.

Totally Muso

...and totally right (sorry to say).

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2010 at 7:33pm:

Name the common models you could live with.

A form of direct democracy... OK.... So.... Long live the Republic, then!

Quote:


Should that be 'representativeness', rather than freedom? I don't see any direct link to freedom.

Well firstly I would laugh (ok, I'm   now) at the idea of the 'hereditary' factor - of the passage of power through, especially 'male'... a blood-line.

How #%@*ing PRIMATIVE. ("we will be ruled by William the Monkey Boy"  in his military garb in a Europe that is embracing the Medical Industry more than the Military Industry as a way to the future ...led by those military losers - the Germans )

Considering the 'modern' facts that the Male contribution to the act of procreation is to choose the 'sex' of the child (Thats right Abraham and King Henry 8th - it was your fault allllllll along), incorporate a minority of genetic make-up (taking into account the ever mixing and thoroughbreeding of the Regressive and Dominant genes in this day and age. Thats right, the Red-Heads are becoming even more distinctive and two yellow parents can have a black child.) and the majority of children look akin to the mother rather than the father. The immense populations of India and China are due more to the women procreating 'more' than the men for starters.
I think the Buddhists have a good philosophy of an 'heir apparent', they choose someone 'beyond' the bloodline (the mind is not tainted by the body). Just a shame that 500,000 applications have come forth stating that their child is the next Dalai Lama.  

At the most, its the Grandson that does the Father proud, not the Son.

The CuttleFish are one of the most intelligent animals going around. This is due possibly to the Cross-Dressing smaller males having a higher success rate with breeding than the larger bull males. Cross-Dressing expresses superior colouring skills and cunning - essential qualities towards the freakish intelligence of the CuttleFish evolution.

...so please, please, please. If we are going to have an Individual presence represent a large population of people in regards to all things Political. Can that person be voted in upon merit by either the people or the Political Industry itself votes in a person from outside the Industry ...that aussie battler, joe-blow (who suddenly finds himself carrying the burden of the Ring of Power   )

I like the idea of a Republic and all we really need to do is just transfer the duties of the GG to a President who will just be just a respected figurehead elected by two thirds of the Federal Parliament.
Our first President should be Tim Fisher 

adelcrow wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 9:31am:


All you need to do is convince the Australian people, who already rejected that constitutional model.

I've yet to hear a good argument from advocates of this model as to why Australia shouldn't adopt a simliar model to that used in Ireland.  In that model, nominations come from parliament and the people get to elect their president directly, from those nominations.

The Irish President is also a figure head with the same basic powers that our president would have if s/he were to take on the roles currently occupied by the Queen and Governor General.

Going back the polls with the same constitutional model as we had before is not going to get us our republic.  I think the Irish model is a good comprimise between those who want an American style directly elected president, and those who favour our elected representativees voting on our behalf.

As long as the President is just a ceremonial figure head elected by the parliament there will be no issues.
I really cant see why its such a big deal 

adelcrow wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 6:00pm:


The big deal is that that model was already rejected and will be rejected again.

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:


No.  Because there is a very good reason to allow parliament to nominate the president if that president is going to be a figure head.  That is that, the office can remain a-political if both the opposition leader and PM have to agree on the nominations.

Getting to elect a president prevents them from completely subverting the democratic process.

WRT your specific objection, currently you don't get to choose who is nominated for PM.  That's a decision made by each of the viable political parties.  So why would you have a problem with the same people selecting nominations for president?

In fact, even if we went for an American style directly elected president, you wouldn't be nominating the candidates.

In the spirit of federation, Austrlia should have a serious look at the Swiss model of collegial rather than presidential head of state.
In our case, a Council of Australian Governments (COAG) could assume the role of Head of State for the Commonwealth.

directly electing a president in our case is a crap idea.

I don't think 'we' can have, let alone be entitled to having, a President as a Head of State (especially when I believe our States will dissolve into Provinces due to financial reasons: I'm pretty sure the Lake Macquarie area will get sick of footing some bills for the rest of NSW).
...haven't you ever seen the movie: BLADERUNNER ?
I'm pretty sure the USA wouldn't like 'Replicants' running amok in their image.
"There can be only ONE" again, Highlander.

I think the Union Jack is like a little peice of Crystal Shard that has to be placed back into the USA giant Crystal. (know that movie?)
Or you can think of the Union Jack as a Ring of Power, eh

A bit weird, yes well - so is the world currently.

I suspect this spin is being fostered to encourage dittoism, so as to make the bewildered voter feel less threatened by the prospect of an Imperialist Ruddpublic  'Presidency' and other such anti-democratic tendencies being executed by our current government.

A Republic of Australia would be a very big mistake,(anti-democratic) thought I'm sure wealthy elitists and power-brokers like Rudd will thank you for it in the long Run after having purchased their way to presidency.

He's been cavorting with center-left influential policy think tanks at the Brookings Institution in recent days, thus one could be forgiven for thinking he's still somewhere out there like Voldermort just waiting for his opportunity to return.

The ultimate revenge would be to expel those who shredded him from government, and the only sure way to do this would be to persuade the Australian public enough to contemplate a republic.

He made it clear even before he became PM if elected he would hold another referendum on whether Australia should become a republic, and I have a feeling he's still keen on this idea.

