Tosser drunk Kerr. Day of Shame. Dismissal of a democratically elected Government on Remembrance Day 1975. End of argument/shibboleth that the monarchy guaranteed fair play. End of reason for Australia to kiss HM's arse surely.
Conventions or custom-based processes as you put it has not caused any major issues for Australia nor is it likely to. Our current constitution has served Australians well, just consider the fact it has only been changed in 8 out of 44 or so referenda by the people. I can just imagine all the disagreement amongst elites and academic and politicians if your "fully" written constitution were seriously considered and it would be constantly criticized from all sides of politics.
To understand case for constitutional reform in Australia it's useful to remember the fat drunken slob Kerr I think. A man who dismissed a govt which had won two general elections within two years. He either did that because the Queen agreed with him doing so. Or he did so without the Queens knowledge or consent. Either way, the idea that the monarchy guarantees fair play in Australia died on Rembrance Day 1975. Royals never paid taxes in Ozz.
@corpbs1 The fact the Queen as Head of State refused to involve herself directly in Australian politics during the 1975 Constitutional crisis illustrated democracy was alive and well in Australia. I cannot imagine a President being as neutral as the Queen was. Royals may not pay taxes but their ongoing presence pays massive dividends to Australians.
@Redcarpet01 Your opinion has not been agreed upon by republicans yet so there is no guarantee of this point you make. Having specifics on the head of state's role may not necessarily be a good thing if they lead to contested interpretations by judges and parliamentarians. While there may not be specifics of the GG role atm there does not seem to be uproar amongst the community over this point. Q. Bryce seems to be doing a good job representing the Queen in Australia and Australia abroad IMO.
@CMFrenchEsq It won't be up for reinterpretation if it's specifically laid out. That's the core problem, in my view. Australia needs a FULLY writtenn constitution. Following the British way of a mainly custom-based process is just too dangerous IMHO.
@Redcarpet01 our Constitution is fully written we don't use any of the conventions that the UK use. For example in the UK the PM after a hung parliament is declared gets the first go at forming government, whereas here in Australia both Labor and the Coalition of conservative parties try to simultaneously form goverment
@corpbs1 WRONG WRONG WRONG. Royals DO pay tax, the queen pays both income and capital gains tax. Why would they pay tax here, since we don't pay the queen anything???? Britains pay their HEAD OF STATE 69 pence each, bet you didn't know that!! We have to pay for a head of state either way anyway (Queen's rep the GG, or a president), except we'd have to pay a president, ALL past presidents AND ALL past president's widows or widowers! Get your facts straight before spewing your incorrect garbage.
@murray2612 Yes you are RIGHT, RIGHT RIGHT in the British context but I was responding in an Australian context TO YOUR comments that were regarding the monarchy's presence in AUSTRALIA NOT BRITAIN AND YOU YOURSELF NOTE "Royals never pay Taxes in Ozz" You ignore my other comments and focus entirely on this uncontested point. I would love you to explain why you think the royals expensive boat people sounds like your the one doing the spewing of garbage.
@scyllaandcharybdis Yes, it is true. The Oxford University "Sconce" record of 12 secs for 2.5 pints (five middies) was set by the great man in 1955. It is in a 1956 edition of the Guiness Book of Records, and still there in 1970 edition. I cannot say whether he still holds the record to this day. I have it on reasonably good authority that Bob has a genetic advantage: he is able to drink without swallowing.
Bob Hawke is a drunken union lackey and a retarded tool...I still remember how him and Keating had a million people unemployed. Worst prime minister ever. Dont let the Aussie Oi Oi Oi Fair Dinkum dyed in the wool dingo loving beer swilling lovable buffoon image Bob Hawke portrays himself as fool you. The bloke is a dickhead and forever will be.
What a sweeping statement, whose to say most monarchists are generally against a bill of rights, Mr. Michael Kirby, former High Court judge is a monarchist and a bill of rights advocate.
I suppose as long as we keep churning out Governors Generals of the quality of William Deane, for example, people might be loathed to risk having a "George Bush" elected. besides, forming a republic should not be just about who becomes the number one talking head. What about a Bill of Rights, or at least a new constitution that will enshrine forever those universal values we all aspire to keep.
@SvendBosanvovski I don't think the Australian public would elect a "George Bush", he's the product of the US presidential system which isn't, or hasn't, been proposed for Australia. As for Bill of Rights, I'm all for it, and I don't think we'd see it without a republic, given that most monarchists are against it.
@holdenrepublic You may be right, and I hope you are. But excuse my cynicism. I am concerned that the electoral process would be reduced to a kind of soap opera, where the actors are appointed, either directly or indirectly, by powerful vested interests: the deeper the pockets, the louder the voice. The powerless and dispossessed in our community might be concerned about that. That is why I am not for directly electing the President of our new republic.
@holdenrepublic What a sweeping statement, whose to say most monarchists are generally against a bill of rights, Mr. Michael Kirby, former High Court judge is a monarchist and a bill of rights advocate. ut
@holdenrepublic "Plenty of evidence" and what studies do you speak of, no doubt funded by Republican heavy weights and the Australian Republican Movement propaganda machine, state the studies, still as elitist as ever!
@CMFrenchEsq Err... so it's elitist that I didn't tell you what studies I was referring to? They're not hard to find - just Google them. And no, the studies I'm thinking of aren't funded by the ARM.
Also I note from your comment below that you're opposed to a Bill of Rights... surely that in itself is evidence too?
@holdenrepublic Pray what studies are you thinking of. It is elitist and misleading to point to plenty of evidence and studies yet fail to provide ANY actual examples or even the names of the organisations who carried them out. I am not wasting my time googling non existent, unreliable or biased. The Bill of Rights debate is complex enough without mixing it with the republican debate too as you and others have tried to do here.
@CMFrenchEsq It's bizarre that you expect my help when you turn up and start making offensive remarks on the comments thread. The studies exist, I've not wasting my time arguing with you as you've clearly got a grudge.
@holdenrepublic Sorry if you perceive my comments as offensive and fair enough do not help the "biased monarchist" BUT failing to back up your arguments with some evidence for all the OTHERS reading this thread rather than brushing them off to google for themselves hardly makes anything you say credible
@CMFrenchEsq You're the only one challenging the statement I made, while refusing to try and find it yourself. No-one else has complained except you, and as I've said, you've obviously got an axe to grind and expect me to provide you with evidence for so you can grind some more.
@holdenrepublic Sure I am the only one complaining. So what? Am I not entitled to ask for the information you refer to make your comments. Come on one organization one person. I am happy to concede points and admit I am wrong, EVEN to a republican but I am not going to be silenced when you make assertions and fail to give evidence to support your arguments. How do you expect win republican converts if you cannot back up your statements when challenged by others?
@CMFrenchEsq You're entitled to ask. I'm not trying to silence you - I'm just saying I'm not wasting my time going back and looking for the studies I've referred to. In the time you've wasted berating me you could've found the information... however you still expect me to furnish you with it.
You're clearly a staunch monarchist so there's no way I'm going to convert you.
@holdenrepublic As a staunch republican you are not going to cave in and give me or anyone one else reading this thread. Fair enough. I've done some googling and yes a few republican favored pieces and a comment from a monarchist or two in your favour. Hardly "most" and I am not surprised. Of course feel free to prove evidence to the contrary, and sorry if you feel I have been "berating" you, though I personally believe I have been rather tame for u tube
@holdenrepublic What a sweeping statement, whose to say most monarchists are generally against a bill of rights, Mr. Michael Kirby, former High Court judge is a monarchist and a bill of rights advocate.
@SvendBosanvovski All very airy fairy, lofty and aspirational. A bill of rights comes with its own limitations, i.e. hate speech/racially discriminatory vs freedom of speech and no doubt more legal disputes to clog up our already overburdened courts. Anyway Australia is already signed up to and implemented domestically many human rights treaties and our employment and anti discrimination laws are not going anywhere soon and with imperfect serve us well.
