If it ain't broke don't fix it.What benefit do we get from becoming a republic?It would cost billions of dollars and how would it better our lives.Would it improve the hospital system or put more money in our pockets?Would it get the homeless off the streets or help our crime statistics?Why should we become a republic?Give me one good reason.

Because we are a grown up nation, and its time the umbibicle cord was cut!

Kipp might care to know that the umbilical cord was well and truly cut more than eighty years ago, according to the Hawke Government's Constitutional Commission, which included Gough Whitlam as one of its members and Sir Zelman Cowen as one of its advisers.

As for John Warhurst's accusation that monarchists are running away from the big issue, that's a bit rich coming from the former head of ARM, which once had six republican models on its plate and dumped them all because deciding which one to choose became too hard. John knows full well that there is no such thing as a republic – there are some 150 of them around the world and all are different. Mary Robinson and Saddam Hussein were both republican presidents. After 17 years of pushing and straining, the republicans still don't have a single model to put to the people. When they finally decide on THE republic there will be an issue for the rest of us to contemplate – until then, all republican posturing is simply empty rhetoric.

The Jews stumble b4 the power of the Poland *Pa Wraith*

&

Muttley throws a bucket of blood on *His PopIness*
(whilst in his best Dorothy shoes too I might add ;-) )

..

I go to bed & promptly roll over
&
b sick in a bucket with *Reagan*

..

but too wake this morning to such a
*TreaSurePleaSure*

..

**cOUNt pUTIn* & *Madame Alina**
Lord & Lady Alina
Lady & Lord Putin

(!YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!)
as they melt into the Blessing of the Collective
(!YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!)

..

I say, what show, ... a Mask Faces party

!AND!

a *TriPoppetsWockeTKompetition* in the desert
4 ALL the WarPoppets

!AND!

the prize, NOT the !BONGofFIRE!, NOT the !LINEofDEATH!

!BUT! Ozzie *RapidResponseStealthTek*
!AND! Ozzie *ScramJetII*
!AND! Ozzie AI Accessories

the winner,
the Poppets with the best AntiStwayWocketSolution,
all factors considered,
prize to b determined by OnLine Poppet Poll.

...Adam...

P.S.

Think someone better check the measurement of
Muttley's *HolyCity* stick.

P.P.S.

Let the Ambassador to *Satan*
be summoned, !BOW!YR!__CKING!HEADS!
for interogasi regarding the Ferrengi Alliance.
HaHaHa

.. to be continued ..

AJ LEBreton,what was all that rubbish about.

We are already a republic - a crowned republic (yes there are such things) - the question for republicans is 'do you want Australia to leave the Commonwealth'. If the answer is yes, then say so.
In the meantime the estimated cost of becoming a republic (and then the ongoing costs of remaining one) would be far higher than republicans care to admit. Can we justify spending that money just to satisfy those who are unable to acknowledge reality?
Given the choice would you spend money on becoming a republic outside the Commonwealth or remaining a republic inside the Commonwealth and using the money saved to further develop trading ties with a group of nations - to the advantage of both sides?
Republicans really need to stop suggesting that we are anything but independent - we can do anything we want to do. We are seen as a very stable country - something that would immediately change for the worse if we became a republic....and yes, it would cost billions in lost confidence if nothing else.

When the UK joined the European Common Market, Australia and New Zealand produce was cut off.

Non EU visitors are about to be fingerpinted on entry to the UK.

Commonwealth visitors to the Uk will have visa stay limited to three months.

Former UK citizens who emigrated to a Commonwealth country are required to apply to the UK immigration, should they wish to return to stay in the UK.

Australia has spent over five billion on the futile Irag invasion!

So Kipp, your point is? You appear to want the umbilical cord re-attached.

It was Australia's choice to be cut off. The EU membership did not prevent the UK from keeping the former arrangements. It was all about Australia (and NZ) becoming 'part of the Asian region' (something we still have not - and never will - achieve).
The best thing Australia could have done would be to have applied for special status within the EU - something that might have been looked on favourably earlier but is now impossible. We lost a major opportunity there because of short-sightedness of Australian government.
We could have used it to secure major international status as the 'middle man'. Instead of that we have republicans demanding to be big fish in little ponds with a conflated idea of their importance in the scheme of things. They lost that chance years ago because of their arrogance and Australia is much the poorer for it.
"Becoming a republic" is not about enhancing democracy but about eroding it. It is what those with old fashioned ideas about socialism aspire to.
It is perhaps worth noting that two retired members of the High Court both withdrew from the summit - reportedly because they were uncomfortable with the way in which it is to be used as a vehicle for Rudd's Republic.
I wonder where Republicans would spend the money if it had to be an absolute choice between that and something like indigenous health programmes - at the moment they still seem to think they can justify something that will cost billions (and go on costing more than the current system) with no purposeful outcomes. As such it is an act of supreme selfishness.

Why are those who support a republic using the same boring tired old arguments in another boring tired old debate?

I agree with Communicat's notion of the 'crowned republic' as defintional description of our system of governance. We operate under a constitution, possess the distinct arms of government (as determined by the separation of powers) and function at an arms length from the monarchy.

I see the republican issue more as a means by which proponents can detach the British connection from our model of government. Animosity to the British is inextricably linked to the attempts to focus on the negatives of our history, and live in ignorance to the success of this nation to develop into a successful and entrepreneurial nation that fosters initiative and enterprise.

When the delegates on governance were asked about support for a future republic at this supposed 'summit on ideas', there was one lonesome dissenter among the crowd (surprise surprise). The response from the majority; laughter. If that is the type of attitude that this summit is promoting to alternative ideas and freedom of thought, then it has failed abismally.

It is a sad reflection on this exercise as a politically manipulated gathering which is doing nothing more than to reinforce the ideas of those in government. The list of delegates cetainly confirms this.

I went to our local talkfest 45 min per group stuck on one subject then 15 min for how it was to run then a 30 min chat.

There was 2 of these and the reasoning behind this.

Well labor has no vision or solid policy.

They only have outlines suckering the people.

The republic well just what the party that supports and hides peodophiles wants.

We have labor corruption everywhere.

Why because you just keep letting them do it.

I am still waiting on defamation charges to come but never will as this is the last thing labor want to do.

Drag their corrupt PM and members through and have them jailed and the labor party disbanded and deregistered.

Stuart Ulrich

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

No, David, our Head of State – the Governor-General – already does all the things that you have described, and does them extremely well.

DIS