Think about it, if Australians become disenchanted enough with both leading parties, then what's the obvious solution?

Rudds no dummy, and I don't think we've seen the last of his Solipsism.

Republicanism is not consistent with the true, underpinning values of  democracy, you can jazz it up with terms such as a "socialist republic" a  "peoples republic"  as much as you like but ultimately it's all about the ruling elite dictating/purchasing their terms of governance, and their government meeting their requirements as per promised, negotiated prior to being elected.
Bit like selling your soul, but it comes at a price.
This is why so many Presidents have been assassinated, they are expendable and much rides on what they are willing to giveth.

This is not a true democracy, rather is a purchased power and autonomy...less the debt!

Recall the old adage with respects to  the difference between England, Germany, and France? In England, what is not allowed is forbidden; in Germany, what is not forbidden is allowed; in France, even what is forbidden is allowed.

I think our becoming a republic in a state of political bewilderment and disenchantment would be a big mistake, ..... Rudd has already laid the framework re-censoring social media and free speech, this and clearly fancies himself as Australia's first president, ...make him president for a day, and he'll build us a bridge to China, guaranteed...look what he did in less than 3 years as a mere mortal PM.

Be careful what you wish for people.

Because once it's done it's done.

Another big problem with the idea of our GG being replaced with a committee of upstanding citizens is that the GG in his current role has to be able to act decisively. There is a risk that the PM can sack the GG before the GG sacks the PM, which would give us something of a political crisis. A committee would make this outcome far more likely, especially if one of the members on the committe liked the PM or disliked the other members.

bipedalhumanoid wrote on Jul 13^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

I don't believe it's inevitable, only a possibility...

On another matter, in a future system of government, given what happened to Rudd, should a Parliamentary vote of no confidence in a Prime Minister trigger a general election?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 18^th, 2010 at 11:22am:


Absolutely not.  As far as I'm concerned anyone votes for a member of a political party is giving power to that party to select a the PM.  If they don't like that fact they should vote for independent candidates.

Ultimately a protest against Rudd's replacement is a protest against party politics.  If you don't like it don't support it.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 9:37pm:


Helian, you seem to consistently and deliberately confuse me with some mythical monarchist who opposes a republic for reasons that you would find most convenient. You won't convince anyone by telling them what they believe.

Matt wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:


Matt - one thing I like about the Queen is that you can't bribe her.
She is one of the richest women in the world.
As for any political character in Australia -
I wouldn't trust any of them.
Who would vote for them?
Would it be the people or a trade union boss or  a rich
multi-national company that decided?

Look at other countries with Presidents.
Look at what happened in the Philippines with the Marcos family.
Is that we want here?

Del_has_returned wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:17am:

Cringing cultural infantilism.

Del_has_returned wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:17am:

She's happy... but you're not... And she's not an Australian.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 8:20am:



You assume a lot.  Don't speak for me, continue with your own unintelligible garble if you think it makes a difference.

"Cringing cultural infantilism" (flavour of the month)

Ah, the vague expression used (or should I say over-used) by helian because of his lack of reasoned argument.

Matt - one thing I like about the Queen is that you can't bribe her.
She is one of the richest women in the world.
As for any political character in Australia -
I wouldn't trust any of them.
Who would vote for them?
Would it be the people or a trade union boss or  a rich
multi-national company that decided?

Look at other countries with Presidents.
Look at what happened in the Philippines with the Marcos family.
Is that we want here?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 10:54am:




Yes but you've not said I'm wrong, you've merely used your overworked expression yet again.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:36am:



And what faith do you have?  The faith which I'd have to say is more of an obsession because you are bound by an obvious inferiority complex, more concerned with how Australia "appears" to the rest of the world than what benefits the country.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:49am:



I thought you'd already got rid of one little "Emperor", and are in the process of trying to elect an "Empress"..........

Del_has_returned wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:45am:

Some inferiority complex One that asserts the nation can express itself solely by its own terms.

The world is not much better than bemused by our retention of a foreign head of state.

It benefits us not at all.

Del_has_returned wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:08pm:

So who has the inferiority complex now?

Why the need for a foreign head of state?... is a question asked often enough by foreigners. (Elizabeth herself, I'm sure, asks the same question).

Del_has_returned wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:30pm:

Its only the culturally infantile who imagine outsiders as feeling something more than bemused by our retention of a foreign head of state... Who imagine that it elevates the status of this nation (a la "The Queen brings a lot of global status to this country without which Australia really wouldn't make much of an impression on the world stage"). Sure, there are other things that interest foreigners more about Australia, but few, if any, (non-English) foreigners perceive it as anything other than infantile. Why do many English see the English Queen as our foreign head of state as significant? Maybe they perceive it as augmenting English global status... while maintaining little interest in what it does (or doesn't) do for Australia.

adelcrow wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 11:57am:


Me also.
You may refer to me as  - Your Majesty.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 25^th, 2010 at 12:48pm:



Now you're resorting to "many English" .............how the ^%$# do you know what "many English" see or think..........there you go again answering for others.

British global status does not need "augmenting"..........and I imagine that the poms in UK give us as much thought as we do them.

Get over it buddy..........