The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Don’t wait until the Queen dies to become a republic > Comments

Don’t wait until the Queen dies to become a republic : Comments

By Mike Keating and David Donovan, published 5/10/2010

Republicans are used to monarchists manufacturing myths to try to scare people away from a republic.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Again the republic red herring raises its head.
It does not matter at all what Australia calls itself at the end of the day because with Peak oil, global warming and over population, the end of the world as we would think indestructible is approaching.
Usually this pops up when the pollies want to take our attention off the really important matters that need fixing.
What is it this time, the hung government? Abbots total lack of ideas except to object to everything?
Time will tell and we will have been diverted once again.
The boat people issue is a good example. 2 to 3 thousand people arriving by boat, divides the whole nation. The fact that over 300,000 came in legally in 2009 does not matter when this one gets on the news.
Grow up and face the real issues.
Posted by sarnian, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 9:36:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The people of n. reland have a democtaic vote every 3-4 years. They always vote in a massive majority for parties who want to stay aligned to the UK (with a few pockets of republicanism).

Who will replace the Queen....a muslim or Kylie Minogue?

It aint broke, so stop bloody fiddling with it.
Posted by peter piper, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:17:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Northern Ireland, LOL! Well done Point Piper, you won the prize for coming up with the worst ever reason for supporting the monarchy.

Duh!
Posted by davrosz, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:26:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a republic the Queen who is now the sovereign power in our australian constitutional monarchy will be replaced by The Australian People. They will appoint their representative as Head of State in a manner to be determined. (either by direct vote or by parliament) We the people will be the final source of all authority.That's the difference and that the real reason why we should be a republic. You may argue that we are already that, but we are not 'de jure'('in law')the final authority, we are only so 'in effect' and at her majesty's pleasure. We should all reflect upon the real meaning of an Australian Democratic Republic.It will be the making of our nation and we need you all to be engaged in it. Peter Evans
Posted by PeterE33, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:35:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saw the program on the Queen the other day and remarked to my wife that she seemed to be a dim and humourless old bat who after over fifty years in the job couldn't give a speech, or even a toast, without reading it word for word, though I grant her for having stability and regal manner down pat. Wife remarked that you should consider yourself lucky - if the republicans had their way the job would go to someone of the calibre of Mark Latham, Julia Gillard, or Tony Abbott.

Those who can look on all the issues facing us and decide that a republic is top of the list mystify me.

In practice of course the Queen does not have any input into the administration of government. The argument for a republic is as a matter of symbolism. But while ever the Constitution is contained within an ordinary statute of the British Parliament, all the amendments in the world won’t achieve the symbolic purpose, because the Constitution itself will continue to take its legal origin, and its moral authority, from the British legislature including the Crown.

This means that to achieve the symbolic purpose you would need to create a new Constitution for a new polity. So you’d need a Declaration of Independence, and a new Constitution.

Good luck with that, you’re gonna need it.

It would be more to the point to figure out how we can reduce the influence of politicians in our life, not increase it.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:45:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Value of the Monarchy is that it withholds power. No one poly in Australia can claim ultimate power. The allegiance of the Army and Police is to a powerless entity. The result is no take-over by one person or group.
Imagine President Keating or President Howard without limit? We need a mythical power to withhold power from mere mortals.
We could inves ultimate mystical power in the Black Stump to replace the Queen, but we must have it in some form of withholding ultimate power from one individual. If we don't then there is a soft underbelly in our society open to abuse.
Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 11:14:25 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Predictably the timid nay-sayers and their fellow travellers are out in force say how unimportant and irrelevant it is to be a proud and committed Australian.

Surely it's at least a bit embarrassing that the British Royals wish we would go away. But no, the servile monachists don't think they're good enough to run their own lives: they must depend on mummy's apron strings.

This article states facts as they are. I want an Australian head of state - not some jaded potentate from a faded empire.
Posted by LRAM, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 11:25:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of these blokes is an old soldier. They're usually pretty genuine blokes, but a smart [I almost said good, silly me] lawyer usually makes mince meat of this type. The other bloke's a lawyer, & they're the only lot with anything to gain by any change in our constitution.

Going republic would lead to 20 years of high court challenges, highly profitable to the legal profession. It'll cost the rest of us billions.

Then don't forget those judges. They are, after all, more of the legal profession, & many of them have become activists these days. Most of them seem to be more interested in rewriting the law, than interpreting it.

So watch out people. Don't fall for this emotive claptrap, peasants like you & me can only loose if we allow the elite to conn us into giving them the keys to the law cupboard. What they will leave will be nothing like what they appear to be offering.

The old one, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" was never more true
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 11:47:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why wait until the end of the Queen's reign before Australia becomes a republic? This should be a matter of principle rather than personality.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is in her present position because:-
(i) she was born in the right bed and had the required German blood, that of the very late Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover;
(ii) she is a member of the Church of England and is not married to a Catholic. Catholics are "not to be trusted" or as the Bill of Rights 1688 says "it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this
protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist (i.e. Catholic). This is the only instance in the western civilised world where sectarian bigotry is condoned and enforceable by statute law;
(iii) Her father and mother did not produce a male child. If they had, even if he was the last born, he would have become king of the
United Kingdom (and hence Australia). Gender prejudice of this type is unacceptable in 21st century Australia. The second class status of women is a thing of the past in our culture. And rightly so!

If there is any virtue in constitutional monarchy it has failed. It failed abysmally during the constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975 when her representative sacked the democratically elected government. It failed abysmally in Grenada in 1983 when the USA invaded a country which was a member of the Commonwealth of Nations of which the Queen is head. It failed abysmally in Fiji, of which the Queen was head of state, in 1987 when Colonel Rabuka led a military coup.

In all those instances the Queen did............nothing!

During virtually all of her reign the not-so-United Kingdom has been blighted by a civil war during which more than 3,600 of Her Majesty's subjects have been slaughtered in religious strife at the very heart of which is a monarchy based on vicious sectarian prejudice.

Australia deserves better than this. Principles should take precedence over personality. An Australian republic should be a matter of constitutional and political priority.
Posted by Roy McKeen, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 12:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When Malcolm gets to be leader, the queen had better dy, or else we will have to go it alone.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 12:35:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I know is that America is a Republic and I certainly don't want to live in a country like that. I mean George Bush was its President and the Village Idiot of world politics at the same time. And Obomber has taken over where Bush left off!

The Republic of America is also the world's principal warmonger and spends trillions of dollars on arms while it's people (1 in 7) live in poverty. It also carries out torture, rendition, uses DU, cluster bombs, drones, etc.

No, no republic for me, thanks!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 1:22:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know what that lot has got to do with a republic. It's not the republic bit it's the constitution. Everyone can have a gun senerio, written for cowboys and they still are.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 1:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very good point from Peter Hume, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:45:59 AM: If the 1999 referendum had been carried, we would have cut our ties to the British Crown, but our Constitution would still have been contained in an Act of the UK Parliament. Not illegal, but a little bizarre. But Peter is far too pessimistic about fixing this problem. "Repatriating" our Constitution would be quite simple: it would just require a democratic vote by the people, double majority under section 128 and all that, to insert an Introduction declaring the sovereignty of the Australian people and stating that we now take control of our own Constitution as a standalone document. If you want to call this a Declaration of Independence, that's fine, but it's not necessary.

