The Sydney Morning Herald tells us that -
Prince Charles, heir to the British throne stood
sombrely as Queen Elizabeth's standard was lowered
and the new Barbados declared.

At the stroke of midnight on Tuesday a new republic
was born to the cheers of hundreds and with Barbados
ditching the Queen as its head of state - forging a new
path with its first President and severing its last
remaining colonial bonds nearly 400 years after the
first English ships arrived at the Caribbean Island.

Prince Charles has stated that -
The creation of this republic offers a new beginning.
The Queen has sent her warmest wishes.

Will Australia be next

The use of the word ‘ditching’ tells us more about the poster than about Barbados.
Hundreds cheering; I thought that the population was in the thousands;287,000 plus.to be a bit more precise.

The Caribbean island's ditching of the constitutional
monarchy is significant ( "ditching" was a term widely
used by quite a few newspapers - including The Herald Sun).
It is significant not just for the monarch and her heir,
but for the new republic, and others that may follow.

Joe Little, the managing editor of - Majesty Magazine
said the declaration was a "natural progression..."

"I think eventually it's one that will continue, not
necessarily in this current reign, but in the next -
and probably accelerate."

Royal officials have said little about the end of nearly
4 painful centuries of British rule and influence on
Barbados. Prince Charles did acknowledge in his speech
the suffering caused by the British. Barbados was a key
centre in the slave trade.

Lets not forget that in 1947 India emerged as an independent
republic. Then we have Fiji (1987) Mauritius (1992) have
since become republics following in the footsteps of
Caribbean nations - Dominica, Guyana, Trinidad, and Tobago
in the 1970s.

In Britain a YouGov poll in May indicated support for
scrapping the monarchy was low among older age groups.
In contrast 41% of those aged 18 to 24 said they wanted an
elected head of state.

The changing attitudes to monarchy could be as a result of
greater awareness about the legacies of colonialism and
support for anti-racism movements and a fairer society.

"As the older generation starts to die, we're going to see a
big spike in support for republicanism," said Graham Smith
from the anti-monarchy pressure group Republic.

"I think the only people that think monarchy has a big role
to play are the British and the Royal family."

Will these feeling accelerate world-wide - including in
Australia?

Interesting times ahead.

Foxy,
Do you think Australians would be as patriotic as the people of Barbados ?

I guess it will be the poms pouring foreign "AID" into Barbados. There is no chance such an island will be able to fund itself, with Covid 19 destroying the tourist industry.

It will cost the poms a fortune, unless the islanders go for China's Belt & Road Initiative, which would let them off the hook, & bankrupt the little island.

Watch Barbados go further down the drain, the homicide rate is near twice that of the USA.
Perhaps becoming a republic will lower it now that the UK influence has diminished.

The fact that newspapers are in bad taste no way excuses it in others.

Good on Barbados, they owe the British nothing. The problems of poverty and crime are the direct result of Pommy colonialism/imperialism. Australia could learn a lesson.

Paul,
How is that, should our crime rate go up a bit to fit your narrative?
Murder rate in Barbados 1995 6.3/100,000
2018, 9.77/100,000.
How are the Poms responsible for that?

Is colonialism responsible for the low homicide rate in Australia?

Issy,

Wherever the POM went he inflicted poverty on the mass of indigenous and coloured people, show where that's not true. From Australia to Zambia and everywhere in between, they inflicted poverty, there's your crime rate!

Paul,
The murder rate in India is 3/100,000, double that of Australia but way less than Barbados.
If Britain is responsible for the crime rate in former colonies why is the rate low in Australia, India, Canada and New Zealand?
The fact is that the Brits brought the rule of law with them and enforced it.
The rule of law enabled them to make more profit so was not primarily altruistic.
India is a prime example, no longer are widows expected to imolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre.
And it was British influence that helped stop the ostracization of widows after the banning of sutee.
No longer were child brides condemned to a second class existence because their intended husband had died.
You’ll have to do better, Paul, and you can if you do but try.

Prof. Hilary Beckles, a Barbadian historian, the
current vice-chancellor of the University of West Indies
sums it up best:

"Barbados was the birthplace of British slave society and
the most ruthlessly colonised by Britain's ruling elites."

"They made their fortunes from sugar produced by an
enslaved 'disposable' workforce, and this great wealth
secured Britain's place as an imperial superpower and caused
untold suffering."

Barbados, a beautiful island today known for its social
amiability and political civility has truly a tumultuous
history and a painful legacy - which still haunts.
But as Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general once
said, this has not prevented the nation from -
"punching above its weight."

On the 30th November Barbados became a republic. A sign
to the world that they were confident to say to the UK
that despite their size and limited resources - they
can be their own masters.

Of course this transition will not find approval among
those whose view remains that "the sun will never set
on the British Empire," and that Barbados should always
remain "Little England." But "Little England" has grown up.
It has matured and it should no longer be loitering in its
"master's castle."

There are no plans to change the national symbols such as
the flag or the coat of arms, the national pledge, the
national anthem. However the terms "royal" and "crown"
will be removed from all official terminology.

The Royal Barbados Police Force will be the Barbados Police
Service. "Crown lands" will become "state lands."

Of course Barbados will maintain a strong relationship
with the UK.
Their main source of tourists is from there. The Brits love
Barbados. But this is as Prince Charles said -
"A new beginning." A new era in which all Barbadians must
take pride and take ownership.

They may not be able to show their
true feeling due to COVID - and the limiting of public displays
and numbers - but there is no question that "Little England"
has grown up. It has matured. And a new term of endearment
will be found.

Barbados will succeed.

Barbados will succeed, and hopefully the murder rate will go down now that the pernicious influence of the Crown has been removed.
Theft rate 597 per 100,000
Australia 2,460 per 100,000 (way above the world average)

So as a result of colonialism you are more likely to murdered in Barbados than Australia but in Oz you’re far more likely to be a victim of thieves.

Prince Charles denounced the "atrocity of slavery" and
Britain's grim legacy of the slave trade as Barbados
removed Queen Elizabeth as head of state and swore in its
first president.

In a speech at Barbados' transition ceremony on Monday
evening the Prince referenced the darkest period of Britain's
colonial past, which saw the trafficking of people from
Africa to Barbados and the Caribbean.

"From the darkest days of our past, and the appalling atrocity
of slavery which forever stains our history the people of this
island forged their path with extraordinary fortitude," Charles
said.

" Emancipation, self-government, and independence were your
way points. Freedom, justice, and self-determination have been
your guides. Your long journey has brought you to this
moment not as your destination but as a vantage point
from which to survey a new horizon, " he added.

but in Oz you’re far more likely to be a victim of thieves.
is Mise,
True ! But that's not due to Colonialism, that's due to Leftist social engineering !

individual,

Our Indigenous people would not agree with you.
Neither would many who also suffered as a
result of "The White Australia Polcy" and so
many other "remnants"of the "colonial" influence
including our public service - as you keep pointing
out.

With the cultural diversity of England and Australia, there is a growing dislike of the supremcy of English culture and institutions even among ordinary Australians. There is a polarisation of values in America into two camps that is leading to the dumbing down of society to believe lies and hatred of supremacy of Western Culture represented by Westminster's original values.

The power vaccum will give way to communist dictators promising the people a bright new future where everyone is cared for by the State.

individual,

Here are two links for you to read:

http://theconversation.com/colonialism-was-a-disaster-and-the-facts-prove-it-84496

http://theconversation.com/yes-this-continent-was-invaded-in-1788-an-international-law-expert-explains-130462

Josephus,

They tried that in Eastern Europe. It did not work.

Foxy,
I had to laugh, the Conversation wishes to be taken seriously, yet to illustrate the claim that Britain built railways to facilitate the movement of troops, the picture shewn to prove the point, is of the, Darjeeling railway which was built, primarily, ot enable the Government officials and their families to get to the Hill Station quicker in the annual exodus from the hot plains in summer.
I’ ve travelled on this World heritage railway and the journey can be done by bicycle in a faster time.

Slavery was the standard practise in all the world and the biggest
slavers were Africans as they harvested their own contrymen & women
to sell them all over the known world. There may well have been more
white slaves than black slaves at various times.

It all continued on until the British government was convinced by
members of parliament that it was time for it to end.
The Royal Navy was given the job to end slavery.
The navy was successful in the Atlantic Ocean areas, but the Arab
trade continues in the Eastern European countries.
Why do you think Russians, Ukrainians, Serbs etc are known as Slavs ?

But more to the point, elect a Head of State and you create a
politician and an isolated power centre. You see this in Africa since decolonisation.

What we are seeing with Barbados is the writing on the
wall for the British Crown in former imperial possessions.
The queen is still head of state in 15 nations, including
the UK, Canada and Australia and support is reportedly
waning in the latter country.

