https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/c ... 5d549c86d7

Anthony Albanese pledges there will be no republic referendum until his second term after Queen’s death


Will be interesting to see how he puts the question to the electorate, he is afterall a Republican

A101 wrote:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/anthony-albanese-pledges-there-will-be-no-republic-referendum-until-his-second-term-after-queens-death/news-story/74f2a280132e059d05fd355d549c86d7

Anthony Albanese pledges there will be no republic referendum until his second term after Queen’s death


Will be interesting to see how he puts the question to the electorate, he is afterall a Republican

A lot needs to pass before then, but I’d expect a threshold question in the first instance, rather than arch-monarchist Howard’s model for the 1999 referendum.

Kent350787 wrote:

A lot needs to pass before then, but I’d expect a threshold question in the first instance, rather than arch-monarchist Howard’s model for the 1999 referendum.

The 1999 referendum was set up to fail. The minimalist model was the most widely supported but radicals wanted a directly elected Head of State so encouraged voters to vote no. Monarchists seized on this and said that the model proposed would be the “politician’s republic” (ignoring the fact they support a system where an unelected hereditary line determines who is the head of state). It didn’t help having a staunchly Monarchist PM who did his best to ensure the vote would fail.

Australia’s population was far more Anglo back then, Australians of Anglo Saxon heritage comprised about 74% of the nation in the late 90s, migration since then has been more diverse and seen the proportion fall to about 51-% in 2021.

There are still some hurdles. The Monarchy had been going through scandals in the 90s like now, Monarchists will use the memory of the popular Liz 2 and the future prospect of popular Wills and Kate to distract from the less popular Charlie 3.

Australia’s media is mostly conservative, Murdoch holds the line and will be using his influence as a cultural wedge issue. The opposition Coalition can’t run on good leadership or economic issues anymore so they will use cultural and social wedge issues as their main tactic.

Plus Labor have committed to a referendum on Indigenous recognition before the Republic, two divisive cultural campaigns may be too much.

I suspect the situation is similar in Australia as it is here in Canada, there is an increasing resentment and disconnection with Britain and the royal family.

While QE2 has obviously been around for a long time, for that reason she and the monarchy / Britain in general are held responsible for colonialism that happened under Victoria and the atrocities against First Nations that went with it, the most prominent cases here within the residential school system, half of which were run by the church of which she is head.

Secondly, there is less and less national attachment to Britain as the last two generations of naturalized Canadians ancestors are from everywhere but, mostly Asia, Middle East and South America. And those that left Europe and the UK in particular was probably to get away from perceived problems at home.

If there was a referendum here, I would not be surprised it was 50/50 at best with a slight republican majority - a big change from even a decade ago.

Charlie should do the responsible thing and tell the colonised countries that it’s long past overdue, and its time to go your own way. He should be the one taking the heat off the people. I completely understand the significance of the queens passing, its huge, but I only see the monarchy as being valuable to England for tourism, I get that, but in todays day and age it’s outdated. They put there pants on like everyone else, one leg at a time. I don’t see them as being special at all anymore.
So, if Australia put it to a vote it shall be interesting to see the outcome. It would be very close to passing, about 50-50 my guess. I know which way I’ll vote, mums the word.

Whilst far from being a decisive poll from those poll favour the Status Quo

https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/a-re ... a-republic

An increasing majority of Australians, 60% (up 5% points since November 2012) believe Australia should remain a Monarchy while only 40% (down 5% points) say Australia should become a Republic with an elected President.

A101 wrote:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/anthony-albanese-pledges-there-will-be-no-republic-referendum-until-his-second-term-after-queens-death/news-story/74f2a280132e059d05fd355d549c86d7

Anthony Albanese pledges there will be no republic referendum until his second term after Queen’s death


Will be interesting to see how he puts the question to the electorate, he is afterall a Republican

It's not the right time to be posting or talking about this IMO. We have to respect those who are grieving, especially the monarchist movement in Australia.

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/anthony-albanese-pledges-there-will-be-no-republic-referendum-until-his-second-term-after-queens-death/news-story/74f2a280132e059d05fd355d549c86d7

Anthony Albanese pledges there will be no republic referendum until his second term after Queen’s death


Will be interesting to see how he puts the question to the electorate, he is afterall a Republican

It's not the right time to be posting or talking about this IMO. We have to respect those who are grieving, especially the monarchist movement in Australia.

Agree, but best tell the Prime Minister he is the one that brought it to the fore

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/anthony-albanese-pledges-there-will-be-no-republic-referendum-until-his-second-term-after-queens-death/news-story/74f2a280132e059d05fd355d549c86d7

Anthony Albanese pledges there will be no republic referendum until his second term after Queen’s death


Will be interesting to see how he puts the question to the electorate, he is afterall a Republican

It's not the right time to be posting or talking about this IMO. We have to respect those who are grieving, especially the monarchist movement in Australia.