As for Hasbeen, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 11:47:58 AM, any talk of "20 years of High Court challenges" is just ridiculous. Unlike many other constitutions, with ours the people have the final say, under section 128. A democratically ratified constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional, by definition. There is simply no room for the High Court to overrule the manifest will of the people, and anybody who's worried about judges "rewriting the law" should be a staunch constitutional republican. We have the power - let's use it.
Posted by RossG, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 2:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Show me a model and I will give a thumbs up or down.
GET such a good model into the debate and I will support the republic.

I don't think we really have much to talk about for the Republic as it stands now;
It insists on petty symbolism and is surprised when nobody cares because there is something more important to focus on (which is practically every issue besides).

Our system of government (the Westminster System) replies on petty, useless figureheads to hold the balance of power, and partly out of a refusal by that system to actually be more democratic.

As such, we have a push to replace a useless figurehead role in a rather flimsy system with another person (to ensure no collapse) by the majority of Republicans, with only a few Republic enthusiasts (Ted Mack again) actually trying to conceive a better system of government- only achieving to terrify the remaining republicans and monarchists alike because beyond cosmetics, they are simply afraid of change.

It's sad, because a Republic DOES have great power to drastically improve our country and constitution- if only anyone bearing the main torch could be bothered.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 5:57:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia as a republic? Oh no! Are we to be wrenched away from the British monarchy? God forbid! We are unintelligent, weak and have no pride as Australians, how on earth do these republican enthusiast except us to stand free on our own feet? Pride is an undesirable attribute, any way. Pride is what the Americans, French, Germans, Russians, Indians, Chinese, etal value. The mess these people are in!!

We are loyal; we still cling to our distant past and are hard wired as subordinates to this German blood-line called the Windsors. We can’t afford to break away from the memory of colonialism. As a bogan, I have xenophobic fears as well; look at the hordes of boat-people invading our shores, the terrorist lurking in our midst, the Muslims waiting to ambush Christianity, the possibility of ‘land-claims’ by the natives of this land, and worst of all, we are surrounded by Asia. At least the Queen can wave her wand and keep these pests away from our shores. This thought is so comforting and reassuring. Why in heaven’s name do we need to become a republic?

We know that Britain doesn’t want us, but we are so desperately needy of the British Queen, that British sentiments shouldn’t matter. It feels good to be subservient, to drool over the British monarchy and its off-springs. The cheek and audacity of some (Paul Keating, Peter Costello, Mal Turnbull and the authors of this article) to re-ignite the republican debate again, when Johnny Howard so cunningly and craftily killed it (republicanism) through a convoluted and deceptive referendum. This is yet another example that illustrates how unintelligent, weak, subservient and fearful we are and how easily we are fooled into believing that ‘change is an evil pursuit’. Australia as a republic? No way!! We are unworthy of this thought for we are a people who are unable to ‘move forward’ from our past. Long live this British penal colony!!
Posted by Jolly, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 9:19:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly Jolly the likes of Turnbull and Keating are just as much a reason we are not a republic- their sheer pettiness and domineering refused to acknowledge some vastly superior models and attitudes towards a republic than their own models (which would retain Australian politics as the low-accountability, stratified system we currently have).

Again, all in all Australians concerned of this issue are divided along these lines (both of which overlap Republican and Monarchist).

1- people that don't like change, and thus don't want a Republic- or otherwise, a minimalist model- most of these people are ultimately monarchists, and would not tolerate any Republic model that is actually substantial.

2- People that would only support a Republic if there was a lot of significant, and more importantly practical and beneficial change. A symbolic, minimalist republic will simply not do. Most likely a majority.

As a result, this issue will never get off the ground until people start taking the implications behind it more seriously.

The minimalists will sabotage any attempt to make a better republic than their own, and nobody else will bother changing the constitution just to nurture in a symbolic camel.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 9:49:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hazza, (not my King) your concern about ‘models’ is exactly what Howard and Minchin did at the last referendum, ie. confuse bogans (like me) with highly technical and contesting models of republic and thus it was easy to say “No mate, I want no change”. The referendum should be about YES or NO for a republic, period! Consensus of an Australian Republic first, models later. Putting the cart before the horse scares the s... out of simpletons (like me). A consensus re. the appropriate model may take time, but that is to be expected, anyway, since comparisons (models) also entail a high degree of subjectivity and personal preferences reflecting values and beliefs.

And why can’t Keating have an opinion re. the type of model he deemed desirable? He was the first (and probably only) politician to have the guts and vision to articulate the speech (‘The Australian Republic’- June 7, 1995) that started the republican debate in Australia. Turnbull, what a man! We, in Australia, want leaders to be meek, humble, soft, and kiss babies!! ‘Confidence’ is often mistaken for “arrogance” and ‘conviction’ for “domineering”. Keating and Turnbull have the chutzpah that is so lacking in our current leadership, the latter just self-seeking, polls driven wimps! Fit to lead a colony (not a nation).

But Hazza, lets continue to enjoy our obsession with the monarchy. Imagine the laughs we would otherwise miss out; Charles (our future King) wanting to be a “tampon”, Prince Phillip calling the Chinese “slit-eyed”, Andrew …Fergi … ssshhh ….. enough, lest we are seen as being ‘disrespectful’. We must remind ourselves that, as Aussies, we need to be humble, meek and self-doubting. Our destiny simply cannot be in our hands, to assume otherwise is sheer arrogance. Reason enough to keep the monarchy. Hail monarchy!
Posted by Jolly, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 12:00:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee, you can pick them Jolly, can't you?

To start with I have never experienced this desire you seem to have, to be led by anyone. I'm quite capable of making my own decisions, thank you.

Then your chosen "leaders", wow.

You start with Keating. That bloke never did anything for any ordinary Ozzie, except lead them up a dark alley, the better to rip their hard earned off them. He's the one, who after years of pulling on the leavers gave us the recession we could have done without.

Then the bludger didn't even apologize. Not what you could expect of your great leader

Then Turnbull. I'm not sure about him. Is he a dumb fool, who has fallen for the global warming con? Perhaps he is a reasonably smart conman, who is only using the con to try to achieve something for a chosen few.

Whatever it is, he is certainly lacking any attributes you would look for, if you were someone who required a leader.

At Least with the silly redhead there is a reasonable chance she will run scared of the opinion polls, & won't pass too many fool laws, unless a large chunk of the population want them. That is a bit of a worry though, when we have people dumb enough to think Keating was a good leader
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 1:26:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When will the Winsdors stop reigning over us? My guess is when King Charles puts his foot in it. No sooner under Gillard and perhaps never under Abbott.

We have reactive politicians in the major parties in this country, who are led by media magnates who employ news and current affairs editors looking for the off-beat story that may, by chance, end up driving some form of shallow, ill-considered, minimalist constitutional change that preserves the status quo interests of those who run this country.

