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

[798686]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

and lol @ the Commonwealth Games comments. The UK only did (relatively) well at the last Olympics because we scrupulously copied the Aussie state-funded sport template that seemed to have reaped such good rewards. :wink:

 

[TomCat84]

Mozambique.

Then again Holland plays cricket so it should be admitted!
Netherlands national cricket team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

Would Australia necessarily have to have a President? Couldn't they keep their parliamentary system of government?

 

[houtx48]

maybe they could get their own Queen....... is'nt Dame Edna Aussie?

 

[TomCat84]

I guess I'm philosophically opposed to monarchy, it just strikes me as odd that someone, just because of who they were born to and when, is qualified to be a head of state for me. :shrug:

 

[Jason]

Of course if Queen Elizabeth II lives to be as old as her mother she will still be Queen in 2028! This thread is therefore a little premature.

 

[798686]

Of course if Queen Elizabeth II lives to be as old as her mother she will still be Queen in 2028! This thread is therefore a little premature.

True! But I couldn't be arsed waiting for her Zirconium Jubilee before posting it. :wink: :biggrin1:

 

[798686]

What's the current Aussie view of Brits, btw?

I think many of the previous generation thought we were stuck up (maybe still are?) and felt we looked down on them. But times have changed - maybe with the advent of Neighbours, etc, lol - and nowadays Brits are very fond of Aussies and Australia, and tend to regard them almost as a national treasure. Does this come across at all?

 

[eurotop40]

A member of the British royal family should move permanently to Australia and become its King/Queen, just like the Bragança did in Brazil (which did not last long).

 

[798686]

A member of the British royal family should move permanently to Australia and become its King/Queen, just like the Bragança did in Brazil (which did not last long).

I'll move there and be their new Head of State. I'm sure that'll sort it. :biggrin1:

 

[Jason]

A member of the British royal family should move permanently to Australia and become its King/Queen, just like the Bragança did in Brazil (which did not last long).

I suppose if this is what the Australians wanted it could happen. But surely the point for Australia of having a monarch - rather than a president - is that the monarch provides a special link for Australia to those other nations over which she is Queen. Australia has very close ties with the UK. It has cultural and proximity links with New Zealand. Papua New Guinea - once part of Australia - is also one of Elizabeth's realms. Canada has a shared cultural heritage and is also Pacific Rim. A shared head of state helps draw all these nations and many more together - for Elizabeth II is Queen of 16 countries. In a world seeking union and co-operation this is a powerful tie.

Elizabeth II's track record as head of state seems much better than the average president on the world stage. Her son and grandson should in turn be able to do as well. All nations face the inherent absurdity of an inherited office, yet there are also major benefits. If the incumbent is halfway decent it probably makes sense to stick with the status quo.

 

[Viking_UK]

Jason, I hate to be pedantic, but technically, Elizabeth is only II of England. In terms of the UK and Commonwealth, she should just be plain Queen Elizabeth, or at worst I & II, as the previous Elizabeth was pre-Union. Churchill cocked up, and parliament has resisted any attempt to correct his mistake.

 

[cdarro]

According to the Royal Titles and Styles Act, Elizabeth is Queen "...of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other realms and territories". Don't know if Australia or any other Commonwealth country has a similar Act.

Here in Canada polls have shown waning support for the idea of Monarchy for the past forty years or so, with at present a slight majority in favor of retaining it. But since it would require a resolution supported by the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of all the provinces to replace the Monarch with any other head of state, it won't be happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

[newyboy]

It will happen, sad really but expected when English is a second language for half the population.

That happens when you think you need to let every tom, dick and harry in the world in to the joint.

 

[Jason]

James VI and James VII of Scots reigned in England as James I and James II. But subsequent to the Act of Union the English numbers have been used in Scotland as well as England. Elizabeth is II of England and of Scots though only England had an Elizabeth I. I assume the same system is applied throughout her realms - but if it is different somewhere would love to hear more. She is officially Elizabeth II in Australia and Canada, isn't she?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

She is officially Elizabeth II in Australia and Canada, isn't she?

In Canada, yes.

 

[willow78]

The only time the Republic issue really gets serious media coverage in Australia is when there's a Royal visit. As soon as we hear how much taxpayer's money is being wasted instead of going into funding for health or schools, the wheels start turning. Plus now that we have our very own Royal (Crown Princess Mary of Denmark), we're not so desperate to hold on to someone else's.

 

[mitchymo]

Would Australia necessarily have to have a President? Couldn't they keep their parliamentary system of government?

Second this.

I guess I'm philosophically opposed to monarchy, it just strikes me as odd that someone, just because of who they were born to and when, is qualified to be a head of state for me. :shrug:

Agree totally.

Brits are very fond of Aussies and Australia

Also true.

 

[willow78]

She is officially Elizabeth II in Australia and Canada, isn't she?

I'm not sure. We refer to her as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II but whether or not "the second" is technically correct I don't know. There are far worse things we could call her...

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Here in Canada polls have shown waning support for the idea of Monarchy for the past forty years or so, with at present a slight majority in favor of retaining it. But since it would require a resolution supported by the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of all the provinces to replace the Monarch with any other head of state, it won't be happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

I would say it will never happen.
That kind of unanimity is impossible.
And at least a couple provinces would agree to the proposition only if they could get something back by way of compensation.
It just wouldn't work.
Which I'm okay with.
There are real advantages to having a head of state who is NOT head of government.

 

[Jason]

The only time the Republic issue really gets serious media coverage in Australia is when there's a Royal visit. As soon as we hear how much taxpayer's money is being wasted instead of going into funding for health or schools, the wheels start turning. Plus now that we have our very own Royal (Crown Princess Mary of Denmark), we're not so desperate to hold on to someone else's.

If Australia doesn't have a Queen it will need a president (or some other head of state). As well as election costs every few years there are all the costs of the presidential office and team, security costs, costs with added costs. The example of the USA or France show that a presidential system is NOT cheap. There are plenty of good reasons for not having a monarchy, but cost is not one of them. Any alternative system is likely to be much more expensive.

Looking around the world it is hard to escape the conclusion that the characteristics needed to become a head of state are very different from the characteristics that make for a good head of state. Random selection of a monarch by accident of birth does seem more likely to produce a decent person for the role. If Australia does go down the republican route you can all but guarantee they will end up with a washed up politician on an ego trip with the support of less than half of the nation and a good proportion of people thinking s/he is a disaster. Look right now at the friction in the USA between the fans and the foes of Obama. Contrast a monarchial system where there are quite a few fans, lots of people who have no strong view, and very few true foes.