@CMFrenchEsq I doubt that may US citizens would want to abandon their Bill of Rights because its too hard. The human right treaties we are signatory to, as you are no doubt aware, are not laws. Anti-discrimination laws are restricted to particular heads of discrimination, and do not guarantee rights for all citizens only those with the attribute protected. Many of the guaranteed protections in, say, the US Bill are enshrined in our common law and statute, but not all. Laws can be changed.
@SvendBosanvovski Your first point I agree with US citizens would not abandon their Bill of Rights its too enshrined into their nations conscious. However, your second point is, at least partially inaccurate. Many international HR treaties have not only been ratified but separate domestic legislation has been enacted making it good Australian law. What about the Australian Racial Discrimination Act and other ratifications of international law into our domestic law from ICCPR, ICESCR treaties?
@CMFrenchEsq Ratification of a treaty commits a signatory nation to act consistently with those treaty obligations. However, the parliament is the final arbitor as to whether such obligations should become enforceable, at least domestically. Yes, our human rights laws are underpinned by treatly obligations. But, as I stated earlier, our human rights laws identify particular heads of discrimination (or victimisation). They don't protect all citizens.
@SvendBosanvovski Depends what nation we are talking about. I understand Australia is a dualist state and international law does not become domestic law until enforced domestically in domestic legislation, as per the Racial Discrimination Act and increasingly more domestic legislation.
I am not a human rights lawyer with an extensive knowledge of Australian domestic legislation so correct me if I am wrong but racial vilification for example protects ALL Australians against discrimination.
@CMFrenchEsq Yes, I agree with your first paragraph, which is the point I was making earlier. Of course, human rights legislation also protects non-citizens, but only in respect of the particular attributes covered by a particular head of disrimination. Big point: legislation is always capable of amendment or eradication by parliament (WorkChoices, for example, conflicted with particular ILO conventions). A Bill of Rights would enshrine certain principles and inform the High Court, etc.
@SvendBosanvovski The principles a bill of rights may enshrine certain principles but should High Court judges have the ultimate discretion to decide upon which rights are supreme in a case before it e.g. women's rights vs religious freedom, freedom of speech vs. protection against racial vilification, what if the Bill of rights is poorly worded and becomes a litigation tool that is abused by lawyers only interested in getting more fees.
@SvendBosanvovski The law is not a static construct and as society's needs change so must the law. International law is e.g. ILO conventions is equally subject to changing customary norms and amendments made by treaty parties. Australia has more comprehensive extraterritorial criminal laws than its obligations under the Rome Statute. Certain divergences in domestic legislation from international obligations is not always a bad thing especially if it gets states to agree to the fundamentals.
@TheJasenator Well I suppose you do not care very much for minority rights or opinions and what majority do you speak about in terms of the republican model, the presidential, the minimalist one that was put foward at the 1999 referendum and so many republicans did not vote for
@CMFrenchEsq You suppose wrong buddy. Minority rights are very important. But that has nothing to do with the model of republic put forward. If a majority of the republican movement want a directly elected president then that's the one put forward, people who don't like it are free not to vote for it. You can't expect the minority to get to put their model up instead of the majority.
@TheJasenator I am glad you think minority rights are important and stand corrected on that point. I agree you cannot expect the minority to get to put their model up instead of the majority as rightly occurred in 1999. But unless there is more universal consensus amongst republicans on the model proposed Australia will never have a republic as you proclaim seeing that the republican movement blamed the referendum's failure on the majority favored model that was put foward
@Mollarooza How can YOU be sure it would be this approach and not the one put up last time the President being indirectly elected by politicians, which upset quite a few potential yes voters. And your answer is way too general-what about the changes to the Constituion, the favouring of some of the US style which would throw our current constitutional arrangements into turmoil
@holdenrepublic thats true, but i could hardly say 'being a member of the empire', because there hardly is one now, if you've got any suggestions for terms i'm all ears...
I AM AUSTRALIAN...I am not ashamed to have a fellow Australian as head of state, an Australian on our currency...anybody who disagrees with that IS ASHAMED to have an Aussie as head of state!!
@ Tennessee: Aussies already have the ability to fight for their rights. It's written in our Constitution. If every Australian read it (instead of the next Harry Potter crap) they'd have the knowledge to be able to take back their land.
Point taken - that could be one of the reasons why the Yes case lost in 99.
The 'fair dinkum' comment relates to the lack of honesty in some of the arguments made against a republic - specifically whether Australia is mature enough to become a republic.
Yeah, maybe so. I was just saying that if they tried that on me today I wouldn't buy it. If people are going to make a major constitutional reform, they should take the time to explain to me why we'd benefit from it. Instead this ad is manipulative to the 9th degree and tells you nothing at all. I'm sure there's a good argument for a Republic, but it isn't here.
@ Unoriginal: You can rant however you want cos AU is a free country and the net is a free domain (at least it is atm).
Honestly a Republic is not what Aussies ahould be aiming for either. A head of state yes but something more Australian and independent from the rest of the world governments.
Ugh, don't get me started on the internet filter. Only old people who don't understand computers think that will work. A pity they're the ones running the country.
I don't really care whether we have a Republic or not, it's a non-issue for me. It's a different coat of paint for the same house. I just don't want our awesome liberal-democracy to get damaged in the process.
Who said anything about New Zealand monarchists? I didn't make that generalisation, you did. Obviously not everyone holds that view. I never claimed they did.
No, I don't want a "cultural revolution" and never said I did. I'm arguing against the monarchy because it's a useless colonial symbol. Things like street names and the Westminster system have actual demonstrable value - the monarchy does not.
I am well aware the sun set on the British Empire long ago. I support constitutional monarchy in 2009 because I support our Constitution and the support the Crown provides me and the fact that I do not want some elitist Australian President lauding over other Australians model
It's possible to support the Australian Constitution and oppose the monarchy. I've only ever seen republican models that amend the Constitution. None I know of actually abolish it.
But you're happy to have a member of the English elite as your head of State, with the de facto head of state appointed by the Prime Minister?
Abosolutely estatic because Her Majesty is in Britain, most of the time, and she is no elitist snob like some British Aristos imagine an up them selves Australian President coming to blows with the elected Prime Minister, even if the same system now ie. just changing GG post to President, the symbolic significance of President will cause friction...
That's my point - in a practical, legal sense Australia is already independent. That happened after 1901, not at that date. That's why I mentioned Gallipoli.
No-one disputes Australia's independence from a legal sense. The issue is the symbolism of Australia's independence - you've retained all the symbols of colonialism. And so long as you're wedded to the symbols of the past, you're stuck with its mentality. But I suspect that sort of nostalgia is exactly what monarchists like the most.
"Common values and goals" what like the war in Iraq? Opps... the Queen of New Zealand and Canada is opposed to it. The Queen of Australia and the UK supported it. Fail.
Your argument is irrelevant, because of the reality that Australia is legally independent - since at least 1942. However, the actual symbolic step of independence is yet to be taken.
Australia is an indepentant country and has full control over all its state functions and therefore in theory it does not matter who is the cerimonial head of state. I don't think any sane person regards Australia as a British colony any more.
That said I think Australia benifits by having the Queen as head of state. Modern constitutional monarchies provide a safe & secure form of government but also remember that the Queen is not just queen of the UK but also of Canada, New Zealand and the Com
-monwealth. This provides a link to these other countries with a shared British heritage. Many Australians value this link and it does not make them bad Australians. Along with this heritage comes shared values that can act as beacons of light to other less endowed nations.
Remember the head of state of Australia is the Queen of AUSTRALIA. Does that not make her an Australian citizen too?
There's no need to get personal and resort to insults.
You're wrong. All citizens of Commonwealth member states have access to the High Commissions of other Commonwealth members. That's why South Africans were evacuated by the RN from Lebanon in 2006 - it's got nothing to do with having the Queen as head of State.
Sure, Australia is independent in a legal sense, and who the ceremonial head of state is does not affect the countries politics. But Australia isn't independent in a symbolic sense.
The fact the Queen is also Queen of New Zealand / Canada / UK is irrelevant to Australia's relationship with any of those countries.
