To sum up - the foreign republicans think that Australia should become a republic because they don't like the concept of monarchy.
Should Australia become a Republic?
- Thread starter anglolawyer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- australia issues
To sum up - the foreign republicans think that Australia should become a republic because they don't like the concept of monarchy.
anglolawyer
Banned
This foreign republican thinks all states should be republics because monarchy is outmoded, elitist and undemocratic. I actually find it tough to distinguish between belief in monarchy and belief in God. Both are based in subservience and faith. Odd to see so many self-proclaimed skeptics still lapping it up.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I read the wiki page on the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. I was struck by the rather rude and uncivil way the crisis was eventually resolved, especially that GG Kerr gave PM Whitlam his dismissal out of the blue, without any forewarning. The main reason Kerr had for this behaviour, I got from that page, was that the GG and the PM had each other in a possible dead grip: on the one hand, the GG can dismiss the PM, but on the other hand, the PM can "advise" the Queen to dismiss the GG. Has there been any discussion on this aspect after the crisis? Personally, I would think it would be preferable that the GG could be frank with the PM and warn him/her and frankly say "get your act together or I'll have no other option than to dismiss you", without having to fear for his own dismissal.
No, no, no no.......
I have already given a reasoned response to this notion. I prefer the stupid system we have over a president-as-head-of-state because it is a stupid system, and it is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with subservience or faith.
Don't just chuck us all in a drawer labelled "Monarchists"and assume all non-republicans are fans of the royals. As I said before, any system at all which you can think of for Britain which fails the Tony Blair test (could he get the job?) fails for me, so I am quite happy to have the ridiculous system we have at the moment. I don't want a head of state who has any more power than is necessary to launch a ship or open a supermarket, and any system at all which involves democracy involves giving power to someone, or worse still, to an organised party. I want none of that, so I'm happy to leave the moronic rich in-breds in place, and happy to mock them. Only don't mock me for it.
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Brazil is listed as a parliamentary republic in the period 1961-1963. And the wiki page on the 1963 referendum gives some interesting background. Basically, the change from presidential system to parliamentary republic was a constitutional hack to appease the military into allowing a
IMHO, that one can be ascribed to poor thought out, rushed-through hack.
anglolawyer
Banned
Sorry, but the two choices on the ballot paper are
'monarchy' and
'republic'
If you choose monarchy you are a monarchist by any sensible definition even if you have some fancy, sophisticated reason for voting for it. If you don't like subservience or faith as the common denominators between monarchism and religion then how about infantilism? You don't want a democratic choice because you are afraid of what the choice will be. That is childish in the true sense. Choosing the republic means growing up.
You can characterise it like that if you want to, but I don't see it that way at all. I also know that you can't really think there are only two choices, because there are multiple forms of both monarchy and republican models. I suggest you are over-simplifying, in both this post and in the previous mocking one.
You are very wrong in saying "you don't want a democratic choice because you are afraid of what the choice will be". I don't want a democratic choice because, as I said, any democracy infers some power, and I want a powerless head of state. I am not afraid of who it would throw up, I am afraid of anyone who got the office. Anyone at all. If David Attenborough were to be president, I'd still be afraid.......because it isn't the holder that would bother me, it is the job description and the power of the office. You are also very wrong indeed to lump all supporters of the status quo together as "lapping it up". I'll accept that my reason for having left the republican camp is a little quirky, but it isn't thoughtless, nor is it infantile.
BTW, if we were to have a referendum on monarchy vs republic, and monarchy won, then we're in deep do-do. We would have given the rich morons some legitimacy, and of course, the same applies to the office of president. So even the holding a referendum on the subject would complete bugger up the situation in my view, whichever side won.
I am very surprised you would resort to "childish" and "growing up" and so on. Not what I've come to expect from you.
