Clutching at semantic straws, Peter van Vliet declares that the republic is unfinished business. Some people just won't take no for an answer, will they. Changing your constitution because you don't like someone's wedding arrangements would be comical if it wasn't put forward as a serious suggestion.

On of the great things about our monarchy is that it keeps us in touch with the other countries of the British family, especially New Zealand, Canada and the UK. The sad thing about republican thinking is that it wants us to cut those ties in favour of an essentially small-minded and parochial view of the world.

I see no problem with having Charles as my King, and I see no problem with having Camilla as my Queen. I'd certainly like it if members of the royal family visited more often, but Charles was rebuffed when he wanted to be our Governor-General, so perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised.

Let us pause and ask the question, who will benefit from a constitutional change? One group immediately springs to mind, the legal profession. New areas of law should open up. Disputes on constitutional matters will inevitably become a growth industry. Legal incomes will reach new and records heights, which implies greater tax revenue for the nation.

Much ado about nothing. As much as I am not a fan (q.v.) of Prof. Flint, he is correct when he points out that Charles' wife, whoever she might be, has no constitutional impact on Australia. This marriage should therefore be of no consequence to the people of Australia except in the matter of boosting the sales of women's magazines.

More important however is the fact that by clutching at this particular straw, Mr Van Vliet does the republican cause no favours, simply adding to the impression that the arguments to change are getting ever weaker. Which would be a shame. This kind of hysterical non-reasoning and thought-free rant becomes a substitute for rational pro-republic debate, to the detriment of the entire campaign.

And by the way anti-green, when you point out that "Legal incomes will reach new and records heights, which implies greater tax revenue for the nation" you forget that it is an act of faith amongst the legal profession that they trouble our tax collectors as little as possible.

Britain is no longer relevant to a modern Australia, nor does it care much for us, except when it serves the British agenda. Of course, there was a time when, We, Australians, were mesmerized in our allegiance to Empire. But, the days of the Coo-ee March into the hand of an irresponsible Winston Churchill have now past.

In WWII, the same Britain, said Australia could fall to invasion (and be taken back later). The same Britain that turned its back on the Commonwealth by entering the then Common Market, the same Britain that after feeling backwash from being sent to Conventry over the the Suez Crisis leaned on Australia for help with the development of its nuclear weapons, after the US said, "no"! The same Britain rushed to the Faulklands, but, did not contribute to the War in Vietnam, when it was (wrongly) thought there would be a "Domino Effect" all the way to our shores.

In consideration of the above, and, the fact it has been over one hundred years since Federation and that increasingly Australians are not of British descent (I am) and that we have close ties, with the more bilaterally reliable and powerful United States, defies reason, as to why any Australian prefers a British Head-of-State over an Australian Head-of-State. I can assure you no Brit would accept the Island Realm under a foreign Head-of-State living in Normandy in France.

The only benefit in constitutional monarchary is that it provides a check on wayward politicians. Herein, there are alternative ways to achieve this end. My preference is not for a simple election for President, because the Public mandate creates conflict with the Parliament and the political parties will run for that Office.

Perhaps, a model, having three nominees created by a two-thirds majority of the Senate to be put for subsequent appraisal and selection by limited election by the Public.

The Koreans have a saying which begs the question: "Is it better to be the tail of an ox or the head of chicken"? I for one don't wish Australia to be a chicken's tail feather.

NO a thousand times NO to"Queen Camilla". Anyone who sneaks around and breaks up a marriage, ruining the life of the lovely Diana is a harlot, and not worthy of the title of Queen and the respect that title demands.

No to an elected President. All we'll get is one more politician,and we have enough already. Make the Governor-General our Head of State. Call him "President" if you will, and elect him by 2/3 vote of both Houses from, as suggested above, say 2 or 3 candidates. But let his duties be the same as the GG, as far as practible, with as little change to the running of the nation as possible.

The present system has worked well up until the "good example" component of the Royal Family has been replaced by bad example in spades. I am sick of the Royal shenanagans, but I don't like Malcom Turnbull and his cohorts either. I think we have to take a long-term view, and we have more pressing problems for the time being.
Thanks for nothing Charles! Why of why didn't the Queen nip Camilla in the bud in the early 80's?

Old Prince Charles has been one of the best behaved Royals in history. Only one mistress! (If you don’t count the butler!) His ancestors would have been rolling in their graves. Especially now that he’s going to marry it!

The Charles and Camilla story is the ultimate love story 30 years in the making. Two young people fall in love, but due to circumstances cannot be together. This love remains strong for 30 years, during which they both marry others (in Charles’ case, a psychopath), then, against opposition from all quarters, they decide to seal their love in marriage. I’ve got a tear in my eye just thinking about it.

