@artyfarty3 a constitutional monarchy is a halfway house of absolute rule and republican rule of which retains the charisma of kings (or queens) yet at the same time caters for the democratic urges of their subjects.
constitutional monarchy has also solved the problem of how to modernise the governance of countries where ancient beliefs about the divine right nature of kings (or queens) are still prevalent.
brenda ralph lewis from the book monarchy a history of an idea.
With the exception of Paul Keating, Whitlam was the last Federal Labour Party leader with a spine and a vision. They have all been . . Hayden, Hawke, Beazley, Crean, Rudd, Gillard, . . people driven by focus groups and opinion polls since. Poll driven fruit cakes. Definitely not working class people who worry about paying the bills and the kids school fees. quite well off most of them. That's why howard lasted as long as he did .. the opposition was even more useless.
well , that's right - Governor General ( queens puppet ) runs Australia , and not the elected prime Minister , therefore Australia is a MONARCHY and not a DEMOCRACY !
Wake up Australia and smell the BULLSHIT you have been served !!!
Is this the "independence" we wanted in 1901 ?! Or do you praise the Queen who sends her 'subjects' half a world away to die in a desert and tells them they have NO RIGHT to come home to their families and towns they were born in - for EVER ?! think about it .
@artyfarty3 Not really correct. We're a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy. Just because a PM can be unseated doesn't mean we're undemocratic. Arguably terms that cannot be revoked until they end, could be seen as even more undemocratic. Not that I'm saying I support what happened, but it was perfectly within the law to be done.
@brentoneccles sure it was (and still would be) within the law , which proves it's not a true democracy , yet when you ask average Australian he will say we live in a "democratic" country . Sure we can elect our own PM but if the 'Crown' doesn't like him/her they can be dismissed from office at a whim of 'Her Majesty the Queen' .
I don't call it a 'democracy' - i call a spade 'a spade' . Australia is just a "little(big) Britain" , a "corgi at a house of Windsor" , " Queen's bitch "
@artyfarty3 Actually it's arguably more democratic because it's an extra check-and-balance to keep the system uncorrupted. It allows for an independent person (appointed by the PM, by the way) to handle issues of the Government doing things such as acting outside our Constitution wrongly. If only America had that...
@artyfarty3 I shall point out it was not the Queen who sent the convicts, they were sent long before the start of her reign. As for the independence we asked for in 1901 well we got it as said we are a constitutional monarchy and not a republic. May i also remind you that Australia turned down becoming a republic in favour of staying in the commonwealth. Read up on the dismissal it was not the Queen that had Whitlam dismissed, the GG was influenced by the chief justice of the high court GBarwick
@jellybear21 1: yes it was a queen that sent the first settlers to Australia who landed on 26 jan. 1788 to set up a penal colony .One way ticket to hell for them as far as she was concerned lol ! She didn't care if they died on the way or after the arrival - but she would make sure those who got sent there build the infrastructure for her office to hold power . Slave labour another words - what a kind and caring Monarch ... omg !
2: GG is Crown's right hand - no matter who says what .
@jellybear21 3 : Referendum held back in 1999 was rigged in my opinion 53% monarchy - 47% republic . Too close for my comfort . Just about every1 i asked that week voted for republic - yet the poll come out in favour of the Monarchy . I smell a rat in that story that they keep on dishing out to us .
4 : "constitutional monarchy" - so many things wrong with that i don't know where to begin ! lol !
I'll say it this way - i'll sack any puppet you vote on unless that puppet does what i say .
@artyfarty3 I know it was a Queen but it was not the current Queen and that was my point, i know the GG represents the Queen but on this occasion she was not notified of the dismissal until after the fact. Just because you did not talk to anyone/know anyone who voted monarchy in the referendum does not mean no one did i hate to break it to you but you don't know everybody.Constitutional monarchy allows us to prevent disastrous leaders like Hitler getting and staying in power, it's a good thing.
@jellybear21 I talked about that referendum results to heaps of people back then and ever since , and found only one person who was in favour of the existing system - so if there are Monarchists out there i don't know where are they hiding ... 'cos i can't see them ;) [ with the exception of 'sell out' puppets on TV or radio , who will say anything for cash - i seen them plenty of times ;) ] So far this "majority" vote for Monarchy just doesn't want to stick in the pages of my book .
@artyfarty3 As i said before you don't know everyone and as it was such a close result it isn't surprising that you found more republicans. Also it may be that the people you associate with or live around are like you more republican. It is also possible that in the place you live there was a higher percentage of republican votes which were counted by another state/city having a higher percentage or monarchy votes. It's all dependent on where you live and the majority there.