It's all a sad reflection of our lack lustre political culture. Our 'leaders' are afraid to lay out bold visions and strategic plans before us. Any excuse will be given to avoid the overdue root and branch reforms needed for good governance in Australia.

Unless we change all the current power relationships, including moving from a monarchy to a directly elected head of state with full Presidential powers, and a constitutional role for empowered local communities while simultaneously eliminating wasteful and unneccessary state governments, then we stand no chance in realising the opportunity of achieving a massive boost to our national productivity and quality of life that can benefit the next 10 generations.
Posted by Quick response, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:50:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolly you're a moron;
-First, I'm not a monarchist, retard. I'm a republican for the sole reason of introducing a better political system. I would, however, join most of the other Republicans (as indicated last Referendum) in rejecting a model that fails to do so. In other words, I fit neatly into the second category of Republican I just described.

-Second, yes, Keating and Turnbull- what guys- Keating overturned Hilali's deportation for inciting hatred against Jews, in order to win the vote of the anti-semetic wahabis in Lakemba. Turnbull, has several times as Environment Minister, been caught committing tax frauds and dishonestly using his position for personal gain. Both men lie about their opponents (including other Republicans they don't like)- and create false spin just like Howard does, and both men are EXACTLY the same as John Howard- the only difference is Howard is a dweeb who can't put on a good show of pretending to be a larrikin for the audiences.

-Oh and who was it that refused to allow other models be put into the referendum (or a generalized plebiscite like your described) in 1999 and endorsed the decision to place the model we got instead- oh yes, MALCOLM TURNBULL.

Nice choice of heroes, Jolly- I suggest you try a little harder to do some research yourself next time, because you're still showing yourself to be a confused, manipulatable bogan who takes the word of some crooked man like Howard, Turnbull or Keating as fact.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:53:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems that neither the ARM nor Ozns generally can face the truth. As Prof McGorry clearly enunciated in his insightful ARM 2010 lecture, Ozns are not yet mature enough for independence. In reality, Oz is not yet a nation. This requires a *decisive* act of self-determination by the citizenry, a la 1776 in America or 1965 in Singapore. The Commonwealth of Oz was enacted by fiat of the British Govt; Ozns then congratulated themselves on their cleverness and got drunk to celebrate it.

IMHO, the Republican model is quite inappropriate for Oz, even though political and financial independence is rapidly becoming essential for survival, along with a new set of representatives. The perennially-grinning idiots on the daily news make me squirm with embarrassment.
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 7 October 2010 8:40:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Comrade Hazza
At least I am a self-claimed bogan with a desire for a republic Australia. You are apparently for the republicans yet shamefully cling to 'King'ship (King Hazza, it seems!!). Hee ...heee...heee... you must be really OLD. Shame .. shame on ya ... where has yar manners gone, mate? ... name calling just because my views are different from yours. Give me Keating & Turnbull any time!!
Posted by Jolly, Thursday, 7 October 2010 7:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Jolly but catching you out on such blatantly ignorant and unfounded presumptions, (not to mention incorrect) about whether someone is a monarchist, and being stupid enough to think Keating and Turnbull are great people just because they pretend to care about a popular issue to raise their personal profile, in my opinion, warrants additional put-downs by me.
Sorry you don't like it.

And no, I'm not "really old" either.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 8 October 2010 12:10:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The single 'good' thing about the Governor General's position is it is -nominally- apolitical.
An Australian President should be:
-popularly elected (not a rubber stamp, or tool of parliament
-have a strictly defined mandate with no say in Government policy; IOW be apolitical.
I would/have suggested that mandate should be to protect minorities (done to a minority of one) from the tyranny of majority rule. This means he/she should be in charge of Legal Aid (to ensure everyone actually is 'equal before the Law' regardless of how much money they can throw at 'Justice'); of so called 'Crown' commissions and enquiries, and be the head of all Ombudsmen.
That mandate should include all Australian citizens, including children, the armed forces and Aboriginals. Indeed, I think it should include the individual rights of Australians yet to be born.
Democratic Governments must always be the servant of the people, not the master. They must never have the right to punish innocent citizens with unfair laws.
It is inevitable and unavoidable that some people be disadvantaged by the will of the majority. On these occasions, such people should have the right to just and fair compensation, and not just be told “Tough luck”.
Such a President would be elected, not for their policies or promises (to lobby groups) but for their reputation for fairness, dedication to community service and incorruptibility.
That should make for a very cheap campaign, and truly put the role of President within the reasonable ambitions of the maximum number of Australians.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 10 October 2010 8:15:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think also that I would have to reject outright any model that has a president that is any one- or more- of the following;

1- not elected (not democratic)

2- lacks an active participatory function in governance beyond rubber stamping (useless)

3- inhibits, rather than enhances the democratic power of the public (by holding powers to force personal input- the alternative is that the president has the power to force PUBLIC input by referendum).

4- has some binding obligations to act in the public interest (instead of sit on his arse until he really can't afford NOT to do something- like the GG does).

5- has any binding obligation to adhere to any standards beyond the Australian constitution and the will of the Australian people.

6- Has authority to override Indigenous rights, or for that matter, Australian voting rights, rights not to be conscripted, and of course referenda.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 10 October 2010 5:07:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim suggests that the mandate of a new Australian President should include the following:

1. "to protect minorities (down to a minority of one) from the tyranny of majority rule."
2. "be in charge of Legal Aid"
3. "to ensure everyone actually is 'equal before the Law'"
4. be in charge "of so called 'Crown' commissions and enquiries"
5. "be the head of all Ombudsmen."
6. the resulting oversight and responsibilities "should include all Australian citizens, including children, the armed forces and Aboriginals."
7. and, to make sure that he/she doesn't slack off on the job, "should include the individual rights of Australians yet to be born."

And this truly remarkable set of responsibilities is to be "within the reasonable ambitions of the maximum number of Australians" - presumably, the majority. So the beer-swilling yobbos whose weekends are now taken up with football, parties, and the occasional fishing trip are now to apply for a job in the expectation of fulfilling the above duties, and without transgressing the further guidelines imposed by King Hazza.

All of which goes to prove the main point of Professor McGorry's 2010 Republican lecture - that Australians are too immature (not to mention stupid) to form an independent nation. No one in their right mind would honestly undertake to fulfil the above wish-list. You fellows are out of your trees in Lala Land.
Posted by Beelzebub, Monday, 11 October 2010 7:38:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beezelbub you may need to get a pair of reading glasses and check our two points again, because all my "further" points rather disagree with those outlined by Grim; so being near polar opposites in our points, how can we both be wrong beyond not considering the status quo?

Also, considering our points are actually, you know, practical; so far you have not contributed a single idea.

On another note, if you are getting at the idea of compulsory referenda participation; We could always (seeing as we are changing the constitution) always make referenda participation voluntary- just like in Europe.