The 1999 referendum represented c. 0.08% of Australia's GDP, so the expense was not huge.
Secondly, you can't put a price on nationhood, even if it is just the cost of a referendum. The real reason for this complaint is that the opponents of a republic fear losing- so they attack the process.
The governors, like the governor generals are there by grace of the queen and are sepereate to the australian democracy, if we leave britain completely the positions of Governor and Governor-General and the King/Queen as head of state will also cease to exist.
Im not wasting my time writing responses to someone who has a closed mind on this issue and can only be rude and condescending. If you want reasons for becoming a republic, google them.
Elitist activities? You mean like signing God Save the Queen, toasting an absentee head of State? Before throwing around baseless conjecture, please think about what you're saying.
The $762m figure is absurd. It was made up by monarchists to make the process appear extremely expensive - in actual fact the AEC put the cost at $67m. That's 0.008% of Australia's GDP (2008). The truth is the costs are being deliberately inflated to appear to give the arguments you make above some sort of legitimacy, which they don't have.
Republicans cannot even decide on what kind of republican model they want so give the monarchists a break...in any event it will COST money which could be spent else where my NZ friend
There you go with your offensive comments again. Clearly you've got nothing in defence of the monarchy, apart from spitting venom and tarring those who disagree with you.
Oh I am sooo terribly sorry to have offended this young NZ republican...with all my spitting venom and tarring...I am such a "nauty" young Australian Monarchist. Offcourse it is ok to attack me as a typical monarchist and my views on Australian accents but I good heavens if I call you an elitist...
Well, you're not doing your side any favours mate.
Your comments were condescending and patronising. Deal with it. Claiming I'm being "elitist" because I said "righto" just shows how ridiculous your argument is - it's not "elitist" to call someone out on common traits. In your rush to flame me as being elitist, you miss the fact that you're defending inherited privilege, the very basis of social elitism. So who's the elitist now?
I defend the inherited privilege of the British Monarch and Australian Head of State because it comes with the condition of lifelong service and loyalty to the Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canadia, the British Overseas Territories etc...What about republicans defending the inherited privilege of presidents and their families in republics-the Sohartos in Indonesia, The Bush, Clinton, Kennedy familes in America etc...MANY equally coming from privileged backgrounds.
Monarchies are dead, the remaining Monarchies and weak and becoming even more so
Australia becoming a Republic may not seem to be best because our current system works, but all we have here is due to our hard work as a people, It was mainly British at one stage, but that type of country has been diminishing since the Gough Whitlam government got elected in 1972 with the abolishment of the White Australia Policy only 1 month afterwards.
Err righto... when did I deny you the ability to debate? How am I being elitist?
What you said was patronising. Is the Australian accent inferior to received pronunciation? You appear to think so. Moreover since the Queen has a fairly strong RP accent already, clearly the monarchy has no influence on the Australian accent, so your point is irrelevant.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NOT ALL EUREKANS or THIER DECENDANTS ARE REPUBLICANS? or THE SLIGHTEST BIT FOOLED BY THIS LOT OF SELF SERVING LABOURISTS? AND BRAIN DEAD CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANISTS IN THIS COUNTRY?
2: try beginning with the unfortunate people cleaned up in the late 1700s and presumably ethically cleansed out of the UK. i saw a lot of tiny short white people in west Sydney once and thought they were pigmies, but white. I thought, "These must be the 'convict peoples' decendents'". it cxan't be that all criminals of the time were short!! ... Chuck Darwin. Ethnic cleansing. And the Nap wars were coming up.
"Britain" is a made up name brought into action around 1700, with the Jack (Off). The islands have four main races. Different races. I guess they figured an old Roman (?) name would be useful.
Yes. The English headhunted a new HOS in 1712; went German after the Dutch didn't work out. Afterall, rulers set up a monarch. See Macchiavelli (The Prince), The Economist (a 1994 issue), or any proper book. It's a bluff on the average people, to blind them with a searchlight of false "emotion". They thought of having no monarchy in the mid 19th Century, but realised it entrenched them more. It looks after their interests, noone else's. It's for the well off and the Surrey BMW-dr'g bus' people.
Stability? That's what some ENGLISH say. I say to people in Aust'a who raise this utter rubbish : "You are either English, or your parent or grandparent was. If so, your standing to have a say on this issue is seriously restricted. You want to live in one country with another's (your old country's) head of state. You want it both ways. And you cannot have that."
You are typical of the articulated liars who are bred from our universities. You make up a bucketload of lies & put some articulated words in between the points you mention, just to make your argument sound intelligent.
If you love a republic, then go & live in one, migrants didn't build Australia, the British did, just look at our architecture, the names of our towns, the language we speak & the side of the road we drive on. By the way, who is going to foot the $96 Billion bill for a republic?
Why are the names English? Because the English were the first in (eastern) A'a, and sent some lower class people to go fry there, that they didn't want around polluting their south east for some reason. Naturally they named all the places after their evil leaders. Item from 1776 German n/paper: "Now the English are hanging children!"
WRONG, Australia's head of state will be a left handed, Lebanese lesbian who will be a naturalized Australian & will need to speak English through an interpreter.
As republican's believe we should remove the British Crown from our parliamentary system, they will be all for a "rubber stamp" Australian who would be more proud of wearing their hijab than their Australian Citizenship Document.
Is a republic really worth the $96 Billion of taxpayers money to remove a Queen who we don't even pay for?
Fine. At least she will live in Australia. Money is irrelavent when you are talking about national freedom and identity, and self-pride. You must be English, or your parent or g/parent was. Go back if you want a monarch dude.
No, YOU go & live in a republic if you want a republic "dude".
There are many out there who would love to take you in as "skilled migrant labour", but then again, what skill would an under 25 year old, bucket bong smoking, welfare recipient, Austudy allowance, HECS scamming would possess, apart from a big mouth, a soap box, the determination to have a one sided argument by constantly talking over the top of anybody who had a higher IQ than yours, which appears to be the IQ of a bucket of steam.
Permission - the leaders were vacuous brainwashees. By the English. These former leaders should be executed of what they did. For sure. But they were your tests.
England once used parts of Australia as a dumping ground for its lower class and some nuclear tests. It's now time to get rid of these people and move on. A new country.
Gough Whitlam & Al Grassby used Australia as a dumping ground for Lebanese prisoners when Lebanon was under control of the Syrian Army, & Whitlam & Grassby were/are republican's.
But they didn't teach you that in the Austudy welfare queue when you were being brainwashed by the universities who gave you the communist cool-aid.
What's wrong with Lebanese people you, I assume, rascist!!!!!!!!! And what has that to do with the issue above? Nothing. One Mediterraenian or European is in most cases worth 50 English people. That's not rascism. It's just on observed behavior.
Yes, I am a racist & so are you. You hate the idea of an English born Queen being the Crown of your country, that makes YOU a RACIST!!!!!!
There is plenty wrong with Lebanese people, haven't you read the newspapers & see that everywhere in Sydney or Melbourne there is a rape, a shooting, a stabbing, a murder, a drive-by, a car re-birthing racket arrested, a drug manufacturing ring being shut down & police needing to set up a MIDDLE EASTERN CRIME SQUAD to tackle the problems caused by them?
Btw: A country is not a country unless it has its own head of state. Spend five minutes in England and you'll find that almost none of the population gives a flying monkey about Australia, except to have it "under" them, as they like to think. It's like an ambitious and corrupt public service dept head, who wants a BIGGER dept so he can boast more about how good he is. And then there are the things they have done, as enumerated. They are a DIFFERENT RACE AND A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.
Monarchy is brainwash to keep the "lower orders" bluffed and in place: the ruling class chooses a monarch/prince from among their number, and use him or her to bluff the people that they are inferior to the better-off people, who inevitably RESEMBLE the monarch (the ruling class!). No larger country has it anymore except the English, who find it useful: their territory is small and flat, and the weather depressing. So that is the technique they use to keep themselves apart. (Instead of a Pres).