It was only the ACT who voted as a whole to be a republic every other state said no. With over 12 million people voting on the matter it is illogical for you to contiue your argument that because you have not met many who voted monarchy, that it is a conspiracy.
@jellybear21 well , when i see a spade i call it a spade ! - just because they TELL you something on TV it does not necessary mean it's the truth . I like to do my own investigations and so far it does not bode well for our lying government . Besides - do you really think they would give up their power so easy ? is it not possible that they would "fudge" the numbers in their favour ? - don't forget , they have no morals when it comes to cheating .
@artyfarty3 I think this may be a situation in which it will be impossible to resolve this argument. I can not reason logically with a person who is determined to see a conspiracy where there is none simply because they did not get their way. To me that is childish and after 12 years I think you need to let it go. No you did not win i simply grew tired of attempting to get you to think logically. I think in this case we will have to agree to disagree.
@artyfarty3 well mate I have to tell you that's a fallacy, even john hirst a devout republican disagrees that it was rigged, he recognized it was a fair & square and that the republicans did rather well. Secondly mate, you obviously don't know anything about a constitutional monarchy. I suggest you read up the bill of rights 1689 because that began constitutional monarchy. Don't be such an ignorant chav mate...educate yourself...
@liverpoolmatt87 # 1:John Hirst can say whatever He wants to say (or whatever they pay Him to say, lol ! ).I conducted my own research which proves to me that the referendum of 1999 was rigged .Your "bill of rights" of 1689 was just a stepping stone to creating a Commonwealth of countries under direct authority and power of the Queen where democraticly elected politicians make laws and regulations which adhere to the Queen's will (to a Dictator - one altimate ruler - & not people of the nation)
@artyfarty3 I doubt that you did any research at all to state such a self evident argument. the bill of rights 1689 is a point of fact a stepping stone to form a democratic system with the reigning monarch bounded by the constitutional laws of parliament. Meaning that parliament are the government and the reigning monarch a seperated branch with less powers but plays a ceremonial role. the commonwealth of nations was formed in 1953 as an organization which stands for human rights
@artyfarty3 Secondly, even though the queen is head of the commonwealth she does not command the commonwealth of nations nor the commonwealth realms, she is just a symbolic representative. Lastly, there is a difference between a dictator and a constitutional monarch, all commonwealth realms are free to make their own laws with their pm's. the queen or the governor general protects those laws
@artyfarty3 the bill of rights also explains the uncodified right of the reigning monarch of assigning or denying powers to certain people in the constitution or appointing a pm or dismissing a pm. it is the same case in australia with the governor general, the GG has that same uncodified right to those reserve powers but still subjected to the australian constitution.
@liverpoolmatt87 # 2: Australian Constitution Part 1 "general" - section 2 & 5 clearly define the point that GG can dismiss any senator or parliamentary at His (GG's) will or Her Majesty's will . If that is not a "dictatorship" i don't know what is !!! - i have a link to Australian Constitution ( and i have tried to provide it to You in my comment here ) but YouTube keeps coming up with "error , try again" every time i try to post it ;( so You might have to dig it up Yourself .
@artyfarty3 lol actually section 2 states : A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
@liverpoolmatt87 So yes I do know what the consitution act says because I have a softcopy of it. you're just misquoting of what the sections actually says (like most republicans do).
@artyfarty3 and section 5 states: The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.
note how it says "subject to this constitution" and "may in like manner dissolve the house of reps". that means the gg is bounded by the constitution and can use her powers in the same way.
@liverpoolmatt87 # 3 : ... so in conclusion : Australia is NOT a free democracy , our PM does not have the power to provide for the "will" of this nation , all Australians are subjects to Her Majesty and Her crownies . No freedom - no voice - no choice . Australia is but a corgi in a Buckingham Palace ;)
@artyfarty3 that's not a conclusion that's a self evident assumption unsupported by any facts or proof that australia is not a free country (like a lot of republicans make). Australia is definitely 110% free and independent. the constitution act clearly states that all states are clear to make their own laws for their own state. And the australia act 1986 had repealed s4 from the statute of westminster 1942 and also making the high court the final court of appeal.
