Should Australia become a Republic?

[Craig B]

As for my part in that: there's nothing wrong in pointing out that their proper surname would be Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Apparently, they thought themselves there was something wrong with being of German ancestry, back in 1915. Just as their good friends the Battenbergs Mountbattens.

Wrong war.

We must also remember our Sovereign's consort who was born in Greece.

On February 28, 1947, Philip became a British subject, renouncing his right to the Greek and Danish thrones and taking his mother’s surname, Mountbatten. (His father’s family name had been Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.)

But there can be no doubt that Prince Charles is English by any valid criterion, and his children even more so.

What they are not is "British" because that is a purely political term. I often think of Elton John's tribute to Princess Diana at her funeral. He called her "England's rose" and it sounded right. But if he had sung "Britain's rose" it would have sounded ridiculous, would it not?

 

[anglolawyer]

We must also remember our Sovereign's consort who was born in Greece. But there can be no doubt that Prince Charles is English by any valid criterion, and his children even more so.

What they are not is "British" because that is a purely political term. I often think of Elton John's tribute to Princess Diana at her funeral. He called her "England's rose" and it sounded right. But if he had sung "Britain's rose" it would have sounded ridiculous, would it not?

It was ridiculous either way if you ask me . Monarchy is inherently ridiculous. We are talking about an institution that has its origins in a time when you fought your way to the top and then fought some more to stay there. Monarchs married other monarchs or their relatives and thereby acquired whole countries which they lost again when the missus died in childbirth or some other twist of fate intervened. They sat at the apex of a land-grabbing, war-mongering military elite and constructed around themselves a mythology of divine entitlement (very convenient!).

Times change. Now, the cult of celebrity sustains these people, which is where we came in (see the OP) and an enormous PR effort goes into promoting and packaging the brand. I pity the ludicrous plight of the actual individuals at the centre of this circus, having to fulfil the impossible fantasies of the masses, being the focus of incessant attention, projection, adulation and expectation (they can cure scrofula).

To me, they represent unmerited privilege but I don't think of them in isolation from their elite social class and the extraordinarily unattractive types who make it up. It's not fair to do that to people. It's like giving a pet all it can eat. They wheel them out in slavering, cloying documentaries: this or that lady in waiting or the groom of the stool (great job! ) to reminisce about that one time the Duke was pleasant to a footman or the queen sat next to a dark chappie at a banquet and treated him just the same as everyone else.

Fine, if you want to hang on to them. Let the 'so what?' argument win. It's actually quite funny and appropriate that it should.

 

[Craig B]

It was ridiculous either way if you ask me.

Yes of course, in objective terms. What I meant was, ridiculous in terms of Elton John's purpose and intention, which was to eulogise a person connected with a preposterous institution, the monarchy. Though presumably Elton doesn't think it is preposterous.

 

[Damien Evans]

Why not?

Because it doesn't work very well, by comparison to our current system.

 

[psionl0]

Because it doesn't work very well, by comparison to our current system.

I already figured that this was your opinion but you are not explaining anything.

 

[ddt]

And of course in Russia, they changed the name from St Petersburg to Petrograd to sound more Russian. It seems to have fooled Boney M as well, hence the lyrics:

"Ra-ra-rasputin, lover of the German Russian Queen!"

Blame Frank Farrian. He's German too. For a light note, here's commercial from a Dutch insurer, from a couple of years ago:


(BTW, the Oranges are predominantly Germans by now. Willem III married a German. Wilhelmina married a German. Juliana married a German. Beatrix married a German. Willem Alexander is 15/16 German).

 

[ddt]

Is the U.S. president directly elected?

I humbly stand corrected. You're absolutely right.
I think, though, there's a bit of difference how the US president is indirectly elected and how the German president is, to keep with those two examples.

The US electors are elected for the sole purpose of electing a president, directly after the elections, and they're pledged to vote (in the first round at least) for the presidential candidate indicated on the ballot. In all but two or three cases, the

The German president is elected by MPs who have been elected on a wide range of issues, and the issue of which president they'll elect is not in their manifestos and the name of the president they'll support not even known. Some legislatures don't even get to elect a president, as the president serves a 5-year term and the Bundestag a 4-year term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election This source also notes that

However, having or not having the popular majority has nothing to do with directly or indirectly being elected. Award a US presidential candidate points instead of electors and say the one with the most points is elected. Now it's a direct election.

