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.