It is attitudes that are frightened of practical change (mostly in the ARM) that will prevent us from becoming a republic- as is an obsession with symbolic leadership; so your departing point about Australians not being mature enough for one may be correct after all.
And quite frankly, with too few people knowledgable about how other democratic systems work beyond a tiny bit of vague knowledge of Australia and America, I don't think we should be talking a Republic at all until more people with an interest in this issue get off their backsides and do some homework.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 11 October 2010 9:32:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First up, Your Majesty, IMHO, a republican model is quite unsuitable for Australia. An elected President automatically becomes a sort of deified father-figure Who Can Do No Wrong. Proof of this was patent in the adulation of Americans for an inebriated half-wit like George W. Bush. A parliamentary nominee, by contrast, would be nothing more than a puppet. I'm not sure if there's a valid historical model for what I'd like to see, and given how far modern society has diverged from anything in the past, I doubt that past social models have much more than general relevance.

The first point that should be clearly recognized in any such discusion is that governments worldwide are no longer supreme national authorities; that role is now exercized - quietly, clandestinely, but very ruthlessly - but the TransNational Corporations and the International Banks. No country will admit this publicly, of course, but Rudd's ouster by international mining interests leaves no doubt in my mind (and that of many others) as to who really controls Australia's destiny. In this situation, exchanging a GG for a president is like a drag queen changing costumes, but even less edifying. See:

http://www.thecorporation.com

The second point is that most Ozns are completely unaware of many crucial facts, such as that Qld, for example, has not been a legal part of the Commonwealth of Australia since 15 July 2001, when under The Corporations Act 1990, and using the Reprints Act that allows Qld pollies to change laws simply by reprinting a new version of them, Qld was recreated as a Corporate Government known as the Brigalow Corporation. If you're not up to speed on this, visit this site, browse the material, and critique it if you can:

http://www.abpac-australia.net/
Posted by Beelzebub, Monday, 11 October 2010 10:12:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From this can clearly be seen, not only that Oz pollies are working against the best interests of the nation (as has long been traditional), but HOW they are doing so. Given this reality (and it's a most uncomfortable one), it's obvious that any remedial action has to proceed in stages. The first stage CANNOT be political, for the simple reason you'd be beaten before you started. It needs to arise from those few in society who are capable of mature, reasoned discourse about controversial matters, and from the detached perspective of the longer-term greater good, things that politicians cannot achieve, nor many others. Just what such a gathering would be, I'm not sure; the only phrase that comes to mind is a Council of Elders - a convocation of mature, respected, and experienced people whose ideas and intentions have gone beyond the adversarial puerility of modern politics, and could undertake the role that the Senate has so manifestly failed to fulfil.

The first stage in solving any problem is an accurate statement of it. As obvious as it sounds, it's far more common to find people racing around after solutions without knowing what it is they're trying to achieve. Once some sort of consensus had been reached as to what the real the problems are, solutions can be mooted. Having declared my two cents' worth, may I ask how much taxation Your Majesty requires me to contribute to your coffers in recompense?
Posted by Beelzebub, Monday, 11 October 2010 10:13:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beelzebub, congratulations on a remarkably un-insightful post.
All of these "truly remarkable (set of) responsibilities" currently exist; including consideration for Australians yet to be born. They are currently under the control of the PM and her relevant Ministers.
How well/thoroughly/badly they are addressed is therefore currently a matter of policy; of whichever flavour Government presides.
I might also suggest you Google the word 'ambition', since you don't seem to understand it. the relevant sentence in my previous post read:
"Such a President would be elected, not for their policies or promises (to lobby groups) but for their **reputation for fairness, dedication to community service and incorruptibility.**"
But by all means, vote for a 'beer swilling yobbo' if you wish.
The point of a popularly elected but apolitical President is that the only promise he/she can make is to perform the duties specified; nothing else. The only way the electorate can judge whether the candidate is up to the task is through past performance; a dedication to causes apart from their own betterment.
People such as Ian Kiernan or Noel Pearson come to mind.
Hazza, I found your last post equally perplexing; I pretty much agree with all your points.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 11 October 2010 10:26:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Head of State - The Thread that Binds the Fabric’.

The position should be The Conduit–The Trinity between The Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary. Together with the States

The position should remain known as Governor General so as to maintain the status quo and thus eliminating any false misunderstanding that the Head of State (or ‘President’) usurps the Executive Government.

The Commonwealth would call for nominations for this position, through Local Government Councils, 120 days or more prior to a General Election.

The candidates to be put to the people should be Australian Citizens aged between 39 and 69 years of age as at the date of nomination. A candidate will not be a current or an immediate past member of any parliament in Australia.
A final list of up to five candidates, for election, could be chosen as follows;
Candidates for election to position of Governor General may be nominated by any registered voter residing in any Local Council area. Each Local Council will call for the nomination of any citizen residing in any Local council area. The nomination should be in writing on a prescribed form, the completed form to be submitted to the Local Council via mail/web site or deposited in a ballot box at the Local Council premises by due date. The voters name would be marked off the roll, electronically, on receipt of a nomination.

The elected members of each Local Government Council should vote, by secret ballot and elect up to five candidates from a list of up to ten nominees receiving the greatest number of nominations received from the voters, this count of postal and deposited votes to be conduced by the Local Council’s returning officer.

These nominated candidates, from each Local Council, to be forwarded to the State and Territory Electoral Commission to construct a list of up to twenty nominees from those candidates receiving the highest number of nominations received, for each State or Territory Parliament to vote upon.

(continued
Posted by JMCC, Monday, 11 October 2010 10:50:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Each State/Territory parliament, in a joint sitting (if two houses exist), of each State, Territory would then vote, by secret ballot, for up to ten candidates from the lists of nominees constructed from the Local Councils returning officers by the State, Territory Electoral Commissions.

(Alternatively:

A joint house standing committee be formed in the second year of the parliament would canvas the citizens from approbate levels of society, viz; legal, military, indigenous, business, academic but not current or immediate past politician. They would create a list of ten nominees (in camera) and prepared for the commonwealth electoral commission.
This may not be conceded political appointments by the general public.)

Then;

This final list would be forwarded to the Commonwealth Electoral Commission who would formerly invite each nominee, in camera, to stand and have them accept or reject the nomination in writing on a prescribed document and within the prescribed time frame.

Should a nominee reject their nomination the next nominee receiving the greatest number of votes would be added to the final list of five (and so on).

A joint sitting of both houses of the Commonwealth plus the Premier or Chief minister of each State, Territory would vote.

This secret ballot, for five candidates, from the list constructed by the electoral commission of up to ten candidates gaining the highest number of nominations nationally, these five candidates, voted on by this meeting, will be put to the people for election.

At this stage of the process the final list of five nominees will be published, at the same time as writs are issued for the upcoming election, in the public notices of the local and or national press.

At no point during this process should the nominee or any nominator be permitted, by law, to promote the nominee by way of positive media comment or paid advertising
Posted by JMCC, Monday, 11 October 2010 10:51:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to JMCC who wrote:
A candidate will not be a current or an immediate past member of any parliament in Australia.