Of course we should not have the British Monarch as our head of state. Not because of the Royal family, not because of Camilla, not because of our ethnic mix, but because we are an independent, proud and strong nation and an Australian republic is the next step in our growth. I think that using the fact that Camilla will be our Queen diminishes the argument for an Australian Head of State; as if we should base such an important decision on the fact that Camilla is hideous beyond words, and a vague feeling that she is not a nice person. It’s the sort of argument used when one has run out of arguments.

Ian, I take your point, but we can still be in the Commonwealth of Nations whilst being a republic if that is what we wish.

Having a popularly elected Head of State is definitely the wrong way to go. People who support an elected Head say that it is the only way to ensure a non-political Head. I can’t see their reasoning. There is no surer way of having a political Head of State than the people electing one. The Libs would put forward their choice, the Socialists theirs, and TV Week would put forward the peoples choice. Our first Head of State would be either John Howard, Gough Whitlam or John Farnham.. Elected by two thirds of Parliament is the sensible course.

Dear bozzie - sometimes your posts positively incense me, but this is one with which I find myself nodding (not to mention giggling) with agreement... keep it up, old son!

Morgan :D

Bozzie, of course you are right about the Australian Republic issue being much more important anyone person. But one must admit, the prospect of having a King, who talks to rocks and who wants to be reincarnated as a tampon, is a pretty good reason to address the true reason promptly;-).

Oliver, you talk about what "Britain" has done to Australia as if it were a person: "Britain turned its back on the Commonwealth by entering the then Common Market". In fact it was the British government of the time that did it, not the country as a whole, not the people. And only around 30% of Britons think it was a good move, if the polls are anything to go by.

Until the 70s all Australians, all New Zealanders and all Canadians were British subjects: it was part of the deal, and it had nothing to do with ethnic background. Then suddenly our governments all decide to take away that connection and we have to treat each other as foreigners? It's silly. A New Zealander is no more foreign to me than a Queenslander, nor is a Scot or an Ontarian. I find it very sad that people are so willing to accept this narrowing of our world-view, as if only someone born on the same island can be one of "us".

Bozzie, I would actually like to be closer to Canada and the UK than just "members of the Commonwealth": I would like to see the same sort of deal we have with New Zealand, where we have the right to live and work in each other's countries - virtually a common citizenship. Wouldn't it be good if you could go and work in Manchester or study in Vancouver just the same as you can in Perth or Christchurch? I'd like that for my kids, but the way we are going is exactly the opposite: people calling for more parochialsim rather than more integration. I can't see what the benefit of that is.

Ian, I would have to agree with your historical comments because these are fact. Similarly, my comments are fact.

What prompted my style was your wording, "the British family"; wherein, I was endeavouring to argue Britain -not Britons- consistently acts in an unfamily-like manner and in its own interests. In this frame, we have drifted apart and should no longer look towards Britain nor its temporal "Godhead". Herein, Britain, the political entity, wants it both ways, to be treated as the centre state of the British Commonwealth, and, to favour the EU over Commonwealth members. Perhaps, a little like the US attitude towards the UN, only more so.

Subjects of continental Europe have customs and work permit preferences over Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. So, British lineage looses-out here. I think that would be hard to deny. You do not mention the Americans. They are by-in-large Britons in the sense that they left the political Britain to create their "New Jerusalem", guided by the English and French enlightenment thinkers, and, against, the rule of George II and George III.

Herein, with the US in a sense we have Britain II. That is, the Britons moved and created a (initially) British republican quasi-democracy in a new land, under an ethically-British electorial college with a President. Celts and Anglo-Saxons remained in Britain I under German lineage constitutional monarchical rule, as does

contemporary Britain I, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similarly, I feel liberalists like John Lock and David Hume, would have the People have the ultimate right to choose their own form of Government or leave. British Americans chose to leave. So should British lineage dominated Australia. (Mutli-ethicity a separate reason)

(Aside: Strickly speaking Lincoln broke with liberal moralist tradition by preserving the Union.)

In sum, Australia has the liberal right to drop the British monarchy. Further, Britain has given us plenty of reasons to do so. Lastly, to place lineage above nationality, we would need to designate King Charles a Germanic-Greek, and, have the US our centre state

Oliver, you refer repeatedly to lineage and ethnicity, so perhaps I have created a false impression of my position. The “British family” I spoke of is not about genetics, but about culture, institutions, basic values. “British”, after all, is not an ethnic category. As I suggested before, the status of Australian citizens as Britons until the 70s had nothing to do with ethnicity: Greek-Australians and Chinese-Australians were Britons just as automatically as were Australians of Scottish background like myself.