@artyfarty3 a constitutional monarchy is a halfway house of absolute rule and republican rule of which retains the charisma of kings (or queens) yet at the same time caters for the democratic urges of their subjects.
constitutional monarchy has also solved the problem of how to modernise the governance of countries where ancient beliefs about the divine right nature of kings (or queens) are still prevalent.
brenda ralph lewis from the book monarchy a history of an idea.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
Whitlam and his cronies destroyed Australia. Gillard and Brown and co are giving them a run for their money though to be even worse.
claudefrog 2 months ago
With the exception of Paul Keating, Whitlam was the last Federal Labour Party leader with a spine and a vision. They have all been . . Hayden, Hawke, Beazley, Crean, Rudd, Gillard, . . people driven by focus groups and opinion polls since. Poll driven fruit cakes. Definitely not working class people who worry about paying the bills and the kids school fees. quite well off most of them. That's why howard lasted as long as he did .. the opposition was even more useless.
corpbs1 4 months ago
well , that's right - Governor General ( queens puppet ) runs Australia , and not the elected prime Minister , therefore Australia is a MONARCHY and not a DEMOCRACY !
Wake up Australia and smell the BULLSHIT you have been served !!!
Is this the "independence" we wanted in 1901 ?! Or do you praise the Queen who sends her 'subjects' half a world away to die in a desert and tells them they have NO RIGHT to come home to their families and towns they were born in - for EVER ?! think about it .
artyfarty3 7 months ago
@artyfarty3 Not really correct. We're a constitutional monarchy/parliamentary democracy. Just because a PM can be unseated doesn't mean we're undemocratic. Arguably terms that cannot be revoked until they end, could be seen as even more undemocratic. Not that I'm saying I support what happened, but it was perfectly within the law to be done.
brentoneccles 7 months ago
@brentoneccles sure it was (and still would be) within the law , which proves it's not a true democracy , yet when you ask average Australian he will say we live in a "democratic" country . Sure we can elect our own PM but if the 'Crown' doesn't like him/her they can be dismissed from office at a whim of 'Her Majesty the Queen' .
I don't call it a 'democracy' - i call a spade 'a spade' . Australia is just a "little(big) Britain" , a "corgi at a house of Windsor" , " Queen's bitch "
artyfarty3 7 months ago
@artyfarty3 Actually it's arguably more democratic because it's an extra check-and-balance to keep the system uncorrupted. It allows for an independent person (appointed by the PM, by the way) to handle issues of the Government doing things such as acting outside our Constitution wrongly. If only America had that...
brentoneccles 7 months ago 2
@artyfarty3 I shall point out it was not the Queen who sent the convicts, they were sent long before the start of her reign. As for the independence we asked for in 1901 well we got it as said we are a constitutional monarchy and not a republic. May i also remind you that Australia turned down becoming a republic in favour of staying in the commonwealth. Read up on the dismissal it was not the Queen that had Whitlam dismissed, the GG was influenced by the chief justice of the high court GBarwick
jellybear21 3 months ago
@jellybear21 1: yes it was a queen that sent the first settlers to Australia who landed on 26 jan. 1788 to set up a penal colony .One way ticket to hell for them as far as she was concerned lol ! She didn't care if they died on the way or after the arrival - but she would make sure those who got sent there build the infrastructure for her office to hold power . Slave labour another words - what a kind and caring Monarch ... omg !
2: GG is Crown's right hand - no matter who says what .
artyfarty3 3 months ago
@jellybear21 3 : Referendum held back in 1999 was rigged in my opinion 53% monarchy - 47% republic . Too close for my comfort . Just about every1 i asked that week voted for republic - yet the poll come out in favour of the Monarchy . I smell a rat in that story that they keep on dishing out to us .
4 : "constitutional monarchy" - so many things wrong with that i don't know where to begin ! lol !
I'll say it this way - i'll sack any puppet you vote on unless that puppet does what i say .
artyfarty3 3 months ago
@artyfarty3 I know it was a Queen but it was not the current Queen and that was my point, i know the GG represents the Queen but on this occasion she was not notified of the dismissal until after the fact. Just because you did not talk to anyone/know anyone who voted monarchy in the referendum does not mean no one did i hate to break it to you but you don't know everybody.Constitutional monarchy allows us to prevent disastrous leaders like Hitler getting and staying in power, it's a good thing.
jellybear21 3 months ago
@jellybear21 I talked about that referendum results to heaps of people back then and ever since , and found only one person who was in favour of the existing system - so if there are Monarchists out there i don't know where are they hiding ... 'cos i can't see them ;) [ with the exception of 'sell out' puppets on TV or radio , who will say anything for cash - i seen them plenty of times ;) ] So far this "majority" vote for Monarchy just doesn't want to stick in the pages of my book .
artyfarty3 3 months ago
@artyfarty3 As i said before you don't know everyone and as it was such a close result it isn't surprising that you found more republicans. Also it may be that the people you associate with or live around are like you more republican. It is also possible that in the place you live there was a higher percentage of republican votes which were counted by another state/city having a higher percentage or monarchy votes. It's all dependent on where you live and the majority there.
