Congratulations, David, on an excellent article. Like many people I am still hazy about what drives republicans; it certainly can't be honesty, integrity or sincerity, as was demonstrated on Tuesday, when the new Senate members were sworn in in Canberra. The sight of the commited, hard core republicans in the group getting up and swearing, on Oath, that they would be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, made me want to vomit.

Long live Her Majesty!

David Latimer has proposed an Honourary President model which attempts to keep the President/HoS above politics. He has more detail on his website, and has published articles here and on South Sea Republic on the issue.

The Swiss civil war produced no more than one hundred deaths, and resulted in a federal constitution being accepted. So that claim of instability in relation to Switzerland is weak.

The US Civil War was much more violent, and a result of federal over-reach into state soveriegnty. It is also easy to forget how close Australia came to Civil War in the 1930 when the Federal Government and NSW faced off with Lang and Lyons not willing to give into each other. This was about Federal over-reach again, as the federal government had unwritten state loans.

If Lang had of told Game that he didnt recognize the Governor's power to dismiss him, or his government, then it would have been Civil War. The Lighthorse had been moved to outside of Canberra, and the military in Sydney instructed to take over State government buildings. There were also militias from both sides roaming the state, not to mention the NSW Police who backed Lang.

The Westminster system is not immune to instability on the "civil war" scale. [rest in another comment so I dont get cut off by the 350 word limit]

I would also argue that our Governors and Governor-Generals already have political roles. Just because they arent as publicly obvious as the MPs role, they have a political role nonetheless, and one that has distinct repercussions. The largest ones are Kerr's and Game's decisions. But there are many other examples, Munro-Ferguson allowing the first double-dissolution election, Campbell not dismissing Bjelke-Peterson's ministry, etc.

Any form of Republican Constitution in Australia will face two realities. One, it must incorporate the Westminster style of Cabinet Government. Two, the HoS will have to be elected. This is because the people want to choose their head of state.

The latter will ensure that the Governor-General has a greater political role, however, as mentioned in the article, cabinet government will fail if the GG and PM fight over executive power. Since the Westminster has such poor seperation of powers, it is probably inevitable.

As a result the GG must be given clear political powers that the PM does not already have. The gaping hole in the Australian system is the Bill of Rights. We dont have one, and the people have no-one in government looking out for their rights.

An elected Governor-General is ideal for this role. The GG would be our representative for political rights in government. The GG would be politically respsonsible (and culpable) for ensuring no legislation received their signature which contravened an Australian Bill of Rights.

The best Bill of Rights on the planet atm is this one;

http://www.southsearepublic.org/story/2005/2/18/103910/881

This is what the GG would be charged with protecting by vetoing legislation that intrudes on it. By the same token, super-majorities in the Senate and House would be able to over-ride the GG and place the onus on the Judicial to allow the legislation as constitutional.

As far as Australia is concerned, the best model for a republic is no republic. The monarchy costs us nothing apart from the rare royal visit. It is stable and we don’t need more politicians and urgers than we already have. We don’t have to concern ourselves about the ‘born to rule’ problem as our elected governments advise the monarch. The relationship gives us our own successful version of the Westminster system at arms length, without interference from non-Australians. The Queen’s hats don’t concern us; nor do some of the twits who might succeed her, in any practical terms.

There has never been a clamour from the Australian people for a republic. The urging from the top by politicians and the ‘upper’ echelons of society was treated with the suspicion and annoyance that it deserved

I think republic or not, our system of government is inherently undemocratic. Once every couple of years we are subjected to advertising and fear campaigns to influence us to vote for one party or the other. Political parties get the money to run these campaigns from companies, who naturally expect something in return. Is this truly democratic?

Personally I think the question of republicanism is moot – it doesn’t address the major problems of our current system. Let’s start by banning political advertising. How about instead an AEC monitored website where parties can provide information about their policies and plans should they be elected – and a history of how the party/individual members have voted on issues brought before the parliament/senate. And for those who don’t have access to or don’t like the internet, something equivalent available in all public libraries. Allow people to make informed decision.

