In today's Australia, just exactly what does being an Australian mean?
Are our links with the UK still relevant? Do we want our own identity or are we happy to continue as a colony of Britain?

When we were married 25 years' ago, I managed the agenda of the dinner. We toasted Australia and not the Queen. It seemed unorthodox then. I wonder if more people would do the same now?

Ronald Reagan said Australia was the US of the twenty-first century. It was meant to be a compliment. Right or wrong, England has had its hey day, and, Australia poised to have a key role under globalisation.

WARNING..... BRIDGE OUT AHEAD.

The biggest danger for Australia cutting ties with Britain, is our absense of self understanding 'apart' from that connection.

If we do not have a strong self image.. sense of identity, sense of connection to something much bigger than ourselves.... we run the risk of becoming cultural/racial flotsum and jestum in a raging stormy sea of people who know exactly who they are.

DANGER...SELF INTEREST AHEAD.....

The biggest danger for we 'ordinary folks' is that we are unaware of the 'machiavellian' aspects of the campaign for a republic AND to retain links. It is vital to try to peel back the layers of 'for public consumption' stuff said by either side...and get to the truth.

CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDED.... It the 'Total Quality management' system, feedback and corrective action are part of the loop. If we decided to 'go it alone'... we would need to implement definite procedures which would limit the level of unpredictability in social outcomes.

HISTORY IS THE KEY. We are connected, whether we like it or not, to a definite stream of history. As long as we take the trouble to impart and reinforce the key moments, battles, wars, discoveries etc OF that stream of history, then we will develop a sense of identity which is enduring and robust.

SOLUTION. Perhaps a republic with a strong connection to Britain would work ?

WARNING...THREAD HIJACK ABOUT TO OCCUR.....

couldn't resist that :)

While Australian culture and history is indeed heavily indebted to our British colonial past, the British component of our heritage has become less and less relevant since the end of European colonialism following the Second World War. To a very large proportion of contemporary Australians, Britain is just another country at the opposite end of the world that they might like to visit one day.

Given that our predominant language, and most of our institutions, traditions and laws derive directly from our British heritage, it seems likely that Australia will always retain some vestiges of our colonial past. However, since we as a nation abandoned monculturalism, and also as the world has become globalised, it is both inevitable and desirable that Australia makes its own way in the world, and is no longer seen as an Anglo outpost in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ultimately we will formally abandon all ties with the U.K., but I don't think there's any need to rush into a republic until the electorate demands it. It'll happen anyway - no need for a revolution.

And while I think that 'Advance Australia Fair' is a bloody awful dirge of a song, it is streets ahead of 'God Save the Queen', and does contain some noble sentiments that are actually relevant to Australia.

I'm not australian by birth. If it weren't for the British, God only knows what this big island would be like by now. Shudder, shudder, shudder! Australians & by that I mean everyone whose roots are overseas & that includes many who call themselves indigenous must acknowledge that this british influence is the basis upon which this nation called Australia was built. Australia is an offspring of Britain & by the law of nature an offspring sooner or later has to move away from Mummy & stand on it's own feet. To become independent does not require to disown your parent & remove all photos from the album. I'd suggest keep singing save the Queen until the Queen is no longer & then change the lyrics & the tune.

ps. maybe Peter Garrett could write a new song but, for heaven's sake don't encourage him to sing.

Am I the only one who felt a bit disconcerted that before Mr Howard could call the election - he had to get permission from the Governor General to do so?

Own up, Foxy.
I've read some of your other posts.

You don't just want to cut ties with Britain.
You want to *de-Anglicise* Australia.

I want to live in Australia.

Not India, China, Turkey, Sweden, Brazil.
Not even the UK.

Certainly not some Frankenstein monster pieced together from every culture under the sun.
Try to be everything and you end up *nothing*.

Pretending the overwhelming "Britishness" of Australia will just disappear, or isn't as good as some fictional alternative, isn't going to make us the *confident leader* of the 21st century.

"Do we want our own identity?"
We've got one.

