While I would vote ‘Yes’ to the question of an Australian Head of State, the far more important question is what should be the role and powers of the position.

The strategy of Keating, Turnbull and the ARM has been wrong all along. It dumbs down a major constitutional change into a simple question of Australian identity. No wonder that most of us, who already feel Australian enough, are not convinced this is a pressing issue.

In truth it is a pressing issue, because the monarchy is the chief source of instability in our political system. We are about to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the 1975 dismissal. That was achieved through an exercise of Crown powers - the power to appoint and remove Ministers, and the power to call elections. Think of the upheaval that caused.

Forty years later there is still no agreement about whether the actions in 1975 were legally correct, because the law governing Crown powers is so unclear. This makes no sense at all, since all Crown powers are actually exercised at the initiative of local politicians, as they were in 1975. The idea of the Crown being an umpire is a myth.

Previously it was thought that unwritten conventions limited how the Crown could exercise its powers. 1975 threw that out the window, when the democratic convention that the majority in the House of Representatives was entitled to govern was overridden through reliance on the written words in the Constitution. If conventions do not restrain Crown power, nothing does. Why then do so many republicans want to hand that power to a so-called president?

One third of our Constitution confers power or a role on the monarchy. They are not ceremonial roles. Having a duplicated system, where Government decisions are implemented through recommendations to a Governor-General who then performs the legalities, creates instability whenever the Governor-General chooses not to act on advice. The potential for instability is embedded in the system.

Forget the ARM. This country needs a reform with serious intellectual depth. You will find it in the Advancing Democracy model - www.advancingdemocracy.info.

Just to be my usual pedantic self, no country, other than the USA, has ever had the Union Jack on its flag.

This person certainly loves Fitzsimons. His fawning description makes the real character unrecognizable. Fitzsimons, apparently, is bigger tha Ben Hur and JC put together; he is going to "win".

Mr. Compton goes on to say that two thirds of Commonwealth countries are republics, without mentioning that those countries are Third World, non-English speaking, Brit-hating shows, and that many of them are an embarrassment to the Commonwealth, rule of law, and democratic ideals. Nor does he qualify his claim of "30,000 indigenous people..slaughtered". Where, when and how? And what has such wild talk got to do with 'the republic'.

How the man can can describe himself as a "proud Aussie" when he holds the country in such contempt is a mystery. He seems to be as vapid and ridiculous as his hero with the Geronimo head gear.

Perhaps we should be more honest with the name(s) which are used to frame this debate/argument.
I would therefore suggest that we should quite rightly call all of the former British colonies as the STOLEN-wealth countries. Because stealing the lands and resources (the wealth) is precisely and exactly what the Brits did (and are stilling doing to one degree or another) to all of their colonies.
Check out references to the book Britain's Empire by Richard Gott for instance. A book which describes the blood-soaked on-the-ground reality.

All of the European colonial powers did of course do exactly the same thing. Google The European Scramble for Africa for the time-lines and details.

Solicitation for money on this web-site, as does the author ("and become a financial member today"), is usually considered SPAM and removed.

All for the distasteful offer of "You will be an active participant in creating a new future for a proud and independent nation."

He could just as well have offered us: "You will be an active participant in trafficking young girls for our proud and independent brothels", because forcing the concept of "nation" over all the innocent people of the land is akin to rape.

Compton is clearly over-enthusiastic and I doubt his desire will arrive soon.

The reality is that it will take a single death for Australia to move to become a 'republic'. At present there is limited monarchical interference in Australian affairs and the main issue is the international embarrassment of sharing a head of state with a colonial power. But the future King Charles has already demonstrated a willingness to interfere with government in attempts to get his nutty ideas adopted.

Everald if these old British Colonies are such great republics, & you so desperately want to live in a republic, I suggest you take your author, whoever the hell he might be, & go live in one. Most of us are perfectly happy as we are, & it is only dishonest pot stirring, & appealing to the rabble that gets this stuff any traction at all.

Why don't you go fly your kite for something actually worth having?

Everard Compton, who has some role as a leader of a group which claims to represent "seniors", puts forth a case for republicanism, in terms of nationalism. Perhaps Everard is unaware that Australian nationalists are his most bitter enemies, while those who hate nationalism are the soft totalitarian multicultural Left. That argument is a contradiction, Everard.

