Australia: The Queen and the Republic Debate (3 Viewers)

[cem]

I know but apparently an Australian bill was refused sovereign assent in 1906, can't remember what it was called.

It was the Governor-General not the monarch (Edward VII) who refused to sign the bill, on orders from the British Parliament, that would have restricted the right of Australians to appeal to the British Privy Council. As the British Parliament still held some control over decisions that affected citizens of the empire the British Parliament had the right to tell the GG not to agree to the legislation (he resigned over the issue).

At that time Australia only had control of our internal affairs and anything that affected the rights of the subjects of the empire had to be approved in London, which is why the GG took the action he did.

It wasn't the monarch that gave those instructions but the PM and his government in Britain.

We actually maintained the right to appeal to the Privy Council until 1984. It was one of the last connections between Australia and the UK in any real sense. Now it is a shared Head of State and nothing more.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

so as soon as we become a republic (which we will, it is inevitable) all of those qualities will go "poof" and disappear? NO THEY WON'T!

.... perhaps you should re-read your comments before you post them to avoid such fail of argument.

just like we won't magically become more multicultural (which is what you said earlier)

 

[Existential]

just like we won't magically become more multicultural (which is what you said earlier)

no that's not what i said.

i said as a result of cultural change that has occurred in the last century (you'd be fool to deny that) the monarchy has little relevance to the new Australia we have developed post-WW2 and into the 21st C. We are seen to be multicultural, tolerant of other's culture (doesn't matter if some aren't, it's a working progress) ... and all this furthers the argument that we shouldn't follow a royal figure that means very little to the new generations these days, including many from the ageing population. i never said the republic would result in any cultural change at all. it may have some degree of change.

i will say it again - the only thing keeping our monarchy alive is the queen (aged 84).
she only has a few decades at most left.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

no that's not what i said.

i said as a result of cultural change that has occurred in the last century (you'd be fool to deny that) the monarchy has little relevance to the new Australia we have developed post-WW2 and into the 21st C. We are seen to be multicultural, tolerant of other's culture (doesn't matter if some aren't, it's a working progress) ... and all this furthers the argument that we shouldn't follow a royal figure that means very little to the new generations these days, including many from the ageing population.

Listen that's a non sequitur. Yes we have become more multicultural and tolerant. Yes there has been cultural change - we are no longer 'subjects of the Empire'. But prove that ANY of this, one small jot of it, is in itself a justification for a republic.

i will say it again - the only thing keeping our monarchy alive is the queen (aged 84).
she only has a few decades at most left.

In fact there are many reasons, aside from the queen, to see the constitutional monarchy as a valuable element of our country. Our system is stable and adaptable. It reminds us of our national heritage (the good and the bad) and the strength of our national institutions. It remains a large part of the Australian identity given these previous points. It is cheap to run. It is enshrined in our constitution, a document written premised upon the status of Australia as a constitutional monarchy. Our federation is founded upon it.

Plus the queen rulz

 

[aussie-boy]

so as soon as we become a republic (which we will, it is inevitable) all of those qualities will go "poof" and disappear? NO THEY WON'T!

.... perhaps you should re-read your comments before you post them to avoid such fail of argument.

Take away the monarchy, and you're essentially saying, "our heritage has been rendered meaningless, Australia is actually devoid of culture and a blank slate on which today's youth should impart their current values/cultural influences."

This attitude is BS and damn right disrespectful IMO

If we're to become a republic, we need a really really good reason - and your desire to become more multi-cultural just doesn't cut it (and how has the monarchy even stopped that in the last 50yrs anyway?)

 

[Chemical Ali]

hey guys

britain has become more tolerant & multicultural too, yet they still have a queen!!!11!one

but we will have a really really good reason to become a republic very soon; prince charles is a semi-muslim, new age-believing retard, not fit to be swaziland's head of state, let alone ours.

 

[aussie-boy]

britain has become more tolerant & multicultural too, yet they still have a queen!!!11!one

Britain's multi-cultural policy has been completely fucked up, with unprecedented levels of disadvantage breeding things like knife crime and muslim extremism... but that's a separate issue altogether

but we will have a really really good reason to become a republic very soon; prince charles is a semi-muslim, new age-believing retard, not fit to be swaziland's head of state, let alone ours.

Its quite possible that William will take the throne quickly after/instead of Charles... and William is very popular indeed

 

[scaredytiger]

Its quite possible that William will take the throne quickly after/instead of Charles... and William is very popular indeed

That would take a unanimous vote by every nation in the Commonwealth.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

if old lizze hangs on as long as she can, hopefully she'll outlive charles and the problem will be solved

 

[Existential]

Listen that's a non sequitur. Yes we have become more multicultural and tolerant. Yes there has been cultural change - we are no longer 'subjects of the Empire'. But prove that ANY of this, one small jot of it, is in itself a justification for a republic.

you just did.