Australia is a cultural descendent of Britain.
And part of *Western Civilisation* (which explains Europeans' relatively easy assimilation).
Without that, we have a *vacuum*.

Shouldn't our example to the world be our *structural framework*, not the cultural content.

The content in Turkey would be Turkish, but the "framework" could be copied from Australia.

We don't have to *become* more Turkish in order to show Turkey how our framework functions.

Here's CJ!
"British heritage has become *less and less relevant*"
"We as a nation *abandoned* monoculturalism".
"It is *inevitable and desirable* that Australia is no longer seen as an Anglo outpost in the Asia-Pacific region."

More "inevitability". Tiring.
What geographical "region" we're in is irrelevant to our *culture*.

"Britain is just another country"

And so is India, China, Turkey, Sweden and Brazil.

If Britain is irrelevant, then so are they (even more so).
Why embrace their cultures, while rejecting the British one?

"We will *formally* abandon all ties with the U.K., but I don't think there's any need to rush into a republic"

How can you *not* do both simultaneously?

If the Queen and the Governor General were to have no *formal* power, something else *must* replace them.
And that would require amending the Constitution.

People are not going to amend the Constitution without some substitute replacing the existing roles.

"'Advance Australia Fair' does contain some noble sentiments"

Surely "One Hundred Children" is more appropriate, CJ?

"One hundred children, brave boys and girls
They come from nations all over the world"

individual, 'maybe Peter Garrett could write a new song but, for heaven's sake don't encourage him to sing'.

Or dance.

I agree Advance Australia Fair is awful and only suitable for kindy up to primary schools. We need a striking, adult anthem for our future republic. Saying that, I still feel we should keep close ties with the UK. Something like the UK/US 'special relationship'.

Every time I visit the UK my friends ask the same question. "When will you guys cut the apron strings and stand on your own two feet?" I still don't have an answer for them.

But the Poms, I guarantee, wouldn't bat an eyelid if we became a republic tomorrow. Even the Queen would be happy, if it meant the end of all those fawning letters from David Flint.

The fact is, I think that we as a nation enjoy arguing about becoming fully independent, but lack any serious will to actually do anything about it. In the vernacular, we simply can't be arsed.

Too much like hard work.

Canada is in the same position, of course, except that they use the French question as their excuse for inaction.

The reality is, it matters very little these days where you came from and how you feel about it. Loyalty doesn't have the same sense of duty, responsibility - even nobility - about it any longer. You are measured more by who your friends are on this particular day, and whom you see as enemies.

Even these are liable to change at a whim - look how long it took for Saddam Hussein to move from being America's staunch ally against Iran, to being the reviled perpetrator of all kinds of evil. Nanoseconds.

As an Australian business acquaintance told me, some twenty years ago - "If you want loyalty, get a dog".

Maybe I'm missing the point, but what does it really matter? Other than a constitutional crisis if we change and needing to redraw the national org structure ... what will an Australian head of state do for me / us? I have a strong sense of self, I have a strong sense of what Australia is ... and neither of them heavily feature the Queen, the UK or even our ties back to the "motherland".

I am happy to support the republican debate if there is an overwhelming need to change - but I just don't get what that is.

Anyway, most importantly, could we still compete in the Commonwealth Games?

Dear Shockadelic,

What I want is for Australia to finally come into her own. Which means encompassing all the various threads that make up the tapestry, and not just one section of it.

I take seriously the responsibilities and privileges of Australian
citizenship, including the words of our National Anthem, which state,
"... For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine to
Advance Australia Fair."

Pericles: "The reality is, it matters very little these days where you came from and how you feel about it."

Really, then why the multicultural utopia myth?
If one's original culture "matters very little", surely you can just discard it upon arrival?

And now we not only have to deny our Britishness, but any notion of humaneness or civility.

Dog eat dog.
Me First.
Gimme gimme gimme.
The Push and Shove Society.

What an improvement!

Neither.

How about "The Star Spangled Banner"? (but only if that's OK with GWB).

