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

[dandelion]

I think this question sounds rather like, why doesnt the uk get rid of its monarch and get a real president? The answer in the UK case is that it suits everyone to leave matters as they are. If you start tinkering wth institutions of government then people start asking questions about just exactly why are all the other bits as they are, and are they justified too. If you have a president, then that president has to have a real job. He represents the whole country, he must do something. The Queen has a lot of power in the UK but never uses any of it. The prime minister exercises her powers. Is this the case in Australia too? At the very least, presumably the president would be free to choose to help whichever side in the current hung parliament he happened to come from politically. Because in any elected presidential system he certainly would come from one or other main party and would have stood on a party ticket.

Midlife, most countries seem to like to have at least two power centres in their government which represent different things, or used to. In the US the president is the most powerful individual, though technically probably no more powerful than queen elizabeth. just, he gets to exercise his powers himself. But he does have to bow down to congress, and whoever it chooses as its spokesman, to some degree. In Britain, the chosen spokesman of the legislature becomes the prime minister. The Queen agrees to do as she's told for fear of being chucked out by parliament. I would love to see her take on parliament sometime, but hey, its a cushy job having a palace and not having to do the ruling, so why make waves?

The prime minister loves the system, because he can pretend there are real checks and balances which make him accountable to the electorate, when really, there arent. If there was an independantly elected president then not only would he be more likely to use his powers and interfere with the prime ministers freedom to do what he wants, but the prime minister couldnt claim any democratic superiority automatically putting him in the right however stupid his proposals.

 

[798686]

^ I'm very in favour of keeping our monarchy, btw Dandy (just incase you wondered).

 

[dandelion]

hmm. Just wish she'd throw her weight around a bit more. Whatever it is, the Uk system is not democratic and I get irritated by politicians pretending their divine right to rule comes from their democratic credentials. Its insane that the heir to the throne gets criticised from all and sundry just because he dares to say he likes a building, or hates it.

 

[vxie]

SUPPORT for a republic has slumped to a 16-year low, with more Australians favouring retaining the monarchy for now....

An Age/Nielsen poll taken earlier this month shows support for a republic is now running at 44 per cent. This is the lowest level since 1994, and well down from the peak of 57 per cent in 1999, the year the question was tested in a national referendum.

Republican hopes take a king-hit

 

[798686]

Republican hopes take a king-hit

How's the election outcome doin', VX?

 

[ColonialBoy]

Australia is still without a government, but its been summer weather for 2 days so nobody cares!

The Liberal party had a $11 billion stuffup in costing its election promises, so the independents have started signing agreements with the Labor party.

Looks like Labor will win but need 5 independents to vote with them, so Australia has adopted the Italian system

The independents have demands like 'no banana imports'
Bob Katter's wishlist targets food, fuel, Coles and Woolworths | Courier Mail

 

[TomCat84]

I think this question sounds rather like, why doesnt the uk get rid of its monarch and get a real president? The answer in the UK case is that it suits everyone to leave matters as they are. If you start tinkering wth institutions of government then people start asking questions about just exactly why are all the other bits as they are, and are they justified too. If you have a president, then that president has to have a real job. He represents the whole country, he must do something. The Queen has a lot of power in the UK but never uses any of it. The prime minister exercises her powers. Is this the case in Australia too? At the very least, presumably the president would be free to choose to help whichever side in the current hung parliament he happened to come from politically. Because in any elected presidential system he certainly would come from one or other main party and would have stood on a party ticket.

Midlife, most countries seem to like to have at least two power centres in their government which represent different things, or used to. In the US the president is the most powerful individual, though technically probably no more powerful than queen elizabeth. just, he gets to exercise his powers himself. But he does have to bow down to congress, and whoever it chooses as its spokesman, to some degree. In Britain, the chosen spokesman of the legislature becomes the prime minister. The Queen agrees to do as she's told for fear of being chucked out by parliament. I would love to see her take on parliament sometime, but hey, its a cushy job having a palace and not having to do the ruling, so why make waves?

The prime minister loves the system, because he can pretend there are real checks and balances which make him accountable to the electorate, when really, there arent. If there was an independantly elected president then not only would he be more likely to use his powers and interfere with the prime ministers freedom to do what he wants, but the prime minister couldnt claim any democratic superiority automatically putting him in the right however stupid his proposals.

The President never really has to "bow down" to Congress. He/she has veto power, and it takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to override that. The Queen has veto power too, right? What would happen if she tried to veto something?

 

[798686]

Australia is still without a government, but its been summer weather for 2 days so nobody cares!

The Liberal party had a $11 billion stuffup in costing its election promises, so the independents have started signing agreements with the Labor party.

Looks like Labor will win but need 5 independents to vote with them, so Australia has adopted the Italian system

The independents have demands like 'no banana imports'
Bob Katter's wishlist targets food, fuel, Coles and Woolworths | Courier Mail

Cheers for the update, dude. :smile:

 

[cdarro]

The President never really has to "bow down" to Congress. He/she has veto power, and it takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to override that. The Queen has veto power too, right? What would happen if she tried to veto something?

She would likely be forced to abdicate, as Edward VIII was when he tried to marry contrary to Parliament's and the cabinet's wishes in the 1930s.

The last time a British Monarch tried to overrule Parliament (Charles I, in the 1640s) he was deposed and beheaded.