You are very wrong in saying "you don't want a democratic choice because you are afraid of what the choice will be". I don't want a democratic choice because, as I said, any democracy infers some power, and I want a powerless head of state. I am not afraid of who it would throw up, I am afraid of anyone who got the office. Anyone at all. If David Attenborough were to be president, I'd still be afraid.......because it isn't the holder that would bother me, it is the job description and the power of the office. You are also very wrong indeed to lump all supporters of the status quo together as "lapping it up". I'll accept that my reason for having left the republican camp is a little quirky, but it isn't thoughtless, nor is it infantile.
BTW, if we were to have a referendum on monarchy vs republic, and monarchy won, then we're in deep do-do. We would have given the rich morons some legitimacy, and of course, the same applies to the office of president. So even the holding a referendum on the subject would complete bugger up the situation in my view, whichever side won.
I am very surprised you would resort to "childish" and "growing up" and so on. Not what I've come to expect from you.
yes, a 3 year period following the renounce of president Jânio Quadros. And there was a plebiscite where it was voted for the return of the presidentialist system.
And Goulart was not a commie... he was a social-democrat like those from Europe. He supported the US instance on Cuba in the missile crysis!!
But he was also pragmatic and knew Brazil could not depend only on commercial relations to the US. So when he tried to do business with China and Russia, the rightwing despaired and planned the 1964 Coup, which had extensive help from the US (documents show that Kennedy even planned with his secretary of state an invasion of Brazil in case the military coup failed).
Either way, in no instance has a brazilian president become a dictator or anywhere near it.
Getúlio Vargas became a dictator following the 1930 Revolution. But when Getúlio Vargas was a PRESIDENT in the 50s, he had already returned the country to democracy and then a few years later, he was ELECTED into the job.
And in 1964, the military coup deposed the elected president and the several military president dictators (elected generals and marshals, among a circle of the top ranking military leaders) were never presidents that became dictators. They became presidents in what was already a dictatorship.
oh, and before 1889 (when Brazil became a presidentialist republic) Brazil was an Empire that of the Braganza portuguese royal house (Dom Pedro I was the son of the Portuguese King, and then father of the Portuguese Queen) and the Braganza and Habsburg royal house (Dom Pedro II was the son of Leopoldina from Austria, daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor, who married Dom Pedro I). So again, not a presidentialist system where the president gained too much powers...
Last edited:
anglolawyer
Banned
Childish in the sense of wanting or expecting somebody else to decide things for you. I stick with that. We are talking about a very narrow sphere of Australian life within which, once every couple of generations, something actually important will crop up and it will be decided not by anybody picked by the Ozzies as a good bloke but by whoever happens to be wearing the crown on the other side of the world.
Your fears of some crazed, out-of-control person running amok with all that power are groundless because in all the comparators that have been offered up there us no case of a mainly ceremonial president going nuts: India, Italy, Germany etc. Added to which, Australia is a stable democracy. It's not
Iraq or Afghanistan. If you set something up there to work in a particular way, I expect it to work that way. Why wouldn't it?
It is about 'growing up'. It's about Australia being completely detached and independent and casting off the last remnant of dependency. This discussion reminds me of arguments about how former bits of the empire, especially in Africa, were better off when the colonial power was in charge. Maybe they were and maybe not but at least now they are no longer subservient to an alien elite, believing in a right to rule deriving from its innate superiority.
Btw. they may be good at hiding it, what with modern marketing and PR, but the royals somewhat and their hangers-on most surely still do cling to those notions.
Not sure you're reading my posts. I may be commenting in the Australian republic topic, but I am a Brit, and I talking about wanting to keep or lose our system in this country. Here is what I said days ago about Oz becoming a republic:
You should put a hat on before you go out into the midday sun........
On the substance of the thread: of course it should, as should Canada. However, choosing a benign alternative, without ending up with a power-crazed loon in charge, or worse, complete ungovernable stasis as 3 different branches of government fight with each other, is going to be a tough trick to get right.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
That issue has been debated long and hard. When the GG made his decision he consulted constitutional lawyers who were evenly split over his right to do what he did. Regardless of the outcome the important take away was that the question was ultimately sent back to the people to decide.
An interesting side note on the issue - the ability for a political party to block supply that lead to the crisis was removed by a unanimous vote a couple of years later
anglolawyer
Banned
Sorry Mike. I thought you were a Brit but then I must have got confused!