Well, what a veiled way to ask should Australia become a republic, ask what the national anthem should be.

A republic! The song is a secondary issue. we can sort that out later. It is time we matured as a nation and stood on our own two feet politically. The mother/child analogy is a legitimate one in this case. We all have to move out, learn and become confident and develop a high level of self esteem as Australians and as an independent nation. It applies to us individually and to us as a nation of people as a whole.

Who was around or is old enough to remember '75 well? For me it is a disgraceful situation whereby the representative of Australia's head of state, the GG, has the constitutional power and authority to throw out the govt of the day. The fact that the senate blocked supply of funds to the govt thus making the elected govt a lame duck is not the point. It is the way that the situation is dealt with under our constitution that I find objectionable. We surely must have enough pride in ourselevs to be able to deal with such crisises on our own without the Queen of England and her locally domiciled rep looking after things for us.

And hand up all those who would have preferred our head of State, QEII, to be here to open the Olympic Games in 2000. That was the original plan and the correct one to have been put in place. Thank goodness we didn't go ahead with that one.

The change won't be easy, constitutionally, politically or culturally. That does not matter nor should it matter. Other nations have dealt with such a change and survived. So should we.

And to all those who are overly concerned about the change, New Idea and Woman's Day can still have Pricess Di or the Queen on their front cover. So relax. Not everthing will change.

I would certainly prefer to keep my allegiance to the U.K. than to the USA ,which seems to be the way we are headed.Our judicial and voting systems are still in line with that of the U.K.Undoubtably we will break away from the mother land eventually but let's hope we don't tie ourselves irrevocably to the land of warmongers and people that don't know which is the front or back of a cap.

It's a little off topic, but Australia's fixation with 1975 has always fascinated me.

Ditch says:

>>The fact that the senate blocked supply of funds to the govt thus making the elected govt a lame duck is not the point. It is the way that the situation is dealt with under our constitution that I find objectionable.<<

This seems to be the main gripe - Kerr's cur, and all that. But if we assume that Australia in 1975 had been a republic, what checks-and-balances would have been in place - i.e. what would have been handled differently?

Would a "president" have been obliged to step in? Or would it the decision have rested on who his mates were?

The latter, of course, would be a very Australian way of sorting it out.

Pericles, whoever would have stepped in if we were a republic in situations as occured in '75 would be determined by the constitutional guidelines that will need to be thrashed out. So my answer is, I don't know. But it is an important and fundamental issue to resolve. My gripe is accepting that our current constitution dictates that the GG/QEII pairing are ultimately the referees in the parliamentary crises that arise. I believe we should be mature enough to put in place a constitution with complete independence of the Queen and her local rep, the GG. WE are old enough, good enough and capable of looking after ourseleves, and we should look after ourselves. Being tied to Mother England's apron strings is not what I call confident and mature behaviour for this country.

And haygirl, making a constitutional break from the UK does not mean we become closer to the US. Why should it? Our aim should be as a republic, simply to become an independent, mature democracy. We can make up our own minds as to who we want to get closer to.

haygirl,

Many countries have benefited from the judicial and partliamentary systems forced on the British Monarchy by its Nobles. John I was forced to sign the Magna Carta and Cromwell's rebellion built Constitutional Monarchary. The Greeks gave us citizenship representation and Roman modern-style legal system [even primative cland have rules].

WWII Britain wanted Australian to leave the defense of the Pacific Theatre to save England. Curtin said no way. Churchill would have a resource rich contintent fall, instead of an island one-fifteith size with a few tin mines. In c. 1957 we were dropped by England so it cold enter the Common Market. England on the wrong side of the US over taking independent action in Suez/Sadat could not rei=ceiev e Amercian assistance with develop an A-Bomb. At Los Alamos, the British* Team was led by Sir Mark Oliphant: Guess whuch country helped them build and test an A-Bomb?

[I think Australians were British back then.]