Agree, but best tell the Prime Minister he is the one that brought it to the fore

Since the last referendum, most discussion has centred around a change of monarch as a time to explore the issue.

Albanese smoky reconfirmed his previously stated position that it was an issue for Labor’s next term (if re-elected), not for now.

Kent350787 wrote:

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

It's not the right time to be posting or talking about this IMO. We have to respect those who are grieving, especially the monarchist movement in Australia.

Agree, but best tell the Prime Minister he is the one that brought it to the fore

Since the last referendum, most discussion has centred around a change of monarch as a time to explore the issue.

Albanese smoky reconfirmed his previously stated position that it was an issue for Labor’s next term (if re-elected), not for now.

Given how many PMs Australia has gone through over the last 12 years, will Mr Albanese be in position long enough to lead his party into a second term?

GDB wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Since the last referendum, most discussion has centred around a change of monarch as a time to explore the issue.

Albanese smoky reconfirmed his previously stated position that it was an issue for Labor’s next term (if re-elected), not for now.

Given how many PMs Australia has gone through over the last 12 years, will Mr Albanese be in position long enough to lead his party into a second term?

Which the UK is catching up with! Four PM's in six years, massively dysfunctional and imagine the press here if it had been the other lot changing so often.

True. At least Cameron quit (and with it his political career) within hours of the EU referendum result becoming known before anybody could get a chorus calling for him to go, whereas May and Johnson stayed on for longer than they both ought to have done and both were the architects of their downfalls in the end. May stretching back to the 2017 GE and hooking up with the DUP that ultimately brought her down as nobody could agree upon the terms of withdrawal from the EU and particularly over NI, whereas Johnson's rap sheet is well-documented and finished off by the Chris Pincher scandal.

A101 wrote:

cpd wrote:

A101 wrote:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/anthony-albanese-pledges-there-will-be-no-republic-referendum-until-his-second-term-after-queens-death/news-story/74f2a280132e059d05fd355d549c86d7

Anthony Albanese pledges there will be no republic referendum until his second term after Queen’s death


Will be interesting to see how he puts the question to the electorate, he is afterall a Republican

It's not the right time to be posting or talking about this IMO. We have to respect those who are grieving, especially the monarchist movement in Australia.

Agree, but best tell the Prime Minister he is the one that brought it to the fore

As far as I can see, he only said now isn’t the time, rightly so. And probably because some thoughtless journo was trying to get a story or a gotcha moment.

Then unfortunately people keep dragging the issue up again.

GDB wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Since the last referendum, most discussion has centred around a change of monarch as a time to explore the issue.

Albanese smoky reconfirmed his previously stated position that it was an issue for Labor’s next term (if re-elected), not for now.

Given how many PMs Australia has gone through over the last 12 years, will Mr Albanese be in position long enough to lead his party into a second term?

Which the UK is catching up with! Four PM's in six years, massively dysfunctional and imagine the press here if it had been the other lot changing so often.

Shocking really considering from 1979 to 2007 we only had 3.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

Either having a monarch as a head of state is useful or it is not, it's quite binary.

If it's useful, then surely each independent country should have its own monarch, not one shared with others, who basically never comes and has no time for your country.

If it isn't useful...

Aesma wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

Either having a monarch as a head of state is useful or it is not, it's quite binary.

If it's useful, then surely each independent country should have its own monarch, not one shared with others, who basically never comes and has no time for your country.

If it isn't useful...

A lot of opinion in there rather than facts.

Aesma wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

Either having a monarch as a head of state is useful or it is not, it's quite binary.

If it's useful, then surely each independent country should have its own monarch, not one shared with others, who basically never comes and has no time for your country.

If it isn't useful...

Considering that having the UK now King as Head of State dosnt not actually cost the Australian taxpayer anything, but the caveat to that is that there is a representative for the King in Australia and that’s the Governor-General currently Honourable David Hurley, AC DSC (Retd). His annual salary is the last I saw was $495000AUD plus running his office and offical residences

https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/fil ... 022-23.pdf

A101 wrote:

Considering that having the UK now King as Head of State dosnt not actually cost the Australian taxpayer anything, but the caveat to that is that there is a representative for the King in Australia and that’s the Governor-General currently Honourable David Hurley, AC DSC (Retd). His annual salary is the last I saw was $495000AUD plus running his office and offical residences

https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/fil ... 022-23.pdf

Wouldn't Australia have the same thing if they become a republic? The only added hassle is that there will be a need for another election just to select a president who is also a mere figurehead, unlike America.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

A101 wrote:

Considering that having the UK now King as Head of State dosnt not actually cost the Australian taxpayer anything, but the caveat to that is that there is a representative for the King in Australia and that’s the Governor-General currently Honourable David Hurley, AC DSC (Retd). His annual salary is the last I saw was $495000AUD plus running his office and offical residences

https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/fil ... 022-23.pdf

Wouldn't Australia have the same thing if they become a republic? The only added hassle is that there will be a need for another election just to select a president who is also a mere figurehead, unlike America.

