Australian PM: We Should Ditch British Monarchy:

14 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
From AP News Story...


CANBERRA, Australia -- Australia should drop its ties to the British monarchy after Queen Elizabeth II's reign, the prime minister said Tuesday, raising the contentious issue of a republic just days before tightly contested national elections.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, whose center-left Labor Party has long held that the country should dump the British monarch as its head of state and become a republic, said Australians have "deep affection" for Queen Elizabeth II but that she should be Australia's final monarch.

"What I would like to see as prime minister is that we work our way through to an agreement on a model for the republic," Gillard told reporters.

"I think the appropriate time for this nation to move to be a republic is when we see the monarch change.

Obviously I'm hoping for Queen Elizabeth that she lives a long and happy life, and having watched her mother I think there's every chance that she will."

The queen is 84, and her mother lived to age 101.



Many Australians are British immigrants or descendants who feel strong loyalty to Britain and the queen, but younger Australians especially view the idea of a foreign royal being the country's highest power as anachronistic.

The British monarch is formally Australia's head of state, and its representative, the governor general, swears in the government and signs legislation into law.


Australian coins bear the queen's profile. Governing power, however, resides with the elected government.

Many members of the opposition Liberal Party are monarchists, and its leader, Tony Abbot, said he sees no need to change the status quo.

"I think that our existing constitutional arrangements have worked well in the past and I see no reason whatsoever why they can't continue to work well in the future," Abbott told the National Press Club.

"So while there may very well be future episodes of republicanism in this country, I am far from certain - at least in our lifetimes - that there is likely to be any significant change."

Opinion polls indicate Saturday's election may be Australia's closest in decades, and both sides are focussing their campaigns on a handful of districts held by small margins.


The comments by Gillard and Abbott are likely to influence some voters.

Gillard's party wants to replace the governor general with a president. Parliament would retain its power to rule, with the president a largely symbolic figure.

During national debates in the 1990s, the issue divided Australians.

Replacing the monarchy with a president elected by Parliament was voted down in a 1999 referendum.

Some critics accused then-Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch monarchist, of ensuring victory for the "no" side by including the method of the president's election in the question.

Many republicans wanted the president chosen by popular vote instead of by Parliament.
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Gee, I'm sure the british feel the SAME way about their queen. Who knows, maybe denmark does for theirs, and what of sweden.... And CANADA is similar to australia in this respect! What of THEM!?!?!?

    What would it REALLY buy them if they separated? Probably not much. They should worry about REAL problems.

    BTW she is CENTER left!?!?!? Some people these days draw the center REAL far to the left!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Why do I get the feeling that you would have been a supporter of the crown during the American Revolution???

    Am I wrong??


    I always thought the Aussies were an independent people..

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482185].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Why do I get the feeling that you would have been a supporter of the crown during the American Revolution???

      Am I wrong??


      I always thought the Aussies were an independent people..

      TL
      THAT was DIFFERENT! They were taxing the US heavily and wanted to declare the US THEIRS! The US was created to get RID of them!

      TODAY, the queen doesn't seem interested in conquest, etc... TODAY, they are our ALLIES!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482353].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        THAT was DIFFERENT! They were taxing the US heavily and wanted to declare the US THEIRS! The US was created to get RID of them!

        TODAY, the queen doesn't seem interested in conquest, etc... TODAY, they are our ALLIES!

        Steve

        12 colonies were founded by the English and were part of the British Empire.

        New York was founded by the Dutch as New Amsterdam and surrendered it to the English.

        England had just spent a lot of money in the French & Indian War to run the French out of North America - for the colonists and themselves.

        They wanted to recoup the money via taxes.

        The taxes weren't all that heavy or oppressive.

        A leadership group in the colonies simply wanted their own country with their own rules etc. and decided to try to break away from England.

        At the start of the revolt...

        1/3 of the colonists wanted independence, 1/3 want to stay with the crown ( Tories ) and 1/3 didn't really care one way or the other.

        The independents swung heavily in the rebels favor after the Benedict Arnold affair.

        The English were embroiled in a world war with the French and their was no better time to start the revolt.

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482499].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
    Canada's PM is too gutless to take a stand like that. Betty Windsor and her brats have no business calling Canadians subjects. Who's the next Cromwell to rid the world of "royalty"?
    Signature

    “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482201].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Lawrh View Post

      Canada's PM is too gutless to take a stand like that. Betty Windsor and her brats have no business calling Canadians subjects. Who's the next Cromwell to rid the world of "royalty"?
      Aren't they subjects if they're not independent???