QEII is a dutiful person and I have great respect for her. Moreover, the diplomatic knowledge she must have gained over decades must be valuable to her Prime Ministers, Brititish MPs.

In a sense the sun does set on the Western Empire on that now it has two centre states UE and the US. China is emerging and Australia, if it plays its card right is at the entre of the hub. I haved Asia for nine years. The Chinese like egalitarian Australian because they feel the Americans think they know everything and the Pomps don't realise the days of colonisation are over.

I feel some may have mistaken what i meant in my earlier post.I am a royalist and am quite happy with the status quo.I realise that eventually we will make the break from The U.K. and i do not want to become part of a little America.I have no love for their way of speaking,spelling or politics.I imagine this post will set the cat among the pigeons but it is my opinion.

No it doesn't set the cat amoungst the pigeons, at least for me. But you seem to have ignored the previous comment I made re US links. Can you explain to me why we should necessarily be closer to the US for cutting ties with Britain? The influence of the US is independent of any constitutuional changes sought by republicans. Cultural imperialism and the desire to have a strong ally are two of the main reasons we side with the US. But at the same time, being a republican does not imply any desire to move culturally away from Britain. I have nothing against the royal family. We don't pay for their upkeep fortunately and having them visit here occasionally is no problem or big deal financially.

And I believe we could still attend the Commonwaelth Games if that is what is worrying you.

Their is no reason why we should become more involved with the USA.I look around me and see so much of their influence, on our younger people in particular and it saddens me that Aussies are losing their identity.Our slang is almost forgotten,we are copying their every move.
I did not particularly mean, allied to them in a political sense.I think it a shame so many feel the need to emulate every move the USA makes.When we do make the break from the U.K,i would hope we would still retain our sense of belonging to that great race.As for our national anthem,i don't really give a hoot.To me it's just a song to sing at sporting events.

The Royals of Europe going back to at least the tenth century were basically MAFIA on horseback. [Often related] Families fighting for territory.

The US to paraphase Gore Vidal never wanted to frame a democracy. Recall it has an Electoral Council. People really don't vote for their representatives as seems. Ins Revolutionary War [War of Independence] it was British whom didn't want to pay taxes but to have a seat in the HP.

I guess one cannot blame the Royal Family for lunatics like Winston Churchill who purchased trench diggers for the WWII: He lived 50 years before real time and thought England superior to the rest of the Commonwealth.

haygirl: "I would hope we would still retain our sense of belonging to that great race."

Uh-oh!
I know you probably didn't mean it "that" way, but please don't ever use the word "race" on OLO.

Allergic reactions. Potentially dangerous. Causes sudden cerebral spasms.

"As for our national anthem, to me it's just a song to sing at sporting events."

I thought that was "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye".
Why not make Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll Part Two the anthem.
You know the words: "HEY!!"

Here's another cat for the pigeons:
As we're already in the OECD, and have much common with Europe, why not become part of the EU?

Using the Euro would mean our currency wouldn't have to vulnerably sit all by itself, tossed about by the whims of ignorant traders (Where's Australia again?).

It would also do wonders for tourism (one of our biggest industries) as Europeans wouldn't need passport and customs checks.

Maybe my question wasn't as off-topic as I thought.

>>whoever would have stepped in [in 1975] if we were a republic... would be determined by the constitutional guidelines that will need to be thrashed out... But it is an important and fundamental issue to resolve.<<

But that was my point, Ditch. So many people seem to hold 1975 as some kind of defining event, but no-one that I have met can tell me what a sensible republican response to the situation would have been.

I tend to get the impression, if I dig a little deeper, that the Saint Gough brigade's is a knee-jerk anti-monarchist reaction.

What I was looking for was a singularly Australian response: "because we are Aussies, and not just an outpost of the British Empire, this would have been our solution to the problem."

I think you youself provide evidence for this by saying:

>>My gripe is accepting that our current constitution dictates that the GG/QEII pairing are ultimately the referees in the parliamentary crises that arise. I believe we should be mature enough to put in place a constitution with complete independence of the Queen and her local rep, the GG.<<

I can - in fact I do - agree with every word of the last sentence. Especially the "should".