 

[ddt]

But there can be no doubt that Prince Charles is English by any valid criterion, and his children even more so.

Don't they spend quite some time at Balmoral?

What they are not is "British" because that is a purely political term.

Doesn't it say they're British in their passports? Or are they above such formalities?

I often think of Elton John's tribute to Princess Diana at her funeral. He called her "England's rose" and it sounded right. But if he had sung "Britain's rose" it would have sounded ridiculous, would it not?

I thought you distinguished your roses on county level, not country level?

 

[ddt]

I stand corrected. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Indirectly elected is still better than heredity. If I were drafting the new Aussie constitution I would ensure the pres. did not emerge as the result of party politics. Maybe the pres. would be selected by lot. Or there might be a popularity poll with the ten most popular candidates going forward to an actual vote.

Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with having an indirect election. The spectre I see hanging with a popular election of a ceremonial president is that the choice turns out to be between Beckham and the latest winner of Britain's got talent. Or do I sound too elitist now?

The pres. should be above politics.

My impression is that that works even where the election process is politicized. German presidents are never accused of being partial, even though the election process is politicized. Or look at the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis. The GG, Kerr, was selected by Labour PM Whitlam, and a few years later, Kerr decided he had to use his reserve power to dismiss Whitlam and appoint Coalition leader Fraser, for the country's best interests.

 

[anglolawyer]

You're welcome.


Personally, I'd be perfectly fine with having an indirect election. The spectre I see hanging with a popular election of a ceremonial president is that the choice turns out to be between Beckham and the latest winner of Britain's got talent. Or do I sound too elitist now?

My impression is that that works even where the election process is politicized. German presidents are never accused of being partial, even though the election process is politicized. Or look at the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis. The GG, Kerr, was selected by Labour PM Whitlam, and a few years later, Kerr decided he had to use his reserve power to dismiss Whitlam and appoint Coalition leader Fraser, for the country's best interests.

Your last point reminds me that the speaker of the House of Commons is a party politician selected by the MPs who is expected to be neutral once he occupies the chair. In general, one hears hardly any complaints abut this system which, you would think, would be doomed to founder on accusations of bias.

In the mature democracies, especially the ultra-stable anglo-saxon ones, people seem to be capable of acting disinterestedly and properly without being born into a privileged family.

 

[MikeG]

It was ridiculous either way if you ask me . Monarchy is inherently ridiculous..........

And that is just about the only thing which justifies its existence. If we were to have a system which put someone into a less ridiculous position as head of state, then we would be giving that person, and that office, some power. It is that, above anything, which I am afraid of. I was a republican for years, and I never did the deference stuff when meeting the royals, but now am in favour (just) of keeping the ridiculous in place of the professional politician as head of state.

 

[Skepticemea]

Sigh.

This comes up time and time again.

Does it really matter? Do you need to know the difference between Australian state jurisdictions before you can comment on politics in Australia?

No you don't. You can comment and you won't be shouted down because you don't know, for example, that Queensland doesn't have an Upper House.

I thought a Queenslander was an upper house!?!?!

 

[Craig B]

Your last point reminds me that the speaker of the House of Commons is a party politician selected by the MPs who is expected to be neutral once he occupies the chair. In general, one hears hardly any complaints abut this system which, you would think, would be doomed to founder on accusations of bias.

Few complaints until it produced a dope like Michael Martin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn

On 19 May 2009, Douglas Carswell tabled a motion of no confidence, which was signed by 22 MPs. Later that day, Martin announced he would resign from his position as Speaker of the House of Commons effective 21 June 2009. If the motion had been successful in a vote, Martin would have been the first Speaker to be forced out of office by a motion of no confidence since Sir John Trevor in 1695.

 

[anglolawyer]

Few complaints until it produced a dope like Michael Martin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn

Oh, him. The Scottish one who kept the lid on MPs' expenses. I see your point but was it bias or stupidity that he was nearly turfed out for?

 

[Damien Evans]

I already figured that this was your opinion but you are not explaining anything.

I'd have though it was pretty obvious.

We don't pull crap like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

or this: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/house-republicans-obamacare-repeal-votes-102911.html

for a start.