Next, Everard calls himself "a proud Aussie" while simultaneously insulting all proud Australians by claiming that our ancestors were mass murderers and thieves. If you want to drive Australians away from republicanism, Everard, that is the very best way to do it.

Everard obviously has a black armband view of history, and he is a person who is ashamed of his own race and culture. His support for republicanism can be seen as a way of forcing his people to distance themselves from the dastardly British, who he thinks stole Australia from the real owners, after they massacred and terrorised them, then stole their children.

Sorry Everard, I don't share your prejudices about the British, and I laugh at your attempt to equate republicanism with nationalism.

Five of the most desirable countries in this world to live in are Canada, Australia, the USA, New Zealand, and Britain. The British had the knack of creating stable and prosperous societies, wherever they went. Even their African colonies were well run and they not only provided much needed local infrastructure, and a generally fair legal system, they created a level of growing prosperity among the native populations.

While you feel ashamed by your British ancestry, I am intensely proud of it. I realise that the soft totalitarian multicultural Left want to create a new utopia through mixing up the cultures and races in every successful European country. But just in case you have not noticed, that is not working out too well. My belief is that it is essential for the continuance of a stable, secular democracy like Australia, to demand that immigrants more or less assimilate into our British descended heritage, and keeping the Union Jack in our flag is an essential part of that process

Wow, LEGO, - that's quite a rant!

Considering....the minimalist model proposed by Fitzy is that instead of the Prime Minister choosing the Governor General (Yes, one person gets to choose the GG) and sending a letter off to the Queen for her formal assent...that role is instead transferred to parliament requiring a 2/3s majority to confirm the choice of ceremonial Head of State for Australia.

Very simple - and in light of Australia already existing as a self-governing entity - it seems sensible (and...ahem...."grown-up") to cut the last apron string)

Tell us, LEGO, how is transferring the role of assent from the Queen over to parliament in 2015 likely to upset the apple cart or negate Australia's historical links to the British monarchy?

How independently does a country have to be operating before it should feel free to dispense with the formality of having the monarch of another country sign off on its choice for a Head of State?

It is quite simple, Poirot, if its not broke it doesn't require fixing.

-Especially doesn't require fixing by the chattering fools of the Twitterati.

Get onto fixing those 'Struggle Streets' as the first priority. Then there is plenty to do after that.

otb,

"-Especially doesn't require fixing by the chattering fools of the Twitterati."

You mean as opposed to the chattering fools on OLO?

LOL you would be a star on both.

Now, what about fixing those 'Struggle Streets'?

Back to topic, otb.

Even more pedantic:

"Just to be my usual pedantic self, no country, other than the USA, has ever had the Union Jack on its flag.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 23 October 2015 9:45:47 AM"

-- But the "Grand Union Flag" of the United States which was flown from 1775 to 1777 lacked the St. Patrick's cross which marked the incorporation of Ireland into the UK.

To Poirot.

If you are claiming that the removal of the Queen, our historical head of state, and the removal of the British flag from the Australian flag, does not reduce our historical links to our founding mother country, then that is a premise which is self evidently absurd.

The multicultural socialist left, of which you are a classic example, have this stupid idea that serious future human conflict can be avoided, provided that human beings divest themselves of their national identities and instead, adopt a transnational one. That was one reason for the creation of the European Union, which just in case you have not noticed, is going down the toilet.

The reason why multiculturalism (like socialism) failed is not hard to understand. Human beings are tribal and territorial, that is in our DNA, and no amount of socialist rhetoric can change that. And multiculturalism and anti racism is essentially a fashionable white, educated elite ideal. Asians, Muslims, and Africans won't have a bar of it. Well meaning people like yourself, who are exceedingly tolerant, anti racist, and anti nationalist, brought into their own countries large numbers of people who are very intolerant, very racist, and very nationalistic towards their own ethnicity.

Take the Swedes. Sweden was once hailed by people like yourself as a model of a socialist utopia. Extremely low crime rate, a very high social security net, open mindedness, extreme tolerance, and compassion towards "refugees."