In neighbouring New Zealand meanwhile a recent survey showed
that 50% of respondents favoured retaining the monarchy, even
after the death of the current queen compared with 44% who
favoured a republic.

This is a turnaround from a similar poll taken 2 years ago
when 55% said they wanted to become a republic.

The only thing these polls can tell us is that support for
the monarchy in Britain's former imperial possessions remain
volatile and the chances are that the sun will set on the crown elsewhere before too long.

Will Australia be next?

It's a risky thing to predict.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

The United States is a Republic !
Say no more ! Say no more !

Foxy,
There's no denying that people from Europe got out of hand all over the world. At least they recorded much of their misdeeds.
Our libraries are filled to the brim with such documents but what they're increasingly being filtered of are the documentations of incidents when the boot was on the other foot.
Warfare between tribes, slavery, exploitation & aggression wherever Europeans were too small in numbers to defend themselves.
So far as Australia goes you should really read "By flood & Field" !

No comment on the Conversation’s blunder?
Just imagine moving thousands of troops on a narrow gauge railway with a top speed of about 15 miles per hour a far better illustration would have been a 5’6” gauge locomotive capable of pulling a 600 ton train at 80 mph.

Come off the raw prawn you pommy haters. Most of the Caribbean population would still be living a much more miserable lives in self governed African hell holes, if the various European colonists had not imported them to the islands. Yes I know that was no philanthropic operation, but those so imported are the lucky ones today.

Just have a look at the Solomons. Peaceful & developing at a steady pace under the benevolent rule of the poms.

Now after less than half a century of self government & independence they have to call for peace keepers from Oz to stop them killing each other.

India descended into chaos, & had to be spilt into 2 countries to stop the religious killings, & their law enforcement is still not capable of making it safe for a girl to walk the streets alone, as it was in the days of the British Raj.

From personal experience of contacts I know that New Guinea has become a much less pleasant place for the locals to live, since independence.

Issy you ask; If Britain is responsible for the crime rate in former colonies why is the rate low in Australia, India, Canada and New Zealand?

Very simple answer, by the end of the 19th century the British had managed to murder most of the indiginous ihabidents of Aust, NZ and Canada. Don't know what happened with India, too many of the blighters I suspect for the Poms to murder them all, but they did try their best.

Bazz

Did your Mum wash you in 'OMO' when you were a kid? Cause; "OMO Made Whites, Whiter Than White!" Me thinks she did, look how white you turned out.

Paul,
IWhat on earth are you talking about?

Will Barbados now take in refugees from Africa ?

Paul1405,
Can you please explain how it is that when black people run away from their own oppressors they're called refugees but when white people are forced to do the same they're called invaders ?

A tinpot island with a population under 300, 000 goes republic, and squeals about Australia "ditching the Queen" go up. The Queen will be dead before she is ditched and Australia has far more important problems to worry about than the very expensive and totally unnecessary switch to a republic.

When the idiot Prince Charles, recently called 'more socialist than the Labour party', gets his useless arse on the throne, sentiment might change; and there is worse to come from a woke, prematurely bald little boy. In the meantime, the people who clearly don't like Australian traditions and history could piss off to Barbados or some other republic to find something really deserving of their whining.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

« Barbados Ditches the Queen », you wrote, and asked : « Will Australia be next ? »

Yes, Foxy, I’m sure it will - probably sometime next millennium or perhaps even as early as next century !

But though James I, was the first UK king to “ditch” his overflow of prisoners (to the American colonies as from 1615) and Queen Victoria the last to do so 253 years later (until 1867, to the penal colony of Western Australia), I can’t imagine that we, highly civilised, law-abiding citizens, descendants of those “riff-raff refugees”, could possibly be so ungrateful, spiteful and vulgar as to do unto them (the English royalty) as they did unto our honourable ancestors (the “riff-raff refugees”).

I expect we’ll just continue to let nature take its course and wait patiently until the royal lineage finally extinguishes itself due to some natural cause, such as impotency, inbreeding or whatever, without any intervention on our part.

Failing that, I’m sure we could find some other perfectly respectful and elegant manner to relieve them of their royal duties, allowing them to live their lives of wealth, comfort and luxury in their palaces just as they please, without a worry in the world.

No longer would they have to bother about what their royal subjects think of them or pretend to live a life of virtue.

So, yes, Foxy. I’m absolutely convinced : Australia will be next. You can bet your boots on it !

.

Barbados a tinpot island?

Yet Barbados made so many Brits so rich
and one that the Brits still love to visit.

Should Australia become a republic?

The issues are not that difficult.

If Australia was to become a republic the move would be
purely symbolic in that it can be effected without any
change to the way functions are distributed under the
Constitution. The Queen and Governor General would
simply be replaced by an Australian President.

It would mean that any Australian could aspire to the
position - embodying the ultimate source of executive
authority in Australia. This would signal to the world
that we are wholly independent both in appearance and
in fact by not having a foreigner as our monarch.

Also having a President wouldn't change the functions of
the office. Many Commonwealth countries have done this
over the past 50 years and have become republics while
continuing the system of parliamentary government.

The method of choosing a president was what caused
problems the last time. 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 wanted a
republic) but because the Howard government put to voters a
model ( selection of a President by Parliament) that most
people did not want.

An elected President would be compatible with our parliamentary
system of government. Both Ireland and Germany are
parliamentary democracies that have elected a Head of State who
performs the same limited role as Australia's Governor General.
Because the way these Presidents exercise their power is
determined entirely by the Constitution.

Campaigning for President in these countries does not revolve
around party politics or political platforms but around who
voters think would best personify the country and represent
it on the world stage.

Anyway, many other parliamentary democracies have become
republics over time.

Of course - acknowledge our past history
(the entire history).
This has nothing to do with "hatred."
It's about setting the record straight.

We should broaden our thinking to take the
experiences of other countries into account

Dear Banjo Paterson,

So beautifully and eloquently put.

Thank You from the bottom of my heart.

Foxy said:The Queen and Governor General would
simply be replaced by an Australian President.

Not so if elected by the people.
That act creates a politician and you do not understand politics if
you think the presidency would not be a step up for failing prime ministers.
Imagine President KK a fail all the way to the top.

But now seriously it might be said to be a better way to get rid of
a PM that their party no longer wants and better than how we have
done it in the past.
You can have limitations on powers as per GG but with it being a
vote by population in a crisis it is easy for the president to assume
powers not legally held, "The People voted for me !"
An appointment by the parliament puts the responsibility back on
parliament and it should never be anywhere else.

Dear Bazz,

The 1999 Referendum failed because voters did not
want selection of a president by parliament.

An elected president would be compatible with our
parliamentary system of government. Both Ireland
and Germany are parliamentary democracies that
have elected a Head of State who performs the same
limited role as Australia's Governor General.

That is because the way these Presidents evercise
their powers is determined entirely by the Constitution.

Campaigning for President in these countries does not revolve
around party politics or political platforms but around who
voters think would best personify the country and represent
it on the world stage.

Many other parliamentary democracies have become republics
over time. We have nothing to fear. And scare campaigns
to keep us down should no longer work in the 21st century.
Australians do not need a foreign monarch - we should be
mature enough to broaden our thinking and take the experiences
of other nations who have succeeded into account.

We should be mature enough to no longer be tied to anyone's
apron strings. We can make it and succeed on our own.

Foxy,
Using Ireland as an example is very good.
The Irish President has almost no power, almost purely a symbolic post, yet that did not stop Mary Robinson from blackmailing the Prime Minister and forcing him to do what she wanted.
She simply told him that if he didn’t do what he was told then she would resign in protest, force an election for President and tell the/ Nation why she had done it.
He wilted and she got her way.
No interfering in the political process at all, at all.

An umpire on interpreting the Constution is not done by popular Vote that is How Biden or Trump was given power. It means we need a school of Constution Lawyers who can represent our values and hold governing powers to account, who has the power to appoint and dismiss those violating the Constution.

A fly by night popular sports person might become president but not know the law of Government and agreement to administer the Constution. That is how Republics function - on popular Vote, not on a person established in Constutional Law. Name one Republic where all people irrespective of politics accept their President, like the Gueen of Australia is held as seperate from Politics.

We all know that actual history and facts are not quite the concerns of Paul and Foxy. But just for the sake of proprietary...

By the time the British arrived in Barbados, the Spanish and Portuguese had already been there for a century. Those natives not taken by the Spaniards to the mainland as slaves, fled the island to avoid that fate. Thus by the the time British turned up, there were very few natives remaining. The notion that the British impoverished and/or enslaved the natives is fanciful. But we know that some people just fabricate history to conform with what they want to be true.

Its very true that there were slaves in Barbados but they weren't the natives. In the main, at least in the earliest period, they were Irish slaves. That applied equally to the British colonies on the mainland.