Hawke lost this by saying "respect" (puts himself beneath the "monarch"), and saying the issue is "whether A'a is mature enough", which makes automatically people scared of the future. It is NOT, in any event, the issue. The issue is that a country needs its own head of state or it is not a country. And, the English don't give anything in return for having a nominal vassal state beneath them: there is, for example, no trade anymore (they joined the EU).
Monarchy is brainwash to keep the lower orders bluffed and in place. In May 2008, a Morgan poll found 45% believe Australia should become a Republic with an elected President, while 42% support Australia remaining a Monarchy and 13% are undecided.
What will Australia gain from its Republic? More respect. A great country with equal status everywhere, and opportunity within it for equal advancement for all. The English dumped Australia in the bin when they joined the EU in 1974. Some "common" wealth!!! No more (or little) trade = no wealth!!
its the 21st Century, monarchy is out of style......we shouldnt be dictated by someone who pays for their house with taxpayers money of many nations....
ireland isnt completly independent from the UK I have you know, 6 counties are still under Tyranny, and the current ROI government is just a tool of britian, they outlawed the men who fight and die to preserve their piece of shit they call a "Free" State, and yet they outlaw them to please their British masters...
To those of you "God Save The Queen" lot. Let me remind you that it is 2009 NOT 1949. Australia is no longer an outpost of the British Empire. It is its own nation and therefore should have its own Head of State in Canberra instead of thousands of miles away in London.
Australia is the only democracy in the world that doesn't have a Bill of Rights, bring on the Republic a new Flag and the Bill of Rights and kiss the queen goodbye!.
being ignorant like you doesn't take any education either, particularly when you don't realise you don't have a clue what you are talking about. If there is a Zionist jewish group mafia acting against our country's sovereignty and that is what they are then how the fuck does it make me a bigot to point that out? All fools like you do is make it impossible to expose the judeo-Nazi Zionist conspiracy.
Bobby, the aussies love to be butt fucked up the arse by the oligarchy. Don't you know that? Didn't you graduate one of those NWO jobs at Oxford? The Rhodes scholarship? I guess you were too busy playing cricket eh bobby?
Britain had their troops in Malaya, they handed Hawaii over to the US because they were stretched to the limits.
The tactic was to base ourselves geographically closer to Japan, but the biggest problem was is our manpower were spread out. Now dickhead, if you have ever fought in a war, you would know about being tactical. But you are just a bucket bong smoking socialist shithead who complains about me driving to work and warming up the planet, while you smoke countless cones all day long.
Can you please move to the republic of Zimbabwe, I'm sure they would love to have you as skilled migrant labour.
Britain built this country, but some dickhead like you will claim it was 10 years of wogs ruining the Snowy River that built Australia, or some taxi driver who stinks like cumming and bay leaves who works a "hard" 24 hour shift.
It was the British who built this nation 200 years before your Whitlamized multiCULT destroyed us. Sod off you university communist puppet.
I'd like to see ALL republicans in Australia driven to the air port and handed a one way ticket to the republic of their choice.
Just because they were born in this country, doesn't mean they have the right to fuck it up.
True migrants who want to be a part of us are doing anything to get here, fake migrants here for the Whitlamized Welfare state can be flown out of the country with all the republicans too.
If our political system is so fucked up, why do people want to live here?????
What is the matter, did I tell you the truth about the brainwashing power these communist's have???
Or did I go against what some dipshit professor at your university brainwashed you to believe, or did your union rep tell you to hold another picket against what I have said?
Our political system would run like Cuba under a republic.
They would pass powers to go against the constitution and change everything at their will.
If you had another clue Steven, it would be lonely.
Tosser drunk Kerr. Day of Shame. Dismissal of a democratically elected Government on Remembrance Day 1975. End of argument/shibboleth that the monarchy guaranteed fair play. End of reason for Australia to kiss HM's arse surely.
corpbs1 2 weeks ago
Conventions or custom-based processes as you put it has not caused any major issues for Australia nor is it likely to. Our current constitution has served Australians well, just consider the fact it has only been changed in 8 out of 44 or so referenda by the people. I can just imagine all the disagreement amongst elites and academic and politicians if your "fully" written constitution were seriously considered and it would be constantly criticized from all sides of politics.
CMFrenchEsq 10 months ago
To understand case for constitutional reform in Australia it's useful to remember the fat drunken slob Kerr I think. A man who dismissed a govt which had won two general elections within two years. He either did that because the Queen agreed with him doing so. Or he did so without the Queens knowledge or consent. Either way, the idea that the monarchy guarantees fair play in Australia died on Rembrance Day 1975. Royals never paid taxes in Ozz.
They are expensive boat people. Goodbye Liz.
corpbs1 1 year ago
@corpbs1 The fact the Queen as Head of State refused to involve herself directly in Australian politics during the 1975 Constitutional crisis illustrated democracy was alive and well in Australia. I cannot imagine a President being as neutral as the Queen was. Royals may not pay taxes but their ongoing presence pays massive dividends to Australians.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq Royals do pay taxes, the queen pays both income tax and capital gains tax.
murray2612 11 months ago
@CMFrenchEsq But with a Republic at least the constitution would have specifics on the head of state's role. That's not the case atm.
Redcarpet01 10 months ago
@Redcarpet01 Your opinion has not been agreed upon by republicans yet so there is no guarantee of this point you make. Having specifics on the head of state's role may not necessarily be a good thing if they lead to contested interpretations by judges and parliamentarians. While there may not be specifics of the GG role atm there does not seem to be uproar amongst the community over this point. Q. Bryce seems to be doing a good job representing the Queen in Australia and Australia abroad IMO.
CMFrenchEsq 10 months ago
@CMFrenchEsq It won't be up for reinterpretation if it's specifically laid out. That's the core problem, in my view. Australia needs a FULLY writtenn constitution. Following the British way of a mainly custom-based process is just too dangerous IMHO.
Redcarpet01 10 months ago
@Redcarpet01 our Constitution is fully written we don't use any of the conventions that the UK use. For example in the UK the PM after a hung parliament is declared gets the first go at forming government, whereas here in Australia both Labor and the Coalition of conservative parties try to simultaneously form goverment
irishgodfatherchris 9 months ago
@corpbs1 WRONG WRONG WRONG. Royals DO pay tax, the queen pays both income and capital gains tax. Why would they pay tax here, since we don't pay the queen anything???? Britains pay their HEAD OF STATE 69 pence each, bet you didn't know that!! We have to pay for a head of state either way anyway (Queen's rep the GG, or a president), except we'd have to pay a president, ALL past presidents AND ALL past president's widows or widowers! Get your facts straight before spewing your incorrect garbage.
murray2612 11 months ago
@murray2612 Yes you are RIGHT, RIGHT RIGHT in the British context but I was responding in an Australian context TO YOUR comments that were regarding the monarchy's presence in AUSTRALIA NOT BRITAIN AND YOU YOURSELF NOTE "Royals never pay Taxes in Ozz" You ignore my other comments and focus entirely on this uncontested point. I would love you to explain why you think the royals expensive boat people sounds like your the one doing the spewing of garbage.
CMFrenchEsq 11 months ago
Bob Hawk for head of state!
Morganfrench01 1 year ago
@Morganfrench01 I hope your being sarcastic! otherwise God help us all!
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
got me fucked why we still payen these pricks still
o0donnie0o 1 year ago
@scyllaandcharybdis Yes, it is true. The Oxford University "Sconce" record of 12 secs for 2.5 pints (five middies) was set by the great man in 1955. It is in a 1956 edition of the Guiness Book of Records, and still there in 1970 edition. I cannot say whether he still holds the record to this day. I have it on reasonably good authority that Bob has a genetic advantage: he is able to drink without swallowing.
SvendBosanvovski 1 year ago
Bob Hawke is a drunken union lackey and a retarded tool...I still remember how him and Keating had a million people unemployed. Worst prime minister ever. Dont let the Aussie Oi Oi Oi Fair Dinkum dyed in the wool dingo loving beer swilling lovable buffoon image Bob Hawke portrays himself as fool you. The bloke is a dickhead and forever will be.
