Australia: The Queen and the Republic Debate (2 Viewers)

[Kim Il-Sung]

you are describing the powers of british influence in our democratic systems.

however, these figures rarely use their powers (only on the freak occassion eg. whitlam dismissal).

because of this, their position is, in a way, not regarded that important by australia.

as i said, they are "figures". and when a figure like the queen dies, im certain that many australians will be reluctant to have another.

this whole thing goes down to timing and sense.

Only a dullard like you, with no understanding of the foundation of the political institutions that you are advocating a wholesale change of, would make such a fucking retarded comment. As i said, you have obviously not read section 2 of the Constitution.

Read it. I dare you. The function of the Crown is EXTREMELY important. The GG and Queen are far more than figureheads. The Whitlam dismissal is a good example of the way constitutional crises can be resolved with due deference to the authority of the Crown. It was clear that sovereignty resided in the GG and the Crown and if the Queen declined to intervene (which she did) then Kerr's authority in acting as he did was unquestionable and Constitutionally valid. If Kerr had been an elected President, there would have been no clear authority as to who had the stronger mandate and a messy power struggle (possibly violent) would have ensued. Instead, the matter was resolved peacefully with a fully democratic election.

 

[Existential]

Only a dullard like you, with no understanding of the foundation of the political institutions that you are advocating a wholesale change of, would make such a fucking retarded comment. As i said, you have obviously not read section 2 of the Constitution.

Read it. I dare you. The function of the Crown is EXTREMELY important. The GG and Queen are far more than figureheads. The Whitlam dismissal is a good example of the way constitutional crises can be resolved with due deference to the authority of the Crown. It was clear that sovereignty resided in the GG and the Crown and if the Queen declined to intervene (which she did) then Kerr's authority in acting as he did was unquestionable and Constitutionally valid. If Kerr had been an elected President, there would have been no clear authority as to who had the stronger mandate and a messy power struggle (possibly violent) would have ensued. Instead, the matter was resolved peacefully with a fully democratic election.

i have already mentioned the "double check" advantage of the monarchy. it has it's credits. but as i've said before, there is no doubt that a republic couldn't have similar "check and scrutiny" measures.

but clear this up: why is a foreign figure given this power and justify why this person should be given such authority.

dont answer "because it's in the constitution".

 

[Existential]

Even assuming their role is not that important, as you state, what is the point of going through the trouble of changing it then? If it is superficial but cheap, their is no need to do anything about it ,p articularly as it has been working effectively for the last many years.

tbqh, i am not for or against it per se, but simply see no point to changing a system when it seems to be working fine.

i see how people reach that view, but in the future we may (or most likely) see new developments that put pressure for a republican system to be devised.

that's all i'm saying.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

i have already mentioned the "double check" advantage of the monarchy. it has it's credits. but as i've said before, there is no doubt that a republic couldn't have similar "check and scrutiny" measures.

HOW

but clear this up: why is a foreign figure given this power and justify why this person should be given such authority.

dont answer "because it's in the constitution".

Our Queen may be British but she is still considered by the Australian Crown and Parliament to be 'Queen of Australia' which is her official title in this country. The fact that she lives in another country and was born in another country has no practical significance vis a vis her role in government. If she moved to this country and lived in this country, or was born in this country, she would still have the same role to play in the government of this country so I don't see how it makes a damn bit of difference. The Queen's authority is also represented in Australia by an Australian-born Governor General anyway so the point is null and void.

Do we deny a foreign-born Australian citizen the right to high public office in this country simply because of their place of birth? No we do not. Should we deny the Queen's authority as head of state simply because she is not Australian-born, even if under our Constitution and Parliament, widely regarded as legitimate institutions in themselves, she is the Queen of Australia? No we should not.

 

[mirakon]

i see how people reach that view, but in the future we may (or most likely) see new developments that put pressure for a republican system to be devised.

that's all i'm saying.

Yaah, but such a future is far from being a reality as yet, so there is really no relevance in pushing for a republic in the near future.

Perhaps when Charles comes in though as he's an absolute twat.

 

[Existential]

Our Queen may be British but she is still considered by the Australian Crown and Parliament to be 'Queen of Australia' which is her official title in this country. The fact that she lives in another country and was born in another country has no practical significance vis a vis her role in government. If she moved to this country and lived in this country, or was born in this country, she would still have the same role to play in the government of this country so I don't see how it makes a damn bit of difference. The Queen's authority is also represented in Australia by an Australian-born Governor General anyway so the point is null and void.

The Queen may be technically "of Australia" but apart from technicalities, she has little to do with us.
She is 'foreign'. That has relevance to the debate.
It does have a difference in that she has little to do with our country, regardless whether she is apart of it.
As i have said, majority of the time GG's just sign everything and tick all boxes - that is why the system is criticised like this. The rare time a GG uses their power there is outrage in Australia. How can you tell me this is the best possible system!