In fact there are many reasons, aside from the queen, to see the constitutional monarchy as a valuable element of our country. Our system is stable and adaptable. It reminds us of our national heritage (the good and the bad) and the strength of our national institutions. It remains a large part of the Australian identity given these previous points. It is cheap to run. It is enshrined in our constitution, a document written premised upon the status of Australia as a constitutional monarchy. Our federation is founded upon it.

that's not to say a republic would be worse.

Plus the queen rulz

lol

 

[Existential]

Take away the monarchy, and you're essentially saying, "our heritage has been rendered meaningless, Australia is actually devoid of culture and a blank slate on which today's youth should impart their current values/cultural influences."

This attitude is BS and damn right disrespectful IMO

If we're to become a republic, we need a really really good reason - and your desire to become more multi-cultural just doesn't cut it (and how has the monarchy even stopped that in the last 50yrs anyway?)

you completely misunderstand me;

im not saying that we should become a republic to achieve a,b,c,d ect.
im saying that because of these recent factors a,b,c,d ect. (ie. cultural change inclu. values) the monarchy system has become less relevant to australia. therefore as time goes on i see australia moving further away from the "monarchy culture". sure it's our heritage, but that's no justification for holding onto the queen one hundred and ten years after we became a federation. it was fine then, but now.... the new generations are heading in different directions.

 

[Existential]

but we will have a really really good reason to become a republic very soon; prince charles is a semi-muslim, new age-believing retard, not fit to be swaziland's head of state, let alone ours.

that's what ive been saying.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

you just did.

non sequitur
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

that's not to say a republic would be worse.

well OF COURSE NOT you fucking dolt. i wasn't talking about republics, i was talking about why we should have a monarchy, something which you are thus far making no attempt to refute

 

[Existential]

if old lizze hangs on as long as she can, hopefully she'll outlive charles and the problem will be solved

she has no more than 20 years tops.

 

[Existential]

non sequitur
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

state what i said that was irrelevant. i highly doubt that it was.

i wasn't talking about republics, i was talking about why we should have a monarchy

it seems that you can talk up a monarchy but you can't say why a republic would be a step down? if you can't scrutinise the opposing argument like i have done (ie. the death of the queen=the death of the monarchy for australia) then give up now.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

you completely misunderstand me;

im not saying that we should become a republic to achieve a,b,c,d ect.
Im saying that because of these recent factors a,b,c,d ect. (ie. Cultural change inclu. Values) the monarchy system has become less relevant to australia.

why

therefore as time goes on i see australia moving further away from the "monarchy culture". Sure it's our heritage, but that's no justification for holding onto the queen one hundred and ten years after we became a federation.

why

 

[Existential]

why

watch these - perhaps they might enlighten you as to what the pro-republic argument actually is.

YouTube - Australian Republic hopes dashed by politix, legalism, denial + refusal to CHANGE - again!
YouTube - Queen's Birthday should be abolished

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

state what i said that was irrelevant. i highly doubt that it was.

You:
'Australia's culture has changed'
???
'Therefore we need a republic'

that does NOT follow logically

it seems that you can talk up a monarchy but you can't say why a republic would be a step down? if you can't scrutinise the opposing argument like i have done (ie. the death of the queen=the death of the monarchy for australia) then give up now.

i don't need to take a step down. the monarchy is the system WE ALREADY HAVE so it is the republicans who must justify change. the monarchy works fine as i have stated above. you haven't scrutinised anything you fucking idiot. you've just stated propositions. if you want the current system to change then you have to state in clear terms what you think is WRONG with the current system and then explain LOGICALLY why it should be changed.

 

[Existential]

i already have stated that australia's new culture has nothing to do with the queen EXCEPT one public holiday.

i acknowledge that the queen did have an influence in australia pre-WW2 but now.... in the post-war period.... she means next to nothing (despite being on our coins).

if you can justify that she does mean something to the 21st Century Australia, then be my guest.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

i already have stated that australia's new culture has nothing to do with the queen EXCEPT one public holiday.

i acknowledge that the queen did have an influence in australia pre-WW2 but now.... in the post-war period.... she means next to nothing (despite being on our coins).

if you can justify that she does mean something to the 21st Century Australia, then be my guest.

that assertion is unfounded bullshit

firstly you're a fucktard because you associate the Australian constitutional monarchy only with 'the queen' when in fact The Crown is an integral component of our constitution and our parliamentary executive. you forget about the governor-general and state governors who have an important role to play, far more important than the queen herself.

at present the function of the Crown serves as an important brake on government power in this country. the governor-general can dismiss the government but they themselves are regulated by the ability of the Queen to recall the gg on the advice of the Prime Minister. this has an important role to play in preventing power struggles between the head of state and Parliament.

thus the Queen and the Crown retain great significance to the running of government in this country. they are highly significant to the institutions of this country. the people of australia affirm their belief in these institutions. therefore the Queen and Crown are highly relevant to the people of this country because of their essential role in government.

your suggestion that somehow changing cultural values invalidate the monarchy is utter bunk. australia has been culturally changing for years and this is not influenced IN ANY WAY by the institution of the monarchy, which is above politics, so to speak.

you have no fucking idea what you're talking about