I disagree with the philosophy of barring any Australian from aspiring to become head of state. Barring past or present politicians
is akin to the same type of discrimination which exists within the current laws of succession to the British (and hence Australian) throne. These laws state that:-
(i) the monarch must carry the blood of the late Sophia, Electress of Hanover;
(ii) the monarch must be a member of the Church of England. This debars Presbyterians, Methodists, Salvationists, Jews, Muslims, Seventh Day Adventists and so on ad nauseam;
(iii)members of the Catholic faith may not become monarch nor may the monarch marry a Catholic because "it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist."
(iv) a younger male child takes precedence over an older female i.e. primogeniture. Thus, if King George VI and Queen Elizabeth had had a son after Princess Margaret was born he would have been king.

This type of sectarian bigotry and gender prejudice might have been acceptable in 17th century England but not in 21st century Australia.
It is disgusting in this modern age that we still have a monarchy which is based on such hatred and prejudice. It is time to move on.

Therefore, the position of head of state of Australia should be open to any Australian over, say, twenty one years of age,irrespective of religion, gender, marital status,sexual orientation, occupation either past or present. Yes! Even a politician
Posted by Roy McKeen, Monday, 11 October 2010 12:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about used car salesmen?
Posted by Grim, Monday, 11 October 2010 1:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> But by all means, vote for a 'beer swilling yobbo' if you wish.

My point, Grim, is that people with the reputation you require scarce. Add to this the requirement for broad experience and knowledge of legal matters (unless you regard ignorance and incompetence as desirable qualifications), the ability to engage in meaningful and authoritative dialogue with the military, Aboriginals, all Ozns including the unborn, and willing to avow fulfilment of his responsibilities "with no say in Government policy", and you have either a saint (in very short supply), a moron (very plentiful) or a scheming liar (ditto). Would YOU undertake such a task? Come now, be honest ...

> All of these "truly remarkable (set of) responsibilities" currently exist
> ... under the control of the PM and her relevant Ministers.

The plural (i.e. "PM and her relevant Ministers") may have escaped your attention. Perhaps if the President were multiply schizoid ...

> How ... they are addressed is therefore currently a matter of policy

The policy is always to promise the unattainable. The spin is to claim that it has been delivered. The reality is that no-one (least of all those making the promises and claims) believes any of it.

> I might also suggest you Google the word 'ambition' ...

So Presidential candidates are to arouse and avow a burning ambition to achieve what no sane person would believe possible? This clearly demonstrates either delusion or dissimulation. Surely we already have a surplus of such moral reprobates in office?

> The point of a popularly elected but apolitical President is that the only
> promise he/she can make is to perform the duties specified; nothing else.

And as I've said, no sane, honest person would make such a promise; unless they live in Lala Land.
Posted by Beelzebub, Monday, 11 October 2010 1:43:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roy; I attach cover notes from my 'Paper' on this matter:

5. The title ‘Governor General’ will not infer the position is above the
Parliament and maintains the current position, most people wrongly think the Governor General is indeed our ‘Head of State’

6. Why the age range of 39-69 years? A person attaining the age of 39
Would be conceded to have attained the life skills to handle the position.

Also at 39 the incumbent would be able to hold the position for four terms of parliament – 16 years – while still been able to nominate for a further 16 years. Likewise a person of 69 years could still serve 16 years if desirable.

In addition the position should be of an extended period to cement a feeling of stability as the Head of State, beyond the normal electoral cycle. A monarchical figure; seen as an elder ‘Statesperson’; a person to admire; an ‘A-political’ person.

7. In general terms I understand the general public do not want a current ‘Politician’ or one who resigns from the Parliament to nominate for the position. Or even to be seen as been nominated by other politicians as a prize after retiring from any immediate past parliament. After the time frame of two parliaments a past politician could nominate so that icons of Australian life; the likes of Gough Whitlam, Jennie George, Nick Greiner, Natasha Scott-Despoja, Tim Fisher, Malcolm Fraser,
Bob Hawke, Bob Carr, Julie Bishop, John Howard, Kim Beazley,
Paul Keating, John Hewson or Meg Lees could still aspire to serve
Australia should they so desire.
Posted by JMCC, Monday, 11 October 2010 3:11:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Grief.
Beelzebub, please tell me you're kidding.
"The plural (i.e. "PM and her relevant Ministers") may have escaped your attention. Perhaps if the President were multiply schizoid ..."
Not only does the 'set of remarkable responsibilities' already exist; not only does the PM and her ministers already exist, but the Ministers departments already exist, as do the public servants who work in those departments.
I'm typing as slowly as I can. I do hope it helps.
When I wrote that the President should be in charge of Legal aid, I didn't mean to imply that he/she should personally represent all the impoverished clients in court personally. I didn't mean when I wrote that the Pres., should be in charge of all Ombudsmen that he/she should BE all ombudsmen.
In short, I don't imagine a President being a lonely bloke perched all by himself on a stump somewhere.
Although all changes in bureaucracy inevitably result in a larger bureaucracy (strangely) all I'm suggesting is the relevant departments work for an apolitical President, in front of whom 'the buck stops'.
What we (still, desperately) need, is someone to 'keep the bastards honest'.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 11 October 2010 7:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou Grim

Beelzebub
"I'm not sure; the only phrase that comes to mind is a Council of Elders - a convocation of mature, respected, and experienced people whose ideas and intentions have gone beyond the adversarial puerility of modern politics, and could undertake the role that the Senate has so manifestly failed to fulfil."
How are these people put in government?

That aside, Beelzebub your entire definition of a government is entirely stuck in a definition of a stratified system with an all-powerful ruler/house of rulers; the possibility of constitunionally-dominant governance by the voting public directly, has clearly eluded you- despite being in practice in some Republics already in existence.

A Republic can be absolutely anything (except a true monarchy), you are only comparing the USA and Plato's Republics.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 12:00:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> the relevant departments ... 'the buck stops'.

OK, so the buck has stopped, it's landed on the President's desk; what then? Of course I don't imagine that he would be 'all Ombudsmen', but he must have their respect and loyalty if he's to be an effective leader. Such respect is never gained by mere election, only by relevant professional competence. The role of ombudsman is inevitably one of the most legally contentious and conflicted, so considerable expertise and a proven track record are essential. A president without such experience could neither advise, consult, oversee nor judge in such matters. What, therefore, is his role and purpose?

> Not only does ... departments.

I did not dispute this. What I am questioning is the ability of a single individual to possess both the appropriate personality and character traits, AND the knowledge and experience needed to arbitrate in matters so diverse as military matters and indigenous affairs. Using your example, I would not dispute Noel Pearson's ability to debate Aboriginal interests, but doubt his ability to gain any professional respect from military men. It is why we have such a plurality and plethora of organizations and individuals, as regrettable as this might be. It's all very well to dream up the ideal 'national father figure' who can right all wrongs, but you'll have the dickens of a job finding him (or her), at least until the Second Coming.

> What ... 'keep the bastards honest'.

SomeONE can never do that. Even a dedicated group would have difficulty. The root of the problem lies in the attitudes and expectations of the general public, hence Prof McGorry's call for national maturity. Electing the Wonder Boy as President may appeal as a quick fix, but is unlikely ever to happen. Changing public attitudes is a slow, difficult, uncertain process, but ultimately the only lasting solution.

