-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Republic vs Monarchy (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Liberal Scum
- Start date
HotShot
-_-
wats the benefit of being republic?Iron said:
HotShot
-_-
lol,_dhj_ said:
so there is no difference? why bother changing, wouldnt that slow down our productivity as our resources are diverted to changing currency notes etc..
The Brucemaster
Member
If we changed to a republic all that would happen in regards to currency production would be that the numerous moulds for each coin and the designs on the computer for each note would have to be changed. So no, there would be no loss of productivity at all.HotShot said:
As to the American republic system i think the main problem with it is the voting system as opposed to the actual structure of the government. The weakness there is that its abused to the bullshit more than any actual inherent weaknesses.
HotShot
-_-
but it is loss of productivity the time it takes to change the systems could be used to produce more money?The Brucemaster said:
Mongke
Member
Australia needs to become a republic so that it can ideantify its self without leaning on the US or Bitain for examples. its what weve always wanted to do so since the convicts arived so why the hell not!?! so we can win all the medals at the commonwealth games? hmmm, well, that would be very Australia.
The Brucemaster
Member
There is no need to produce more money. It is done at a set rate so as not to influence inflation rates.HotShot said:
Jonathan A
Active Member
Australia does not need a republic.
Republicans now refer to religion. They are noting that Catholica can't represent the Queen or that only Anglicans can. Somehow a republic would see that change.
I might as well remind the Republicans that Sir Isaac Isaacs was Jewish and not only was he a politician and a Chief Justice of the High Court, we was also our Governor General. No where does it say, only Anglicans can represent the Queen.
Looks like Republicans are looking for something else.
While we are on the topic, I read from Prof. David Flint that Canada's Republicans had a mass rally of some sort with 4 republicans showing in total. I agree, there is a mass push for a republic in many Commonwealth Monarchical nations.
Republicans now refer to religion. They are noting that Catholica can't represent the Queen or that only Anglicans can. Somehow a republic would see that change.
I might as well remind the Republicans that Sir Isaac Isaacs was Jewish and not only was he a politician and a Chief Justice of the High Court, we was also our Governor General. No where does it say, only Anglicans can represent the Queen.
Looks like Republicans are looking for something else.
While we are on the topic, I read from Prof. David Flint that Canada's Republicans had a mass rally of some sort with 4 republicans showing in total. I agree, there is a mass push for a republic in many Commonwealth Monarchical nations.
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
I haven't heard that argument, but it would be refering to the fact that the British monarch has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England".
It's not an irrelevant point. Isaacs didnt hold religious office. However the Anglican churches of both England and Australia aren't the same.
It's not an irrelevant point. Isaacs didnt hold religious office. However the Anglican churches of both England and Australia aren't the same.
Jonathan A
Active Member
Iron said:
Whilst presenting a series of facts, you have not addressed my post's empahsis. Not sure if you are siding with me or opposing me.
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Without having seen the Republican strike on religion, I can only assume that you've missed a delicious irony.
Clearly, this jibe is poking fun at the fact that Liz constitutionally heads both the Church and State, yet has no control over either institution. An old fact that should be formalised, already. (note americanization)
If the Queen has any say in Australian constitutional affairs, then by extention she has sway in the religion camp. Hence sectarianism should apply.
It's a funny line. Reminds me when the Republicans unveiled the slogan "Mate for Head of State", and Major-General Jeffery came out drapped in the flag claiming that he was dinky-di etc. Idiot.
You've been made a fool sir.
Clearly, this jibe is poking fun at the fact that Liz constitutionally heads both the Church and State, yet has no control over either institution. An old fact that should be formalised, already. (note americanization)
If the Queen has any say in Australian constitutional affairs, then by extention she has sway in the religion camp. Hence sectarianism should apply.
It's a funny line. Reminds me when the Republicans unveiled the slogan "Mate for Head of State", and Major-General Jeffery came out drapped in the flag claiming that he was dinky-di etc. Idiot.
You've been made a fool sir.
Enlightened_One
King of Bullshit
The US is a republic and has been since their war of independence. How can staying a constitutional monarchy mean we remain closer to the US than if we became a republic? If anything, becoming a republic will send us more toward the US and away from Britain than we are now.Mongke said:
Iron
Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 7,765
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2004
Hey, stupid-head!Enlightened_One said:
Maybe there's a flurking third way - like, for instance, say, perhaps, an "Australian" side. Zis is the whole point of the thing, you know.
Who views the world as a US-UK dichotomy?