Before you go on, I am reminded that Wayne Swan did not think that Yallambee Lodge, a vacant aged care home in Deagon in Queensland was suitable for asylum seekers.

Lexi do not despair the debate will be good but we are far from finished.
Glad the thread has taken off.
Not a bit surprised at some posts being pure twaddle.
The flag flying over us is not the only one we had.
And fear of change is proved to be by experts a conservatives problem.
Let us not forget as many Liberals as Labor both want and does not want a change.
The old lady currently head of *the firm* her name for her family will hand in her shares in Rio Tinto and move to that mansion in the sky.
Who however will suck Charles brides toes?

cont'd ...

Swan tell us that, "There have been times indeed when
the monarchy has been broken. The sacking of the
Whitlam government, including the unwillingness of the
Crown to take the advice of an elected Prime Minister with
a majority in the House of Representatives, is an obvious
example from our nation's past. An Australian President with
clearly defined powers would help prevent such an
injustice from occuring again."

People could argue that the almost universal respect in which
Queen Elizabeth II is held makes her the right person for
the job, notwithstanding the unfortunate constitutional crisis
of November 1975. But constitutional arrangements are not
about personalities.

As Wayne Swan asks, "What if history had been different, and
a less able and less reliable head of state had ascended the
throne in 1952? After all, we are just two English monarchs
from the short and disastrous reign of Edward VIII. This
reminds us that a good result is not always guaranteed."

Wayne Swan reminds us that,"There's one other major
reason why now is the right time to discuss the republic
question: the Asian Century."

"With the economic and political balance now shifting to our
part of the world, the idea of an Australian head
of state who resides in London
seems anachronistic in the extreme.
Bringing our Constitution home would be the right way to focus
our minds on the fact that we are now an independent nation
that can succeed fully only by taking advantage of the
development of the Asia-Pacific region. The symbolic
statement made by an Australian republic would ram that
crucial point home."

As a prosperous, successful and proud nation many people
feel that
we are selling ourselves short when we don't also have the
confidence to chart our own way in the world led by an
Australian head of state.

As to the eternal
question - when? I guess -
this depends on how persuasively the
republicans can put forward their case.
I'm finding the volume of essays on the topic quite
compelling.

Lexi sweetie, I'm amazed at you quoting Swanny.

Why on earth would you chose a fool, with a proven record of total failure, & an IQ somewhere near the bottom of the pile to quote.

If you were quoting him as someone who's ideas we should avoid at all cost, I could understand, but to expect any one to give any credibility to any thought of his, is really going too far.

The only person likely to suggest we fix that which is not broken is sure to be someone who sees a quid in it for themselves. Only a shyster would make such a suggestion.

Both Swan & Turnbull have ideas of grandeur way beyond their ability. Both see themselves as the first Oz president. This alone is reason enough to avoid republicanism for a few decades at least. Having a such a fool or such a stuffed shirt as a president I wouldn't even wish on New Zealand.

Hasbeen a post such as that says far more about you than Swan.
I rather think the ALP is better for his fall.
But after reading your rant have focused on what seems to be a very unhappy man who lost control some time ago, and it is not our ex Treasurer.

Dear Saltpetre,

It is difficult to know what the monarchy represents
in modern Australia. As Malcolm Turnbull points out,
"In 1901 "the Queen" in the Constitution meant the
Imperial government in London; indeed section 59 of
our Constitution allows any law passed by our parliament
and signed into law by the Governor-General to be
annulled by the Queen within twelve months of enactiment -
this was included to enable the Imperial government to
cancel any Australian law that offended British
sensibilities and which the Governor-General (appointed
by London) had nonetheless signed into law."

All this made sense in 1901. We were not an independent
nation, but rather a largely self-governing but
subordinate dominion within the Empire.

In the words of Sir Robert Menzies, the Crown represented
the fact that "wherever we are in the world, we are one people."
British people. After all, Sir Robert Menzies believed that
"the boundaries of Britain do not lie on the Kentish
Coast, but at Invercargill and Cape York."

But as Turnbull tells us, "We are no longer subordinate to
Britain, and no longer see ourselves as part of a greater
British community, what does the Crown mean to us today?"

Today, Australians travel on Australian passports, they
need visas and have to queue up along with all the other
foreigners to get into the UK.

We know what the Queen means in Britain - As Turnbull says,
"the Queen's jubilee was an eruption of splendidly jingoistic
British pride parting, if only for a few weeks, the heavy
clouds of economic gloom hanging over the United Kingdom."

But Turnbull is right when he says that, "we don't look at
the Queen and think of Australia. And when we contemplate a
future King William and Queen Kate we don't think of our
country - the only Aussie princess lives in Copenhagen,
after all."

Turnbull raises the interesting point that, "Queens and
Kings will all eventually come and go, but the
Australian Constitution seems more durable, almost
immoveable in the face of change..."

cont'd ...