> I'm typing as slowly as I can. I do hope it helps.

Funny, no. Your ideas still seem absurdly impractical to me. Perhaps if you changed to a typewriter ...
Posted by Beelzebub, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:51:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> the possibility of constitunionally-dominant governance by the voting public directly, has clearly eluded you

No, Your Majesty, I'm aware of the theory, and having spent the best years of my life in Singapore I'm also aware of the possibility of its practical realization, even if only partially. I never mentioned Plato, and the US only in passing. I'm also aware of the etymology of the term in 'res publica', which is precisely why I'm criticizing the attempt to define the role of a single 'Mr Fixit' (see posts by JMCC and Grim). It's the 'publica' who should occupy more of the discussion.

> How are these people put in government?

And if you'd taken the time to actually read my previous post (an unwarranted civility, I'm sure you'll say) you'll notice my emphasis in 'The first stage CANNOT be political'. These people must elect themselves, NOT (please note emphasis) to govern, but to discuss, debate, and decide. The next step would then be to open a dialogue with those elected to govern, and with a view to establishing a process of consultation and public debate. Sorry if this is all getting a bit too complicated. I know that Ozns much prefer the quick fix.
Posted by Beelzebub, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:55:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Beelzebub that was precisely what I assumed you were implying- a body of "experts" that somehow elects itself, with an en-defined role to which their 'discuss, debate and decide' actually affects government.

-Which corresponds closely to Plato's hierarchy of a republic, and your only alternative is a US-democracy style of an elected all-powerful sovereign;

Neither of which corresponds remotely to what I have actually been talking about, and unfortunately, I get the impression you haven't actually noticed.

Too complicated indeed.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:50:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nah!

A republic is just an excuse for Type 'A' personalities to widen $THEIR$ gap between RICH and poor.

That ain't no myth!

Look at Barangaroo. Some republicky ex polititians have got their grubby mits all over public property even while we live in this purely token monarchism.

Why put any label at all on our basic politic0-economic system. What we really want is to narrow the rich V POOR gap and let the rest of the world know we are truly a DEMOCRACY and not just a pretend one run by a bunch of shifty pr$cks always trying to legislate more available women, crappy AFL style circuses, Beer and basically get one up on their fellow countrymen.

Meanwhile republican IMMIGRATIONISM is turning our cities violent, crowded, gridlocked and unresponsive. Pro-republicans ignore this reality and declare immigrants are a perfect 'NATION BUILDING' tool. Hellooo! Immigrants and costing us a fortune in electricity bills alone to pay for new power stations to serve THEM, not US.

Republicans would Nation Build current Australians into early graves to make way for THEIR kind of foreign voters, friends & relations. They savour our demise & make the incessant Labor & Liberal immigrant sell-out of Australian citizens look like the Mickey Mouse Club.

But based on the naked violence in our cities, Beware REVOLUTION! Civilisation as portrayed by Naive Federal polititions and 'la la land' feminists is SUCH a thin veneer.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 12:26:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> a body of "experts" that somehow elects itself
No, not experts - there's never been an Oz republic so there are none in this field - and the 'somehow' is personal commitment and a sense of personal responsibility - the 'maturity' that McGorry is calling for. It may surprize you to know that some of us are already doing this, and with practical results, such as a database of info that can be used as the basis for legislative drafts and challenges.

> with an en-defined role to which their 'discuss, debate and decide' actually affects government.
Not sure what this means. 'en-defined'?

> your only alternative is a US-democracy style of an elected all-powerful sovereign;
Why 'only'? You said yourself that a republic can be almost anything except a monarchy.

> Neither of which corresponds remotely to what I have actually been talking about,
> and unfortunately, I get the impression you haven't actually noticed.
Well, I've looked back over your posts on this thread, and can see a number of relevant comments - "a Republic DOES have great power to drastically improve our country - "the low-accountability, stratified system we currently have" - "all Australians concerned of this issue are divided along these lines" - "this issue will never get off the ground until people start taking the implications behind it more seriously."

I'm new here, you've obviously been around for a while, and may have posted constructive material elsewhere, but there's nothing definitive or constructive in what I've seen. Have you documented your idea of what a republic should be? If too long for a post, do you have a website or other reference? What is the first step you'd take in implementing it?
Posted by Beelzebub, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 4:17:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The body of wise men who are unelected raises many questions- how do they, specifically, if not elected, get into power? Who decides that they are in fact, wise? What actual input or power over the rest of our governance would they have? These are the questions I am asking.

The system I am endorsing- both clearly in this thread and others, is a Republic where the arrangement of power results in political influence relinquished by politicians and passed onto the people directly in form of referenda, somewhat similar to the Swiss Republican Model; where politicians' power is much more limited outright and the discussion of which role gets which powers becomes moot.

My system factors as many situations as possible where an issue may be stripped from the politician's hands and into the publics (you will notice that I stated I did not endorse intervening powers by the presidential body to change policy- but instead to pass it onto the electorate).

You however went on to talk about what the president would do or imply, suggesting a perception of the oligarchical presidential system.
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 10:02:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> how do they, specifically, if not elected, get into power?
I have no idea. Personally, were I one of them, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in 'getting into power'. One point of my previous posts is the simple fact that different individuals have very different characters, personalities and ambitions. Certainly, I'd like more say in the direction this country is taking, but so would everyone else. Some will be prepared to live the media-intensive life that public recognition requires. I wouldn't. Like I said, this is completely new territory, there are no rules, and to assume that past or existing rules apply is just that - an assumption.

> Who decides that they are in fact, wise?
At the end of the day, results and posterity will judge and decide.

> What actual input or power over the rest of our governance would they have?
That's for them to discuss, debate, and decide.

> These are the questions I am asking.
Appreciate the interest; hope my answers, though terse, indicate the direction of my thoughts in the matter.

> The system I am endorsing ... results in ... referenda
Yes, it's a nice idea, but in the present circumstances so entrammelled by pre-existing regulations, procedures and authorities (quite deliberately by those who oppose such things) that you'd never get a clear result, only an ongoing argument. One of main benefits of stepping outside the existing system is that you can make your own rules to some extent, though the lawyers will certainly be tapped to prove that whatever you're doing and suggesting is illegal.

< cont ...
Posted by Beelzebub, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 11:20:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... cont >

> somewhat similar to the Swiss Republican Model
Don't know it but will investigate.

> My system factors .. pass it onto the electorate).
Sounds good in theory, but have you delineated the practical aspects? In my experience, the majority don't give a damn about such things until it's actually hurting them, and then they want someone else to solve the problem and stop their pain. Most populist political ideology suffers from the delusion that the public is actually interested in politics. They're not. They're interested in a home, an income, three meals a day and a bonk twice a week.

