It is rumoured that the devious republican-pushers will use the question 'do you want an Australian as our head of state’, or words to that effect, when they next force a tedious, un-asked for referendum on us. They won't ask 'do you believe that Australia should become a republic’ because there is every chance that the answer would be NO.

So, those of us wanting to continue they way we are will need to vote NO. However, many people, not really understanding the meaningless 'head of state’ waffle (and many Australians think that the Prime Minister us our head of state) will vote YES out of 'loyalty’, and an overall yes vote could - probably would - ensue.

The next step would be to decide what sort of president we would have: appointment or elected. The urgers of course want the elected sort - a politician's’ republic, giving our incompetent, also devious, political class even more power over us than they already have.

Those of us who are happy with the way things are, and who don't want any more debt incurred by a totally unnecessary change, should be getting ready NOW, because it is coming at us again, sometime soon.

Hey ttbn,
I'd be willing to look at the pro's and con's, however if they jump straight to the obvious selling point, then it tells me that they want me to buy into something, so I'd really want to take a look at the fine print and I suspect that I wouldn't be too keen on whatever their real reasons for selling it are.
- But I'd give it a look, even if only to find out what's wrong with it.
We're too tied to globalism and forced leftist agendas.
Our western intelligence agencies are more or less all integrated, what's really going to change?
Likely nothing about the word 'republic' will equate to self sufficency or independent.

There's another topic I'm starting to see which has much more importance, we need some kind of fairness and non bias in the media, and an internet bill of rights.

The censorship and demonetisation of right wing conservative websites and viewpoints, social engineering, Islam and its support from the left, portrayal of white as racist if we complain...

Without that free speech and a level playing field on major online platforms, no matter the topic it will just be a losing battle, and a slow noose.
The system is totally gamed against us for this anti-nationalist globalist New World Order agenda.
They are destroying our sovereignty, our identity, dividing us against each other, indoctrinating the kids, attacking the male role model, destroying the family, promoting ridiculousness and perversion, making us dumb and decadent and powerless.

The West is being systematically destroyed from within how can anyone not see it?

There is no logical reason for Australia to become a republic. The proponents of the nonsense are the the very last people that one would say had the country's well-being at heart. They are the usual Leftists pushing for change - on and on - merely for the sake of change. They are up to no good.

We have more important things to do in Australia than to wantonly, like spoilt children, wreck what works well, at horrendous costs we cannot afford, just because people like our grandstanding, but incompetent, Prime Minister and a weirdo who thinks he's a pirate says we should.

I agree with you TTBN; there's no logical, nor practical reason whatsoever, for Australia to become a Republic. We're doing quite nicely as we are in my view. Why try to fix something if it isn't faulty or broken. We have all the autonomy we want or need with the present system, so why meddle with?

Our beloved Monarch doesn't impinge or intrude upon our affairs? So what's the point of changing things? And if we did, how would we select a Head of Government, and for how long, and with what powers. Leave it alone, the current system works very well indeed for our needs in my humble opinion?

What I don't quite understand is -

We have a foreign Head of State - a British Queen.
Our Members of Parliament have to swear allegiance to
her when taking office. When she travels overseas - she
represents the interests of England - not ours. And yet,
Members of Parliament who find that they happen to have
British citizenship someWhere in their background - cannot
according to Section 44 of our Constitution keep their jobs
and have to renounce their British citizenship before they
can serve in our Parliament. Does that make sense?

Foxy,

It doesn't make sense because the framers of the Constitution never intended British Citizenship to be a bar, the very make up of the early Parliaments reflects this.

Asking such a question ("do you want an Australian as our head of state"?) won't be a referendum but a giant survey. It will have no legal effect.

At some point they will have to ask a referendum question along the lines of 'do you want to change this section of the constitution to read XYZ?'. We can only become a republic if and when a referendum question that states specifically what the system will be, is proposed and passed by a majority of people in a majority of states.

I'm not sure you're right when you say " The urgers of course want the elected sort". Although the Aust Republican Movement is coy on the issue I think they'd prefer that the HoS be appointed by parliament.