Do we deny a foreign-born Australian citizen the right to high public office in this country simply because of their place of birth? No we do not. Should we deny the Queen's authority as head of state simply because she is not Australian-born, even if under our Constitution and Parliament, widely regarded as legitimate institutions in themselves, she is the Queen of Australia? No we should not.

Because she doesn't live here it's a bit hard for her to be acknowledged at all. That's why this holiday is one of the only times Australia goes 'Oh right the Queen. Whatever it's a long weekend.' This has nothing to do with foreign discrimination. Also, the issue of multiculturalism goes two ways - with you and against you.

 

[Existential]

Yaah, but such a future is far from being a reality as yet, so there is really no relevance in pushing for a republic in the near future.

Perhaps when Charles comes in though as he's an absolute twat.

that's the point i made. malcolm turnbull also said that would be the right time ie. after the queen's reign.

i'm not pushing for it, but i'm making people aware that it is a reality we will face again (and next time it won't be so easily defeated i promise you).

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

The Queen may be technically "of Australia" but apart from technicalities, she has little to do with us.
She is 'foreign'. That has relevance to the debate.
It does have a difference in that she has little to do with our country, regardless whether she is apart of it.

She would have little to do with us even if she was Australian born. And wtf do you mean by 'technicalities'? Queen of Australia is a title with far more than technical significance because it emphasises the central political role of the Crown.

As i have said, majority of the time GG's just sign everything and tick all boxes - that is why the system is criticised like this. The rare time a GG uses their power there is outrage in Australia. How can you tell me this is the best possible system!

How the fuck is it that I can put up a long and well-considered post on the importance of the GG and Queen to our Constitutional system, and yet all you can do is come back with this stupid bullshit that shows you have absolutely no understanding of the relevant material?

Just admit it. You've got no clue. You haven't read the Constitution and even if you did, you probably would not understand the nuances of its operation. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying to undertake either of these two things. It is this sort of pathetic shit that has earned you the reputation of being the stupidest fucking ass in all of NCAP.

For the umpteenth time, the role of the Governor General is not just to 'tick boxes'. I have explained this a million fucking times and I cbf'ed to do it again.

Edit: your logic is also circular because it's wingnuts like you who instigated such outrage.

Because she doesn't live here it's a bit hard for her to be acknowledged at all. That's why this holiday is one of the only times Australia goes 'Oh right the Queen. Whatever it's a long weekend.' This has nothing to do with foreign discrimination. Also, the issue of multiculturalism goes two ways - with you and against you.

Just because the Australian population is not jumping up and down with nationalistic fervour, does not mean that we do not value our institutions or the Crown's role to play in their operation.

 

[Existential]

She would have little to do with us even if she was Australian born. And wtf do you mean by 'technicalities'? Queen of Australia is a title with far more than technical significance because it emphasises the central political role of the Crown.

the political role of the crown is overrated.

How the fuck is it that I can put up a long and well-considered post on the importance of the GG and Queen to our Constitutional system, and yet all you can do is come back with this stupid bullshit that shows you have absolutely no understanding of the relevant material?

i'm concerned with the practice of the constitution - you just keep reciting it.

Just admit it. You've got no clue. You haven't read the Constitution and even if you did, you probably would not understand the nuances of its operation. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying to undertake either of these two things. It is this sort of pathetic shit that has earned you the reputation of being the stupidest fucking ass in all of NCAP.

Perhaps you should demonstrtate you have a clue and stop repeating yourself.
NCAP?

For the umpteenth time, the role of the Governor General is not just to 'tick boxes'. I have explained this a million fucking times and I cbf'ed to do it again.

the role is different to the practice
You seem to skip over that.

Just because the Australian population is not jumping up and down with nationalistic fervour, does not mean that we do not value our institutions or the Crown's role to play in their operation.

PROVE IT.

 

[chrisnumber1]

if it aint broke dont fix it

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

the political role of the crown is overrated.

jesus christ how many times am i going to have to explain this concept and why don't you back your crazy ass assertions up sometime?

i'm concerned with the practice of the constitution - you just keep reciting it.

srsly m8

You have no idea how convention works and how that affects both the practice and construction of the Constitution.

How can you be so concerned with the practice of the Constitution if you haven't read it and you don't know what is in it? ffs

the role is different to the practice
You seem to skip over that.

Why would the practical role of the GG differ from the general principles laid out in the constitution and those dictated by convention? That would be, uh, unconstitutional. So no, what the constitution says is what the GG does. The devil is in the details, that is, how they perform their duties and what the Constitution practically entails. This you clearly cannot comprehend.

PROVE IT.

Fuck what a stupid thing to say.

Members of the Australian public recognise the value of their political institutions whether they publicly demonstrate it or not.

