Do you think that we should become a republic??? I don't really know, I hate being tied to England, however, at the same time, if we do become a republic, I feel that we would become the 2nd America. What do you all think?
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Republic (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Cape
- Start date
Either way, as I really couldn't care. Although, with the monarchy being of little value in England itself (not to mention Scotland and Wales) why should we be the last to have the queen/king as our head of state?
Last edited:
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Why should a foreigner be our head of state? Since federation the nation has grown so much and changed to much that it no longer makes sense to have the Queen as head of state. It also makes no sense because it's perpetuating the idea that we must seek approval from foreign nations, even now the Howard government is trying to discredit Latham by telling the Australian public what the leader of another nation thinks of him. That's ridiculous! Keeping the Queen as head of state places the importance of foreigners above that of the Australian citizen. An Australian citizen should be the head of state to symbolise that we are our own, we can stand on our own and that we don't need to seek approval from outside, we should be deriving approval from within.
PaleReflection
i can teach you
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 671
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Maybe one hundred years ago when we were a growing country we needed England's support, but we have become much more independent now and we no longer should be recognised as part of England.
I also agree with Ziff: why should a foreigner be our Head of State? Shouldn't it be an Australian to symbolise our nationalism? Oh, wait, I forgot, regardless of who our Head of State is we will still follow Bush and Blair...
I also agree with Ziff: why should a foreigner be our Head of State? Shouldn't it be an Australian to symbolise our nationalism? Oh, wait, I forgot, regardless of who our Head of State is we will still follow Bush and Blair...
I think we definitely should be. It was an embarassment to think that rightfully, the person who should have opened the 2000 olympic games was the Queen. Instead, the Queens representative was choosen. This is a fairly simplistic example but it should be someone who the Australian public has elected tor epresent them that opens these kinds of things and represents the nation. To me it seems archaic to have a country like Australia with a head of state who is not representative of the Australian people. (and who coincidentally uses Australia as a holiday destination for their grandchildren...)
Butterfly_Wings
Cornflake Girl
I think we should...really, it probably won't make a whole lot of difference. But I see no point in having England of our head of state these days. I think it is about time we broke away. And I am not a fan of the Royal family.
So yeah...I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, but I would prefer to become a republic.
So yeah...I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, but I would prefer to become a republic.
Mambomeg
yay! custom!!!
Gasp..... I agree with melbournian, there's nothing wrong with it at the moment, and would you really want some idiot like john howard having complete and total control over the country? Until some better candidates from a president come out of the woodwork, i'm happy to stay as we are. Besides, if we did become a republic, we would be just as attached to america as we are to britain, and i much prefer being Britains Daughter country than Americas pawn.
Besides, the monarchy has minimal impact on the country anyway, and if Will becomes king, i wont mind at all....hee hee.
Besides, the monarchy has minimal impact on the country anyway, and if Will becomes king, i wont mind at all....hee hee.
Ziff
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 2,366
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
The Australian head of state would have a symbolic role only. It wouldn't be the American way because that's a totally different system. We would retain the westminster system but with a figure head as head of state. Symbolic role only.
No matter what you say Melbournian, the GG is STILL the representative of a foreigner, even if he or she is an Australian.
Plus this "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude is appalling. If people always had that attitude there would never be progress. You have to look at how something could be improved, how to progress, and not at maintaining the status quo.
No matter what you say Melbournian, the GG is STILL the representative of a foreigner, even if he or she is an Australian.
Plus this "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude is appalling. If people always had that attitude there would never be progress. You have to look at how something could be improved, how to progress, and not at maintaining the status quo.
Enlightened_One
King of Bullshit
The one good thing about being under the monarchy is that there is someone (the Governer General) who can throw out corrupt leaders. We have a fall back plan against a dictatorship.
The problem with the last attempt was that the government had it so that only the politicians voted for the president. That was why is failed so tremendously.
Our constitution may not have to be rewritten, simply amended by a referendum, I think.
And before all you America lovers use the US as an example, just remember the civil war. That is a potential problem we may face, the division of society, rebellion against the president, differing views. It may not be all fun and games.
Although, if we were to change to a republic, and keep the same system, then it should be a smooth transistion. If everything remains the way it is (except we ditch the monarch), besides Will seems like a decent bloke.
The last factor with being under the crown is that if we are ever attacked, then the other countries of the empire are bound to help us.
If we become a republic, we have no firm ally, though the US would probably come to our aid, they enjoy a good fight.
I think that if we ever see a republic it will be at least twenty years from now, when we are in our parents position.
The problem with the last attempt was that the government had it so that only the politicians voted for the president. That was why is failed so tremendously.
Our constitution may not have to be rewritten, simply amended by a referendum, I think.
And before all you America lovers use the US as an example, just remember the civil war. That is a potential problem we may face, the division of society, rebellion against the president, differing views. It may not be all fun and games.
