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 > No confidence in Westminster republics > Comments

No confidence in Westminster republics : Comments

By David Flint, published 11/8/2005

David Flint argues Westminster republics are fatally flawed by the lack of a head of state who is above politics.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Oh, come on, David. Insisting on a republic for Australia means turning to the people of New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom and saying “you and your societies are so different from us that we feel insecure sharing a head of state with you. Whatever our place in the world might turn out to be, it has nothing to do with our shared history, culture, values and institutions”.

You may not choose to use the word “repudiate” for that action, but I do.
Posted by Ian, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 12:35:34 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
For the record, Ian is a member of the FCS which advocates a political union between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and the abolition of the Australian Federal Government to form a superstate - a modern reincarnation of the British Empire.

His comments are reflective of this advocacy.

Republicans support the existing Commonwealth of Nations, its institutions and its objectives. The Commonwealth respects the sovereignty of the peoples of its member states and continuously fosters ties between states. Its role in the developing world is crucial -- directly and indirectly and benefiting the lives of millions.

Ian's proposition places all that at great risk. He does not understand the Commonwealth, its principles nor its priceless value.

I am proud of Australia’s place in the Commonwealth of Nations and you will find that all Republicans stand proudly with me.
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 17 August 2005 2:21:19 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
David, perhaps you have misunderstood my intentions.

* The Federal Commonwealth Society (FCS) does not advocate “political union”. We seek closer Commonwealth ties and an eventual federation of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK). Australia is a federation, not a unitary state: I know you understand the difference between federation and union.

* Under the preferred FCS model, the powers of the existing national governments would be transferred either down to state level or up to CANZUK federal level. Your term “abolition” seeks to short-circuit a very complex debate.

* A CANZUK federation would not be a “reincarnation of the British Empire”, any more than the EU is a reincarnation of Napoleon’s Empire. You appreciate the difference between being conquered and forming a partnership of equals.

More importantly, however, I feel you beg a very important question when you speak of “the peoples” of the Commonwealth. A people is only a people if it defines itself as such: a choice based on shared values, culture and institutions, not limited by geography or genetics.

Australians were not “a people” in the 1890s: there were Victorians, New Zealanders, Queenslanders and so on, but no Australians. If Tasmanians had voted against federation, you would now regard them as a separate people. If New Zealanders had voted in favour, it would never occur to you that they were not part of “us”.

Yet even after all this time, Queenslanders are no more different from New Zealanders than they are from Victorians; Tasmanians are no more different from Nova Scotians than from Western Australians. A student in Glebe probably has far more in common with a student in Glasgow than with a banker in Pymble.

Yes, Australians chose to be “a people”, but that is not the end of the story. Why should we resign ourselves to the limits set by 19th Century transport and communications? Like our ancestors, we should look beyond our borders and beyond the horizon to those who share our values, culture and institutions, and we should recognise that our similarities are far greater than our differences.
Posted by Ian, Thursday, 18 August 2005 5:03:01 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
Let me quote from the FCS website (http://www.fcsworld.com)

FAQ page: "The Federal Commonwealth Society is a group that believes the people of the Crown Commonwealth should re-unite under a federal government" ... "to reunite into a single voice on the world stage under a single democratic parliament" ... "Canada, Australia and the UK would probably cease to have central governments"

It also refers the British Empire saying "We were once a superpower in our own right, and if we worked together we could be again"

Core Principles include "To achieve a closer UNION and protect our shared interests, we wish to establish a federal body of SOME of the Commonwealth members" (capitalisation added)

Ian, it’s fine by me to have a bold idea.

It’s NOT fine or truthful to attack Australian Republicans as Anti-Commonwealth when it's your desire to "re-invent the British Commonwealth" (FCS quote). You have tried to play dumb to this audience, but have now been caught out. Respect your own group by being up-front about its objectives.

Let me repeat: Republicans strongly support our Commonwealth ties and Australia's engagement in the world without qualification.
Posted by David Latimer, Thursday, 18 August 2005 11:32:38 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
David, it seems you have caught me out trying to have a discussion about ideas.

I first mentioned CANZUK federation on the Copernican Constitution thread: you asked about reactions from others, and I mentioned my involvement with the FCS: a group to which I introduced the term CANZUK. I am glad that you visited the site, but the FCS does not control my thinking. I am always wary of mentioning it here precisely because I prefer to discuss my own ideas without having to defend the similar ideas of others. Call that selfish individualism, if you wish, but not dishonesty.

Our different interpretations of what FCS members actually stand for can probably best be judged by visiting the discussion group (http://www.6k2.com/myforum/fcs.html).

I am glad that most republicans support Commonwealth membership, and I never said that they did not: we have been talking somewhat at cross purposes. When I used the word “repudiate” (which I will retract, if you wish), I was referring to “the cultural and institutional ties of which the monarchy is a part”. You then called them “our Commonwealth ties”, but I was actually meaning something far deeper and more important than mere membership of that organisation. Most people would agree that our ties with New Zealand are more profound than those with Mozambique or Belize.

Which ties do I mean? Like every Australian, New Zealander and Canadian before 1973, I was born British. The idea that only people from the British Isles are British strikes me as no less absurd than suggesting that only people from the Italian province of Latium are Latin. Yet since the 1970s, we have been in officially-imposed denial about our Britishness, and have been expected to regard New Zealanders, Canadians and Brits as foreigners.

Closer CANZUK cooperation and eventual federation would be a recognition of this cultural family, which continues to exist despite all political efforts to break it up. The desire for a republic strikes me as a further step in the denial of a community that goes well beyond the current borders of our nation.
Posted by Ian, Friday, 19 August 2005 9:09:49 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
Thank you Ian for the retraction.

Let's see if I understand you correctly: We get Latin (the ancient language?, language group? or Latin America?) from Latium (the ancient region?) therefore being British (the inhabitants of Britan?, the British Empire?) is where umm.... they speak or culturally-similar to ancient Roman influence over South America... ??

No, I don't understand you, but fortunately I can be very clear.

Also born prior to 1973, I have always been Australian. I support Australia as a nation and its federal structure. We have s121 in our constitution, but New Zealand is free, independent and has every right to stay that way.

I also support the Commonwealth and its diverse membership. There is no need for an inner club. May nations like Belize continue to have a place at the Commonwealth table.
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 20 August 2005 11:38:01 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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