Unfortunately, until Australia can answer my original question, "what would a republican do differently", it cannot be said to be sufficiently mature, can it?

Shockadelic, we should stay within the bounds of reality here. What on earth would be the benefit to Australia of being tied to the Euro, as opposed to, say, the Renmimbi or the Peso?

>>Using the Euro would mean our currency wouldn't have to vulnerably sit all by itself, tossed about by the whims of ignorant traders<<

Being tied to another currency has ramifications for interest rates and inflation that far outweigh the "whims of ignorant traders". It is a form of outsourcing one entire level of economic management, and would be spectacularly disastrous for Australia.

Pericles, I still cannot answer definitively what safeguards a revised constitution would make to handle situations such as '75. That is an extremely complex issue and one for the constitutional lawyers. I don't want to offer any half-baked answer that leaves itself open to criticism by those more knowledgeable in legal matters.

Maybe I should be clearer here and say that Gough was leading a govt. that, despite being democratically elected, had to be bought into line! I don't object to the fact that something was done to correct the problems. I object in us being helped out as it were by Mother E and her GG. An Aussie elected by the people perhaps from a group of nominees selected by the govt., should be dealing with situations like that, a President advised by the High Court? The whole thing must be dealt with "in-house", as it were.

A republican need NOT NECESSARILY, do things dramatically differently only in that he would not be a rep of the Queen, our Head of State and therefore does not need to refer to her to handle the matter.

Western History owes much to the Greeks, Roman Law and the British parliamentary system. The latter was a achieved under sufference/pressure from the nobility and the middle classses. The progress made by the West is the application of theory to practice from the Great Divergence.

If William IV, George V or Queen II had never been born the World would be much the same: But what if Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg had not been born?

In what way iwould the Queen be different, where were we to run her under an MRI and take full blood count? Genetically, in-breeding would increase the chance of two recessive genes pairing, thus perpetuating negative characteristics. I'm sure Stephen Hawkins would have a higher IQ than Charles Windsor.

Royals are no different to you and I, only some bad genetic characterics are not being breed out.

Britain is still has a House of Lords, based on the outdated notion of peerage.

Ditch, don't get me wrong, I agree entirely that Australia should grow up and cut its constitutional ties with the UK.

But I do believe that your inability to envisage an alternative is shared by the majority of Australians, and is the principle reason why we are not a republic yet.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the Royals, the European Union, Captain Cook or anything else.

Just us.

And the sooner we stop looking over our shoulder for someone to blame, the sooner we will get moving and make it happen.

My point about Gough was only to point this out. The fact that the deed was done by the existing legal and constitutional structure is what should have been resented, not the victims of the system.

Because as you point out, there wasn't an alternative.

And the fact that there still isn't a realistic alternative is pretty shameful. Or, as I suggested before, simply another sign of our complacency and/or laziness.

Pericles, could you give more than 2 seconds thought to the idea of adopting the euro (with or without joining the EU).

The same argument about national sovereignty was put forward by member states of the EU when the euro was first postulated, but most members ended up adopting it anyway.
The advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

Our governments and banks may have some control over the economy, but they don't control the decisions of foreign exchange traders (who are the ones who determine the demand for currencies).

There is greater demand for currencies perceived as stronger over their relatively weaker counterparts.

The euro is certainly strong, and the likelihood of economic or political instability in the Eurozone is minimal.
The euro is a safe haven for investors.

The euro is the currency with the *highest combined value* of cash in circulation in the world, having surpassed the US dollar.

According to DFAT:
"The decision to become a full member (of OECD) reflected general interest in expressing views and exerting influence in an organisation which had by that time established itself as the *paramount western economic* consultative forum."

If we joined OECD because of its "paramount western economic" status, then why not join the EU, and use its "paramount western economic" currency?

The two organisations have primarily the same aims and mostly the same member states.

If we can justify joining OECD, then we can just as easily justify joining EU.

