greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:10am:



Would it be better that I use the republican argument of 'it makes me feel good' if we don't change, seems rock solid.


Any large organisation will conduct a cost benefit analysis before implementing any major changes, they do so because to blunder through random changes is foolhardy in the least. How about we at least find a valid reason for change before fkking sh1t up to make a few socialist happy.

Its time wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:34am:


I thought we were Australian, not stateless? 

Dnarever wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:17am:


You're missing the point.

Who determines what a "good reason" actually is?

All this forelock tugging to a foreign monarch, yuck!

Becoming a republic may be a symbolic move, but symbols are powerful.

We need to be our own country, with a heritage from and friendship to the UK. Just not forelock tugging subservience.

Becominbg a republic will improve our standing in the part of the world where we are: Asia.

Crap about changing stationery, currency, signs etc can be done over 10–20 years, no real cost.

FGS, let us cut the umbilical cord, 115 years and still tied to Mummy England??? If you don’t think this counts in Asia you are wrong.

A popularly elected President with the powers of the present day GG, elected every two Federal elections.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:20am:


Well to this point I haven't even seen even a poor reason suggested ?

The starting point to find a good reason is a "reason"- any reason ?

Nobody seems to have one.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:20am:



If republicans cannot event work out the definition of 'a good reason' for change, I think that is a rock solid argument to not let them recommend any sort of change.


I can personally think of good reasons to do lots of things, and good reasons to not; as a rational thinking person, intellectual reasoning comes pretty easy. I dare say I am not alone in this universe, so a group of capable republicans could surely knock together at least couple of benefits worthy of spending the money for change.


I would be more than happy to vote on those benefits on whether to change or not, but I will never support change, just so a few whiny socialists and skippy can feel better about themselves for a short while.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 10:23am:

Many many many convicts sent here were Irish or Scot, please do keep up. not to mention the poms that were sent here were not wanted by the mother land. Anyone with convict ancestary had forebears sent here because they were not wanted in England.
One in three People living in Australia were not even born here.
The union jack and England no longer if they ever did represent Australians.

skippy. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 9:56am:

You've touched on the biggest problem with this debate on this and other Australian Forums...

The Australian Republican debate invariably descends into ad hominem rants from both sides.

The only question I'd ask is - How would the tension arising from a perceived mandate of the people between an elected head of state and an elected head of government be controlled such that it would not / could not descend into a jousting match between the two incumbents?

Constitutional Monarchies (when confined to their respective native homelands) answer the question completely and definitively. In that the role of head of state is, by constitution, effectively powerless, leading to no show-down between the head of state and the head of government. The monarchical head of state is then free to embody a sense of national historical continuity, an icon of stability and a defender of his/her nation's constitution and commitment to democracy. Around the world, this arrangement has resulted in remarkable political stability and nowhere was this in modern times more exemplified than in Spain when King Juan-Carlos ended a coup without blood by asserting his role as Commander in chief and ordered the army back to barracks after an attempted coup in 1981 and ending it within hours of it rising. Even Spanish republicans and communists acceded to the value of constitutional Monarchy.

Monarchies are most effective when they represent their own people and their Monarchs are descended from an ancient family within the nation they serve.

However, it will be interesting to see what the Catalans and Basques make of the Spanish Monarchy if they ever gain independence in Spain.

The case of the Scots relationship to the British monarchy during the recent referendum was an interesting insight into whether a potentially (prima facie) foreign monarch ruling Scotland would or could survive. Fortunately for the House of Windsor, the Queen and her descendants can (and do) invoke their right to rule Scotland within a monarchy by rightly claiming descent from the Stuarts (via Mary, Queen of Scots then James VI & I), given no other living Stuart is a viable (or acceptable ) pretender.

For monarchies to be accepted (largely) without question, they need to prove their ancient right to rule. This is not a test that has any merit in new nations such as Australia whose Western history is too young and controversial (or arguably the result of an accident of history), to be indisputable (after all, this country could have been a Dutch or French possession).

New nations deserve to be represented by new and modern institutions of governance... But then, what to do with the potential rivalry between a HOS and a HOG, neither of whom can claim the right to rule by descent.