If Barbados wants out, that's their call, although I suspect its more in the interests of the elite who would just as soon not having someone monitoring their corruption. The history of ex-colonies severing all links isn't good - especially for the poorer members of that community...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Zimbabwe

I wonder if some Australians naively think that a switch to a republic would somehow make things better. But, the same people who have reduced the country to a liberal democracy in name only over the past two decades of the 21st. Century will be the same ones making the new rules, writing a new Constitution. Whereas the Royal Family after Queen Elizabeth might be inbred idiots with big ears and noses, they have no real say in Australia. Our own idiots do. The advice to be careful what you wish for is very germane to this matter.

Politicians and their advisors have a very narrow background which is not representative of the general population. Our current Constitution is the only thing giving us some protection from them.

Most Australians who are politically active are of the Left. An ANU study found that "while only 7 per cent of the population is categorised as 'highly engaged', the left makes up 70 per cent of this small group. This means that less than 5 per cent of the population are exerting a significant amount of control and influence over the other 95 per cent". This constitutes minority rule.

Philosopher Nassim Taleb says that an intransigent minority with a significant commitment to, or belief in, what they are doing only need to reach a minutely small percentage of the population - less than 5 per cent - for the entire population to submit to their preferences.

This finding is borne out by the fact that the 'right' of politics has been in government for 75% of the time since WW11, but we are "nonetheless where we are today". And, just as it has taken many decades (for the Left to undermine and denigrate Australian society despite right-of-centre governments), it will also take a long time to repair the damage - supposing there is a will to do so.

A largely symbolic monarchy or a republic? The last thing we should be thinking about.

Australians couldn't handle a Republic because Republics have a National Service.
Our tattooed, nose ring & facial stud adorned are from the Centrelink Army & wouldn't last a day in a National Service !

one absolute crIteria for an elected President is that all who have ever been elected to either State or Federaj parliaments should be banned

I really don't see Why we can't simply remove
the Queen as our Head of State and then govern as we have done -
keeping everything the same (minus the monarch and
her representative).

We can Keep our parliamentary system and the position of PM
as is? It's not that complicated.

And -

Of course we can still have Royal visits and retain good
relations with the UK and the US as we've always done.

Problem solved.

I really don’t see why we shouldn’t retain the Queen and govern as we always have done.

You got most of it right, Foxy.

It was our constitutional monarchy that enabled us to get rid of Whitlam rather than have him stuffing everything he touched for a lot longer.

Just in passing, I think it is quite rude of folk who were welcomed into this country, often in their hour of need, to start telling us how to construct our government.

Well yes Hasbeen but some have been here long enough to have paid their dues.
The reason the Monarch or Gov General is there is because if you give
a politician an inch they will take a mile.
It took some hundreds of years to sort that problem into a workable
system. The Westminster system has been very successful.
In the major incident that we have had, it worked perfectly.
The PM who had lost control of parliament and was acting illegally was removed.
All politicians were sent to the people and they gave their verdict.
What system has worked better ?

Just been refreshing my memory re the history of Barbados, seems that there was quite a large English population before the real slave era when Africans were purchased from their fellow Africans to do the hard labour.
There were also Irish slaves as has been noted.
Little story on this aspect; I was having a yarn with John Pollock the then Secretary of theIrish National Association, in Sydney one day in 1956 or so.
We were making arrangements about the musicians for a coming dance when the phone rang and the Captain of a ship asked if some Irish lads in the crew would be welcome if they called in, John said that it’d be fine so.
About half an hour later four strapping young West Indians appeared much to our surprise.
They were indeed Irish and all had Irish passports, their grandfathers had claimed Irish citenship back in the1920s when the Irish Free State was set up.
We made them very welcome and they came to the dance the following Saturday night and had quite a good time.
They had never been to Ireland but Dublin was one of their future ports of call.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

I, personally, do not feel comfortable conserving the remnants of British colonial monarchy in our Australian constitution. The British Crown continues to remain our head of state and by virtue of the inherent hereditary process of the monarchic system (albeit that of a constitutional monarchy), we Australians have no say in who is the head of state of our own country and nation.

That is totally undemocratic and, in my view, unacceptable. We are no longer a British penal colony, and our constitution should be modified accordingly. In fact, I consider modification long overdue.

We could, of course, simply abrogate our constitution and not have one – at least, not have a written, codified constitution in a single document, as is the case of the UK (which relies solely on its laws and rules under the auspices of a monarch relegated to participation in a so-called “constitutional monarchy”).

But abrogating both the constitution and the constitutional monarchy would leave us a bit bare. I don’t think that would be a good idea. The alternative would obviously be to create a republic with a corresponding constitution, as well as an elected president and democratic government.

For want of a better solution, that is what I, personally, would prefer. I see no justification whatsoever for continuing to perpetuate our old, hopelessly outdated colonial constitution that has proven impossible to amend. It dates from federation on 1 January 1901. Since then, 44 referendums have been held but only eight amendments have been passed, the last one nearly half a century ago (in 1977).

It is full of holes, is racist, and offers little or no protection for individual citizens’ rights. It says that New Zealand, which was also a British colony at the time, can also become part of the federation whenever it likes. Our old colonial constitution no longer corresponds to reality.

In reality, Australia needs a new constitution, a new head of state, and a truly national democracy.

It's high time we did something about it.

.

BJ,

You correctly say, "We are no longer a British penal colony...", so what's the problem? You also say,"our constitution should be modified accordingly". What should be changed? There's a big gap between a voter-approved constitutional change and the massive and expensive switch to a republic that would see a purely ceremonial head of state replaced by another politician.

You keep repeating yourself after that. Your post just advertises what you "personally" believe, which is fine; but you don’t give any solid legal or practical reasons why Australia should become a republic. All sentiment and no substance.

Until there is another referendum on the matter, it remains the case that most Australians disagree with you. You will just have to hope that they will change their minds if and when there is another referendum.

What the people who have had it too easy for too long don't seem to take into consideration is that, when the Constitution was written it was written by people with sense & brains. To change it so that senseless & brainless people can have their silly ways would be as stupid as they are !

Banjo, pleqse give us some names of current potential Presidents that can administer a Constitutional and uphold Western culture that are not politicians or popular celebridies.

individual,

There are no, known, public figures in Australia that could be trusted to write/rewrite our Constitution. Perhaps there are people we don’t know about. Certainly, the pushers for a republic could not be trusted with the task. They all seem to be folk who reckon they know what is wanted, but don't know how to achieve it.

The Australian public has soundly rejected any change to our current arrangements. People of republican persuasion are free to have another go any time they wish. In the meantime, neither party capable of forming a government has a platform on the subject, so it's all hot air.

Of course there are numerous political reasons why
any mention to changing our head of state and making
any changes to our constitution have failed in the
past. These have included poor proposals, fear of change,
political opportunism by governments or oppositions, a
low level of public understanding of constitutional matters,
poor campaigning and sheer inertia or public disinterest.

Constitutional change as well as cutting ties with the Crown
need not be an uphill battle. There is no reason it should be
shirked.

Instead it should be a spur to produce better proposals for
constitutional change, develop strong and clear arguments for
reform, cultivate widespread public support and under take
vigorous but honest campaigns which put fear mongering and
insults aside. It not only can be done. It should be done.
Allow Australians to decide for themselves.

Well said Foxy!

Out and about this weekend on family business.

BTW I'm working with case number 2. Hoping for a better result than case 1, remember case 1 I failed, Tony might be a good Xmas present, don't know, We'll meet up again next week, and start working things out. Gave Tony a brief last week as to the haps, seems ok.

Hold the fort, the barbarians are at the gates on this one.

Can anybody tell me how Australia and consequently Australians will be any better off, morally, politically or in life style by becoming a republic?

Yes Is Mise, hundreds or perhaps thousands of lawyers, along with equal numbers of academics would be a whole lot better off with the thousands of court cases needed to sort out any rewritten constitution.

We would end up with a dogs breakfast after interpretation by a bunch of self satisfied judges, & the following appeal processes that would keep therm all in extreme comfort for decades.

At the finish we would have something much less simple & workable, & a whole lot less efficient than our constitutional monarchy.

There is literally no advantage in having a monarch
other than "tradition."

The only positive a monarch brings to Australian society
is the concept of "tradition." Denying women a vote was
"traditional" as well. Imprisoning homosexuals was
"traditional." Executing people was "traditional." Not
recognising the Indigenous Community as citizens was
also "traditional." Tradition has never prevented us from
making positive changes.

It shouldn't now.

An Australian republic would keep our current
parliamentary democracy with a PM but we
would have the advantage of one of our own citizens
whose allegiance would be entirely to this country
(not sharing it with many others) as Head of State
instead of the British monarch and their representative
the Governor General. This is the kind of republic that
works well in countries like Germany, Finland, Iceland,
Austria and India today.

Australians should have a say in who the head of our country
is. It should not be decided by the sheer luck of being
born into the British Royal Family.