If you are talking about the UK you are off topic but the same points apply mutatis mutandis to GB except that we (in GB) have a rock solid pro-monarchy majority so the question doesn't arise whereas in Oz it does.PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Bollocks. It has to do with keeping the Head of State entirely apolitical. It doesn't matter if a President "renounces" his party ties, or claim to be apolitical, the fact of the matter is that any elected position will be about politics and will be held by a politician. I want to keep as much power out of politicians' hands as possible, and the Monarchy does that is a brilliant way. There is no way to aspire to become a Monarch, no way to push power into that position so that when you "retire" from Parliament you can take over the position and the power. There is no need to worry about them become power crazed dictators either.
If you want to trade strawmen though, I'll start suggesting that the only reason that Republicans support the idea of a President is that they all dream of being the Head of State and taking over the country themselves. It likely has more reality to it that your accusation, even if that is just a nano-gram.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Not if it's his party in control of the House and they won't support it.
Depends on how it is set up, but what is the point of having a President that the Government can sack at the drop of a hat, might as well not bother having one at all.
We're not talking about giving the Government more powers though, we're talking about shifting powers from one part of the Government to another, something much easier to get through.
I think it's a much better thing that the PM can only use people who were voted in democratically, and who we get to say, "No you're just a talentless yes man" before they even get a chance of power, than to have a President who can appoint anyone they want, including a bunch of totally unelected talentless yes men.
If people don't like a Cabinet Minister they can vote them out at the next election and they are gone (though sadly not so easy under our system over here), if they don't like a Presidential appointee, too bad, they have no say in the matter.
angrysoba
Philosophile
The OP seemed to be asking a reasonable question at first, but now it looks more like it was a chip on his shoulder which he was daring posters to knock off. Not content with a reasoned debate on the topic, the OP is now resorting to insult, as follows:
The No True Sceptic jibe is fallacious reasoning, especially when, as you admit, you come to your conclusion through your own inability to distinguish arguments for a status quo political system and a belief in the supernatural. Perhaps instead of mocking your opponents, you should try to understand their arguments better and treat them with a bit more respect.
An argument for retaining the monarchy does not require "subservience" or "faith". I know of nobody in the UK or Australia who feels subservient to the Queen or believes in her reign through faith. Most people are pretty convinced that there is no inherent superiority of the Queen or the monarchy in general, but nevertheless argue that the system functions well enough, and that a well-functioning political system is preferable to an uncertain or dangerous meddling in the system.
The argument is a pretty old one, but a good exemplar would be that of Burke vs. Paine on the French Revolution. History appears to have largely vindicated Burke.
Impugning people's motives by calling them childish and fearful fails to deal with the actual argument for choosing a monarchy over a republic. Those arguments have been spelled out pretty clearly and are not at all childish or fearful but instead have been sensible.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
You are just making stuff up.
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Pot, meet kettle.
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Since you never responded to my answer to your post I can only infer that you can not refute the facts in that post.
If the reason you didn't respond is because PW is saying everything you would say then I would point out that only minor changes to section 128 of the constitution would be needed to ensure that a double dissolution election would also include the president's position as well. Repeated presidential vetos could also be grounds for a double dissolution.
If the issue is that a president could appropriate more powers for himself then you are showing yourself to be ignorant if you think that could happen without the endorsement of both houses of parliament as well as the voters themselves.
As for whether it is better if ministers come from parliament or outside of parliament then I can only mention "Troy Buswell". This is at the state level but is indicative of the problem you have when there are only MPs available for the executive. Troy Buswell is a drunken womanizer who has been constantly getting into trouble over his antics (which include turning up to parliament blind drunk). As Treasurer, he is responsible for blowing this state's debt sky high. Yet he was the most talented minister this state had!!?
I thought they can still block supply but generally don't because they're not idiots.
But only in certain situations right?
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
What powers though? Where do they get this power from exactly?
Peter Cosgrove?
How? They would have no authority to do much of anything.