Its on that point that they always flounder. The people want to elect their president. The elite don't trust the people. And a proposal to elect will mean massive changes to the constitution which will make it that much more difficult to get it passed.

England seems stuffed anyway. On the weekend they gaoled a man for highlighting the massive muslim rape/paedophile issues. We are heading the same way whether we are a republic or not. Admittingly it would be sickening for the feminist on the abc to choose our president like they backed our current pm.

Dear Is Mise,

Well shouldn't that section of the Constitution be
reformed?

There is nothing foreign about the Queen. She is the Queen of England, but she is also LEGALLY AND PROPERLY the Queen of Australia. I am not shouting, as some self-appointed busy bodies often suggest when they see capital letters. It is just that there is no other way to emphasise anything on OLO. I would happily use italics or bold text if they were available. And, her representative, the Governor General, speaks for us on non-political matters - except for one occasion when Mrs. Quentin Bryce ventured into politics while overseas and was reprimanded for it by our elected government. Comparing Queen Elizabeth with politicians who cannot obey the law as the rest of us do is a great insult.

Is Mise has a good information on Sec 44 which could be expanded on in a separate thread.

o sung wu,

I really like people who agree with me. Those who don't can vote Yes :)

Can Australians enter the UK on an Australian passport
without a visa?

//Can Australians enter the UK on an Australian passport
without a visa?//

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Australian_citizens

Dear Toni,

Thanks for the link.

It explains about tourists for six months.

What about if you want to study or work?

Or what happens if you want to go there to live?
Like Pauline Hanson did at one stage. Would
your Australian Citizenship hold any clout at all?

There are no particular advantages for Australians when it comes to entering/staying in the UK. We don't need visas, but that's about it. The same seems to apply to the other way round for Brits coming here. Boris Johnson is the only Pom I can remember saying that Australians should be treated better. But, so what? This is nothing to do with the topic.

runner,

Yes. A shocking episode. He is now doing 13 months choky because he has been warned about this sort of thing before. I share your anger, but he did know the rules. The problem is, however, one of a pathetic, leftish, female-led government and politicised judiciary and police.

DEFAT should be posting warnings about travel to the UK because of the disgusting bias towards Islam and Muslims and the safety aspect for non-Muslims.

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with the monarchy (except for showing for the umpteenth time that the Queen has no say in how the UK or Australia is run). Let's stick to the republic question, please.

For those that want to stay informed here's a
link that gives us nine things that we should
know about a potential Australian Republic.
The more information we can get the better
choices we may be able to make. After all one
of the pre-requisites to being a democracy is
being informed:

http://theconversation.com/nine-things-you-should-know-about-a-potential-australian-republic-89759

"The more information we can get the better choices we may be able to make."

Not just from your favourite source, the ABC, I hope, Foxy.

Foxy,
Your link stated.
4. What method of selecting a president is most likely to be supported by a majority of voters?
Surveys show that most voters favour the popular election of a president.

In that sense, the 1999 referendum was doomed to fail – not because a majority of Australians wanted to maintain the link with the Crown (polls showed a clear majority in favour of a republic), but because the Howard government put to voters a model (selection of a president by parliament) that most republicans did not want.

If my memory serves me correctly, the statement is incorrect. The Government put to voters the the model and preference of the Republican Movement, as recommended by the Republican Movement. This was rejected by the voters.

The current PM was Head of the republican Movement at the time.

The Republicans are devious, Now they are trying to blame Howard for the failed vote.

Newspoll reports 51 per cent are in favour of ‘a republic’, but then reveals half of these are only ‘partly in favour’. Hmmmm. Not a good bet, I would have thought.

The script is that unless we’re a republic we can’t have an Australian as head of state. Even Malcolm Turnbull concedes this is not so.

Banjo,

You think that those people pro-republic really want ANOTHER politician, which is all an elected president would be? Do they really like politicians that much? Most Australians hate Trump. They should realise that a Trump could be elected here, too. Or, what about another Whitlam scenario, without the reserve powers of a GG to solve the problem

Wannabe Republicans might like to ponder the the punishment meted out to Channel 10 when they decided not to televise the Prince Harry/Markle wedding. Their ratings for the evening - 3.4%. I don't think Australians are quite finished with the Royal Family just yet.