Our democracy belongs to Australians so instead of the
top job belonging to the British Queen (or soon King
Charles) it makes more sense to have an Australian
representing us rather than a foreign monarch.

Becoming a republic is a way of declaring our unity as one
Australian people and sharing our alliance to our fully
independent Australian nation.

We are one and we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We'll share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, You are, We are Australian.

Each Australian should be equal in our democratic society.
It's time to grow up.

We should get to choose our own Head of State rather than
let the PM ring up Her Majesty and tell her which
military Officer/lawyer he has chosen to represent her in
Canberra.

If we become a republic we can create a modern set of
legislation that makes the power of the Head of State
explicit and clear and provides checks and balances.
We can make sure a Head of State was answerable to the
people in every way.

I'd support anything that is an improvement on what we have hell, even just going back to the pre Goaf days would be an improvement.
When people push for change they need to consider more than simplistic indoctrinated idealism.
Thus far, I haven't seen or heard of any plan that would rid us of the dumb-crap useless left to give us a better life. All we got from them to-date is division, hatred, parasitism & useless bureaudroids.
As I said, give us something better or shut up & get a proper job so we can enjoy what we worked for.
Symbolism that doesn't cost us is much preferable to idealism that sends us broke !

Foxy,
But how would we actually be better off?

Surely you can tell us in less than twenty words, but if that is not enough use all you like .

No one has answered the question;
What system has worked better than the Westminster System ?

No one has answered the question;
Bazz,
The Swiss system !

Dear Bazz,

The question has been answered but it's beyond the
comprehension of some who can't see that our country
would benefit from an Australian being able to get
the chance at having a crack at the top job.

As a country we would grow up in the eyes of many in the
rest of the world because we're still seen as a British
colony because we still have their ghead of state and their
flag on ours.

We'd get our own national identity, our own flag and finally
we would be able to sort out our own Constitution and make
sure it serves us and not a foreign monarch.

However, it all should not be about benefits - but about
growing up and not having the PM ring up Mrs Windsor and
tell her which military officer/ lawyer he has chosen for us
to represent her in Canberra.

That would be a major benefit.

That would be a major benefit.
Foxy,
Symbolically perhaps but how do you see this transgressing into economical betterment ?
You really need to come up with something the working class can relate to. You've been a Public Servant in Libraries so you have no way of knowing what's important for blue collar families.

individual,

Actually I've had a very varied career. Not only
in public service and libraries. Plus I've also grown
up the western suburbs of Sydney. You can't really
make assumptions about people you don't know.

As for economic benefits?

How does it benefit us to be tied to the Crown?

Foxy,
Being a constitutional monarchy has brought stability, the stability that makes Australia such a good place to live; that’s why so many people from other countries wish to live here.

Example, France is a Republic but people are risking their lives in small boats to get across the Chanel and into a Monarchy.

As for the flag, do you or any others see Hawaii as being a colony of Britain because of its flag?

If some think we are "not grown up" because of our legal arrangements
then that is their problem not ours.
If we did as Binden said came all come all then the rest of the world
would be empty
The US is a republic; GAWD help us !

How does it benefit us to be tied to the Crown?
Foxy,
I saves us from being run into the ground by people like yourself, Paul1405 & other Leftie idealists !

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1. « "We are no longer a British penal colony...", so what's the problem? »
.

As I’m sure you are aware, ttbn, our old colonial constitution was established by an act of parliament – not in Australia but in the UK. It was then submitted to Queen Victoria for her royal assent. That was it.

The Australian citizens were not consulted. They had no say in it. That’s part of the problem.

The constitution is our supreme law. To be effective it must be relevant to whatever society considers to be acceptable conduct at any particular point in time. The mores and laws of society are not static. Society evolves and the mores and laws evolve with it.

When, over a long period of time, the supreme law remains blocked and unable to evolve, it gradually becomes irrelevant and no longer serves its purpose. That is what has happened to our federal constitution in Australia.

Unfortunately, the drafters of the constitution failed to find the right balance between flexibility (to allow for evolution) and rigidity (to assure stability). The amendment procedures are far too heavily weighted in favour of stability. The constitution has proven impossible to amend.

It can only be amended by referendum and a referendum will only succeed if it obtains a double majority – that is, if it achieves a majority of votes across Australia, including the territories, and a majority of votes in a majority of states.

In addition, any proposed amendment that seeks to diminish the proportionate representation or minimum number of representatives of a state or alter the limits of a state will only be successful if a majority of voters in that particular state approve the proposed amendment. In those circumstances, it is more appropriate to speak of the requirement for a triple majority.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

Also, given the critical importance the drafters placed on representative government, a proposed amendment will only be voted on by the people if it is either passed by an absolute majority of both Houses of Parliament or passed by the same House of Parliament twice (after a period of three months) if the second House refuses to pass it.

Our federal constitution has become so stable it has completely petrified.

As a result, as I indicated in my previous post :

« Our old colonial constitution is full of holes, is racist, and offers little or no protection for individual citizens’ rights. It says that New Zealand, which was also a British colony at the time, can also become part of the federation whenever it likes. It no longer corresponds to reality.

In reality, Australia needs a new constitution, a new head of state, and a truly national democracy ».
.

You added :

2. « … the massive and expensive switch to a republic that would see a purely ceremonial head of state replaced by another politician »

Who knows how much our head of state, Elisabeth II costs us ? do you, ttbn ? Does she offer us her services for free do you think ?

The only figures I could find are a bill of $1.74 million for a trip to Australia in October 2011 and $474,137 for a tour of Australia by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in 2014. I guess that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Then, of course, there’s the cost of the queen’s permanent representative in Australia, the Governor-General : $495,000 tax-free salary (in 2019) plus a generous pension.

By the way, ttbn, of the 27 Governors-General since 1901, less than half were politicians. The current one is an ex-military man – as was his predecessor.

In Barbados, I understand the Governor-General became the president of the newly declared republic.

.

individual,

More labelling from you.

You accuse but you can't illuminate.

You always blame either academics or Lefties.

It's not a character flaw if people don't agree
with you and respecting their opinion does not take
away from yours.

Not everyone thinks the way you think, believes the
things you believe nor acts the way you would act.
Remember this and you will go a long way to getting
along with people.

I agree with Banjo Paterson. We need to sort out our
Constitution to make sure it serves the people.
If we become a republic we could create a modern set of
legislation that made the power of the head of state
explicit and clear and provided checks and balances.
We could make sure a head of state was answerable to the
people in every way. What does it mean when we say the
Governor-General has "reserve powers?" Currently there
are so many big questions and nobody really has the
answers.

I've just thought of another benefit in becoming
a republic:

The barmy army would not longer be able to sing -
"God save YOUR gracious Queen."

Indy,

One benefit of a Republic, get rid of Old Farts and blow ins like you who for years have been sucking on the AUSTRALIAN public teat. Wherever you came from should be supporting you, not Australians. Get you on Seniors National Service. The likes of you have put nothing into this country, just take take take.

All benefits so far are nebulous; keep trying.

The first thing for the new republic, cut out Old Aged Welfare. save $25 billion of us poor taxpayers money. Start a Seniors National Service. Indy; Remember the motto; "Work Makes You Free"

So far none of the Republic fanciers have explained why they think, or don’t think, that Hawaii is a British colony.

With persons like Paul who has total disrespect of the aged, his agenda would be slavery for all including child labour worse than the CCP. He has no ideas on setting up a civil society. Others want a direct Democrasy where the people vote on every bill brought to the house. With the systems proposed there is no checks on values.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You requested :

« Banjo, pleqse give us some names of current potential Presidents that can administer a Constitutional and uphold Western culture that are not politicians or popular celebridies. »
.

I don’t know why you don’t want names of politicians. Could it be that you already have some in mind or is it because you consider that they are a pestiferous category of human beings ?

Never mind. I do not have anybody in particular in mind for president or a list of potential candidates. A lot of water will have to run under the bridge before the question arises as to who should be president.

I think the Barbadians (or Bajans) made a wise decision in naming their governor-general, Dame Sandra Prunella Mason, as the first president of their new republic. They had enough on their hands setting up the new system. Better to avoid time and energy bickering about who is going to be president.

That way they gain time to organize the future presidential election process in a calm and orderly fashion. It also allows potential candidates to be identified (your question) and make themselves known to the general public.

.

Some people want a republic, some don't. So far more don't than do; we had a referendum proving that. Until there is another referendum, that's the way it is. Get over it.

.

Dear Is Mise, individual, Bazz ttbn, and (perhaps) others,

.

You ask :

« What is the advantage (if any) of a republic ? »
.

The Australian constitution is a combination of the Westminster system and the United States system of government. Some consider it to be “a semi-parliamentary system”. Others call it the “Washminster system” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system#'Washminster'_system_of_Australia
.