In any Parliamentary system based on the Westminster model, the de facto head of state, whether Monarch, Governor General or President, does not exercise any political power whatsoever, but acts (politically) only on the advice of the prime minister (or chancellor, as the case may be) and cabinet.

The primary governmental function of the Monarch or their representative seems to be to ensure that there is a prime minister to carry on the administration. This was an important function in the eighteenth century when party loyalties were much looser, but now usually takes care of itself though there can be some doubts if no party wins a majority of seats. The closest thing to interference by a head of state seems to have been in the 1970s, when the Governor General of Australia dismissed the prime minister who, facing a deadlocked Parliament, would neither call an election nor resign. There was a somewhat similar situation in Canada in the 1920s, and though the liberal party fought and won an election on the "intereference" issue, constitutional scholars agree that the Governor General acted properly.

Sorry for the long-winded reply.

 

[TomCat84]

She would likely be forced to abdicate, as Edward VIII was when he tried to marry contrary to Parliament's and the cabinet's wishes in the 1930s.

The last time a British Monarch tried to overrule Parliament (Charles I, in the 1640s) he was deposed and beheaded.

In any Parliamentary system based on the Westminster model, the de facto head of state, whether Monarch, Governor General or President, does not exercise any political power whatsoever, but acts (politically) only on the advice of the prime minister (or chancellor, as the case may be) and cabinet.

The primary governmental function of the Monarch or their representative seems to be to ensure that there is a prime minister to carry on the administration. This was an important function is the eighteenth century when party loyalties were much looser, but now usually takes care of itself though there can be some doubts if no party wins a majority of seats. The closest thing to interference by a head of state seems to have been in the 1970s, when the Governor General of Australia dismissed the prime minister who, facing a deadlocked Parliament, would neither call an election nor resign. There was a somewhat similar situation in Canada in the 1920s, and though the liberal party fought and won an election on the "intereference" issue, constitutional scholars agree that the Governor General acted properly.

Sorry for the long-winded reply.

No worries. The UK system of governance confuses me, actually. And as for other Commonwealth countries- the fact that Canadians can put up with a UK representative shutting down their parliament temporarily because the PM doesnt wanna face a vote of no confidence astounds me. Id be marching on London with pitchfork in hand if I were a Canadian

 

[cdarro]

No worries. The UK system of governance confuses me, actually. And as for other Commonwealth countries- the fact that Canadians can put up with a UK representative shutting down their parliament temporarily because the PM doesnt wanna face a vote of no confidence astounds me. Id be marching on London with pitchfork in hand if I were a Canadian

It confuses a lot of people here too. But just to clarify, while the Governor General represents the Queen, he or she not subordinate to the Queen, and exercises all the powers, authorities and functions belonging to the Crown in right of Canada, and has been a Canadian citizen since 1952. Prior to that date the office was usually filled by a British nobleman or ex-diplomat, partially because it was felt that this would ensure neutrality.

As for the other point you raise, the current G/G has made a couple of questionable decisions in regard to the minority government we've had since 2006. She granted the prime minister's request for an election in 2008 though by an Act of Parliament (can't recall the name offhand) which was one of this government's pet projects, none was required (unless the government fell) until 2009. In the second instance, which you mention, she prorogued parliament on the prime minister's request. Although the prime minister was well within his rights to advise both the election in 2008 and the prorogation this year, many felt that the Governor General should properly have rejected his advice and let events take their course. People generally weren't overly upset at either decision though, as the election in 2008 didn't change anything, and one in 2010 wouldn't have either. But the decisions were made in Ottawa, not London.

Btw, the current G/G's term expires this month.

 

[dandelion]

The President never really has to "bow down" to Congress. He/she has veto power, and it takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to override that. The Queen has veto power too, right? What would happen if she tried to veto something?

Edward VIII was a legitimate if arm-twisting act. Chopping off Charles I's head was distinctly outside the constitutional framework. I have an idea that when the monarchy was restored there was a provision made for parliament to impeach and remove a monarch. But not to override a veto. In the end it would come down to politics. The queen has the power to act but no political support structure. Just an army... People go on about a 'constitutional crisis' if the queen really exercised her powers, but as far as I'm concerned it depend on the circumstances. Refusing to send the army into Iraq would have been very popular but it would have been a judgement call on a complex issue and difficult to do simply. Vetoing the next act of parliament would be fascinating. In practice it would work just the same as the US system, which I presume was modeled on the british one as then existing, with back and forth changes until a text was produced acceptable to both parliament and crown. I support the monarchy as a mechanism of government, but ultimately if the monarchy voluntarily declines to exercise any of it powers, then it makes a mockery of itself and is engineering its own destruction. Maybe someone decided it was better to go slowly into decline than disappear in a shower of sparks like most other monarchies.

I suspect that if the monarch has any real objections to a bill they are expressed in private to the then prime minister, who after all is supposed to be her representative carrying out her will, and he takes her views into account. Since the queen effectively does nothing, it is difficult to see where she would have a need to object. The only obvious situation would be where a government tried to do something plainly against the will of the people. On most issues the majority probably doesnt care one bit either way. Do we really care a few thousand british soldiers get injured taking part in turning some foreign country upside down? Blair's war: he did what he wanted .