Sweden is now the rape capitol of the world. 40 areas around Stockholm are now no-go areas for Swedes, where even the Swedish Police, as well as postal workers, ambulances and firemen are refusing to enter. Muslim males are sporting T shirts with "2032" on them, which is the date they think the Muslims will be the majority in Sweden. The Swedish "Integration Minister" has stated that "Swedes must be nice to Muslims, so that Muslims will be nice to Swedes when the Muslims take over."

This is what your internationalist stupidity has wrought. Civil war is coming in Europe. Civil wars are really bad wars.

Choose sides, Poirot.

LEGO,

"If you are claiming that the removal of the Queen, our historical head of state, and the removal of the British flag from the Australian flag, does not reduce our historical links to our founding mother country, then that is a premise which is self evidently absurd."

Here's what I said:

"Tell us, LEGO, how is transferring the role of assent from the Queen over to parliament in 2015 likely to upset the apple cart or negate Australia's historical links to the British monarchy?"

What can take away our historical links?

A contemporary mechanism to merely reform what is now an anachronistic formality will not negate the links that were forged in our development as a nation.

"The multicultural socialist left, of which you are a classic example, have this stupid idea that serious future human conflict can be avoided, provided that human beings divest themselves of their national identities..."

How many Australians continue to classify their national identity as reliant on the Queen assenting to the PM's choice of Prime Minister?

Australians in 2015 do not consider themselves to be inhabiting a country that is an outpost of Britain. They consider themselves citizens of a self-governing independent nation.

"Choose sides, Poirot."

Well, Lol!.....how is allowing "our" own governing parliament the right to confirm the choice of ceremonial Head of State (instead of the monarch of another country) supposed to herald in all this anarchy?

Correction:

Should be:

"How many Australians continue to classify their national identity as reliant on the Queen assenting to the PM's choice of "Governor General".

JKUU,

Pedantic is as pedantic is; there's no such thing as the Cross of St Patrick, what is purported to be his cross is the Saltire of the Geraldines.

Dear LEGO,

<<Human beings are tribal and territorial, that is in our DNA>>

Indeed, many mammals are.

However, firstly the DNA is neither sacred nor a standard of morality - it's just a blind mechanism.
Secondly, tribes so large that members do not even recognise each other are unnatural - human tribes existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but they consisted of just a few dozen individuals and up to a maximum of 150-200. The mega-societies that we now have, both national and transnational are an aberration, nor would the natural laws of ecology allow them to survive for long.

Ls Mise: (pedantry continued) "there's no such thing as the Cross of St Patrick." If that's right, what do you call the red diagonal thing-a-me within the white field on the present Union "Jack" that was absent in the US Grand Union Flag? My information on St. Patrick's Cross came from Wikipedia, so it might be wrong. It does appear, however, that the Union "Jack" was changed to commemorate Ireland's incorporation into the UK in 1801. As a boy I was told the the British flag had the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick on a blue ground. But I was probably told this by some old pedant.

No worries, Poirot.

But first, you have to explain to me, and everybody else on OLO, how if multiculturalism failed dismally in Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Syria Libya, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, Guadalcanal, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, Mexico, Thailand, Britain, Sweden, Germany, Spain, the USA (the great melting pot!) and most recently Ukraine, what makes you think it is going to work exclusively in Australia?

And also I ask you to explain how any country can have social cohesion and stability, when under multiculturalism, there is no defining national culture to assimilate to, only a multiculture of competing tribes?

Yuyutsu.

Territorial behaviour is also normal behaviour in fish, reptiles, birds, and marsupials.

Your premise that human beings can transcend normal instincts is correct, but only up to a point. People can overcome their natural instincts and desires, but if they go too far in repressing their own natural feelings, they can become mentally ill. Sigmund Freud noted that people who reprised their feelings too much started to exhibit odd behaviour, a phenomenon he named "neurosis."

You can not convince homosexuals that their behaviour is wrong because it has no connection to procreation. Some of Freud's patients were in fact homosexuals who themselves accepted their society's and their church's teachings that their behaviour was unacceptable.