The777FORGIVEN 1 year ago
What a sweeping statement, whose to say most monarchists are generally against a bill of rights, Mr. Michael Kirby, former High Court judge is a monarchist and a bill of rights advocate.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq I said "most", not all. There's plenty of evidence (i.e. studies) to back that contention up.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
I suppose as long as we keep churning out Governors Generals of the quality of William Deane, for example, people might be loathed to risk having a "George Bush" elected. besides, forming a republic should not be just about who becomes the number one talking head. What about a Bill of Rights, or at least a new constitution that will enshrine forever those universal values we all aspire to keep.
SvendBosanvovski 1 year ago
@SvendBosanvovski I don't think the Australian public would elect a "George Bush", he's the product of the US presidential system which isn't, or hasn't, been proposed for Australia. As for Bill of Rights, I'm all for it, and I don't think we'd see it without a republic, given that most monarchists are against it.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic You may be right, and I hope you are. But excuse my cynicism. I am concerned that the electoral process would be reduced to a kind of soap opera, where the actors are appointed, either directly or indirectly, by powerful vested interests: the deeper the pockets, the louder the voice. The powerless and dispossessed in our community might be concerned about that. That is why I am not for directly electing the President of our new republic.
SvendBosanvovski 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic What a sweeping statement, whose to say most monarchists are generally against a bill of rights, Mr. Michael Kirby, former High Court judge is a monarchist and a bill of rights advocate. ut
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq - I said "most", not all. There's plenty of evidence (i.e. studies) to back that contention up.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq I said "most", not all. There's plenty of evidence (i.e. studies) to back that contention up.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic "Plenty of evidence" and what studies do you speak of, no doubt funded by Republican heavy weights and the Australian Republican Movement propaganda machine, state the studies, still as elitist as ever!
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq Err... so it's elitist that I didn't tell you what studies I was referring to? They're not hard to find - just Google them. And no, the studies I'm thinking of aren't funded by the ARM.
Also I note from your comment below that you're opposed to a Bill of Rights... surely that in itself is evidence too?
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic Pray what studies are you thinking of. It is elitist and misleading to point to plenty of evidence and studies yet fail to provide ANY actual examples or even the names of the organisations who carried them out. I am not wasting my time googling non existent, unreliable or biased. The Bill of Rights debate is complex enough without mixing it with the republican debate too as you and others have tried to do here.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq It's bizarre that you expect my help when you turn up and start making offensive remarks on the comments thread. The studies exist, I've not wasting my time arguing with you as you've clearly got a grudge.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic Sorry if you perceive my comments as offensive and fair enough do not help the "biased monarchist" BUT failing to back up your arguments with some evidence for all the OTHERS reading this thread rather than brushing them off to google for themselves hardly makes anything you say credible
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq You're the only one challenging the statement I made, while refusing to try and find it yourself. No-one else has complained except you, and as I've said, you've obviously got an axe to grind and expect me to provide you with evidence for so you can grind some more.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic Sure I am the only one complaining. So what? Am I not entitled to ask for the information you refer to make your comments. Come on one organization one person. I am happy to concede points and admit I am wrong, EVEN to a republican but I am not going to be silenced when you make assertions and fail to give evidence to support your arguments. How do you expect win republican converts if you cannot back up your statements when challenged by others?
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq You're entitled to ask. I'm not trying to silence you - I'm just saying I'm not wasting my time going back and looking for the studies I've referred to. In the time you've wasted berating me you could've found the information... however you still expect me to furnish you with it.
You're clearly a staunch monarchist so there's no way I'm going to convert you.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic As a staunch republican you are not going to cave in and give me or anyone one else reading this thread. Fair enough. I've done some googling and yes a few republican favored pieces and a comment from a monarchist or two in your favour. Hardly "most" and I am not surprised. Of course feel free to prove evidence to the contrary, and sorry if you feel I have been "berating" you, though I personally believe I have been rather tame for u tube
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@holdenrepublic What a sweeping statement, whose to say most monarchists are generally against a bill of rights, Mr. Michael Kirby, former High Court judge is a monarchist and a bill of rights advocate.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@SvendBosanvovski All very airy fairy, lofty and aspirational. A bill of rights comes with its own limitations, i.e. hate speech/racially discriminatory vs freedom of speech and no doubt more legal disputes to clog up our already overburdened courts. Anyway Australia is already signed up to and implemented domestically many human rights treaties and our employment and anti discrimination laws are not going anywhere soon and with imperfect serve us well.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq I doubt that may US citizens would want to abandon their Bill of Rights because its too hard. The human right treaties we are signatory to, as you are no doubt aware, are not laws. Anti-discrimination laws are restricted to particular heads of discrimination, and do not guarantee rights for all citizens only those with the attribute protected. Many of the guaranteed protections in, say, the US Bill are enshrined in our common law and statute, but not all. Laws can be changed.
SvendBosanvovski 1 year ago
@SvendBosanvovski Your first point I agree with US citizens would not abandon their Bill of Rights its too enshrined into their nations conscious. However, your second point is, at least partially inaccurate. Many international HR treaties have not only been ratified but separate domestic legislation has been enacted making it good Australian law. What about the Australian Racial Discrimination Act and other ratifications of international law into our domestic law from ICCPR, ICESCR treaties?
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq Ratification of a treaty commits a signatory nation to act consistently with those treaty obligations. However, the parliament is the final arbitor as to whether such obligations should become enforceable, at least domestically. Yes, our human rights laws are underpinned by treatly obligations. But, as I stated earlier, our human rights laws identify particular heads of discrimination (or victimisation). They don't protect all citizens.
SvendBosanvovski 1 year ago
@SvendBosanvovski Depends what nation we are talking about. I understand Australia is a dualist state and international law does not become domestic law until enforced domestically in domestic legislation, as per the Racial Discrimination Act and increasingly more domestic legislation.
I am not a human rights lawyer with an extensive knowledge of Australian domestic legislation so correct me if I am wrong but racial vilification for example protects ALL Australians against discrimination.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq Yes, I agree with your first paragraph, which is the point I was making earlier. Of course, human rights legislation also protects non-citizens, but only in respect of the particular attributes covered by a particular head of disrimination. Big point: legislation is always capable of amendment or eradication by parliament (WorkChoices, for example, conflicted with particular ILO conventions). A Bill of Rights would enshrine certain principles and inform the High Court, etc.
SvendBosanvovski 1 year ago
@SvendBosanvovski The principles a bill of rights may enshrine certain principles but should High Court judges have the ultimate discretion to decide upon which rights are supreme in a case before it e.g. women's rights vs religious freedom, freedom of speech vs. protection against racial vilification, what if the Bill of rights is poorly worded and becomes a litigation tool that is abused by lawyers only interested in getting more fees.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@SvendBosanvovski The law is not a static construct and as society's needs change so must the law. International law is e.g. ILO conventions is equally subject to changing customary norms and amendments made by treaty parties. Australia has more comprehensive extraterritorial criminal laws than its obligations under the Rome Statute. Certain divergences in domestic legislation from international obligations is not always a bad thing especially if it gets states to agree to the fundamentals.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
We'll have a Republic yet.
TheJasenator 1 year ago
@TheJasenator How can Australia ever have a republic when republicans cannot even agree on the model of republic they want!
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq Who says we need consensus. There's never a consensus in anything. Majority rules.
TheJasenator 1 year ago
@TheJasenator Well I suppose you do not care very much for minority rights or opinions and what majority do you speak about in terms of the republican model, the presidential, the minimalist one that was put foward at the 1999 referendum and so many republicans did not vote for
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq You suppose wrong buddy. Minority rights are very important. But that has nothing to do with the model of republic put forward. If a majority of the republican movement want a directly elected president then that's the one put forward, people who don't like it are free not to vote for it. You can't expect the minority to get to put their model up instead of the majority.
