-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Progress toward a republic stalls
- Thread starter the next big thing
- Start date
This bastards lost my vote. Fancy wanting an Australian to be the head of state of Australia. Almost choked on my digestive bikkie when I heard that.
tigersnake said:
An Aussie is already head of state....he's called the "Governor General"
Plus it is o.k everyone going on about a Republic, but the Republic have not come up with any model whatsoever as to how do we vote for a head of state, do we have to change the flag, or anything.
Secondly, we had a referendum and it didn't go through, the Republic flopped and that was that.
But I guess if you keep having referendum after referendum after referendum....you'll soooner or later win one to get your way... :
Our head of state is the Queen of England changed to the Queen of Australia but she still is a POM and resides in England - the Governor General is but her representative.
The referendum we had on the republic was a farce due to the way it was worded. It was not a true referendum on whether Australians wanted a republic but a referendum on a certain type of republic that was not what the Republic movement in Australia was canvassing. A majority of Australians did not want that type of republic hence the No vote won the day - however polls since have shown that Australians do want to live in the republic of Australia. A true republic not a hybrid type that was presented back then.......
The referendum we had on the republic was a farce due to the way it was worded. It was not a true referendum on whether Australians wanted a republic but a referendum on a certain type of republic that was not what the Republic movement in Australia was canvassing. A majority of Australians did not want that type of republic hence the No vote won the day - however polls since have shown that Australians do want to live in the republic of Australia. A true republic not a hybrid type that was presented back then.......
Liverpool said:tigersnake said:
An Aussie is already head of state....he's called the "Governor General"
Plus it is o.k everyone going on about a Republic, but the Republic have not come up with any model whatsoever as to how do we vote for a head of state, do we have to change the flag, or anything.
Secondly, we had a referendum and it didn't go through, the Republic flopped and that was that.
But I guess if you keep having referendum after referendum after referendum....you'll soooner or later win one to get your way... :
You've got no idea, puddles. The GG is the Queen's representative... and she is our head of state.
Gypsy__Jazz said:
Remote/Gypsy,
I have been through this before with you and your Republican buddies...*sigh*
Liverpool said:Sorry, but when the Australian Republican Movement themselves say this:
Even ARM Chair Greg Barns, in the Australian 10 April 2001, agrees the Governor-General is our Head of State - 6 times!
http://www.norepublic.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336&Itemid=4
....then it seems not even the Republicans themselves aren't sure whether the Queen is our head of state, or not.
And they're right, because the Constitution itself, does not name a head of state.
Of course, pro-Republicans will claim the Queen is, using the "foreigner as a head of state" as propaganda to coerce a swelling in numbers towards their cause.
Good on them for trying.
On the other hand, pro-monarchists can turn around and say that the Governor-General is our head of state, as he can make some decisions, as a head of state can, without having to converse with the Queen about them.
He also travels overseas, as our official Head of State.
We could argue back and forth about who is right, and who is wrong, and who is our head of state.
But the fact of the matter is, that the Constitution itself, does not name a head of state.
I think maybe its not all over....2 sets apiece, heading into the 5th?
Sorry boys....back to the drawing-board... ;D
He didn't help the cause did he, Jimbob?
In any case, due to the difficulty in achieving a majority in a majority of states... referendums tend to fail unless there is bi-partisan support, and with the leader of the government of the day being an unabashed monarchist, the campaign was doomed from the onset.
In any case, due to the difficulty in achieving a majority in a majority of states... referendums tend to fail unless there is bi-partisan support, and with the leader of the government of the day being an unabashed monarchist, the campaign was doomed from the onset.
mld said:
Yes, we had one....so why do we need another one at all?
Oh that's right, the ALP/Republicans lost and now they want a 2nd chance. :
Then if they lose that one.....we'll change the wording/question again, and do it all again....until sooner or later, they get the 'yes' vote that they crave.
Admittedly, one day I think we will become a Republic, but I think the Republicans, if they are going to sway many Aussies their way (and they haven't done anything to sway me yet!) need to come up with an agreeable model on how the Republic will work, how the President will be elected, how does the Government work, do we have to change the flag as well, do we change the national anthem.....they need to come up with EXACTLY how they wish the Republic model to work before having any referendum.
The referendum can't just state "Do you want a Republic?: YES or NO".
People deserve details on exactly what they are voting 'yes' to.
At the moment, people know what they are getting, and we are the 'lucky country' that many other countries envy.
