QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 964 times:
As Australians we have known the issues for a while now, so theres no point in me giving a long winded biased (towards a republic) intro just to fuel the fire. So let the games begin. Should Australia become a republic? Or continue to be a static nation?
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 926 times:
As a Brit, I'm quite often asked what I think about this subject by Australians, and I'm always surprised that we're asked. I mean, what has it got to do with us? It's your country, do what you like. No-one in Britain cares what you do! It isn't any of our business.
The ties between Britain and Australia are far deeper than just the issue of the Queen, its a side issue.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 904 times:
Britain should move in and assert its legal rights to the territories of Australia and New Zealand.
You guys were given semi-independence now don't spoil the game by launching a revolution against your rightfull rulers!
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16121 posts, RR: 57 Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 894 times:
Aus is no less an independent nation by having the Queen as Head of State. It's simply a reflection that the majority of Aussies are of British background and that many British traditions (democracy, rule of law, common law, parliament, the English language) are part of what makes Australia a strong country.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Mcdougald From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 887 times:
It's an issue for Australians to decide on their own, but if you replaced 'Australia' with 'Canada', I'd probably vote for a republic. (But I don't see such a referendum coming soon: a recent poll suggested that we're generally indifferent on the issue, with many seeing the royals as celebrities more than anything else.)
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 875 times:
The difficulty for all nations who have the Queen as Head of State is what to replace the monarchy with. Whilst it is indeed daft to have someone on the other side of the world as Head of State, it does offer great stability. Unless the HoS is to have executive function, each nation is then looking for a natural born equivalent to the Queen.
When you have elections you have argument. If the Head of State is appointed, then allegations of sleaze and favouritism can come to the fore. As a result, the view is often that the status quo works, so why bother changing it and risking upheaval to a greater or lesser degree.
The fact that many Brits think you're crackers for keeping her is neither here nor there.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 854 times:
The question is who do you have instead of the queen, you already have a governer general who is her representive, yet hes involved in controversy at the moment.
do you have a directly elected president? if so do they then have more power than the prmie minister or is the head of state selected by a panel?
The Queen never pokes her nose in austrialian and new zealand affairs, you didnt catch her slapping helen clark for daring to sit down during the national athem, as much i would have done myself!
Austrialia is democratic and independent of britain, yet whats wrong with the queen? does she gobble up all your taxes, in the uk she pays income tax, and whats wrong with being in the commonwealth, what would you do instead?
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
QANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 829 times:
Australia is in a word a sucess.
in almost everything we do we just cant seem to go wrong. So i think that with Australia being in such a good position in almost every sense of the word it makes sense for us to choose to rid ourselves of the dead umbilical cord that ties us to the ashes of the British empire. I want to say to my future children "you can do anything you want in this country".
However at the moment there is one very important role which is reserved for whomever is lucky enough to have a father as the prince of wales or the king of England. So what will be involved. A name change for the governor general to president (this was the prefered model that came out of the republican forum in Canberra in 1999 which involved the retention of a Prime Minister). So for such small practical changes we can achieve a greater sense of national identity, it will fuel national pride and will be the light that guides us into the future.
Thank you England for all that you have done, we have grown up and are ready to face the world alone. But also thank you (sarcastically) for all that you did for us in WWII. This new era will enable us to forge a new history while remembering the battles of the past. (gets off soap box).
NZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 824 times:
I'm all for a Republic but what Helen Clark did in sitting down before the Queen and not being in the country for her arrival were just examples of outright disrespect.
These courtesies should simply be shown to ANY visiting Head of State!
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 821 times:
I think the question is not really a straight yes or no but rather of what instead ?
Certain actions like dropping the monarchy and becoming a republic are pretty much irreversible so Aus. needs to know clearly why they want to change and what this change will achieve. You can liken it to the debate about having casinos. People oppose or support the idea for many reasons but once they are built there is almost no going back. A good reason for caution I think.
Yes having a foreigner on the other side of the world as HOS seems odd but it seems to have worked pretty well so far so why screw with it. What makes a republican form of govt. superior anyway ? Look at Fiji as an example of a solid democracy gone tits up !
Aus. politics and institutions (QLD and NSW police for eg ) can be pretty corrupt at times and would you really want to hand the ultimate say so over to that lot ?
Long considered thought not jingoistic tunb thumping is required for such an important change.