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 > The Republic idea: thinking big for the Summit > Comments

The Republic idea: thinking big for the Summit : Comments

By John Warhurst, published 18/4/2008

Those opposed to a republic are using tired arguments against the renewed debate. Their arguments are at odds with the spirit of 2020.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
What a boring debate this is! How long will this go on for? When is the political establishment going to acknowledge what the people think of them?

Surely they can't be totally stupid, as they would not have achieved what they have. Why is it so difficult for them to appreciate how much many people love to see a politician dismissed by Her Majesty's representative, wiped like a dirty rag, and humiliated?

What the people want is not difficult to state. Any politician who could, in his first term, eliminate all taxation, treble government spending, balance the budget and pay off the national debt would undoubtedly deserve re-election. The people would even settle, as second best, for someone who was simply perfect; (they would, of course, prefer someone a little better).

Once the political class has provided the people with politicians of this calibre for 30 or 40 years we might just start thinking about a republic.

On the subject of politicians, I have just discovered a quote from one of my heroes, Lord Acton. He was recommending the profession in which politicians should train before entering politics.

He suggested rowing.

He said it was the only profession he knew where someone could face in one direction whilst steadily proceeding in the opposite.
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 19 April 2008 9:04:37 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
John Warhurst claims, speaking with respect to re-activation of the republic issue, that "The Rudd government has already promised, both in the Labor Platform and during the election campaign, to involve the community not just through a referendum but also through a plebiscite. ...". Yet earlier in the article he claims that "Initially the Future of Australian Governance in [the] 2020 agenda did not explicitly mention the republic issue, though now it is on that agenda by force of argument and weight of numbers."

What is this republican double-speak about?

Australians should take warning from the mention, together, of a referendum and a plebiscite in relation to this issue. In an Australian context this can only be a trick for turning an anticipated 'NO' vote into a 'YES' vote. Australians should note that a plebiscite was used in 1937 in the then Irish Free State to put up a DRAFT constitution to the electors for approval. The Irish electors were of course expecting to likewise subsequently RATIFY any draft so approved, but of course they were never given the chance. Instead they were given a constitution that was the draft with secret unpublished clauses.

Interestingly enough, an Australian was credited with having advised the then Irish Free State government in 1936-37 as to how to best present the issue of adoption of a new constitution to the Irish electorate. His name was H.V.Evatt. To imply that Evatt would have advised secret clauses, however, would be to blacken his name. I think other interests would have been behind that.

Are interests that have seemingly long been influential in determining governance policy directions for Australian governments, across the political spectrum, enthusiastically kite-flying the republic issue for the benefit of the present government, in the hope it will take it up?

More importantly for all Australians, could such interests also possess electoral skills and influence beyond the normal that might secure the object of their desires if once they could get the issue seemingly 'put to the people' at a plebiscite, dodging Section 128 of the Constitution?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 20 April 2008 7:59:57 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 an OLO discussion dealing with possible fall-out from Australian policy with respect to illegal immigration, (See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7241#111282 ) an observation was made that "many intellectuals are tone deaf to the ideas of nation and peoplehood and the power these ideas have for most Australians. People who are secure in their identity may choose to act compassionately, as in the case of the Kosovars, but resent attempts to coerce them to share their home with outsiders."

I suggest that this observation, substituting 'republic proponents' for 'Kosovars' and 'change their constitutional heritage' for 'share their home with outsiders', could very accurately be made with respect to attempts to revive the republic debate.

It would seem that there is a heavy preponderance of 'social professionals' in the make-up of the 20-20 Summit, if the revelations from the email rejection advice gaffe reported on page 54 of today's Sydney Sun-Herald are anything to go by. From that item: "When you look at the list of the people who are going to the 20-20, its the same old names whereas there are some real movers and shakers in the rejects list."

From the afore-mentioned OLO discussion (See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7241#111283 ):

<<In only one category, “social professionals”, was there majority opposition to government policy, and this category only represented 10 per cent of those surveyed. “The attitudes of the social professionals are quite unlike those of the rest of the sample”, wrote Dr Katherine Betts in an analysis of the [2001] electoral survey. “It shows how unrepresentative the vocal social professionals are of other voters; it is not just that they do not speak for the working class, they do not speak for a majority in any other occupational group.”>>

Just out of interest, if, in a putative Australian republic, something was found to have gone fundamentally amiss in the very electoral process itself, who would have both the power and the constitutional responsibility for instituting corrective action? All appointments would be elective!
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 20 April 2008 1:33:21 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
I doubt those in favour of a republic ever believe anything could go wrong FG - after all we could not possibly have a Mugabe here could we? We could never have an incompetent at the top because, "our republic could never be like that".
They are kidding themselves of course. It will happen if we go down that road. It's human nature.
At present we have as near a perfect state of checks and balances as human nature allows...it is not perfect, nothing will ever be perfect but it is darn sight better than anything the republicans have yet come up with.
But the 2020 summit was about getting support for a republic...it was really the only item on the agenda. It gives Rudd the go ahead for something he does not have a mandate for. He will now bring the issue forward in order to get people focussed on that instead of what he is not doing - and, at present, it is all talk and no action.
Posted by Communicat, Sunday, 20 April 2008 5:27:16 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
The benefit of becoming are republic is being able to put parliament in its place. We would have a Head of State who was elected by the people and able to represent Australia properly without involving politics.

The Head of State would support charities and community organisations. When overseas, the would be able to promote Australian interests. The improvement in civil society and out ablity to project our economic and cultural strengths overseas would be worth the small cost of maintaining the office. The republic is also our chance to improve integrity at the highest levels.

Constitutional monarchists would like the Australia's Head of State to continue to promote the United Kingdom. They seem eager to continue trading off the benefits the UK enjoys at our expense to continue a system which puts politicians first and our community second. It should be the other way around.

http://www.7gs.com/copernican
Posted by David Latimer, Friday, 2 May 2008 11:01:49 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
No, David, our Head of State – the Governor-General – already does all the things that you have described, and does them extremely well.

DIS
Posted by DIS, Friday, 2 May 2008 11:05:36 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

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