Or dare I go one step further… People presently take more interest in and have more influence over the goings on in the Big Brother house. Our representative form of government exists because of the total impracticality of every member of society voting on every issue. Is it still so impractical? We appear to have the technology to allow people across the country (and indeed the world) to vote on completely frivolous decisions. Sure, the system’s security would need to be seriously bumped up, but for the possibility of a real democracy…

Not likely to happen in my lifetime, but it’s an exciting idea.

no one mention of USA ? but then again, history isn't one your strengths is it DF.

Consider David Flint's statement that "five of the world’s seven oldest continuous democracies are Westminster systems." If he means constitutional monarchies, I guess this must be Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. This list does nothing more than inform us of which countries escaped the ravages of World War II through succesful defence or staying neutral.

The Republics of Costa Rica (since 1882), Mexico (1917) and Finland (1919) are the sixth, ninth and tenth oldest continuous liberal democracies. So 2 of 7 becomes 5 of 10. How unspectacular!

Regardless, it’s a potato argument (People who eat potatoes commit suicide or have car accidents or get cancer. So don't eat potatoes!) Use of this type of argument is an insult to the real lessons of world history.

As for the Commonwealth, Flint says monarchists "were denounced as liars" and "the Secretary General of the Commonwealth agreed with us". The Secretary General certainly did not, so we should rightly denounce Flint as doubly a liar.

Monarchists have an important role to make the NO case in any proposal for republican reform. Lies, exaggeration and lazy argument diminish their capacity to assist the Australian people to understand the NO side of the debate.

A very good friend of mine has a doormat outside her front door that says "Oh no, not you again". I feel the need for one of those right now.

About two thirds of the good professor's rationale seems to rest upon the failure of the Weimar Republic, and on the uncomfortable gyrations of a post-war nation to establish a system that avoided the elision of democracy into dictatorship that the country had experienced in the thirties. In the broadest view, given their starting point in 1945, plus the upheavals caused by the reintegration of East Germany in 1990, I don't see too many weak spots in the implementation of their political structure.

Using as further evidence of instability the current appeal of a couple of noisy Bundestag member against the September election is a trifle disingenuous too. (Heck, professor, the main objector is a Green, for heaven's sake!) You say "On July 23, the President announced to the nation: 'I am convinced the constitutional conditions for dissolving parliament exist.' Which, of course, they did not."

Your evidence please? Are you seriously offering yourself as an expert on German constitutional matters? Or simply presenting a layman's view, couched in terms that enable you to pretend that you are? Such arrogance.

As well as calling the Chancellor a liar, you conveniently ignore the fact that in a recent poll over 70% of the German electorate agreed with him - the coalition has lost the ability to govern, which is the reason he called the vote and forced the election. As for the closeness of the vote, you have to realize that in any go-to-the-people situation, there will be a number of members voting out of fear that they will lose their pay-and-perks, just like every other bunch of pollies.

Bricks without straw, professor. Bricks without straw.

oh, I get it. Stupid me. Westminister republics wouldn't appoint people like DF to prominent boards like the ABC.
Perhaps that high court judge gig is just around the corner Dave?

David Flint: High Court judges should be appointed on merit, not trendy notions.http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16081280%255E7583,00.html

Quote:

"The new justice can expect to be denounced for appearing to be conservative, and therefore a government toady".

Nahh, we wouldn't say that about you Dave!!

Let's be absolutely clear about the DOUBLE LIE in the article.

David Flint says republicans "did not even know that to stay in the Commonwealth we had to have no opposition from any one of the other 52 members of the Commonwealth [1st lie]. When monarchists pointed this out we were denounced as liars. But to the embarrassment of the republicans, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth agreed with us." [2nd lie]

The Secretary General said "Let me make it absolutely clear that, whatever the outcome of the referendum, there is no question of Australia's membership of the Commonwealth being in doubt ... The position of Her Majesty The Queen as Head of the Commonwealth is unaffected by such a constitutional change, and the procedures which need to be followed to confirm any new status would, in this event, be a formality."