TheJasenator 1 year ago
@TheJasenator I am glad you think minority rights are important and stand corrected on that point. I agree you cannot expect the minority to get to put their model up instead of the majority as rightly occurred in 1999. But unless there is more universal consensus amongst republicans on the model proposed Australia will never have a republic as you proclaim seeing that the republican movement blamed the referendum's failure on the majority favored model that was put foward
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq that was over 10 years ago mate
Im sure they would know which one it will be next time
Mollarooza 1 year ago
@Mollarooza My dear fellow despite being over 10 years ago there is STILL absolutely no surety amongst republicans in 2010 over the model
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq It would be a directly elected one by the people thats what it is
Mollarooza 1 year ago
@Mollarooza How can YOU be sure it would be this approach and not the one put up last time the President being indirectly elected by politicians, which upset quite a few potential yes voters. And your answer is way too general-what about the changes to the Constituion, the favouring of some of the US style which would throw our current constitutional arrangements into turmoil
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq I know because it failed last time so obviously they are not going to try it again
Mollarooza 1 year ago
whitlam wanted to do that 35 years ago, he was way ahead of his time
lunafringe10 1 year ago
@lunafringe10 Yes 35 years later and still no republic, thank God!!!!!
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
there are so many reasons why being in the commonwealth is better you wonder why unless you're some foreigner, people would entertain the notion
1toneboy 1 year ago
@1toneboy if Australia became a republic it wouldn't have to leave the Commonwealth. The majority of the Commonwealth's members are republics.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic thats true, but i could hardly say 'being a member of the empire', because there hardly is one now, if you've got any suggestions for terms i'm all ears...
1toneboy 1 year ago
It's not about being part of some non-existent Empire, so I've got no idea what the correct term would be.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
@holdenrepublic The Commonwealth of Nations I guess
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Republic = waste of time and money. More important things to worry about. There's nothing that will change by becoming a republic.
Baledwyr 2 years ago
@Baledwyr Well said
CMFrenchEsq 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
English do not care about Australia
The English "rulers" murdered Diana to keep William under their control
95% of English know this
Monarchies are evil, being employed to keep the masses below the rich
Australia is not owned by the UK and needs it's own head of state
newfuturenowa 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
English do not care about Australia
The English "rulers" murdered Diana to keep William under their control
95% of English know this
Monarchies are evil, being employed to keep the masses below the rich
Australia is not owned by the UK and needs it's own head of state
newfuturenowa 2 years ago
Yeah. he did it while he was in university college. But I believe it was in 11 seconds.
eckfloor 2 years ago
He's also a Rhodes Scholar and golfer...
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
get rid of the brits. fight for your freedom aussies.
Tennessee44444 2 years ago 2
Fuck off you republican arsehole!
wishourselvesaway 2 years ago
Way to win an argument - abuse people personally.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
I AM AUSTRALIAN...I am not ashamed to have a fellow Australian as head of state, an Australian on our currency...anybody who disagrees with that IS ASHAMED to have an Aussie as head of state!!
terrythekittie 2 years ago 2
@ Tennessee: Aussies already have the ability to fight for their rights. It's written in our Constitution. If every Australian read it (instead of the next Harry Potter crap) they'd have the knowledge to be able to take back their land.
venuecam 2 years ago
If a politician implied I wasn't 'fair dinkum' if I didn't vote for him, I'd laugh and laugh. And then not vote for him.
Same thing with the music in the background. I don't really appreciate that sort of 'are you Australian enough to agree with me?' argument.
UnoriginallyInclined 2 years ago
Point taken - that could be one of the reasons why the Yes case lost in 99.
The 'fair dinkum' comment relates to the lack of honesty in some of the arguments made against a republic - specifically whether Australia is mature enough to become a republic.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
It was the '80s mate. Different time and place.
venuecam 2 years ago
@venuecam ???
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Yeah, maybe so. I was just saying that if they tried that on me today I wouldn't buy it. If people are going to make a major constitutional reform, they should take the time to explain to me why we'd benefit from it. Instead this ad is manipulative to the 9th degree and tells you nothing at all. I'm sure there's a good argument for a Republic, but it isn't here.
Sorry for the rant.
UnoriginallyInclined 2 years ago 2
@ Unoriginal: You can rant however you want cos AU is a free country and the net is a free domain (at least it is atm).
Honestly a Republic is not what Aussies ahould be aiming for either. A head of state yes but something more Australian and independent from the rest of the world governments.
venuecam 2 years ago
Ugh, don't get me started on the internet filter. Only old people who don't understand computers think that will work. A pity they're the ones running the country.
I don't really care whether we have a Republic or not, it's a non-issue for me. It's a different coat of paint for the same house. I just don't want our awesome liberal-democracy to get damaged in the process.
APocketOfTime 2 years ago
Spot on.
gnarkillkicksass 2 years ago
Who said anything about New Zealand monarchists? I didn't make that generalisation, you did. Obviously not everyone holds that view. I never claimed they did.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
No, I don't want a "cultural revolution" and never said I did. I'm arguing against the monarchy because it's a useless colonial symbol. Things like street names and the Westminster system have actual demonstrable value - the monarchy does not.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
It's ironic that those who chastise Maori for living in the past while doing so themselves. It's nothing more than ethnic-jingoism.
Nonsense. You support the monarchy exactly because it reminds of the symbolism of Empire.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
I am well aware the sun set on the British Empire long ago. I support constitutional monarchy in 2009 because I support our Constitution and the support the Crown provides me and the fact that I do not want some elitist Australian President lauding over other Australians model
Frenchyism 2 years ago 2
It's possible to support the Australian Constitution and oppose the monarchy. I've only ever seen republican models that amend the Constitution. None I know of actually abolish it.
But you're happy to have a member of the English elite as your head of State, with the de facto head of state appointed by the Prime Minister?
Oh, and what "support" does the Crown give you?
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Abosolutely estatic because Her Majesty is in Britain, most of the time, and she is no elitist snob like some British Aristos imagine an up them selves Australian President coming to blows with the elected Prime Minister, even if the same system now ie. just changing GG post to President, the symbolic significance of President will cause friction...
Frenchyism 2 years ago
Yeah, because that's happened in most countries with Westminster systems that became republics. Actually, it hasn't.
Strange you prefer for a Brit elite with an appointed Aussie elite as Gov-Gen... because the Queen isn't an aristocrat?
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
That's my point - in a practical, legal sense Australia is already independent. That happened after 1901, not at that date. That's why I mentioned Gallipoli.
No-one disputes Australia's independence from a legal sense. The issue is the symbolism of Australia's independence - you've retained all the symbols of colonialism. And so long as you're wedded to the symbols of the past, you're stuck with its mentality. But I suspect that sort of nostalgia is exactly what monarchists like the most.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
No, you're confusing symbolic independence with legal independence. Australia's decision to partake in Gallipoli was hardly an independent decision.
You can talk about "common values" all you like, but the evidence shows otherwise. Climate change is actually another example.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
"Common values and goals" what like the war in Iraq? Opps... the Queen of New Zealand and Canada is opposed to it. The Queen of Australia and the UK supported it. Fail.
Your argument is irrelevant, because of the reality that Australia is legally independent - since at least 1942. However, the actual symbolic step of independence is yet to be taken.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Australia is an indepentant country and has full control over all its state functions and therefore in theory it does not matter who is the cerimonial head of state. I don't think any sane person regards Australia as a British colony any more.
That said I think Australia benifits by having the Queen as head of state. Modern constitutional monarchies provide a safe & secure form of government but also remember that the Queen is not just queen of the UK but also of Canada, New Zealand and the Com
reb0118 2 years ago
-monwealth. This provides a link to these other countries with a shared British heritage. Many Australians value this link and it does not make them bad Australians. Along with this heritage comes shared values that can act as beacons of light to other less endowed nations.
Remember the head of state of Australia is the Queen of AUSTRALIA. Does that not make her an Australian citizen too?
reb0118 2 years ago
No it doesn't. The Queen can't be a citizen, legally she's a Sovereign.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Incorrect, legally we are citizens of other Queen Elizabeth Monarchies, but parliaments outlaw our rights to jurisdictive passing.