Dear Banjo,

From memory I think that what sank the Republic
Referendum back then - was the unpalatable choice
people were given. I don't think Howard should be
blamed.

I have yet to hear Republicans state that a Republic would make this Nation better rather that drag it down further, courtesy of the Left.
What are the economic, social, legal etc. policies in a republic run by the Left ? Would it take us down the same road as the Whitlam, Keatinge, Rudd/Gillard administrations ?
No good just saying we want an Australian head of State if everything else crumbles.
I certainly don't believe Australians of the real Australian type, would be in favour of a for example President Rudd or president Shorten.
Remember, ideology is has proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be a truly disastrous form of managing.
If a Republic will make Australia good again then yes, otherwise No ! Tell us BEFORE the push for a Republic, lay the cards on the table, don't hide them up the sleeve.

//What are the economic, social, legal etc. policies in a republic run by the Left ?//

Why would the left be running it? Where do you imagine the right are going to disappear to?

As a republic sentiment is a disease of the Left, it follows that a republic would be another step backwards, like all Left manipulations of society are. We have seen ample evidence of Left malice: multiculturalism; homosexual 'marriage’; gender bending; 'safe’ schools; political assassination of party leaders; globalisation; flirting with a Communist dictatorship; identify politics; obsession with climate change, windmills and the sun god to the detriment of Australian competitiveness via unaffordable electricity - plus umpteen other things too time-consuming to bring up. It's possible that Australians feel so brow beaten by the Left that they think the final insult of a politicians’ republic will not make much difference. They might see, understandably, the country as pretty much finished and not worth the trouble; and that's what the republicans want. They also think that Australians are stupid enough to fall for the trick question about no-account nonsense concerning a 'head of state’, a title as inconsequential as King of the Fairies in a democratic country which is run by elected representatives. Perhaps Australians are that stupid, and perhaps they are not. Perhaps, just like Americans before their last election, they are keeping their own council, waiting until they are asked, for the chance to tell the arrogant Left how wrong they are. I hope so.

policies in a republic run by the Left ?//
TL
ttbn just explained things for everyone to understand, except of course Lefties who refuse to understand because it's against their agenda to ruin this nation.

Every time I switch on the radio lately I hear that cock-sparrow, Christopher Pyne, chirping that we WILL be a republic when the Queen dies. In the blog Club Troppo on 29/5, a Ken Parish writes that: “ever since the failure of the 1999 Republic Referendum has effectively if tacitly been that there is no point in another referendum while the current Queen remains on the throne”.

Where does this crap come from? Who presumes to know what 15.7 million eligible voters in Australia will do when they are assaulted with another referendum? Certainly, Pyne doesn't have the mental capacity to start a rumour. Ken Parish just reports. But, the sentiment, or hope, is rife among people with nothing better to think about.

It does not matter who is on the throne. Queen Elizabeth is respected, even loved; Charles is thought of as a bit of a dill. But, there is nothing he can do that would affect the institution. That's what the republic-yearning muppets don't understand: the monarchy is not about individual people or power - it's a ceremonial, historical institution that is part of our heritage. The only thing a republic would do for Australia is further wreck that heritage and give us another d--k head politician who definitely would be into the power game.

The way things are economically at present, wouldn't the many millions of Dollars it'll cost for turning Republic, be more wisely spent on important things ?
Will being a Republic provide this nation somehow with politicians of substance & integrity ?
Would a President for example kick People like Rudd out of office long before they run the country down to an unrecoverable level ?
Something tells me that becoming a Republic we'd get the cream of incompetent idealists rather than people who know.
If a Republic will make this Nation better then yes, why not become a Republic.
No good saying we want to be a republic if no-one has a clue how to run it.

Here's a link that explains things so well.
In my opinion:

http://www.spectator.com.au/2018/01/whats-to-gain-from-an-australian-republic/

And these are the reasons why people need to seriously think
before suggesting - becoming a Republic.