A republic is a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch (OED definition).

The core characteristic of a republic is that sovereignty resides with the people and the people alone. The word republic comes from the Latin “res publica”, which means "public thing".

At present we have a constitutional monarchy with the British Crown as our head of state and a grossly outdated federal constitution that was enacted by the UK parliament without consulting the Australian citizens that has since proven impossible to amend.

The advantage of establishing a republic would be to allow us to assume our sovereignty alone as an independent nation, elect our own head of state, and establish a constitution that corresponds to Australian democracy in the 21st century.

If that’s what we want, that’s what we have to do. If we don’t care, that’s too bad for those of us who do.

We Australians have a reputation of being fairly complacent, easy-going people. Unlike the Americans, we have never revolted against our British colonial masters. We have never sought our independence as the Americans did during the insurrection of 1775–83 (the US War of Independence).

Happily, we don’t need to start a revolution to put our house in order.

Allow me, simply, to add that the characteristic of a catastrophe is that the probability of it occurring is extremely low, but if and when it does occur, its severity is extremely high.

.

Banjo,
I’m thinking of material benefits, like a lowering of the cost of living; things that are really important.
Health, safety, rule of law; one wonders why the majority of our immigrants come from Republics.

I still ask, if having the Union Jack in the canton of our flag makes people think that we are still a British colony, then what do they think of the 50th State of the USA, Hawaii?

Hi Issy,

"I’m thinking of material benefits", that is typical conservative thinking, living in an economy, only where material benefits are paramount, outweighing any abstract social benefits a society might whish for itself. Like those abstact benefits of being a truly self governing nation.

Paul,
What counts is material benefits that’s why people try to get to live in Australia.
That’s why the boat people took such risks and why people come here and work for pittance wages so as to get the chance of permanent residency.
Or is it because of the Monarchy having abstract benefits?

Refugees come here fleeing persecution in their home
countries. They are not economic migrants. And the
lives they build for themselves is due to their sheer
hard work, doing jobs (often having more than one)
that many locals don't want.

Any economic benefits that they gain - are a result of their
own hard work, savings, and talent. Their own sheer
perseverance and determinatio0n to provide for their families.
It's a cultural thing for many. And they are the ones to be
congratulated not only for their hard work, but for their
rich contribution to our country.

You always blame either academics or Lefties.
Foxy,
Yes, because anyone with an ounce of sense can see that these groups are the main instigators for the many problems modern society is plagued with !

Indy, don't forget the Old Farts as well.

Issy, I wasn't refering to the boat people, if that was the only consideration then we all would be trying to sail a boat to Switzerland, reportedly to have the highest mean standard of living in the world.

Paul,
Who, apart from the Swiss, would want to live in what is possibly the most regulated society in Europe?
You wouldn’t like it, they have compulsory military service, apart from which the place is full of steep hills, the winter is bloody cold and the trains run on time.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You ask :

« … if having the Union Jack in the canton of our flag makes people think that we are still a British colony, then what do they think of the 50th State of the USA, Hawaii? »
.

Probably the same thing as they think about Australia. But I guess you know more about it than I do, Is Mise.

In case you might not have already seen it (but I suspect you have), here is a brief historical account of Cook’s discovery of what he named “the Sandwich Islands”, that later became known as Hawaii :

http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5014763.pdf
.

And, for good measure, Is Mise, here is a picture of the coat of arms of Alabama (which you may also have already seen) that sports the emblems of the five governments that have historically held sovereignty over Alabama: Spain, France, Great Britain, the Confederate States of America, and the United States of America. (The design includes the flag of the United Kingdom rather than that of Great Britain) :

http://archives.alabama.gov/emblems/st_coa.html
.

As for your comment that “the majority of our immigrants come from Republics”, that would not be surprising because about 80% of the world’s 206 sovereign states are republics, and “as of 2020, there are 52 nations with a dictator or authoritarian regime ruling the country: Three in Latin America and South America, 27 in Asia and the Middle East, and 22 in Africa” :

http://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/dictatorship-countries#The_Countries_with_Dictatorships_in_the_Modern_World

.

Here's the plan Issy,

We sail our boat to the sunny shores of Switzerland via Swaziland, which is next to Switzerland, I checked the list. On arrival we claim to be two lost yodellers looking for our Om-Par-Par Band. Once inside we open Swiss bank accounts, everyone with a Swiss bank account is a billionaire, like Swiss drug lords living in Mexico. Then we have a big meal of Swiss cheese and chocolate, that is all Swizzlers (natives of Switzerland) eat. I also suggest you learn the Swiss language, Swisscanese, very similar to Cantonese, you do speak Cantonese, don't you, never mind you'll pick it up. If the Swizzlers become suspicious of us, despite telling them how much we admire their leader Mr William Tell, remember that name, when they are not yodelling, or eating cheese, that's all the Swizzlers talk about, and the national sport of shooting apples of children's heads with a crossbow. Remember if you miss the apple and get the kids head there is a 3 point penalty which could cost you the game, and that would be a tragedy, losing like that. If the Swizzlers are still sus of us we will simply take jobs as cuckoo clock repair men, everyone in Switzerland is a cuckoo clock repair man, even the women and children. That national service is a breeze, all you have to do is dress up in colourful pj's, carry a pig sticker, and say "hi" to the Pope. And everyone who joins gets a free Swiss army knife to take home, how neat is that. Snow, Switzerland has no snow, they exported it all to Saudi Arabia, snow is Switzerland's 4th biggest export behind cheese, chocolate and cuckoo clocks. Any questions?

Why is it that refugees are escaping political Republics to flee to Western nations that are monachists or still have recent links to monachy. Political republics are founded upon popular elected Presidents that create conflict with opposition. A Head of State must not be political but interpretet the constitution in an unbiased way. Look at America today and see how judges differ on understanding constutional laws and principles. The only stable society is one where all the people accept the rules. Australia is becoming unstable because some want to change the values, mores and rules of our society.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Rumour had it that Hawaiians killed and then ate
the British explorer Captain James Cook in 1779.

Taken from the web:

"It is true that they very proudly killed Cook,
who brought Venereal Disease (VD) and Tuberculosis
(TB) to the Hawaiian people with his disease-ridden
men."

"In fact, Hawaiians still celebrate 14th February as -
"Hau'oli La Ho'omake la Kapena Kuke" of Happy Death
of Captain Cook Day!"

"But as Hawaiians prefer to eat fresh fish over people
(especially those who bathed only infrequently) they
certainly did not eat Cook."

Just a bit more trivia: -

There's an interesting TV series - "Horrible Histories."
A British live-action historical sketch comedy TV
series. An overall irreverent but accurate focus on the
dark gruesome or scatological aspects of British history
spanning from the Stone Age to post World War II eras.
Worth a look for a laugh - especially for lovers of
Monty Python.

Paul,
Any questions, not really; I hope you disposed of the empty bottles in an enviorenmentally friendly way.

Hi Foxy,

The Hawaiian's did in fact cook and eat Cook. Not in the Hollywood sense of blood thirsty savages hacking people to death, and then feasting on their remains. Whilst in Hawaii the wife discussed that very topic with a leading Hawaiian historian, we were taken to a spot on the beach where its said Cook died. Te was very interested to find out if Hawaiian and other Polynesian customs and protocols aligned with that of the Maori. What is significant is the belief in the "mana" (power) important people possess, such people as a great chief like Cook. After death a persons mana can be transferred by ceremonially eating parts of that person. Hawaiians believe mana is held in the bones of a person, that is why they returned some of Cook's bones to his crew.

BTW, its said the person who killed Cook was quickly executed by his own people for the crime.

Paul,
Good post.

Hi Paul,

The following link may be of interest\. I used
it in my earlier post:

http://sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/02/14/how-foolish-rumour-hawaiians-ate-cook-began

No. the Hawaiian Islanders who killed Captain Cook were not
cannibals. They did not eat him. They believed that the
power of a man was in his bones so they cooked part of
Cook's body to enable the bones to be easily removed. It
was the cooking of his body which gave rise to the rumour
of cannibalism.

Good Issy,

We set sail at 0,700 hours, that's navy talk for 3 o'clock in the afternoon, being an old sea dog myself I understand that sort of thing. I hope you're fit, its got to be a good 10 km row from Australia to Switzerland, a lot of it uphill. So set ya cuckoo clock to go off at half past four, or 12 hundred hours, more navy talk from me, don't be late, or I'll sail without you! Yep, a bottle of rum would be nice for our long sea voyage. I'll drink the rum, while you row the boat.

BTW, could you please bring alone a cut lunch, and while you're at it do a couple of Vegemite sangers for me as well, no cheese we'll have plenty of that stuff when we get there.

BBTW do you own a 6 foot run about? We'll need it to sail from Australia to Switzerland.