      Is Canada in the same position as the Aussies??

      Don't the British have something called a Commonwealth of Nations where many former? conolises still have a monarch - from England.

      What's that about?


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482517].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Don't the British have something called a Commonwealth of Nations where many former? conolises still have a monarch - from England.

        What's that about?
        TL
        The Commonwealth Of Nations (C.O.N. ) is what's left of the former British Empire. It is basically a trading block now, similar to APEC. The queen (note the lower case letters used) is just the "chair" of these gabfests.

        There's also the Commonwealth Games, which is sort of a mini Olympics, which features competitors from C.O.N. members. These start up soon in Dehli, India.

        Back in 1999 when the Republic question was put to a referendum, it was rejected. The result was 55/45 to stay the way we were.

        The model we were offered, as alluded to in TL's post, was to have a Head Of State elected by Parliament. This would mean the government of the day got to fill the position with one of their "mates".

        Had we the people (WTP) been offered a model that allwoed WTP to choose the HOS/President, the result would have been about 70/30 in favour.

        So, WTP decided that, despite how little sense it makes to have the head of the Saxe-Coburg Gotha dynasty as our HOS, the system wasn't broken enough to change it to a model which a minority supported.

        The Republican movement is as much to blame for the status quo being maintained, as John Howard is.

        Eventually we will become a Republic, perhaps even in my lifetime.

        Current Prime Minister (until this Saturday at least) Julia Gillard, has said that the best time to change would be when Liz Saxe-Corburg Gotha shuffles off her mortal coil. The Leader Of The Opposition (until this Saturday at least) Tony Abbott doesn't believe it needs to change at all.

        So, on this issue, we've got a choice between sometime in the future - maybe, or never at all.

        Given how long Liz's mother lasted, that may not be for another 18 to 20 odd years.

        Anyway, given that Australia was one of the only developed nations to avoid a recession during the "meltdown", I guess the system works pretty well, so there are other issues to be concerned with here and now.

        I'd be interested to hear what Canucks and Kiwis think about them becoming Republics, whether their systems work, and whether a change is necessary.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2483798].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tryinhere
    Australia already has enough queens, they roam around the seedy smoke filled city lights like moths on a warm night.
    Signature
    | > Choosing to go off the grid for a while to focus on family, work and life in general. Have a great 2020 < |
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2482539].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    I'm happy to keep things as they are. I don't see the point in spending billions of dollars and years of public and political debate over it when we have many other problems to fix.

    Andrew
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2484635].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gareth
    Yes we should ditch the old boys network
    Signature

    Gareth M Thomas
    Serial Entrepreneur
    Auckland, New Zealand

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2485264].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by gareth View Post

      Yes we should ditch the old boys network
      The interesting thing is that a lot of members aren't that old, and there are women, but I agree, at least in the US!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2485641].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
        There seems some sort of view that being a republic is somehow
        more democratic than other systems including monarchies. This
        is simply untrue as amply evidenced around the world and indeed
        throughout history.

        In the UK, our monarchy is the only thing providing some sort of
        stability and continuity for everyone .... most notably in our
        current situation where we have a totally unelected government
        running riot at a huge cost to the majority of UK citizens.

        In my view this so-called ConDem alliance should be re-named
        as the CONDOM alliance as they are a bunch of dickheads
        likely to split at any time. No good will come of this at all!

        Vive la revolution
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2485829].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    As I understand it, Great Britain is pretty much a monarchy in name only. YEAH she has the overriding vote on some things and all. She can present ideas. But she doesn't really present any sort of burden, etc... HECK, some relatives of hers have found themselves rather poor and apparently aren't provided public assistance.

    Wikipedia says:

    The monarchy of the United Kingdom (commonly referred to as the British monarchy) is the constitutional monarchy of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories. The present monarch, Elizabeth II, has reigned since 6 February 1952. She and her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial and representational duties. As a constitutional monarch, the Queen is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours, dissolving Parliament and appointing the Prime Minister. Though the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, in practice these powers are only used according to laws enacted in Parliament or within the constraints of convention and precedent.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2486419].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author madison_avenue
    This British armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen, they are loyal to her not the Prime Minister. The Queen knows most of the officers personally, most of her family have seen action in many military campaigns, too many to mention, in today's world even Prince Harry, and many others, have seen action in Afghanistan it's seen as their duty.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2487817].message }}

Trending Topics