The fact that Australia & New Zealand have the same Queen make us legally permitted to be Kiwi's aswel, even with an Australian Passport.
If you need consular assistance, you can enter a British, Canadian, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea or even a Belize consulate & seek assistance.
Legally, if you had another clue it would be lonely.
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
There's no need to get personal and resort to insults.
You're wrong. All citizens of Commonwealth member states have access to the High Commissions of other Commonwealth members. That's why South Africans were evacuated by the RN from Lebanon in 2006 - it's got nothing to do with having the Queen as head of State.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Sure, Australia is independent in a legal sense, and who the ceremonial head of state is does not affect the countries politics. But Australia isn't independent in a symbolic sense.
The fact the Queen is also Queen of New Zealand / Canada / UK is irrelevant to Australia's relationship with any of those countries.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Also, this video is waaay out of sync
thefalz 2 years ago
Yeah I'm not sure how to fix it.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
The 1999 referendum represented c. 0.08% of Australia's GDP, so the expense was not huge.
Secondly, you can't put a price on nationhood, even if it is just the cost of a referendum. The real reason for this complaint is that the opponents of a republic fear losing- so they attack the process.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Because Australia is already a republic de facto - a republic would make the Governor-General the actual head of State.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
... no
it would make the newly created position of president the head of state. The Governors of the states and the Governor-General cease to exist...
thefalz 2 years ago
That depends on the model. I haven't seen any proposal where the State Governors are abolished.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
The governors, like the governor generals are there by grace of the queen and are sepereate to the australian democracy, if we leave britain completely the positions of Governor and Governor-General and the King/Queen as head of state will also cease to exist.
thefalz 2 years ago
Who is going to pay for a republic?
Are you going to pay for it?
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
Australian taxpayers. Even though I don't get to vote, I'm registered to pay tax in Australia.
Irrelevant claim fail.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Im not wasting my time writing responses to someone who has a closed mind on this issue and can only be rude and condescending. If you want reasons for becoming a republic, google them.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Offcourse Holdenrepublic is too busy engaging in elitist duties associated with some NZ republican group than to respond to Monarchists.
Frenchyism 2 years ago
Elitist activities? You mean like signing God Save the Queen, toasting an absentee head of State? Before throwing around baseless conjecture, please think about what you're saying.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
The $762m figure is absurd. It was made up by monarchists to make the process appear extremely expensive - in actual fact the AEC put the cost at $67m. That's 0.008% of Australia's GDP (2008). The truth is the costs are being deliberately inflated to appear to give the arguments you make above some sort of legitimacy, which they don't have.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Republicans cannot even decide on what kind of republican model they want so give the monarchists a break...in any event it will COST money which could be spent else where my NZ friend
Frenchyism 2 years ago
There you go with your offensive comments again. Clearly you've got nothing in defence of the monarchy, apart from spitting venom and tarring those who disagree with you.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Oh I am sooo terribly sorry to have offended this young NZ republican...with all my spitting venom and tarring...I am such a "nauty" young Australian Monarchist. Offcourse it is ok to attack me as a typical monarchist and my views on Australian accents but I good heavens if I call you an elitist...
Frenchyism 2 years ago
There you go with the abuse again. If you'd bothered to read my profile, you'd see I'm a New Zealander - so hardly a Keating supporter.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Explain 3 reasons why the monarchy is relevant to Australia.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Well, you're not doing your side any favours mate.
Your comments were condescending and patronising. Deal with it. Claiming I'm being "elitist" because I said "righto" just shows how ridiculous your argument is - it's not "elitist" to call someone out on common traits. In your rush to flame me as being elitist, you miss the fact that you're defending inherited privilege, the very basis of social elitism. So who's the elitist now?
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
I defend the inherited privilege of the British Monarch and Australian Head of State because it comes with the condition of lifelong service and loyalty to the Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canadia, the British Overseas Territories etc...What about republicans defending the inherited privilege of presidents and their families in republics-the Sohartos in Indonesia, The Bush, Clinton, Kennedy familes in America etc...MANY equally coming from privileged backgrounds.
Frenchyism 2 years ago
No, I don't defend any inherited privileges - be they in republics or monarchies.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Monarchies are dead, the remaining Monarchies and weak and becoming even more so
Australia becoming a Republic may not seem to be best because our current system works, but all we have here is due to our hard work as a people, It was mainly British at one stage, but that type of country has been diminishing since the Gough Whitlam government got elected in 1972 with the abolishment of the White Australia Policy only 1 month afterwards.
thefalz 2 years ago
Err righto... when did I deny you the ability to debate? How am I being elitist?
What you said was patronising. Is the Australian accent inferior to received pronunciation? You appear to think so. Moreover since the Queen has a fairly strong RP accent already, clearly the monarchy has no influence on the Australian accent, so your point is irrelevant.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
Typical patronising monarchist.
holdenrepublic 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
All the socialist snakes support a republic!
No To the republic long live Australia's great heritage!
saacson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NOT ALL EUREKANS or THIER DECENDANTS ARE REPUBLICANS? or THE SLIGHTEST BIT FOOLED BY THIS LOT OF SELF SERVING LABOURISTS? AND BRAIN DEAD CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANISTS IN THIS COUNTRY?
aspiaino 2 years ago
Go join the Nat Front. Arm bands are half price.
truthgroove 2 years ago 3
Moron. IQ of 34.
truthgroove 2 years ago
If you don't like Australia the GTF out of my country you filthy pommy eurotrash.
Amunication 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you don't like Australia holding onto its British routes, then go & be a true rebel in Zimbabwe.
I wipe my arse with the Eureka flag & fought for the Australian flag.
Haven't you got another student union march to attend & another welfare funded cone to smoke?
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
Fuck your god you cunt, he doesn't even exist anyway.
Australia will become a republic and there's nothing dinosaurs like you can do about it.
Amunication 2 years ago 2
2: try beginning with the unfortunate people cleaned up in the late 1700s and presumably ethically cleansed out of the UK. i saw a lot of tiny short white people in west Sydney once and thought they were pigmies, but white. I thought, "These must be the 'convict peoples' decendents'". it cxan't be that all criminals of the time were short!! ... Chuck Darwin. Ethnic cleansing. And the Nap wars were coming up.
truthgroove 2 years ago
"Britain" is a made up name brought into action around 1700, with the Jack (Off). The islands have four main races. Different races. I guess they figured an old Roman (?) name would be useful.
truthgroove 2 years ago
Yes. The English headhunted a new HOS in 1712; went German after the Dutch didn't work out. Afterall, rulers set up a monarch. See Macchiavelli (The Prince), The Economist (a 1994 issue), or any proper book. It's a bluff on the average people, to blind them with a searchlight of false "emotion". They thought of having no monarchy in the mid 19th Century, but realised it entrenched them more. It looks after their interests, noone else's. It's for the well off and the Surrey BMW-dr'g bus' people.
truthgroove 2 years ago
South Australia you utter fuckhead. Main-fucking-land. 1952-1963.
truthgroove 2 years ago
Stability? That's what some ENGLISH say. I say to people in Aust'a who raise this utter rubbish : "You are either English, or your parent or grandparent was. If so, your standing to have a say on this issue is seriously restricted. You want to live in one country with another's (your old country's) head of state. You want it both ways. And you cannot have that."
truthgroove 2 years ago
You are typical of the articulated liars who are bred from our universities. You make up a bucketload of lies & put some articulated words in between the points you mention, just to make your argument sound intelligent.
If you love a republic, then go & live in one, migrants didn't build Australia, the British did, just look at our architecture, the names of our towns, the language we speak & the side of the road we drive on. By the way, who is going to foot the $96 Billion bill for a republic?
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
Why are the names English? Because the English were the first in (eastern) A'a, and sent some lower class people to go fry there, that they didn't want around polluting their south east for some reason. Naturally they named all the places after their evil leaders. Item from 1776 German n/paper: "Now the English are hanging children!"
truthgroove 2 years ago
an Aust citizen for head of state, obviously.
truthgroove 2 years ago
WRONG, Australia's head of state will be a left handed, Lebanese lesbian who will be a naturalized Australian & will need to speak English through an interpreter.