The eating part is conjecture, after death Hawaiian's went to great lengths to hide the remains of a dead chief for fear of a rival chief stealing his mana, and using it against them.

Dear Paul,

The Hawaiian Islands are so beautiful.

My favourite place is Hilo (NE side of the isle of
Hawaii). Breathaking natural beauty blessed with
dramatic waterfalls, rainforests and blooming
gardens. Incredible place.

Indy, don't forget the Old Farts as well.
Paul1405,
They're a mainstay of society, bureaucrat parasites aren't !

Banjo,
I don’t imagine that people would be fool enough to think that using the UK flag as a symbol on Arms or Flag indicates colonial status for Hawaii, Alabama or any other State or Country.

Let's make Prince Andrew king of Australia and be done with it.

This has dragged on for so long that I don't remember if anyone mentioned the fact that politicians, not voting citizens, made the decision to become a republic. Barbadians/Bajans had no say whatsoever.

The Loony Left haters of the monarchy and our traditions would also hate the fact that no changes can be made here unless a majority of Australians in a majority of states say so.

Just imagine what the leftist thugs would do with a republic! They are most likely already thinking "what if?". And we no longer have politicians with the decency, dedication and courage to stand up to them; in fact, too many of them on both sides are leftist thugs themselves, interested only in staying in power no matter what the form of government is.

Paul,
At last you’ve come up with a good idea. Congratulations.

"The Looney Left haters of the monarchy?"

Those Australians wanting a republic are not haters
of the monarchy but lovers of their country. And people
who keep spewing up this old chestnut are simply
using this as a distraction. They need to realize that
it is not a character flaw if people don't agree with
you and respecting their opinion does not take away
from yours. Labelling people is a sign of intellectual
laziness.

"Think Left and think Right.
Think Low and think High.
Oh the things you can think
if only you try!"

Having a discussion on this topic has been going on for
quite some time. And it will undoubtedly continue.
However opinions do fluctuate and predicting the future
is risky at the best of times. However a YouGov survey
in July last year found that 62% of Aussies want an
Australian Head of State.

.

Dear Is Mise and Josephus,

.

• Is Mise wrote :

« France is a Republic but people are risking their lives in small boats to get across the Chanel and into a Monarchy »
.

That’s true, but it’s not because England is a monarchy that they risk their lives to try to get there. It’s for three reasons :

1. The only language they speak apart from their own is English

2. Many know somebody from their own country in England, often a family member or friend

3. They find work in England’s underground economy accepting slave wages but pay no social charges or taxes.

http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/18375/working-without-papers-in-england-is-prohibited-but-above-all-risky
.

• And Josephus wrote :

« Why is it that refugees are escaping political Republics to flee to Western nations that are monarchists or still have recent links to monarchy ? »

Turkey is host to the world's largest refugee population since 2014. There are 3.6 million Syrians under temporary protection and over 330,000 refugees and asylum seekers under international protection in Turkey.

And according to the latest statistics, the top 10 countries accepting the most migrants in the world in 2018 were as follows :

1. Germany … 1,383,580
2. The U.S. …. 1,096,611
3. Spain ………. 559,998
4. Japan ………. 519,683
5. South Korea ...495,079
6. The U.K …….486,452
7. Turkey …..… 466,890
8. Chile …… ....339,350
9. Canada ..….....321,045
10. Italy ……..… 285,500

Of those 10 countries, there are only 4 monarchies or Constitutional monarchies. Most refugees (about 4 million) are fleeing to the Republic of Turkey and most migrants are also fleeing to republics.

Not, as you suggest, to “Western nations that are monarchists or still have recent links to monarchy”.

http://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-countries-that-take-the-most-immigrants

http://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/unhcr-turkey-fact-sheet-september-2021-entr

.

Yes Issy I occasionally come up with a gem of an idea. Lets expand on that, no self respecting king doesn't have a queen, who would be ideal for our queen, deserving of King Andy, how about Queen Carlotta? Now, we don't have a palace befitting our new monarch, I was think, temporarily Luna Park could act as the royal residence from where King Andy and Queen Carlotta could dispense royal patronage, like a knighthood for a deserving person such as Tony Abbott, First Lord of the Monkery.

On the matter of the appalling quality of Australian politicians, two ex-PMs seem determined to wreck any past respect they might have had, Howard and Abbott, by speaking up for the nomination of Gladys Bin Chicken (thankyou, Mark Latham) for Abbotts old seat.

While Gladys is entitled to the 'innocent until proved guilty' rule, she will be spending a part of next year - election time - fighting corruption charges. Not a good look.

It is impossible to have any respect for our political class. Along with them and the monarchy-hating, anti-British tradition loony left mob, our country is in a very bad way.

Banjo,
You forgot to mention that Turkey is next door, no wonder that when the neighbours are threatened that they run to the nearest sanctuary.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« I don’t imagine that people would be fool enough to think that using the UK flag as a symbol on Arms or Flag indicates colonial status for Hawaii, Alabama or any other State or Country »
.

I hope you’re right, Is Mise, but lots of people just follow the road signs and never bother about consulting a map. If it points to the left, they turn left. If it points to the right, they turn right. They could end up anywhere.

If they see the UK flag as a symbol on the Alabama coat of arms or on the Hawaiian flag they’d probably just go for it, thinking they were on friendly British colonial territory.

But we should never forget what happened to poor old Captain Cook. He just followed whatever direction his sextant pointed to. Cost him his life.

We must not just look at the signs, Is Mise We must always ask ourselves: “What are the facts ?” :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsrMilDYLoc&ab_channel=TEDxTalks

.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« You forgot to mention that Turkey is next door, no wonder that when the neighbours are threatened that they run to the nearest sanctuary »
.

No; I didn’t forget to mention that, Is Mise, any more than you forgot to mention that England is only 21 miles from France.

Turkey accepts to keep about 4 million Syrian refugees on its territory not just because Turkey and Syria are neighbours, but also, and especially, because the EU doesn’t want them and pays Turkey $US 3.6 billion to keep them.

And, as I pointed out in my previous post, Turkey is a republic, not a monarchy or even a constitutional monarchy. They’re not so generous.

http://apnews.com/article/lebanon-middle-east-turkey-europe-migration-e9395d4a3376e8d53cd8a51508fc4a61

.

Banjo,
Cook didn’t follow his sextant he followed his compass.

Cook used tools like a compass AND sextant
to plot his position.

Yes, Foxy, but he didn’t follow his sextant, he used it as an aid to navigation.
Strictly one does not follow the compass either, but that is a common expression, one steers by the compass.

The sextant was the main tool of the navigator.
Cook made astonishingly accurate maps as a result.

Foxy,
True, but he didn’t follow the compass.
In all the time that I’ve spent at the wheel or the tiller I steered by the compass.

Back to the topic.

For a country that believes in egalitarianism,
democracy, merit before background, status, and
class we need to stop keeping the issue of republicanism
on the back burner.

Many may think that it's inevitable that we shall
eventually become a republic. Unfortunately inevitability
leads to inaction. This lack of passion may also have
something to do with the fact that the question of
republicanism has historically been framed
as something external to us - a question of what we DON'T
want to be and that's not a particularly inspiring
message.

The republic issue has to mean more than just severance.
It needs to be a bigger question about our relationship
\with the country, the land, one another, and of course
the position of our Indigenous Australians. Plus making
our Constitution a document that serves us all in the
21st century.

I’d still like to know how the average Australian is going to be better off by the country becoming a Republic.
Will mortgage rates drop?
Will the cost of living stabilise or go down?
Will petrol prices go down?
Will the renting citizens be better off?
Will the ABC be made to stick to its charter?

And do’t give me the airy-fairy Australia will have a native born head of state, who cares as long as the job is done.
Australia is a Commonwealth of Soverign States what if a State doesn’t want to be in a Republic, will they be allowed to opt out?
Or will the Army be called out to compel them?

.

Dear Foxy and Is Mise,

.

I must confess that I have never done any navigation. As a matter of fact, I got lost for three days and three nights with two of my mates many years ago when we were working as pick and shovel boys on the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric scheme.

We admired the sun each day and the stars each night but didn’t have a clue where we were or in which direction we should go, which mountain we should climb or descend. Happily, we saw car lights on a distant mountain on the third night and managed to climb up to the road the next day. Nobody in the work camp had missed us. Labourers often left the camp without notice. Easy come, easy go.

Nevertheless, I recently stumbled across an old archive article from the British National Maritime Museum on the sextant used by Captain James Cook on his third Pacific voyage. This is what it says :

« As a child James Cook was educated and could read and write. As an adult Cook joined the Royal Navy and was soon recognised as an excellent map maker and navigator. Using sextants and chronometer, Cook made astonishingly accurate maps of the Pacific and the east coast of Australia.