 

[Damien Evans]

Your last point reminds me that the speaker of the House of Commons is a party politician selected by the MPs who is expected to be neutral once he occupies the chair. In general, one hears hardly any complaints abut this system which, you would think, would be doomed to founder on accusations of bias.

In the mature democracies, especially the ultra-stable anglo-saxon ones, people seem to be capable of acting disinterestedly and properly without being born into a privileged family.

Incidentally, this is certainly not true of the Speaker in Australian politics. Most are moderately biased toward their own party (which they don't resign from), some have been very biased, and then there's Bronwyn Bishop, who kicks opposition members out for laughing at jokes.

 

[Wildy]

Both types have a directly elected president. You would need to change a lot to have the powerful president but only a little to have the titular one. I am not Australian and couldn't care less which.

However an French or American style would require changes because the relationship between the President and the Executive branch is different to our current system.

Does this mean the form of government a former colonial power has all these negatives attached to it? Are all monarchies of former colonies examples of this? And does this depend on the form of government in the ruling power when a colony gained independence?

Yes. Don't know but probably. Don't know, don't think so. Monarchy is bad everywhere because it is inegalitarian and anachronistic.

So what form of government could a former French possession hold because throughout the period of France's colonial empire it was at times a republic and at other times a monarchy? Since it was a republic at the time of decolonisation wouldn't that mean a republic would symbolise "imperial, subservient colonial past, patronage, privilege, deference, hierarchy"?

A republican Australia symbolises a mature, independent Australia. We are talking about the brand. Brands matter, apparently. All kinds of things go to make up the Australian brand, the vestigial remnant of monarchical sovereignty being just one of them, the one we are talking about. Your questions don't address this point.

Well one reason why my questions don't address the point of "branding" was because you hadn't made that clear at the time, which is why I asked "how" a republic represents "mature nationhood". Apparently the answer to that question seems to be 'because I say that monarchies are stupid'. So I'm going to draw the conclusion that the answer to the bit where I asked about various countries is "the republics because monarchies suck", have I got that right?

I understand that brands matter, but in terms of branding I think Australia has far bigger branding issues to deal with than "we're a constitutional monarchy".

Having sovereignty embodied in a particular familial line is also stupid.

So? You're talking about how branding matters and your suggestion of what could be on our flag was stupid.

The point I was making was that if branding doesn't matter why not make complete twats of yourselves and have a stupid anthem as well as a random family of not terribly bright or talented people based on the other side of the world as the sole providers of your sovereign?

I see, this ties into the "branding" argument you didn't make when you said those things.

Here's a question: why not have an Australian monarchy? Just pick a family by lot and say that one will forever be the monarchy. Come on. Why not?

We already have one, it just happens to be the same family as the UK monarchy.

If the UK abolished the monarchy, what would Oz do? Invent it's own?

No, it would keep the monarchy that the UK deposed because the UK can't change the Constitution of Australia.

What they are not is "British" because that is a purely political term. I often think of Elton John's tribute to Princess Diana at her funeral. He called her "England's rose" and it sounded right. But if he had sung "Britain's rose" it would have sounded ridiculous, would it not?

Well you can't trust Elton John. He totally copied REO Speedwagon.

(BTW, the Oranges are predominantly Germans by now. Willem III married a German. Wilhelmina married a German. Juliana married a German. Beatrix married a German. Willem Alexander is 15/16 German).

So Willem Alexander is slightly less German than the guy in your national anthem.

 

[anglolawyer]

Er, Wildy, this is not that kind of thread so, thank you and goodbye for now.

 

[ddt]

Incidentally, this is certainly not true of the Speaker in Australian politics. Most are moderately biased toward their own party (which they don't resign from), some have been very biased, and then there's Bronwyn Bishop, who kicks opposition members out for laughing at jokes.

Wow, her wiki page has a very unflattering photo. Or is that her normal image?

In the Netherlands, being partial is a cardinal sin for the Speaker. There's been some criticism of the current Speaker, Ms. Anouchka van Miltenburg. Last year, one of the opposition leaders accused her of "steering the debate". She was so shocked that she suspended the meeting, and left the room to cry in chambers.

 

[Giz]

And remembering the Queen herself is a real penny pincher. She was still doing repairs and service to her personal Land Rover into her 60's

German workers taking British jobs!