In the 1770s, the American colonies wanted representative government within the Empire in exchange for the taxes they paid, but their request was rejected and they rebelled. When much the same thing happened at Eureka some eighty years later, the requests were answered, and the Australian colonies rapidly became self-governing. Our system of government was built within British institutions, never in conflict with them. Had George III been a little less pig-headed, the US would probably have remained part of the British family too. Of course Australia has “the liberal right to drop the British monarchy”, but I don’t want to. The next step beyond an Australian Republic would be separate republics for each state: if I can’t accept a figurehead from another island, how can I expect a Tasmanian to accept a figurehead from the mainland?

The sticking point is the EU but, as I suggested, only around 30% of Britons are really in favour of it. I have friends from the UK who feel that it is absurd for, say, Italians to have preference over ANZACS and Canadians, and who would love to keep their distance from the EU and rebuild proper ties with us. What they see from Australia, however, is a desire to push them away. This seems like a typical family situation to me: the parents can’t understand why their offspring are always spitting the dummy and the offspring feel their parents don’t really respect them. Rather than throwing the (constitutional) plates and storming out of the (British) house, I would prefer to recognise what we have in common and concentrate on getting on as equals.

Ian, thank you, for your considered reply. I am under a little time pressure over the next few days regarding some other matters, but will still make some quick points:

* I agree we have owe much to our British heritage.

* Much of that heritage was a result of the People/Nobles standing in
opposition to the Monarchy: e.g., the ideals set out in The Magna
Carta and Constitutional Monarchy.

* Monarchy; perhaps for space reasons, a little simplified;
was based on conquest and federation, and on the
establishment of "Estate" over land to create a nobility over/apart
the landless and commerce.

Technically, even free title, is free title in estate and
the Crown has absolute title. Fiefdom was an extention of Western
Roman slavery systems. Basically, a medieval political and
economic system with high vertical social order.

* Total A Priori validation of a modern Australia against British
heritage is limiting. We can learn much from the more liberal
Scandinavian countries (which I admit are monarchies too) and
the some progressive attitributes of America: e.g, commercial,
alumni funding of R & D.

* I agree with the open access model you propose. In fact, I would
include the US & Scandinavia, in addition to, Canada, NZ and
Britain. In fact, I prefer the personality of many Danes to
some Brits and some Aussies too. Danes can be casual without being
loud. A lttle more mature.

* We can still have close ties with Britain without having an
English head. As I suggested before if you regress your model
we would have a Norman French monarch (1066). With further
regression a Norse monarch (France, 911). (Regardless, of
the monarch's actual ethnicity)

Lastly, I quote, Isaiah Berlin (?), on liberty;

"freedom from political and eccesiastical authority and from the hegemonic rule of higher social classes". Perhaps, naively overstated. Nonetheless, the basic sentiment is powerful.

Thank you for your involvement is this debate.

Oliver:

Yes, as you suggest, the whole concept of monarchy is vaguely repulsive as an abstract idea; pragmatically, however, I happen to feel that it works well in our case and brings important advantages, so I have made my peace with it. I also quite agree with learning from other liberal societies. I don't pretend that the British way is the only good way, but I do feel that it is basically our way.

Regarding your expansion of the "open access" system to include the US and the Scandinavian countries, I like to imagine that closer ties of this nature between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK) could eventually lead to even greater levels of integration, and this is something I would like to see. I can't quite imagine this happening with other countries: Norway has never joined the EU, for example, and Sweden and Denmark have resisted the Euro, which seems to suggest that they would be equally reluctant to join any anglophone club. I also can’t see the US doing anything except on its own rules, which are not quite the same as ours.

Ok, so here is my real position: being a country of 20 million people stuck down in the bottom corner of the world is not a strong bargaining position in this big world. Even if we completed the unfinished business of federation and formed a Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, we would only have a population of 24 million. If an ANZAC federation and the Canadian federation could get together, though, that would create a population of about 55 million, which is starting to look more respectable. If the UK can get its act together and leave the EU before it becomes a federal superstate, then they might want to join us too: that would take the population to around 110 million and we would be a significant part of a real global player, instead of having our cherished independence and being ignored by everyone. Without our shared monarchy, I can’t see any of this happening.

Ian, I think the time for what you describe being variable has now past. Were there a CANZUK union, it need not have unifying monarch. One possibility would be an economic union with similar, but independent political systems. However, Canada would find it hard, because it has strong economic ties with the US. Moreover, Britain has chosen its course.