As republican's believe we should remove the British Crown from our parliamentary system, they will be all for a "rubber stamp" Australian who would be more proud of wearing their hijab than their Australian Citizenship Document.
Is a republic really worth the $96 Billion of taxpayers money to remove a Queen who we don't even pay for?
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
Fine. At least she will live in Australia. Money is irrelavent when you are talking about national freedom and identity, and self-pride. You must be English, or your parent or g/parent was. Go back if you want a monarch dude.
truthgroove 2 years ago
No, YOU go & live in a republic if you want a republic "dude".
There are many out there who would love to take you in as "skilled migrant labour", but then again, what skill would an under 25 year old, bucket bong smoking, welfare recipient, Austudy allowance, HECS scamming would possess, apart from a big mouth, a soap box, the determination to have a one sided argument by constantly talking over the top of anybody who had a higher IQ than yours, which appears to be the IQ of a bucket of steam.
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
Permission - the leaders were vacuous brainwashees. By the English. These former leaders should be executed of what they did. For sure. But they were your tests.
truthgroove 2 years ago
England once used parts of Australia as a dumping ground for its lower class and some nuclear tests. It's now time to get rid of these people and move on. A new country.
truthgroove 2 years ago
Gough Whitlam & Al Grassby used Australia as a dumping ground for Lebanese prisoners when Lebanon was under control of the Syrian Army, & Whitlam & Grassby were/are republican's.
But they didn't teach you that in the Austudy welfare queue when you were being brainwashed by the universities who gave you the communist cool-aid.
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
What's wrong with Lebanese people you, I assume, rascist!!!!!!!!! And what has that to do with the issue above? Nothing. One Mediterraenian or European is in most cases worth 50 English people. That's not rascism. It's just on observed behavior.
truthgroove 2 years ago
Yes, I am a racist & so are you. You hate the idea of an English born Queen being the Crown of your country, that makes YOU a RACIST!!!!!!
There is plenty wrong with Lebanese people, haven't you read the newspapers & see that everywhere in Sydney or Melbourne there is a rape, a shooting, a stabbing, a murder, a drive-by, a car re-birthing racket arrested, a drug manufacturing ring being shut down & police needing to set up a MIDDLE EASTERN CRIME SQUAD to tackle the problems caused by them?
GodBotherer1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Btw: A country is not a country unless it has its own head of state. Spend five minutes in England and you'll find that almost none of the population gives a flying monkey about Australia, except to have it "under" them, as they like to think. It's like an ambitious and corrupt public service dept head, who wants a BIGGER dept so he can boast more about how good he is. And then there are the things they have done, as enumerated. They are a DIFFERENT RACE AND A DIFFERENT COUNTRY.
truthgroove 2 years ago
Bob Hawke is an idiot... we dont need to be a republic! wake up idiots
chapesco 2 years ago
Monarchy is brainwash to keep the "lower orders" bluffed and in place: the ruling class chooses a monarch/prince from among their number, and use him or her to bluff the people that they are inferior to the better-off people, who inevitably RESEMBLE the monarch (the ruling class!). No larger country has it anymore except the English, who find it useful: their territory is small and flat, and the weather depressing. So that is the technique they use to keep themselves apart. (Instead of a Pres).
livegems 2 years ago
Hawke lost this by saying "respect" (puts himself beneath the "monarch"), and saying the issue is "whether A'a is mature enough", which makes automatically people scared of the future. It is NOT, in any event, the issue. The issue is that a country needs its own head of state or it is not a country. And, the English don't give anything in return for having a nominal vassal state beneath them: there is, for example, no trade anymore (they joined the EU).
livegems 2 years ago
Monarchy is brainwash to keep the lower orders bluffed and in place. In May 2008, a Morgan poll found 45% believe Australia should become a Republic with an elected President, while 42% support Australia remaining a Monarchy and 13% are undecided.
truthgroove 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What will Australia gain from its Republic? More respect. A great country with equal status everywhere, and opportunity within it for equal advancement for all. The English dumped Australia in the bin when they joined the EU in 1974. Some "common" wealth!!! No more (or little) trade = no wealth!!
truthgroove 2 years ago
Yes. The English dumped Australia in the bin when they joined the EU in 1974. Some "common" wealth!!! No more (or little) trade = no wealth!!
truthgroove 2 years ago
its the 21st Century, monarchy is out of style......we shouldnt be dictated by someone who pays for their house with taxpayers money of many nations....
Grow up Australia
Grow up England
Grow Up Scotland
Grow Up Wales
Grow Up Ireland
MattRfromBelfast 3 years ago 10
you should have a northern in front of your group up ireland, as Ireland as compltely Independant to the uk.
TheInternet22 3 years ago
ireland isnt completly independent from the UK I have you know, 6 counties are still under Tyranny, and the current ROI government is just a tool of britian, they outlawed the men who fight and die to preserve their piece of shit they call a "Free" State, and yet they outlaw them to please their British masters...
Ulster Irish are the best Irish in my opinion
MattRfromBelfast 3 years ago 4
To those of you "God Save The Queen" lot. Let me remind you that it is 2009 NOT 1949. Australia is no longer an outpost of the British Empire. It is its own nation and therefore should have its own Head of State in Canberra instead of thousands of miles away in London.
jpx08 3 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NO REPUBLIC!
AMnationwide 3 years ago
Oh, very well said. Where did you quote that from?
jonaspv 3 years ago
Australia is the only democracy in the world that doesn't have a Bill of Rights, bring on the Republic a new Flag and the Bill of Rights and kiss the queen goodbye!.
Amunication 3 years ago 5
being ignorant like you doesn't take any education either, particularly when you don't realise you don't have a clue what you are talking about. If there is a Zionist jewish group mafia acting against our country's sovereignty and that is what they are then how the fuck does it make me a bigot to point that out? All fools like you do is make it impossible to expose the judeo-Nazi Zionist conspiracy.
Focoist911 3 years ago
Bobby, the aussies love to be butt fucked up the arse by the oligarchy. Don't you know that? Didn't you graduate one of those NWO jobs at Oxford? The Rhodes scholarship? I guess you were too busy playing cricket eh bobby?
Focoist911 3 years ago
Britain had their troops in Malaya, they handed Hawaii over to the US because they were stretched to the limits.
The tactic was to base ourselves geographically closer to Japan, but the biggest problem was is our manpower were spread out. Now dickhead, if you have ever fought in a war, you would know about being tactical. But you are just a bucket bong smoking socialist shithead who complains about me driving to work and warming up the planet, while you smoke countless cones all day long.
GodBotherer1 3 years ago
Just like republicanism and socialism, your argument Steven has FAILED!!!!!
GodBotherer1 3 years ago
Can you please move to the republic of Zimbabwe, I'm sure they would love to have you as skilled migrant labour.
Britain built this country, but some dickhead like you will claim it was 10 years of wogs ruining the Snowy River that built Australia, or some taxi driver who stinks like cumming and bay leaves who works a "hard" 24 hour shift.
It was the British who built this nation 200 years before your Whitlamized multiCULT destroyed us. Sod off you university communist puppet.
GodBotherer1 3 years ago
I'd like to see ALL republicans in Australia driven to the air port and handed a one way ticket to the republic of their choice.
Just because they were born in this country, doesn't mean they have the right to fuck it up.
True migrants who want to be a part of us are doing anything to get here, fake migrants here for the Whitlamized Welfare state can be flown out of the country with all the republicans too.
If our political system is so fucked up, why do people want to live here?????
GodBotherer1 3 years ago
Well said!
xinistri 3 years ago
What is the matter, did I tell you the truth about the brainwashing power these communist's have???
Or did I go against what some dipshit professor at your university brainwashed you to believe, or did your union rep tell you to hold another picket against what I have said?
Our political system would run like Cuba under a republic.
They would pass powers to go against the constitution and change everything at their will.
If you had another clue Steven, it would be lonely.
GodBotherer1 3 years ago