To confirm my quote, readers may check the source:
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=34701

One remember that David Flint is not just twisting the truth, but deliberately lies. It is a shame that such a person is regarded by anyone as representative of monarchists.

I would like to see the debate get well beyond the simple opposition of "YES, republic" or "NO, stay as we are", because neither of these positions represents my view of what Australia is. I do not feel, as some of us seem to, that the monarchy is an affront to my sense of national identity. For me, that national identity is merely one of many layers, and the monarchy connects us to a wider world beyond the nation

I therefore see three "head of state" options:

1. Acknowledge the cultural and institutional ties of which the monarchy is a part, and seek to draw closer to the other core Commonwealth countries: especially New Zealand, Canada and the UK. (the CANZUK case)

2. Repudiate those ties, set the limits of our world at the current borders of our nation and install a republic. (the YES case)

3. Retain the monarchy in the present situation, which is anomalous but has worked well so far. (the NO case)

Feeling connected with a world beyond Australia is not the same as denying that we are Australians, it is more a matter of putting it into a broader perspective. Drawing closer to the other Commonwealth countries – even eventually forming a CANZUK federation – would not involve losing our Australian identity, but would simply add another layer.

To take a sporting example, if Queenslanders and New South Welshmen can happily recognise each other as fellow Australians one day and bitter State of Origin rivals the next, there is no reason why Queenslanders, New South Welshmen and New Zealanders could not see themselves as fellow ANZACs by day and Bledisloe Cup opponents by night.

My objection to republicanism is not that it opposes the monarchy, but that it opposes the community of nations that share the monarchy with us.

Ian describes the republican YES case as repudiating our Commonwealth ties and setting the limits of our world at the boarders of our nation.

This is utter nonsense. Simply ridiculous.

Republicans strongly support our Commonwealth ties and Australia's engagement in the world without qualification.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

David, it is really very simple.

The Roman Empire colonised parts of Europe, spreading its language, culture and values in such a way that a number of different but essentially Latin cultures gradually developed. Centuries later, Spain and Portugal expanded this Latin world to the Americas.

The British Empire also colonised many parts of the globe, spreading its language, culture, values and institutions, planting new British cultures and establishing a British world, of which we are a major part.

Like you, I have always been Australian. I have always been a Sydneysider, I have always been a New South Welshman, I have always been Australian, and I have always been British. There is no contradiction between being Australian and being British, just as there is no contradiction between being Brazilian and being Latin.

Now whereas the Latin countries broke with their colonial powers, the British countries chose equality and cooperation. Imperial conferences began in the 1880s, and the 1931 Statute of Westminster formalised the independence of the six dominions: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, Ireland and South Africa. With the UK, they formed the British Commonwealth. Of these seven, Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, Ireland became a republic and left the Commonwealth, and South Africa followed in 1961. You call CANZUK “an inner club”, but it is simply the historical British core of the Commonwealth.

Sadly, however, the organisation has been so debased since 1949 that most member countries regard each other as foreigners, while two – India and Pakistan – point nuclear weapons at each other. None of this changes the fact that CANZUK remains fundamentally British in its culture, values and institutions. We simply have no reason to see each other as foreigners.

Like you, I support Australia and its federal structure, but I hope to extend it to include the other British countries. These are the historical ties that I wish to acknowledge and build on.

Ah! if only....

If only South and Central America would recognise their common culture, values and institutions they could be two nations: Brazil and Spanish South America, but ...

If only the Spanish and Portuguese recognised their cultural ties under the Moors and before that the Romans (Hispania.) All of South America could be united under the Federation of Iberian America ... but

If only the Romans hadn't split into Eastern and Western spheres. The could have remained united under their common values and culture. The Russian Empire would be united with the Holy Roman Empire and today we could have the Roman United States wrapping around the world from Alaska to Cape Horn ... but

The British and French empires were inheritors of the Roman legacy also. Africa, India, the Americas and Oceania! United they could have control of 75% of the world population.

How exciting to speculate like this. If only...

David, since you are choosing to be truly obtuse, I will leave you to it.