I cited the Scandinavian countries because there is a similar mindedness between the non-Latin countries of Western civilisation. Oz and Scandinavian economic union would not happen: I appreciate that situation. However, Australia could benefit adopting some of their progress views, plus a pinch of the American penchant toward testing new horizons. Also, importantly, we have our own home culture to nurture.

Canada and Australia would respect each other as equals, but the Britons would still see themselves as the "British British" and the English themselves cut above the Irish and Scots (my ancestors also. These silly hierarchies are reminiscences of Empire, that would need to be disposed to history, before unification would be acceptable.

New Zealand being subsumed into Australia would not surprise me now that distance is no longer a problem.

Basically, I would have no problem with the union describe, but, not under a monarchy and not where Britain is presumed more equal than the others. Also, I prefer a Senate in lieu of a House of Lords. Further, I would suggest, our Referenda and Plebeian control over the US system. THis, we do have a pretty good system now, except...

The US is problematic. Western Civilisation had the British Empire, which has fallen. The US is different (as you say) to CANZUK and probably the centre state of the modern West. Its emerging Empire will probably be sustained, but China and India would need to achieve only about one-third the State’s productivity levels to equal US GDP. The US could link in with large resource rich countries like Australia and Canada to balance its books. Herein, while China buys up America’s innovation companies, America could buy up our resource companies?

Dontcha just love 'em? Dontcha look forward to the day when they are King Charles and Queen Camilla of Australia? Read on...

Charles and Camilla sell out for secret US hygiene launch
by Staff Brand Republic 1 Apr 2005

LONDON - An American personal hygiene company is to sponsor the US broadcast of next week's royal wedding of Charles and Camilla in an attempt to publicise the launch of its new Seven Days tampon brand.
The Americans are hoping to ride on the back of the Royal couple's association with tampons, revealed in 1993 with the Camillagate tapes -- a recording of a mobile phone conversation in which Charles talked about being reincarnated as a tampon and living inside Camilla's knickers.
The sponsorship, for American broadcast only on the coast-to-coast AFD network, is conditional on there being no reference whatsoever to the product in the UK coverage of the wedding, although product placement rules forbid this anyway. Both the BBC and ITV are devoting hours of coverage to the church blessing to be held at Windsor Castle on the afternoon of Friday April 8, after the couple have been married privately in a register office in the town.
Royal officials remained tight-lipped on the audacious bid by Herman Furman Hygiene Solutions, while sponsorship experts put the value of the deal at between $5m (£2.65m) and $20m.
Scott Blazen-Smythe, director of international sponsorship consultancy Twine, said: "You wouldn't have expected Charles to sell out like this, but it goes to show that even Royals have their price.

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/media/article/468893/charles-camilla-sell-secret-us-hygiene

TrueBlue

Oliver, you may well be right about the time for this being past, but I’ll try anyway, because I think a CANZUK (or at least CANZ) federation would be the best way for Australia to find its place in the world. I appreciate your comment about Canadians and Australians treating each other more as equals, but I have also found that most English people – perhaps after a joke or two about the colonies and the assumption that we only care about sports – are more than happy to treat Aussies as equals as long as we don’t adopt our “whingeing Pom” stereotypes about them.

Despite the acronym, I’m not really thinking in terms of a federation of the four existing countries, but of a federation of states and provinces, where New South Wales, New Zealand, British Columbia and Scotland would be member units, rather than Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK. This way, there is no reason why Brits would be “more equal than others”, because a CANZUK federal parliament would be divided far more on party lines than on existing national lines. Under current circumstances, it is easy to imagine a CANZUK federal election where the centre-left parties run with Tony Blair as leader and the centre-right parties with John Howard.

I quite agree that such a federation would not need to retain the monarchy, but I see two advantages to keeping it for the short term. Firstly, it would simplify things constitutionally. It may be a legal fiction to have the Queen as our head of state, but it would be a very convenient fiction in the case of forming this federation. Secondly, any elected CANZUK president would inevitably be from one or other of the existing countries, which might exacerbate the sense of not being fully equals in the federation. For the first generation, while people get used to the idea, the monarchy may seem more neutral in that regard. After the federation is consolidated in people’s minds: go with whatever has the support of the population.

Aw shucks, can't help buying into this one. I too, was incensed at Camillagate (what a CAD!!) but at the end of the day, true love has surely won out. It might not be Shakespeare or even Jackie Collins but hands up who would trade their life for Chuckie's. What a miserable life and at the age of 57 he gets to marry the woman he declared "non negotiable" in his whole life and thumbs his patrician nose at mummy. Diana is dead and whilst I thought she was pretty lovely and had a bad life in that family, then died in her prime, she is probably nodding sagely and saying, "not surprised" However, the living keep living. As to whether Camilla is Queen or not is to whether we want the whole box and dice. Methinks not. What advantage outside women's mags? And we have Mary of Denmark to fill that void. The whole concept of England bar the Westminster system of law is not really happening here. They're aa pretty sorry family aren't they. You wouldn't want to live next door to them. All those tea parties.....