jellybear21 3 months ago
@artyfarty3 *countered sorry.
jellybear21 3 months ago
@artyfarty3
It was only the ACT who voted as a whole to be a republic every other state said no. With over 12 million people voting on the matter it is illogical for you to contiue your argument that because you have not met many who voted monarchy, that it is a conspiracy.
jellybear21 3 months ago
@jellybear21 well , when i see a spade i call it a spade ! - just because they TELL you something on TV it does not necessary mean it's the truth . I like to do my own investigations and so far it does not bode well for our lying government . Besides - do you really think they would give up their power so easy ? is it not possible that they would "fudge" the numbers in their favour ? - don't forget , they have no morals when it comes to cheating .
artyfarty3 3 months ago
@artyfarty3 I think this may be a situation in which it will be impossible to resolve this argument. I can not reason logically with a person who is determined to see a conspiracy where there is none simply because they did not get their way. To me that is childish and after 12 years I think you need to let it go. No you did not win i simply grew tired of attempting to get you to think logically. I think in this case we will have to agree to disagree.
jellybear21 3 months ago
@artyfarty3 well mate I have to tell you that's a fallacy, even john hirst a devout republican disagrees that it was rigged, he recognized it was a fair & square and that the republicans did rather well. Secondly mate, you obviously don't know anything about a constitutional monarchy. I suggest you read up the bill of rights 1689 because that began constitutional monarchy. Don't be such an ignorant chav mate...educate yourself...
peace out
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 # 1:John Hirst can say whatever He wants to say (or whatever they pay Him to say, lol ! ).I conducted my own research which proves to me that the referendum of 1999 was rigged .Your "bill of rights" of 1689 was just a stepping stone to creating a Commonwealth of countries under direct authority and power of the Queen where democraticly elected politicians make laws and regulations which adhere to the Queen's will (to a Dictator - one altimate ruler - & not people of the nation)
artyfarty3 2 months ago
@artyfarty3 I doubt that you did any research at all to state such a self evident argument. the bill of rights 1689 is a point of fact a stepping stone to form a democratic system with the reigning monarch bounded by the constitutional laws of parliament. Meaning that parliament are the government and the reigning monarch a seperated branch with less powers but plays a ceremonial role. the commonwealth of nations was formed in 1953 as an organization which stands for human rights
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@artyfarty3 Secondly, even though the queen is head of the commonwealth she does not command the commonwealth of nations nor the commonwealth realms, she is just a symbolic representative. Lastly, there is a difference between a dictator and a constitutional monarch, all commonwealth realms are free to make their own laws with their pm's. the queen or the governor general protects those laws
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@artyfarty3 the bill of rights also explains the uncodified right of the reigning monarch of assigning or denying powers to certain people in the constitution or appointing a pm or dismissing a pm. it is the same case in australia with the governor general, the GG has that same uncodified right to those reserve powers but still subjected to the australian constitution.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@artyfarty3 plus what proof is there to prove that the referendum is rigged?
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 # 2: Australian Constitution Part 1 "general" - section 2 & 5 clearly define the point that GG can dismiss any senator or parliamentary at His (GG's) will or Her Majesty's will . If that is not a "dictatorship" i don't know what is !!! - i have a link to Australian Constitution ( and i have tried to provide it to You in my comment here ) but YouTube keeps coming up with "error , try again" every time i try to post it ;( so You might have to dig it up Yourself .
artyfarty3 2 months ago
@artyfarty3 lol actually section 2 states : A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
Comment removed
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 So yes I do know what the consitution act says because I have a softcopy of it. you're just misquoting of what the sections actually says (like most republicans do).
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 and I say "her" because we have a female GG
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
Comment removed
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@artyfarty3 and section 5 states: The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.
note how it says "subject to this constitution" and "may in like manner dissolve the house of reps". that means the gg is bounded by the constitution and can use her powers in the same way.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 # 3 : ... so in conclusion : Australia is NOT a free democracy , our PM does not have the power to provide for the "will" of this nation , all Australians are subjects to Her Majesty and Her crownies . No freedom - no voice - no choice . Australia is but a corgi in a Buckingham Palace ;)
artyfarty3 2 months ago
@artyfarty3 that's not a conclusion that's a self evident assumption unsupported by any facts or proof that australia is not a free country (like a lot of republicans make). Australia is definitely 110% free and independent. the constitution act clearly states that all states are clear to make their own laws for their own state. And the australia act 1986 had repealed s4 from the statute of westminster 1942 and also making the high court the final court of appeal.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago
@liverpoolmatt87 and not the privy council.
liverpoolmatt87 2 months ago