Although, if we were to change to a republic, and keep the same system, then it should be a smooth transistion. If everything remains the way it is (except we ditch the monarch), besides Will seems like a decent bloke.
The last factor with being under the crown is that if we are ever attacked, then the other countries of the empire are bound to help us.
If we become a republic, we have no firm ally, though the US would probably come to our aid, they enjoy a good fight.
I think that if we ever see a republic it will be at least twenty years from now, when we are in our parents position.
Exactly. I dont think we should be so keen to throw away our roots. You're missing out if you think we had no part in the worlds history, and Britain is a huge part of that history. Ancestors at Agincort. Grannies at New York. Uncles at Waterloo etc etc.
Im sick of thinking im some thug who's only existed for around 220yrs who's only achievement has been to stuff up a native population and be on the last place on earth our race is made for.
Im sick of denying being European. We go so much deeper than what appears on the surface. I think you're fooling yourself if you think our identity began in 1788, likewise with the US. We are natives too. We have a homeland!
We are designed for Europe. That is where our body functions best and we are most in place. The only people who can and should understand this place are the Aboriginals. It is wasted on us. We can never take this from them.
Voting to leave the last, purely ceremonial link of our heritage is so undignified and crappy, I could think of no worst way.
The Yanks at least had a good excuse and fought for it. (the US is also parallell to Europe, with much being similar)
Im sick of thinking im some thug who's only existed for around 220yrs who's only achievement has been to stuff up a native population and be on the last place on earth our race is made for.
Im sick of denying being European. We go so much deeper than what appears on the surface. I think you're fooling yourself if you think our identity began in 1788, likewise with the US. We are natives too. We have a homeland!
We are designed for Europe. That is where our body functions best and we are most in place. The only people who can and should understand this place are the Aboriginals. It is wasted on us. We can never take this from them.
Voting to leave the last, purely ceremonial link of our heritage is so undignified and crappy, I could think of no worst way.
The Yanks at least had a good excuse and fought for it. (the US is also parallell to Europe, with much being similar)
We have no need to be linked to Britain when our future is to be found in Asia. This is an Australiasian nation, not a European nation.
However, when the Monarchy exists only as symbolic entity, is there any real reason to change it so soon (look at what happened last time we all voted... Latham has the right idea (Yes or No and then What Type)).
However, when the Monarchy exists only as symbolic entity, is there any real reason to change it so soon (look at what happened last time we all voted... Latham has the right idea (Yes or No and then What Type)).
When Howard became PM he was very particular that "we are not Asia" (latham has pointed this aspect of Howard out)
Both alternate systems aren't very good, as the Aust public has noted.
For the option of 2/3rds of parliament electing a prez., it has been commented that "you can have a head of state you didnt vote for....or a head of state you didnt vote for"
For the popularly voted Prez option the leader is a populist. It costs millions, and a personality battle is contrary to Aust values. Let's face it, Bush was "voted" in through this...BUSH
I honestly do hate to say it but, if aint brke, dont fix it.
Both alternate systems aren't very good, as the Aust public has noted.
For the option of 2/3rds of parliament electing a prez., it has been commented that "you can have a head of state you didnt vote for....or a head of state you didnt vote for"
For the popularly voted Prez option the leader is a populist. It costs millions, and a personality battle is contrary to Aust values. Let's face it, Bush was "voted" in through this...BUSH
I honestly do hate to say it but, if aint brke, dont fix it.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
yep same here.
Constip8edSkunk
Joga Bonito
its all in the name... though i like the sound of a republic better than a monarchy.
still no matter which way it is, australia will always follow a more powerful nation, whether it be britain, or US, or some other in the future....
still no matter which way it is, australia will always follow a more powerful nation, whether it be britain, or US, or some other in the future....
CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy.
I think our system places us nicely between the UK & US, culturally, physically and politically.
A popularly elected prez. is such a wank. They are presented problems and issues and a kaggillion advisors to tell them their options, then they decide. The other half of their job is to do what the (constitutional) Monarch does all the time--make an appearance, wave, smile and cut ribbons.
At the moment, Aust. is grossely overgoverned. A prez. and republic would accentuate this big time.
I think our system places us nicely between the UK & US, culturally, physically and politically.
A popularly elected prez. is such a wank. They are presented problems and issues and a kaggillion advisors to tell them their options, then they decide. The other half of their job is to do what the (constitutional) Monarch does all the time--make an appearance, wave, smile and cut ribbons.
At the moment, Aust. is grossely overgoverned. A prez. and republic would accentuate this big time.
psycho_mushy
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 661
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 1998
leave it!
Britain is good!
Look at how good Hong Kong was before and now they're by themselves... fucking shit now I say!
British Rule forever!
Britain is good!
Look at how good Hong Kong was before and now they're by themselves... fucking shit now I say!
British Rule forever!