> You however went on to talk about what the president would do or imply
Frankly, I've only ever seen a president as a figurehead. Yes, there's a great temptation to envisage him/her as an all-wise, all-powerful father/mother figure, but the reality of the world is, and always has been, that individuals only gain power through brute force (Genghis Khan) or the barrel of a gun (Mao). Non-brutal systems always require debate, compromise, and concessions - i.e. representative groups acting for mutually benefical outcomes that none expect to be perfect in an imperfect world. Lee Kuan Yew appears to have created Singapore single-handed, but he had a coterie of very dedicated and talented followers who protected him and stayed in the background whilst he wore the barrage of media attention. He also had a remarkable marriage to a very loving, intelligent woman who stayed well out of the limelight, but was essential to his success. He was never the President, nor wanted to be.
Posted by Beelzebub, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 12:49:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Lee Kuan Yew appears to have created Singapore single-handed, but he had a coterie of very dedicated and talented followers who protected him and stayed in the background..."
So he wasn't a solo wonder boy? Imagine that.
"Perhaps if the President were multiply schizoid ..."
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 8:13:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"REPUBLICANISM is not about living as republicans wish to live, it is asking others to live that way and eventually forcing them to do so >> one way or another"

All insidious political change comes from Type 'A' Personalities: people who are either ugly or have a terrible inferiority complex. I know of no one who is beautiful or has inner beauty who wishes wishes to raise the ONE so far above the many, for so many 'unspecified' reasons as republicans.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 9:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Son: And must they all be hanged that swear and lie 'gainst a President?

Mother Julia: Every one.

Son: Who must hang them?

Mother Julia: Why, the honest Republican men.

Son: Then the liars and swearers are fools, for there are liars and swearers enow to beat the honest men, and hang up them.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 13 October 2010 9:26:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beelzebub- I think I have an idea of what you are implying when you brought up the Singaporean approach of having a highly competent group of advisors or people the government (acquired one way or another) to turn to for advice;
Though I am not sure this is necessarily due to a formal arrangement- though I do wonder why Australia seems to clearly lack this;
Either way, this would need to be investigated.

On notes of public apathy vs referenda;

-There may well be a link between public power and engagement; Switzerland demonstrates a success of extremely high engagement and acquaintance with the public in political issues, which may be directly because the people are well aware they have full sovereignty on an issue and have been nurtured in more notions of responsible decision making; in a system such as ours, most people don't bother because they know it's not THEIR input, but the figurehead's and their lobbyists, long before the values of the issue itself are even addressed.

-Even if the majority of people are still ignorant and lazy regardless, so long as referenda are voluntary, it will only be the engaged who will leave their homes to participate (if we were NOT to use a digital voting system). The ratio of a minority of voters is still a more representative body than a couple dozen MPs, and this is ignoring that our parliaments don't actually represent more than 30-40% of Australians anyway, at best, even IN theory.
The event of an extreme minority successfully winning a referenda (which I find unlikely) will only serve to act as a wake-up call for the rest to be more engaged next time.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 14 October 2010 12:22:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello, looks like Grim has got his typewriter connected to the Internet! Well done, me lad :-)

> So he wasn't a solo wonder boy? Imagine that.
No. He's certainly a uniquely gifted individual upon whom fortune and the gods smiled, and I readily admit to deep respect and admiration for him. He basically gave his whole life to his country - not something I could do, nor many others. A key to his success was that his ambition was always for his country and people, not for himself personally. This is why others were so attracted to him; they knew that what they were struggling for was not the ascendancy of an individual, but a shared ideal of which he was the most able representative. Something of a freak of Nature, really - such people are quite rare.

> All insidious political change comes from Type 'A' Personalities
A very good point. KAEP. Yes, people who seek fame and public recognition for its own sake are invariably inadequate personalities who need external validation to feel fulfilled. This contrasts with those who receive fame as an unavoidable consequence of their calling or profession, and usually find it somewhat wearying.

> an idea of what you are implying .. I am not sure this is necessarily due to a formal arrangement
I agree. It seems to be something that evolves as a matter of necessity in the pursuit of a common goal; but I also think it wise and useful to recognize it when it happens, or even to create it if need suggests.

> though I do wonder why Australia seems to clearly lack this
Ah, now here I'll risk raising your blood pressure and earning your ire with a comment. If you study the history of nations, you'll probably agree that it takes about 500 years (say a dozen generations) to establish one - and I'm speaking of the human aspect - emotions, traditions, and ideals, not merely the legal stuff.

< cont ..
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 14 October 2010 12:27:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.. cont >
When judged on this basis, European nations are mature adults, China an old man, the US a burly adolescent pumped on testosterone and brute power. Even Singapore qualifies as mature, since the Peranakan Chinese have lived there for centuries. But Australia is like a boy in short pants who hasn't yet untied mother's apron strings. It may be embarrassing to admit, but it's surely the truth.

There's something else, as well. The US has 1776, the UK the Magna Carta, New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi, even little Singapore has 1965. All of these were crucial events in which the entire nation committed itself emotionally to a vision or ideal, even at the cost of lives. It's this emotional commitment that fuses a mob into a nation, I believe. By contrast, in 1901 the British Parliament passed an act which granted Australia national status - but this was a legal fiat by a foreign power, not the sort of crucial emotional crisis that's needed for true nationhood. As a result, Australia is not yet a real nation IMO, just a legal entity with pretensions to nationhood. This is why we have this dreadful posturing of 'Australian pride'. People in other countries don't go about forever boasting how PROUD they are to be Bigendians - it's a quiet inner conviction that doesn't need verbalizing. This whole thing is an invention of the political spinmeisters to keep the football crowd emotionally pumped. Australians WANT to be a nation, they WANT to feel proud, but they haven't yet found a path to that achievement; and hollow boasting and media jingoism can never provide it.

> people are well aware they have full sovereignty .. and have been nurtured in .. responsible decision making
You're on the ball here, IMHO.

< cont ..
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 14 October 2010 1:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.. cont >
> in a system such as ours, most people don't bother because they know it's not THEIR input, but the
> figurehead's and their lobbyists, long before the values of the issue itself are even addressed.
Spot on! This is the real issue we need to address. All of the legalizing and bureaucratizing can come later - they're quite straight forward. As always, it's the human issues that are the most difficult, both to identify and to address.

> so long as referenda are voluntary, it will only be the engaged who will leave their homes
Yes. You've obviously given a lot of thought to these issues, and equally obviously have a good deal to contribute once that stage is reached; but until the human issues are resolved, none of the others will be in the least effective. It would be like trying to construct a building without foundations - no matter how many times you rebuild the walls, they'll still fall down.
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 14 October 2010 1:32:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My response to yours Beelzebub is basically an endorsement of human nature as a factor- though in a different light;

When Australians are ready for such a system, there will be a large movement to ultimately bring such a system into place (even be it by a party that endorses these and sets it to constitution).

I would not be against a republic that can enable such rights prematurely tomorrow- but until either (a) such a system comes in, or (b) something changes in Australia (which would still result in option (a) happening) I would personally vote DOWN any republic model and leave this option as a blank slate to be filled by future generations. To do less for symbolism would not only be a huge wasted opportunity, but also reflect a LOT more on Australians (in a poor light) than people might realize.