Why change something that ain't broke? And why change to something that nobody has given the details on any alternative?
Liverpool said:mld said:
Yes, we had one....so why do we need another one at all?
Oh that's right, the ALP/Republicans lost and now they want a 2nd chance. :
Times change, there should never be only one chance for anything. Asking a question once a decade or once with a change in government is not excessive by any means.
Clearly this would be political suicide. No party would risk angering the public like this. It makes for an insulting cariacture though, so I suppose job done.
I see where you are coming from, but to me those sort of decision can only be legitimately made once the decision to become a republic is made by the people. It would be an awful lot of work and cost for nothing (again) if a no vote is returned afterwards. If the decision-making is done after the referendum then the decisions can be made by a more diverse group of people rather than a particular component of the republican movement.
I know it would result in more whinging, but I think the best way would be to hold the 'yes or no' referendum at one election, then if yes develop the model over the next three years and put the specific model to the people at the next election.
On matters political Livers you know that my views tend to fall in line with yours.
But not on this one.
The Queen is our Head of State.
The Queen is a Pom.
Appointing an Australian as "her representative" doesn't cut it with me. I ask myself 'why does The Queen need representation? If she needs to be represented then clearly she has a role larger than the role advocated by the Monarchists, who like to pretend she doesn't exist and serves no active role.
But not on this one.
The Queen is our Head of State.
The Queen is a Pom.
Appointing an Australian as "her representative" doesn't cut it with me. I ask myself 'why does The Queen need representation? If she needs to be represented then clearly she has a role larger than the role advocated by the Monarchists, who like to pretend she doesn't exist and serves no active role.
Chapter II—The Executive Government
61 Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen
and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf
There is a range of legislation that needs to be considered here, besides the Consitution Act itself. See also the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Australia Act 1986.
The Queen of Australia has little practical power in her role, however there is no question that she is the Head of State.
And the day anyone starts listening to a fuckhead like liverpool on constitutional matters, they may as well give up.
61 Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen
and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s
representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of
this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf
There is a range of legislation that needs to be considered here, besides the Consitution Act itself. See also the Statute of Westminster 1931 and the Australia Act 1986.
The Queen of Australia has little practical power in her role, however there is no question that she is the Head of State.
And the day anyone starts listening to a fuckhead like liverpool on constitutional matters, they may as well give up.
Gypsy__Jazz said:
The day I take any notice of what someone like this says:
eight ace said:
...is the day I give up!
Eightace has been a poster with a history of name-calling and comments like this and I treat them with the contempt that they deserve.
As for the Constitution, refer to post #43 of mine on this page:
http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=25281.30
....especially this part:
Actually, there is nothing in the Consitution that refers to a "head of state".
* For practical purposes the Head of State of Australia is the Governor-General.
* Section 2 of the Constitution describes the Governor-General as the Queen's representative in Australia.
* Section 2 of the Constitution also provides that the Governor-General is appointed by the Queen, retains office during her pleasure and exercises such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
* In relation to the prerogative powers [ie. powers over foreign affairs, such as making treaties, appointing diplomats and declaring war], while the Governor-General may act in the name of the Queen, the powers and functions are exercised by him/her as part of his/her duties as Governor-General. While the Governor-General may report to the Queen, the Queen is not involved, and has not interfered, in decisions that the Governor-General makes.
* Under section 61 of the Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is exercisable by the Governor-General not the Queen.
* Neither the Constitution nor the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act actually refer to the Queen as the Head of State.
* The Governor-General is usually regarded when travelling overseas as Australia's Head of State.
I think that covers it.
Before a referendum is held again, I think it is important that the Republican model be known to all and sundry.
It would be farcical if a referendum is held asking, "Do you want Australia to become a Republic? YES or NO" and people vote in the majority to change to a republic, and THEN it is announced that a leader will be chosen by, say John Howard....or a raffle.... :hihi....maybe after the model is announced, many people change their minds and do not want a republic?
That is why before any decision by the Australian people is made, the Republican supporters need to work out a model and come clean as to what the process would be if a referendum was held and we voted for a Republic.
evo said:
Kevin "The Echo" Rudd, you mean? :hihi
I shouldn't be too harsh....at least he has learny from Howard what the Australian people want.
Whether he stays true to this stance is the $64-million question.
And whether he got to stay as PM with Julia Gillard ready to pounce is also debatable.
poppa x said:
That's fine Poppa...that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