Those born to posses university degrees and positions will not benefit from a “constitutional change” surely.

The Commonwealth of Australia and majority of citizens will benefit from a republic that will open opportunities for those who can do jobs creatively rather than those who are privileged to be paid for an inherited sinecures as it occurs recently.

MichaelK.

Except that if Australia had an elected president, the position would almost cetainly end up being filled by (a) a career politician, (b) someone very rich, or (c) both. Exactly how is that an improvement?

Cutting our ties with the monarchy is not a blow against privilege: it is simply favouring one kind of privilege over another.

It is an improvement because "rich" is not always synonymous to "stupid" at the time when no professionalism is counted even for the bulk of the Australian professors at so-called local “universities”.

I am not talking of ill-literal but knowing-how-to-smile-for-occasions charleses, williamses and other harris

Ive only read a few of the comments on this subject but once again Ive come across the argument that we need an Australian Head of State so there for we cant have the Queen/King etc etc but must have a President. This is just racist, anti british rubbish. Last I checked this was ment to be a nation that anyone can come to and become an Australian and be Prime Minister if they want to. Her Majesty may not of been born here but as far as Im concerned she is Australian. That goes for the Prince of Wales as well. AS far as I know they both have Australian citizenship (could be wrong). If thats the case they sound pretty Australian to me. Almost all the republicans Ive ever met cant give any depth to there argument other than xenophobic prattle. Of the six oldest continuess democracies in the world 5 are constitutional monarchies (4 of which have Queen Elizabeth the 2nd as Head of state). The Only republic amongst them is the good ol USA. Funnyly enough a large chunk of the Republican movement is closest anti american as well(yes I know a broad sweeping statement but prove me wrong). Anyway, from someone born in Darwin, raised in queensland, never left the country except for 3weeks in NZ, God save the Queen.

“Last I checked this was ment to be a nation that anyone can come to and become an Australian and be Prime Minister if they want to.”

And what about MULTICULTURAL approach, which is a practice of de-facto REQUIRING the APPROPRIATE “acceptance on a personal level” that is Australian xenophobia and racism in practice. Or millions of under-caste, again de-facto, inferior non-Celtic-Anglo inhabitants have once again de-facto not been counted while promoting quoted above nonsense?

“ Her Majesty may not of been born here but as far as Im concerned she is Australian. That goes for the Prince of Wales as well. AS far as I know they both have Australian citizenship (could be wrong). If thats the case they sound pretty Australian to me.”

In “democracies”, worshipping the different objects is a very personal matter.
At a state level, it is strange to hear of an Australian head of state, being obliged by an overseas law of a different country to ask permission of a foreign third-party parliament to help own subject who is happened to be a citizen of Australia.

Surely, the Windsors are as much Australian as the Big Ben is.

“Almost all the republicans Ive ever met cant give any depth to there argument other than xenophobic prattle. Of the six oldest continuess democracies in the world 5 are constitutional monarchies (4 of which have Queen Elizabeth the 2nd as Head of state). The Only republic amongst them is the good ol USA.”

So, France (independently with much blood)and the USA (by forcing English lords out, while American colonists-republicans were in millions murdered by "loyal royal democrats") are self-made oldest democracies, and Australia, NZ and Canada have heads somewhere. Pretty faire!

Since when did even more explicitly racist then-Rhodesia, SAR and dozens of still British-occupied territories round a globe become less democratic for a monarchist-propagandist ?

Maybe, the International Tribunal in the Hauge is an appropriate place to answer. However, it was established and run by not old, if any as understood from therb 's message, democracies at all.

Plain and simply,no kings no queens,no princes,no princesses.no sirs no lords,no monarchy,the world can manage and be a better place, less tax to keep these parasites in their easy living standards,the story told to past generations,that it was so ordained,that we have to have rulers,and then too there is no such thing as royal blood,another myth we were told by religeon,and we in Australia are still tied to the apron strings of a foreign woman monarch,break away and get into the real world,a world free of,these unwanted system of having kings or monarchs,and now we have to hear all their stories,of love,lust,divorces,first living in sin,then again being pardoned by the church,and now we are being told about this girl from Tasmania,that married a prince and now has a baby,who cares,babies are born everday,so why make a big deal about this baby,so to all australian monarchists you can have them,but most australians want to get rid of these PARASITES.