Ecuador, El Salvador, and Panama have eliminated their own currency in favor of the US dollar.

Many currencies are already pegged against the euro, including the Estonian kroon, the Bulgarian lev, the Cape Verdean escudo and the CFA franc.

It is possible that a world currency will exist one day, and it's highly likely such a world currency would be the euro, or a replacement currency of identical value (1 Euro = 1 Earth Dollar)

So dismissing the idea of adopting a supranational currency offhand with little supporting argument is not a mature, intelligent way to approach this issue.

But since when is OLO the home of mature, intelligent discussion?

Hell, why don't we solve both the republic and currency problems and become the 51st state in the USA?

We might as well be anyway, given that we've been their vassal state since World War 2.

Pericles said, "My point about Gough was only to point this out. The fact that the deed was done by the existing legal and constitutional structure is what should have been resented, not the victims of the system."

Well I think it was both. The former was resented by a lot of people and especially those who were in favour of becoming a republic. The victims were victims, too bad, but to Labor stalwarts they were ambushed and the Libs were the winners.

But the fact that we haven't come up with an alternative to the current system is pretty damn hopeless, I agree. I still stand by my excuse that the solution needs to be thrashed out by constitutional lawyers. So why don't they? Good question. Models have been put forward and are accessible I'm sure. I should do some Googling.

We are certainly undecided on how and who as far as a president is concerned. One of the questions in the referendum, which was held 10 years ago today!, was to determine how a pres. would be elected and who would nominate the options. If you recall, all sorts of odd-bods including some famous footballers were suggested. Be a good footballer and that qualifies you, you bet.

I would like to see the public awareness raised and the general level of familiarity with the issues increased. I'd even go so far as to suggest that the Republic options should be taught at school.

It honestly embarrasses me that Australians as a nation cannot make a decision because of timidity, lack of confidence and lack of knowledge of the issues and are too lame to learn more. If valid reasons can be put forward by the average person why we should stay as a constitutional monarchy, fine. But I don't believe the average person cannot do that.

It should be put to the vote - in which direction should Australia go.
We're now into the 21st Century and of course historically there will always be a link with the UK but - as a nation - we should be mature enough to stand on our own.

Well it was put to the vote Foxy, 10 years ago. The answer was NO.

Sad but true. But we should vote again, I agree with that.

Well, if we're not being serious, here's my new national anthem:

Keep Australia boring.
Keep Australia dumb.
Don't wanna be Australian?
Then stick it up ya bum!

Shockadelic, at a stretch, it could be sang to the opening bars of Advance Australia Fair.

Dear Shockadelic,

Seeing as we're introducing a bit of 'poetic licence' into this debate, I'll play - and throw my hat into the ring:

"Australians all, let us rejoice,
We've got a British Queen.
The laws that govern our brown land,
By Her are overseen.

"The day has come," some people said,
For us to be True Blue.
It's time the old girl packed it in,
It's making us askew.

"Get rid of Her?" few cried agast,
"Whatever will we do?"
"Don't worry mate, we'll be just fine."
"The Yanks are coming through!"

Ayzeelians let us rejoice
With cultures A to Z
Though many incompatible
Pretend you just can't see

Our land abounds in restaurants
How many do we need?
But more people means more business
The motive here is greed

The reaping happens after
The sowing of the seed

No room for big backyards no more
Can't fill your swimming pool
If you complain you're ignorant
A racist and a fool

Australians are getting wise
They're voting third party
But migrants only vote for
Tweedledum and Tweedledee

The pollies can't offend no-one
They've got no balls you see

We're running out of water
We're running out of land
But keep the migrants coming
Til we're a sardine can.

Assimilate or hyphenate
Won't matter in the end
When bodies lie dead in the street
This house is built on sand

With weary sighs let's all resign
Our fate to greedy hands

Shockadelic ... I love it! And, as per Q&A's comment suggest this should finalise this thread. What better way to depart than Australian humour at its greatest!

Thanks one and all.