Thinking that all you need to overcome your natural instincts, all the time, is a rational reason, is silly. It is just like telling teenagers that in order to combat over population, all they need to do is stop thinking about sex.

The problem with socialist social theory, is that it presumes that people are robots who will do whatever "rational" act that the socialists can dream up. But what is rational? It is not irrational for a poor person to rob a bank.

Human beings are not robots. We think emotionally, not rationally. We can think rationally, when all other means are exhausted, but we need to perform a physical act to do it. We need to "concentrate". None of us can walk around in a constant state of concentration. The ability to concentrate is an evolutionary adaptation to allow us to program our emotional mind with conditioned reflexes, which are what we use for solving everyday problems.

Our emotional minds do not like it when a person from another sub species invades our territory. We can tolerate them, but only up to a point. People who live in resource poor societies have little tolerance for outsiders. People who live in resource rich societies are much more tolerant. White people are more tolerant than other races because we have been living in prosperity for a long time. But when the tide of prosperity ebbs....?

Dear LEGO,

Archimedes said: "Give me a lever and a place to stand outside the earth, then I will move the whole earth".

Indeed, so long as one operates using the mind alone, all that can be achieved is repression rather than transcendence. It's like digging a hole with a spade and making a small hill with the excess dirt - the earth continues unaffected in its course round the sun. Eventually the weather and the waves will erode the hill and cover the hole.

To shift the fundamentals, something bigger than the mind is necessary: in Western culture it has been called "Grace" and the source of that grace is personified by an almighty deity. The Hindu tradition however, recognises that the source of grace is your own true self.

You already recognise the need for your higher rational mind to control your lower emotional mind, as well as the value of concentration. This is very so, but if we stop here than nothing is achieved in the long term and our 80 years or so of effort will come to nothing. Fortunately the higher rational mind is not on its own - it has a higher purpose to serve and so grace is available.

Who's driving your chariot?

http://www.swamij.com/chariot-yoga.htm

LEGO,

This thread is not about "multiculturalism".

We, as an independent self-governing nation, are already multicultural.

Explain to me how transferring the role of assent from the monarch of another country to our own governing parliament ill-defines our national culture?

Poirot.

I have tried in vain for years on OLO to get you multicultural dhimmie-wits to answer the questions I have put to you. Now, Aalong comes Poirot with a Dorothy Dixer of her own. Now, I promise you, I will answer your question, when you answer mine.

And this topic is about multiculturalism. The abolishing of our historic links to Britain is all about suppressing our British heritage to create a brave new world of an Australia with a generic, no name brand of culture, One that might appeal to our immigrant population which seems to want to live with us while rejecting our British descended national identity.

Australia is not a multicultural country. It is a culturally divided country which is already displaying signs of serious social strife and separatism. We already have large areas of Australia where a racist aboriginal flag is flown instead of the Australian one. And parts of Sydney are becoming no go areas for Australians just as in France, Sweden, Holland and London. A few years ago in Sydney, a young Australian boy was murdered when he inadvertently turned his car into a Muslim controlled street in Bankstown, and had a piece of steel thrown through his windshield which penetrated in his head.

Turn away from the Dark Side, Poirot. Come back to your people. It may be very fashionable to always oppose the interests of your own people, and support their welfare dependent rapist and killer enemies, but there is a name for people who do that, and it is not a pretty one.

By great good fortune, Australia became a constitutional monarchy, a political structure which serves us well, and which seamlessly incorporates our history and traditions.
Someone like Everald, who would need a course in constitutional history, before he could understand that, is the last person who should have the temerity to offer advice on the topic. Only a dunce would display his abject ignorance of history by writing “that the arrival of the First Fleet two and a quarter centuries ago was an occasion in which 30,000 indigenous people were slaughtered defending the land that was theirs for 50,000 years.”. He must have taken Pilger’s lies to be Australian history.
And he advises us to get behind a lefty clown like Fitzsimons to overturn an appropriate and workable system which has served us well since its inception.
Stop being an ignorant pest, Everald. You must be able to do something useful, like learn the history of your country, or learn to write correct English.
Phillip Howell, there was nothing about the dismissal of Googh that was not completely legal. There is no doubt about its legal validity.