I didn't make any public statement in support of the Queen today yet I still feel obliged to sit here and demolish you on this topic.

 

[0bs3n3]

however monarchists want to sugar-coat it, the present system is one where by a foreign, non-elected sovereign can essentially dictate whether our laws are passed or not.

simple enough, its fucked, though the queen is a tip top gal

Australia Act, you spastic.

 

[Existential]

jesus christ how many times am i going to have to explain this concept and why don't you back your crazy ass assertions up sometime?



srsly m8

You have no idea how convention works and how that affects both the practice and construction of the Constitution.

How can you be so concerned with the practice of the Constitution if you haven't read it and you don't know what is in it? ffs

you assume that. dont go saying i'm asserting bs when you do the same.

the most powerful role of the GG, which you used as a defence for the monarchy, was the "double check" method. an example would be sacking PMs, refusing to sign bills ect.

this does not happen in practice (one-off examples hardly count for much)

Why would the practical role of the GG differ from the general principles laid out in the constitution and those dictated by convention? That would be, uh, unconstitutional. So no, what the constitution says is what the GG does. The devil is in the details, that is, how they perform their duties and what the Constitution practically entails. This you clearly cannot comprehend.

there is a difference in what is practical and what is theoretical.

what the constitution says is what the gg CAN DO - not what he must do.
you clearly cannot comprehend the difference.

Fuck what a stupid thing to say.

Members of the Australian public recognise the value of their political institutions whether they publicly demonstrate it or not.

I didn't make any public statement in support of the Queen today yet I still feel obliged to sit here and demolish you on this topic.

funny how you haven't actually made any genuine arguments that oppose mine.

 

[Lentern]

Yaah, but such a future is far from being a reality as yet, so there is really no relevance in pushing for a republic in the near future.

Perhaps when Charles comes in though as he's an absolute twat.

I find it interesting so many people feel that way about the prince of Wales, might you elaborate? Everyone I've ever heard speak who has had anything to do with him: Stephen Fry, Miriam Margoyle, Bill Bailey, Germane Greer, Bono; they've all described him as a perfect gentleman, absolutely delightful, incapable of making an enemy. Far more so then her majesty I understand who is notoriously cold and short for a woman born into cultivation.

 

[mirakon]

I find it interesting so many people feel that way about the prince of Wales, might you elaborate? Everyone I've ever heard speak who has had anything to do with him: Stephen Fry, Miriam Margoyle, Bill Bailey, Germane Greer, Bono; they've all described him as a perfect gentleman, absolutely delightful, incapable of making an enemy. Far more so then her majesty I understand who is notoriously cold and short for a woman born into cultivation.

A gentleman, perhaps. But Tsar Nicholas II was considered a gentleman, but this doesn't tak away from the fact that he was inept.

imo, Prince Charles may be a good man, but not necessarily a good leader. He strikes me as someone who is possibly going to be an incredibly inept leader.

 

[Lentern]

A gentleman, perhaps. But Tsar Nicholas II was considered a gentleman, but this doesn't tak away from the fact that he was inept.

imo, Prince Charles may be a good man, but not necessarily a good leader. He strikes me as someone who is possibly going to be an incredibly inept leader.

Tsar Nicholas was an autocrat by birthright, Charles is the heir apparent of a constitutional monarchic figurehead. Don't lets kid ourselves about the modern role of the crown please. Inept leader, come on. What leadership do you envision the crown having to perform in the future that the parliament or judiciary should not?

And even if he was a bumbling leader you didn't charge him as simply being an undesirable monarch but an absolute twat.

 

[cem]

A gentleman, perhaps. But Tsar Nicholas II was considered a gentleman, but this doesn't tak away from the fact that he was inept.

imo, Prince Charles may be a good man, but not necessarily a good leader. He strikes me as someone who is possibly going to be an incredibly inept leader.

Charles is better educated and better trained than any other heir apparent in English/British history. He will have a figurehead role and certainly couldn't be as bad as George IV or William IV (who had actual power and were inept).

 

[Existential]

i think we all should accept (regardless whether you are for or against) that the end of the queen's reign will indeed add extra pressure for australia to become a republic.

this isn't just me talking. politicians (eg. malcolm turnbull) have said this would probaly be the next time they send out a referendum for this.

 

[absorber]

Australia's been legally dependent for almost 25 years, really. We don't need Britain to tell us what to do, and once the Queen dies we'll probably become a republic. Not that it's worth caring about at present. Though, I don't understand what reason one would have to not support a republic.

 

[Existential]

Australia's been legally dependent for almost 25 years, really. We don't need Britain to tell us what to do, and once the Queen dies we'll probably become a republic. Not that it's worth caring about at present. Though, I don't understand what reason one would have to not support a republic.

that basically sums up my view. thankyou lol.

you do arts/laws? how is it?