I would strongly disagree that it's so much a matter of "time" to develop a nation than simply the rate of development of the people. Singapore, Germany and Switzerland are actually very young nations (both complete history of existence and moreso for the first two the fact that they only became/re-became the nations they are today a mere few decades ago). It was just the attitude the people had to doing it properly. We too could potentially get the right political attitude in just a generation, or even tomorrow, so long as people start evaluating deeper the political implications that affect this country- and it IS happening to a fair extent.
Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 15 October 2010 8:51:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
woodenitbe so totally like, cool if our first Prezident was a WOMEN? imeen, our GG is a women and so is ourPM and ALL of our Premiers (its TRU they crossdress my boyfrends mate is gay hehas sex with the StateTresurers and they tell him its so gross wot they do to him but he nose all this STUFF andits so cool). and all our top CEO are women the others are men and dont count becoz men are so gross and smelly and there all pedopies they cant help it poor things bcoz its in there jeans. my techer told me not the class techer hes gay but the socal sudez techer shes so hot and shes been toAmerica and talks just like Sex and theCity so shes obveusly inteligent. imeen its not like im gay or anything like that. but thePope will fix it youl see.

and she must be a Women ofColor becoz the aboriginees need it and have a samesex partner likeEllen on TV. and of corse she must be an imigrant from India orAfrica or one of thozother states out neer Alice Springs becoz then she can represent other imigrants to. and wen shesPrezident she can be head of the UN becozAstralia is the best country everybody says so and all the other banks steel money and get rich butAustralan banks dont so we must help them be like Australa.

and she can marry PrinceCharles so we can be a reel republic like inEngland, but after Camilla dies PrincePhillip is going to kill her not him but the Jews andArabs who work together and are his friends its so awful. but once he marrys ourPresident sheel b safe becoz the Jewsand Arabs cant come here its too far and our army is killing them in Africa and thoz other places and there afraid of us.

Next year I can vote and im going to vote for the President and if we all do it sheel be in charge and then everything will be grate and mum wont hav to work at the club any more.
Posted by Beelzebub, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 6:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Classic, Beelzebub.

>>Next year I can vote and im going to vote for the President and if we all do it sheel be in charge and then everything will be grate and mum wont hav to work at the club any more<<

In a single sentence, you have managed to encapsulate the entire present condition of the republican argument.

What we actually need is some stable, intelligent, credible and non-partisan folk to work on the issues, in order to determine an appropriate way forward.

What we actually have is some volatile, thoughtless, ditzy political activists, who merely talk about the issues, in order to big-note themselves on the cheap.

I also appreciated this snippet of yours from a previous post.

>>So Presidential candidates are to arouse and avow a burning ambition to achieve what no sane person would believe possible?<<

As Douglas Adams pointed out in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

"...one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

In the face of all this, it needs to be said that "waiting for the Queen to die" is the very least of our problems.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 20 October 2010 12:31:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When despair turns to desperation, humour is the only sane recourse.

Well, Pericles, you've not only nailed the nub of the matter, but quite possibly put an end to the conversation. imeen - sorry - I mean, what could be more insoluble than people, especially when you can't even say what the problem is. Right now there are folks sitting down to their third ale of the morning, bonking the second broad of the evening, selling a passel of shares at the top of the market, or just slugging it out at the daily grind; all of which are far more normal, natural, rational things to do than squinting at a little screen, tapping frenetically at a keyboard, and beavering away in your mind at things that may never happen, and that most people regard as nerdish nonsense. As one Irishman said to another, "They all here be crazy, sure, 'ceptin' thee and me; and I've got me doubts about thee!"

Perhaps the most interesting thing happening at the moment is the protests in France. If I'd said to you a few years back, "You can't raise the French pension age; they'd all go on strike" you'd have laughed me to scorn; and rightly. So what they're REALLY protesting at is not the new law, but the sense of moral outrage at the banking criminals not only getting off scot-free, but demanding that the public pay the cost. And it's certain that this couldn't have happened without the Internet. That may sound like a non sequitur until you think back to how hard is was, not only to get information back pre-Internet, but to organize coordinated public action. We're seeing a new phase, not of CONSCIOUS Internet use, but of the automatic, instinctive use of it. Those of us seeking ways and means should note this carefully, IMO, as an important development.

The next question is "where to from here?" The French have motivation; we in Australia don't. Life's too comfortable - no public energy or outrage to work with.

But don't worry. The Pope will fix it ;-)
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 21 October 2010 6:46:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't forget, Beelzebub, that the French are already into their fifth attempt at a Republic.

http://flagspot.net/flags/fr-fiftr.html

And already talking about a sixth. No wonder we are having so much difficulty sorting out our first.

>>I mean, what could be more insoluble than people, especially when you can't even say what the problem is.<<

Yup, that's it.

The problem is real, though, in that people think there is a problem. People thinking there is a problem is a problem in itself, except that it is extremely difficult to articulate. And by definition, impossible to solve.

My own view, such as it is, is that monarchies are an anachronism. It has however gone almost unnoticed that they (mostly; ours, certainly) have over the years been stripped of all real power. They remain, but as symbols only.

But symbolism is of course very important. Just ask any bogan in the stands at a Twenty20 BigBash why he's waving a flag. It's a symbol. Perhaps with a different meaning for you and me, but a symbol nevertheless.

However, I think you are misreading the French.

>>So what they're REALLY protesting at is not the new law, but the sense of moral outrage at the banking criminals not only getting off scot-free, but demanding that the public pay the cost.<<

I think that they are, most definitely and specifically, protesting at the lifting of the retirement age. They are a heavily socialized country, always the first to the barricades when their right-to-laze-about-and-drink-wine comes under threat.

And they've always known that their Banks are thoroughly inept.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINLDE6950VM20101006

"SocGen's head of communications said the value of the fine was mostly symbolic"

There it is. That word again.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 21 October 2010 7:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
> they are .. protesting .. the retirement age .. comes under threat.
Yes, I'd have to concede this - my own enthusiasm to prove a point got the better.

> And they've always known that their Banks are thoroughly inept.
But I'd still maintain that there's an element of moral outrage, even if as a cloak to protect inebriated leisure time.

> the French are already into their fifth attempt at a Republic.
Didn't know, but not surprized. Knew a wealthy, influential Chinese years ago who fled for his life after Tiananmen, and related his amazed delight at finding that the French were only moderately interested to discuss his immigration credentials as a businessman, but delighted to welcome him as a major political player.

> No wonder we are having so much difficulty sorting out our first.
It'll be far from easy, and I think the most difficult thing will be finding the motivation for it - short of a disaster of some sort, and that's what I think might be inevitable if we don't find a more intelligent reason.

> My own view, such as it is, is that monarchies are an anachronism.
I'd like to dispute this, given my (too short) time living as a guest of the Balinese royal family. But there are monarchies and monarchies, and the modern (especially European) (mis-)understanding of them is quite justified given the historical experience. But it's too complex a topic, especially since I believe that the days of single-leader social systems are past.

> But symbolism is of course very important.
Undoubtedly more so than we realize. In fact, I'd say that if we understood how to apply the psychology of symbolism more effectively we'd be half-way to solving the problem of how to motivate a republic or other independent political structure.
Posted by Beelzebub, Thursday, 21 October 2010 9:25:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy