Australia to become a Republic when Queen's Reign Ends?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Joll, Aug 18, 2010.

  1. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    Aussie PM, Julia Gillard has stated just days before the general election, that she believes Australia should become a republic after the Queen's death (or abdication).

    Can't say I have a problem with that, tbh. Hopefully Aussies realise we have a great affection for their country, but I think everyone realises it will become a republic at some point. Hopefully it will happen in a calm, amicable fashion with ties remaining between the two countries.

    I have to say, I'm quite impressed by the fact that even many committed republicans seem fairly sensitive towards Queen, and it's nice that they've suggested waiting till the end of her reign to make the move (partly out of respect for her, and also because it would seem the most practical time to do it?).

    Any thoughts?
     
    #1 Joll, Aug 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2010
  2. Getting9

    Getting9 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Messages:
    354
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Durban South Africa
    I live in a republic but am still part of the common wealth. When the apartheid government was in power, we were not allowed to attend the common wealth meetings but since 1994 we are back in. South African.
     
  3. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    Cool. :)

    Hopefully Australia would remain in the Commonwealth too, if it became a republic?
     
  4. rugger89

    rugger89 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    135
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    nah i studied this in uni theres actually some pretty good cons to having it as head of state...altho really it doesnt do much...i mean y change something that aint broke

    THeyve had a vote on this before and failed. I doubt it will be passed. I say stay with the cth!

    Its one step closer of me achieving my dream...marrying prince harry (hes the hot one right? :S )
     
  5. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    Lol! Prince Hal, firecrotch ymean?

    I'd like the Aussies to stay with us, but get the feeling they won't in the long haul. Could stay in the C'wlth tho?

    Would it need cross-party support btw, before a commission was set up to investigate possible ways forward, or to set a referendum?
     
  6. ColonialBoy

    ColonialBoy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    5
    Yes BUT there are some practical issues.

    If Australia becomes a republic with a democratically elected President, the president MAY have more power than the Prime Minister. It could result in a radical new political structure. This is what caused the 1999 referendum to fail.

    Australian republic referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  7. B_aden.fan

    B_aden.fan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    144
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    76009 (Alvarado, TX)
    I'll answer the republic qn later, but my qn is this:

    which is the only commonwealth member nation NOT to have had a British colonial heritage?
     
  8. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    Ahhh, ok. Wasn't aware of that. If the political restructuring had been more straightforward, dyou think a majority of Aussies would've voted for a republic?
     
  9. ColonialBoy

    ColonialBoy Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    5
    Mozambique.

    Then again Holland plays cricket so it should be admitted!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_national_cricket_team

    When asked the question "Do you want an Australian as head of state" the majority of Australians say yes. They want to elect a president but at the same time keep political stability. The Australian President could "veto" legislation passed by parliament ie refuse to sign it into law as happens in the USA. The Australian Govenor General has NEVER exercised the power of veto in 100 years.

    The devil is in the detail. Most australians like the Queen & royal soap opera, and it has served us well with political stability for a century. Changing it will be a huge psychological barrier.
     
    #9 ColonialBoy, Aug 18, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2010
  10. vince

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    14,785
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    540
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Asia
    The UK
     
  11. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    LOL!
     
  12. willow78

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    A lot of people who were pro-republic weren't keen on the idea of the President being chosen by a majority parliament vote - they would have preferred President to be elected by the people. But whether that was a make-or-break element of the republican issue, I really don't know. I can only speak for myself when I say that I voted against the 'format' offered.
     
  13. comically

    comically New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    41
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Western Australia
    The referendum on becoming a republic was very confusingly worded and it was inevitable that it would be defeated.

    There are a lot of fierce monarchists in the older generation here but that sort of support has diminished as Australians have cast off the old colonial cringe and realised that we actually do a bloody good job managing our own country. The fact that the younger British Royals have had so much difficulty keeping their flies zipped and their toes unsucked has also helped diminish some of royalty's lustre. The Queen remains generally respected but one wonders what went awry in the parenting process - her sons are all fruit loops!

    That being said, there is much truth in "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" and the present system works well. Even if we do become a republic you can be damned sure we'll remain in the Commonwealth - we do okay at the Olympics on a per capita basis but the Commonwealth games is where the Aussies rule big-time and we welcome the opportunity to stick it up every other member nation!!!
     
  14. B_subgirrl

    B_subgirrl New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    9,873
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    NSW, Australia
    This idea gets thrown around every two seconds, but they never get enough votes when they take it to an election.

    Personally, I'm not fussed either way.
     
  15. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,929
    Likes Received:
    640
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    It is up to the Australians. It is curious that their 1999 referendum ended up with the status quo, and it is quite possible that a future referendum would have exactly the same result. It is also quite possible that the average Australian doesn't spend all their time thinking about their nation's constitutional settlement and just isn't that bothered about it.

    I'm pretty sure Australia would remain in the Commonwealth whatever decision they might take on the head of state. It offers them some real benefits and almost no downside.

    There probably are bigger questions that should be asked about the future development of the Commonwealth. As an inter-governmental organisation it represents two billion people. Mostly these countries have kept to the principles of democracy and human rights which are central to the Commonwealth, mostly they co-operate well - and they all support the English language. It has done a lot! But arguably it should do even more, particularly in areas of free trade and supporting education.
     
  16. Hifive

    Hifive New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney au
    #16 Hifive, Aug 18, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2010
  17. perthjames

    perthjames Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sydney (NSW, AU)
    The key issue in the last referendum was that it became politicised. Labor in favour, the Coalition against. If it happened again tomorrow, Gillard would be pro, Abbott would be against. If it happens when Malcolm Turnbull takes over again (in a few months time), both ALP and Coalition would have leaders who would support such a change.
     
  18. willow78

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Australia
    I agree, but once again I can only speak for myself. At the time of the referendum, I was young and idealistic and very pro-republic, but now I'm not all that bothered. There are many bigger issues that need to be dealt with - and with an election coming in only a few days I don't need another issue breaking my brain - that changing heads of state seems like a total waste of time and money. Two things which should be devoted to health, employment, education...

    <sarcasm alert! sarcasm alert!>
    Plus we're so obsessed with sport and winning that people are probably worried that sacking 'sweaty Betty' would mean leaving the Commonwealth and having to leave the Commonwealth Games. That worries us because the CG are the only time we do well. We brag about being brilliant at sport but it's only when we're competing against ourselves. When we get to the Olympics, we get that confidence slapped out of us by the bigger boys and girls. We NEED the CG because, apart from Great Britain, we don't have any real competition. It's quite easy to be victorious when we're only up against developing Pacific Island nations.
     
  19. B_crackoff

    B_crackoff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    Northern Ireland was colonized by the British.

    Technically, England was the first part colonized by the Normans. The Saxons, Vikings, Angles, Jutes & Romans all attempted colonization.

    I think there are a few nations in the Commonwealth had no consitutional link at all. Cameroon (well most of it )would be another. Rwanda?
     
  20. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Mozambique would be one.
    It was a Portuguese colony.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted