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 > On the monarchy and the flag > Comments

On the monarchy and the flag : Comments

By Chas Keys, published 14/11/2013

The arguments for an Australian republic and a different national flag need to focus on the practical as well as the symbolic.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
“On a purely practical level…” the author should be considering not what a few foreigners think of our “constitutional arrangements”, but what the monetary cost of dumping the monarchy would be.

While it has to be doubted that these foreigners the author so worries about do find confusion and ‘mirth’ in the Union Jack in the corner of our flag, that tiny piece of the Australian flag recognises our foundations and, still, most of our heritage.

Like most monarchists, the author dumps on our true heritage in favour of a hotchpotch of multiculturalism when most of the hotchpotch came to Australia for our legal system and way of life and freedoms, all of which are based on British law and the Westminster system.

Australia is a different country from Britain – a big improvement in many ways – and so there is a difference in attitudes to the Queen.

Republicans like to refer to Elizabeth 11 as “the Queen of England”; but she is separately, legally and differently also the Queen of Australia.

As for the ‘confusion’ the author’s foreign friends suffer, in relation to the similarities between the NZ flag and our own, anyone with average eyesight can tell them apart by the red borders the NZ flag has around the stars. How many people take notice of different flags,anyway.


As far as Australians are concerned, the Governor General is our head of state; the Queen does not “represent” us in any way whatsoever – she is a mere symbol even in Britain. We don’t have the distasteful class system here, and it is clear to all members of the royal family that we have no respect whatsoever for that nonsense.

We have more to do with that most famous of republics, the United States of America. What sort of state should we call ourselves to disassociate ourselves from the obvious faults of that republic, Mr. Keys. Or, perhaps, we don’t have to do that because you are merely anti-British, and want to heap more unnecessary expense on taxpayers to get what you want?
Posted by NeverTrustPoliticians, Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:30:01 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
This article trots out the standard undergraduate arguments for becoming the republic we already are. The author doesn't bother to understand our present system and its advantages and offers instead the blue sky prospects of some undefined nirvana ... or possibly, the depths of drastic changes to our governing with myriad unintended consequences.

He trots out the old "Queen of England" line when he knows (or should) there is no such office and hasn't been for some centuries now - so much for his attempt to educate us. Do please check your facts first.

How about this dilemma - "how would the monarchy resolve a serious dispute between Britain and Australia?" Answer to stupid - the monarchy doesn't solve problems - politicians do, and the Queen stays wonderfully aloof. She stays out of politics, and that is how it should be.

He's also wrong on the GG lacking clout. Simply put, the GG can be requested to spend lots of time overseas, building contacts and enhancing our reputation, being always received as our head of state (royal guard of honour, 21 gun salute, met by the head of government etc). But why doesn't this happen now? Well just ask the politicians who like to do all that stuff themselves strutting the world stage. Then just ask whether the politicians would be grateful of a powerless(?) but fully representative Australian President strutting the stage (with appropriately long retinue) and lapping up the attention they want for themselves.

Note to republicans - tell us the actual changes you want to make and then start the debate. Don't just browbeat us with vapid, mushy air-headded statements about how wonderful it will all be when we are "independent".

As for the flag, I agree somewhat. Our flag is not instantly recognisable to a lot of foreigners. It never will be without a kangaroo. So talk of "our" Southern Cross (visible to the entire S. Hemisphere) is just as vapid. Our present flag was selected by the public after a competition. Do the same again and see what pops up.
Posted by Captain Col, Thursday, 14 November 2013 6:47:00 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
Captain Col please go and live in Britain ,and there you can fawn all you want with your beloved Queen.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 14 November 2013 7:15:29 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 understand that some do not like the monarchy - but what about the alternative?

The author summed it up, saying: "Our national identity will be better served by the arrangements described here"

In other words, if the current arrangements are removed, then nationalism in Australia will raise its ugly head.
This vague monarchy as we have now, like it or not, serves as a stop-gap against nationalism and its ultimate expression, Nazism.
How good to have a mechanism, illogical as it may be, to humiliate that sick urge for 'national identity'!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 14 November 2013 10:41:05 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
Ojnab, so that's the level of intellectual argument a standard (dare I suggest) "republican" can muster? Still waiting to fawn over your very own el presidente? We decided against that in 1999.
Posted by Captain Col, Friday, 15 November 2013 12:45:56 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
As a devoted Irish Republican, on that side of my heritage, may I say that as an Australian I fully support our current arangments and that the Union Flag in the hoist of our National Flag is entirely appropriate, except that it would be an improvement if the rather silly Cross of Saint Patrick was removed.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 15 November 2013 8:16:16 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
Chas Keys “weighted too heavily towards symbolism.”

But that's all it is.

“stability.... comes from our phlegmatic national character”

A character your kind has been happily destroying through immigration.
A “national character” requires a “people” who share it.

“the rules of succession... have only just been modified to allow females equality with males”

So there's no “gender” issue then, eh?

“What would happen if he or she became a committed atheist or wished to embrace Islam?”

In Britain, assassination.
In Australia, nothing.

“European, Middle Eastern and Asian acquaintances of mine... glaze over in confusion”

What, no African, Latin American or Pacific Islander acquaintances?

Your whole argument is about the "foreign" monarch, yet the opinions of foreigners are soooo important to you.
I just glazed over in confusion.

“A foreigner as head of state seems to them antithetical to national autonomy.”

And a country filled with foreigners?
(Australian-born are ever-diminishing proportionately).

“[the flag] reflects our past, but it hardly captures our present... Transformed by large-scale post-war migration”

Maybe certain suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, but *Australia* is still largely a people/culture of British descent.

New Zealand? Even we confuse them with us.
(Half the “Australian” bands I saw on Countdown were actually Kiwis).
They're even mentioned in our constitution.

“head of state of at least 16 nations, and she cannot represent them all effectively”

She cuts an occasional ribbon.

“a serious dispute between Britain and Australia?”

Maybe then we'd have a *serious* reason to change.

“missing out on.... trade and economic benefits.”

Yes, we've done so poorly.
Maybe if we ditch the Crown, we can catch up with Haiti and Peru.

“The Governor-General... lacks international clout.”

Right. Everyone knows the Prime Minister represents us.

“simply to remove the Union Jack”

Britain *founded* the original colony and immigration was primarily British for almost 2 centuries!
Simply remove our history!

“left with the Southern Cross“

The Southern Cross is seen by half the planet.
It appears on national or regional flags in New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Argentina and Brazil (+ coat of arms).

How about the Lambing Flats flag? Uh-oh!
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 15 November 2013 11:59:09 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
Captain Col, the Australian public where not asked if they wanted a Republic ie: "Yes or No"; they where asked how a Head of State for Australia should be chosen.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 15 November 2013 4:47:34 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
You should study more history, Kipp. The referendum was to vote on a model for a republic proposed after extensive debate by a cross section of Australians. You could vote yes or no. The referendum was to change the constitution, and therefore had to be detailed enough to actually define the sort of republic proposed. So they were indeed asked if they wanted a republic yes or no, and they said no.

It seems you suggest we should vote on a republic without knowing the definition of that republic (there are lots of sorts of republics - not all good).

The good people of Australia made a clear choice (as they did as well at federation) and history tells us that if you keep asking them, they will keep telling the political class more and more emphatically to bugger off and do something practical with their time and our money.
Posted by Captain Col, Friday, 15 November 2013 5:07:11 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
My 2 cents......

Australian Republic Debate:

Summary
1. Become Constitutional Democratic Parliamentary Republic
2. A Directly elected Head of State (with selection criteria for candidacy up for future debate)
3. A Constitution containing a preamble with recognition of traditional owners (treaty), An Australian Bill of Rights which (includes the ability to request a trial by jury), Values, Choices and responsibilities

Head of States role

This is a very big part of the debate to become a republic.
What would be the role of an Australian Head of State?

A Head of State should represent the people of Australia who are the collective sovereign.

Below are merely my current considerations.

1. Elected by the people of Australia by a direct vote
2. A maximum two terms of five years
3. Ceremonial Duties
4. Promotion of Australia, our interests and values at home & abroad.
5. Upholding the Constitution
6. Limited executive power for instance: cannot write or veto legislation, but reserves the right to refer Bills to a referendum or to the High court.
7. Appoints Judges
8. Removed by two-thirds of parliament following trial and conviction, or resignation (but would like more debate on this)

# This last bit, I believe provides better account ability for government. As it stands the PM pretty much appoints the judges. I feel this creates a conflict of interest. Why would a judge make a decision against the government when their job depends on the government for appointment? If the Head of State was to carry out this function, then a judge can make a ruling with a fear of retribution from government.
Posted by Matilda Republic, Sunday, 17 November 2013 5:59:03 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
Why should we continue with a foreign Head of
State - we're mature enough surely to no longer
need "Mother England?" The Queen represents England
and English interests when she travels overseas.
Not ours. And we need visas (being foreigners) when
we travel to the UK.
England however - needs their royals. They're the Disneyland
of the UK. They bring in the tourists. Why do we
need them? We're in the 21st Century - and no longer
a penal colony. Get real people - we also need our own
flag. It's time we grew up and cut the apron strings,
regardless of what the Conservatives tell us.
A Referendum should do it. A straight forward one,
that is with no interference from the PM (as was the case
in the last Referendum - where Mr Howard was hoping for
a possible knighthood).
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 November 2013 6:14:27 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. All

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