« The sextant was the main tool of the navigator. Developed from the more limited octant in the 1760s, the sextant could be used either to find the height of the Sun above the horizon to determine a ship’s latitude, or measure angles between the Moon and fixed stars … » :

Here is the article :

http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/uncategorized/about/index.html
.

By the way, Is Mise, please correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t compasses only “point” in one direction : north ? If the sun rises in the east and settles in the west, why do we need a compass to know where the north is ? Is it just for night time sailing or on cloudy days ?

Sorry to bother you with my silly questions, but apparently you are a navigator.

.

It seems that the Bin Chicken won't be going for federal politics this year because she at least is aware of the trouble she is in - unlike our value-free PM, and equally gormless two ex-PMs.

Banjo,
Indeed the compass only points to the North, or more correctly ‘magnetic north’ which differs from ‘true north’
The compass card is divided into 360 degrees so any direction can be read off it.
The trouble with finding North by the sun is that the Sun’s position varies with the seasons, in fact it varies by the day.
The Polonisean navigators were very skilled and used the stars, sea currents, cloud formations, the direction of waves and other natural occurrences to navigate over quite long distances.
There is evidence that the Indians of the Pacific North-West of the USA once sailed to the Hawaiian Islands and vice-versa.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You indicate :

« I’d still like to know how the average Australian is going to be better off by the country becoming a Republic.

Will mortgage rates drop?
Will the cost of living stabilise or go down?
Will petrol prices go down?
Etc. »
.

The federal constitution lays down the rules of how Australia is to be governed. It's the supreme law of the country
.

We're all responsible for running our own lives and the country, within those guidelines, individually and collectively.

The concerns you mention are part of that responsibility. Some can be managed by each individual. Others can only be managed, either totally or partially, on the collective level, by our elected parliamentary representatives and the executive branch of government.

You ask how the average Australian is going to be better off by the country becoming a Republic.

It will allow us to install a new constitution that corresponds to our country as a truly sovereign nation and provide us with badly needed individual human rights protection as well as recognition of our indigenous peoples and several other changes that need to be made.

Our present constitution was established as the supreme law of the penal colony of Australia by an act of the UK parliament with the assent of Queen Victoria and took effect on 1 January 1901. It has since proven impossible to amend due to faulty design and has stagnated to the point of becoming petrified.

Our all-important national instrument of supreme law is grossly deficient and no longer provides the protection it should.

The general population is largely unaware of the situation and ignores the risk exposure it represents for each of us individually and to all of us collectively. As long as there are no major problems, they think we are all properly protected.

As ttbn points out, their mistrust of our politicians is such that they systematically oppose any suggestion of constitutional change.

The system is completely blocked.

We’re careering full steam ahead and there’s no stopping us now.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Thank You.

Banjo,
Nebulous, but you have Fojxy’s thanks.
What will happen if a State wishes to remain a monarchy?

Dear Banjo,

We often hear the old adage - "If it ain't broke ..."

The problem with our Constitution is that it no longer
serves us as you point out. Public resistance to
constitutional reform is a product of the fact that
people are naturally reluctant to change a system that
they do not understand.

Many Australians complain about their dienchantment with
our political system. The great paradox of this is that
Australians are highly susceptable to fear-mongering
about constitutional change by those same politicians in
whose interest it is to maintain the status quo.

Disillusionment with the current system needs to translate
into action - and the courage to discuss alternatives.

Would a new Republican, modern Constitution, allow the States, if they so chose, to leave the Republic?

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo,
Nebulous, but you have Fojxy’s thanks.
What will happen if a State wishes to remain a monarchy? »
.

Yes, Is Mise, I am aware from your previous posts that you have difficulty measuring the added value of a republic as something tangible and practical. Unfortunately, many of our compatriots have the same difficulty, including several of our friends here on OLO.

The added value of a republic is not evident to the uninitiated . It’s not something that is visible to the naked eye. It is immaterial and not easily comprehensible. It only manifests its effects when some particularly significant event occurs that is contrary to its constitution (supreme law) and triggers it into action.

Unfortunately, it will probably only be when that happens that the nebulosity that currently clouds your vision will dissipate and allow you to see just how important the added value of a republic is for the vitality of our democracy.

As somebody wisely said : “man does not live on bread alone”.
.

As for your question : “What will happen if a State wishes to remain a monarchy?”, the answer is that a national referendum would need to be held on the proposal to establish Australia as a republic, and for it to succeed it must obtain a double majority – that is, if it achieves a majority of votes across Australia, including the territories, and a majority of votes in a majority of states. If it does not, it fails.

And as ttbn points out, the public mistrust of our politicians is such that they systematically oppose any suggestion of constitutional change.

There would need to be a major change in the public attitude if Australia were to become a republic.

I am confident that it will in the not too distant future.

.

Issy, the ships chronometer was just as important an invention as the compass and sextant as an aid to navigation. With a chronometer one could determine longitude, very important on a log voyage. Today, GPS tracking supersedes them all.

Paul,
I am cognisant with those facts, but one steers by the compass.

Banjo,
But what happens if a State wishes to remain a monarchy, that is wants to opt out of the republic?

Dear Banjo,

I am certain that constitutional reform will happen
in the not too distant future as people begin to
better understand the reasons why this needs to be
done. Clear communication and explanation is
crucial because public resistance to constitutional reform
is a product of the fact that people are naturally reluctant
to change a system that they do not understand.

You've explained things to Is Mise and yet he still does
not comprehend what would happen in the case of a state
not wanting to be a republic.

Again - Thank You for elevating the tone of this discussion.
For having the patience and integrity to continue explaining
instead of attacking as is often the norm on this forum.
It is appreciated and people like yourself are the reason
I keep coming back.

Must Australia and Britannia be forever tied
Having the British monarch forever by our side?
Australia's a sovereign nation or so we like to think
It's hard to keep believing that When our constitution's
quite extinct.

It's time to rally round boys
Ditch the British royal
Have an Aussie as head of state
At least to us they're loyal!

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo,
But what happens if a State wishes to remain a monarchy, that is wants to opt-out of the republic? »
.

I think your question, Is Mise, is “can a state opt out of the federation/commonwealth ?” irrespective of whether the latter is a constitutional monarchy or a republic ?

In my opinion, yes, it can.

Would it want to do so ? I think that is highly unlikely because it would not be in its best interests to do so.

The creation of the Australian federation/commonwealth was a purely voluntary act on the part of the 6 colonies. They all chose to federate without being pressured to do so by any irresistible military, political, or economic necessity at the time.

Now, in the 21st century, the circumstances are vastly different. As I see it, in today’s world, there is considerable military, political and economic necessity for the six states to remain part of the federation/commonwealth.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Thank you for your kind words and for your infallible support and encouragement.

.

WOW!!
Foxy’ s infallible support.
Some how she managed to complement Banjo at around 9.00 am for answering a question that he didn’t answer till after 11.00 on the same day; not only infallible can see into the future as well.

That’s the end of Lotto as we know it.

Nah Issy, GPS these days no compass, get with the times.

England was a monarchy, then a republic, then a monarchy again. All you need to go from one to the other is a sharp axe, does the trick everytime!

Paul,
Get with the times?
A navigator needs a compass for when the battery in the GPS goes flat.

Anyone care to point out which sections of the Constitution are now out of date?

So far the advocates for a Republic seem not to have read the Constitution.

Issy, its all explained in the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMuh33BMZYY&ab_channel=thecomputerdude24TV%26MovieClips

When we get our new hot shot nuk subs, we should power the GPS systems with Eveready Energizers and not some cheap Chinese garbage from The Happy Dollar shop. Sorry they're nuk powered, how silly of me.

The debate over Section 44 of the Constitution which
has seen Members of Parliament leave Parliament and
threatened to bring down the government has shown
that the document has outlived its use-by-date.

Admittedly it is a sad reflection on Australian
society that it was not until the Constitution
threatened the very comfortable livelihoods and
privileges of Members of Parliament that people began
to say the Constitution was a bit of a joke.

There are so many sections that need reform and so
many things that have been left out. For example
the original inhabitants of the continent who have
never ceded sovereignty don't even rate a mention.

Australia's founding document does not contain a
Bill of Rights. It does not provide individuals with
freedoms and legal safeguards. This means governments
can pass laws without considering whether they infringe
upon citizens' rights without worrying about legal
consequences.

We need to abolish what is irrelevant to us and
was written in the horse and buggy days - and start again.
And we do have constitutional experts to be able to do it.

Section 44 is relevant and shewed that it is needed, it also shewed that many MPs hadn’t read the Constitution or if they had, didn’t have enough brains to understand it.
I seem to remember a Referendum, under the Constitution, that included Aboriginal Australians in with the rest of us and gave them equal rights.
Or is that an example of ‘horse and buggy days’?

Speaking of such days; a local council paid around $94,000 for a street sweeping truck but it can’t clean the gutters where there are parked vehicles, it was purchased from Germany, uses imported fuel and fuel additives etc.
Now compare with the horse and cart that was previously used.
One man operation (same as the truck) one horse who moved after the sweeper who could clean behind parked vehicles, cart built with local timber, fuel grown locally, tyres made by the local blacksmith, hub grease sourced locally, if needs be, exhaust products recyclable and no processing required as locals would pick it up for their gardens.
Just like our Constitution, still relevant and a better option than anything else available.

I recommend that all read the Constitution and understand it.

The constitution omits to do what other advanced
nations do through their constitutions or
otherwise through legislation set limits to
government power in order to protect its citizens
making Australia the only democratic nation not to
have a national framework for human rights protection.

The constitution must constantly be prodded and nudged
to cope with today's world and our modern society.
Our constitution was not framed to cope with our modern
world.

http://news.csu.edu.au/latest-news/society/australian-constitution-needs-major-overhaul-csu-law-expert2

Foxy,
Have you read the Constitution?

I’ve been looking for the results of the Democratic Referendum that was held in Barbados that sanctioned the transition to a Republic,
I can find where it was proposed and the dates that were proposed but no results; perhaps those who are more familiar with republicanism can tell me?

I've been re-reading the book, " Aussie, Aussie,
Aussie," by Ben Pobjie.

I think it's fitting to quote from the book as
I leave this discussion. For me the discussion
has now run its course.

"What is the future of Australianness? The concept
of what an Australian is has changed so much over the years,
from the early days when the answer to the question,
"What is an Australian?" was, "You made that word up", to the
modern day, when the answer is, "Leave me alone."

" Australian identity is
not a fixed point in the heavens, but a speeding comet that
blazes brightly and flies restlessly around the night sky,
refusing to remain stationary..."

" Like the wanderlust of the typical Australian, our national
spirit has never been able to sit still. There was a time
when to be Australian was to be English , only sunburnt."

" There was a time when to be Australian was to be a dangerous
criminal, but far enough away geographically from normal
people for them to feel relatively relaxed about you."

"As national identity has changed in our own lifetime, it
changed in our great-grandparents' lifetime, and even in their
great-grandparents."

" Before Gallipoli nobody knew Australians could fight in
trenches. Before Errol Flynn nobody knew Australians could be
sexy in front of cameras. Before Julia Gillard nobody knew
Australians could be women. Australia is a process of
revelation, of unveiling to the world the surprising facts
about ourselves that nobody knew."

"In a way, Australia is less a country than a colourfully
illustrated reference book, delighting all with obscure
pieces of trivia ..."

" We need to learn from Weary Dunlop and Vincent Lingiari
and all their historical kin, so that we can become the
Australians we aspire to be, and more importantly, create the
Australia we aspire to live in. But even while we do so, let's
remember the words of a great Australian whose identity
remains a mystery to this day: there's never been a more
exciting time to be Australian... than right now."

Foxy,
The discussion has now run its course?
But you haven’t commented on the democratic decision of the Barbados voters deciding to become a republic, nor have you told us that you have read and understand the Constitution. I don’t think that you have the intestinal fortitude to discuss the Constitution in detail.

So, do your usual and run away.

Foxy,
Is that the same Weary Dunlop who planned to commit murder and was only stopped by force of cirstumstances?

" If you think you know all about Australia's heroes
(and villains), think again. In " Aussie Aussie Aussie,"
Ben Pobjie burrows beneath the mythology to provide an
intimate look at the Australians who helped make our
nation great - as well as the ones who stopped us from
being as great as we could have been but who have ended
up with their own Wikipedia pages anyway."

"Meet pioneers such as Charles Kingsford Smith, whose
groundbreaking efforts moved the country forward, artists
and entertainers such as Joan Sutherland, who shaped our
national cultural identity, captains of industry such as
Rupert Murdoch, who inspired Australia's love affair
with people who amass phenomenal quantities of personal
wealth, and humanitarians such as Mary MacKillop, who found
fame by dedicating their lives to others and guilt-tripping
the rest of us."

" Aussie Aussie Aussie" is the book any proud Australian
seeking to learn more about the national heroes ...
should read. It's a great work and marks Pobjie's place
amongst historians - except he's much funnier.
It will make you laugh out loud.

I look forward to our next discussion.

Take care and stay safe.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

Foxy mentioned a number of problems with our old colonial constitution in her post on page 23 of this thread, one of which you responded to (Section 44 Disqualification) by affirming “that it is needed”, and adding that “many MPs hadn’t read the Constitution or if they had, didn’t have enough brains to understand it”.

Section 44 has, nevertheless, been the topic of several reviews and debates and it continues to pose a problem :

http://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/publications_archive/archive/section44

The old colonial constitution poses many problems. There’s nothing surprising about that It’s inevitable that a document drafted in the 1890s no longer corresponds to the evolution of a vibrant, open society like Australia – particularly since it contains a design defect that renders it impossible to amend and adapt to evolution.

Take, for example, “Article 25 Provisions as to races disqualified from voting” which reads :

« For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted »

Racial discrimination was considered perfectly acceptable in the 1890s. That, of course, is no longer the case today in the 21st century. At least, it was perfectly acceptable to those who considered they belonged to the superior race, including the drafters of the old colonial constitution.

Happily, Article 25 is not currently applied, but it has no place in our constitution today. Obviously, it should not figure in the constitution of our future republic should we choose to create one to replace our present constitutional monarchy.

Perhaps you might like to run through the colonial constitution, Is Mise, to check out all the outdated provisions, the shortcomings, deficiencies, inadequacies, etc. I think you will be surprised at what you find and what you don’t find that should be there. Here is the link :

http://www.aph.gov.au/constitution

.

Before I go - here's a historical reminder:

"The prospect of being sent to the far end of
the world, to a strange unknown land, was
terrifying. Many convicts began to question why
they'd become convicts in the first place."

"This is not what we signed up for," said the
head of the Convict Union in a strident statement."
Britain's criminals briefly threatened to go on
strike, but sadly their lack of meaningful leverage
saw them forced to submit. The powerful emotions
generated by the discovery of their fate were
eloquently expressed in the classic old song,
"Botany Bay" :

"Farwell to old England forever
Farewell to my rum coes as well
Farewell to the well-known Tim Bailey
Who used to teach me how to spell
Singing too-ra-li oo-ra-li addity
Singing bing bong dum doo dad fi-fay
Singing spinkly pom pinkly bom baddity
It's s*it down in Botany Bay."

And just as the song predicted, more than 700
convicts found themselves bound for that
mysterious, far-off land...

"Everything was lining up perfectly. Wide open
spaces for criminals to die in, trees to make
boats with, a base from which to have wars, all
the kangaroos a man could ride - and all completely
uninhabited, unless you counted the people who lived there,
which in accordance with the "Ignoring Natives Act of
1754", Britons did not."

"Indeed, the entire British Empire was founded on the
principle of not paying too much attention to anyone
who happened to be standing on a spot that a British
person wanted. As George III said,

"Nobody ever got anywhere by not assuming he owned
everything he found." ( of course, he also said,
"I am a happy-horse, gimme dem oats," but that was
later on after he joined the grand-tradition of kings
going absolutely badger-fiddling nuts)."

And hundreds of years later - we still have a
British monarch as our head of state -
go figure.

Banjo,
I suggest that you read the Constitution, your posts so far indicate that you haven’t or if you have you don’t understand it.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

I see you have not replied to the specific points I made in my previous post.

Avoidance is a non-response, Is Mise – a means of escape. Simply displacing the cursor is a diversion, a strategy of defence. It does not engage the discussion.

I was hoping to have a meaningful discussion with you on the pros and cons of our old colonial constitution, but as that is obviously not possible, I’m afraid there’s no point in continuing to speak past each other in a purely sterile exchange.

Perhaps on some future occasion, we might succeed in having a more meaningful discussion on a subject that does not offend what appears to be your conservative ideology.

.

Dear Banjo,

I'm so glad to see that you are walking away.
Walking away is not giving up or giving in. It is
about ending a discussion on your own terms
with dignity and class.

I wish you joy all through your holidays
I wish you prosperity that forever stays
I wish you the love of family and friends
I wish you happy days that never end.

Holly Jolly, Merry and Bright...

Take care and Stay Safe.

Banjo,
The key to the Republic dilemma is that the Commonwealth is ‘indissoluble’, WA tried opting out and couldn’t do it.
Legally the Commnwealth cannot be dissolved so.cannot legally become a republic and therein lies years of future strife.

The MPs who are.in favour of a republic will do their best to subvert the Constitution but then that’s what one would expect from liars who would swear false oaths/affirmations for money.

Foxy,
As the instigator of this thread perhaps you could steer me in the right directtion to find out more about the referendum in Barbados on a republic that it is so hard to find information about.

No word on the referendum that the citizens of Barbados were promised.