Yes basically the only difference will be more or less powers and the method on how they are appointed

Personally I can’t see the point in changing and will vote no

The problem for the republican movement is it’s not enough to just have enough people want to become a republic. Even if the majority of Australians were in favour of a republic they still need the majority vote and at least 4 of the 6 states to agree to a specific model.

Something I’m curious about is as far as I’m aware (I could be wrong) each states’ governor represents the monarch directly and not the governor general. So unless each state runs a parallel referendum to change their constitution It could leave to a curious case were Australia at federal level becomes a republic, but remains a constitutional monarchy at state level.

Personally while I had a huge amount of respect for HRM Queen Elizabeth II as a person, I don’t really have any strong opinions either way of the monarchy itself. It has proven to be a good stable system, and I see a lot of value in having an apolitical HOS. When the time comes I’d most likely be inclined on voting No and keeping the status quo.

My preferred republic model would be a parliamentary republic with a president appointed with bipartisan support from both houses, similar to the Howard model in 1999, But considering it failed last time I’m not sure they will bring that model to a referendum again. My concern with a president elected by popular vote, is it will become too political and will result eventually in divisive candidates being voted in with paper thin majorities. I’m not keen on a presidential republic at all, if that is the model chosen for the referendum, come referendum day I’ll be at the polling station at the crack of dawn singing God Save The King.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

You and me both, I see no reason to change. Having a president adds another level of politics and increased cost, the monarchy is politically neutral and they cost us nothing most of the time.

Kiwirob wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

You and me both, I see no reason to change. Having a president adds another level of politics and increased cost, the monarchy is politically neutral and they cost us nothing most of the time.

Well, apart from the Governors General. Australian states also have Governor each. I haven't seen anything which seeks to estimate the cost of moving to a limited change Republic model for Australia.

Kent350787 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

You and me both, I see no reason to change. Having a president adds another level of politics and increased cost, the monarchy is politically neutral and they cost us nothing most of the time.

Well, apart from the Governors General. Australian states also have Governor each. I haven't seen anything which seeks to estimate the cost of moving to a limited change Republic model for Australia.

I don't think it would be cheap, referendums cost, so does changing all sorts of things like uniform badges, crests, signs, letterheads, webpages.......you could co on an on, when all is said and done it could run to billions for what noticeable benefit? If a change to a republic in NZ meant we could rip up the Treaty of Waitangi and put everyone in NZ on an equal legal footing then it might get my vote, but if the status quo remained the same I don't see any reason to change.

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

What's the benefit of being a republic for Australia, Canada & New Zealand. I honestly can't see it.

Either having a monarch as a head of state is useful or it is not, it's quite binary.

If it's useful, then surely each independent country should have its own monarch, not one shared with others, who basically never comes and has no time for your country.

If it isn't useful...

A lot of opinion in there rather than facts.

Monarchy useful or not is the extent of the possibilities, it's not an opinion. The answer is an opinion, maybe. My opinion is that it's not useful, clearly. I also think it's detrimental. For example I don't see Australia solving political tensions with indigenous people as long as the country has the former colonizer as head of state.

But I'm also looking at the other possibility, that having a monarch is useful. The arguments mentioned usually are about tourism. Clearly that only applies to the UK. Another one is that it keeps the kingdom together. Again, don't see it applying anywhere else. The argument that the head of state isn't political I don't get either, but even if you see that as positive, how do you justify having that head of state living halfway around the world ? Not having any real relationship with your country ?

Again, what's the role of a head of state ? To me it has to have an international component, represent the country. It is said that the Queen did that for the UK, knew the world etc., I'm not convinced it really made any difference, at least not in recent decades. Clearly who mattered on the international stage were the Prime Ministers.

Figurehead presidents have an unavowed role to me : to not have any purpose. Who knows who the president of Germany is ? Who cares ? If you want anything from Germany, the Chancellor is the go to person, including for Germans.

BTW a figurehead president can be elected in an indirect election and be fairly non political, and less controversial than a monarch. Someone shooted at Charles III the other day "who elected you ?", wouldn't happen with a president. I'm not that familiar with the system but it seems to me the various Governors General of the Commonwealth are like that, they don't have any purpose, just topping the pyramid with no influence on how things are actually done below.

I think a lot of this is down to tradition, and each country has a different history. The UK having been a monarchy with a parliament for centuries, I get that it won't change easily. For the former colonies, though, the history is much shorter, and not viewed in the same way by all the "subjects" of Charles III, so going from a monarch to a president with the same or less powers is much easier (and will happen this century, my opinion).

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

A101 wrote:

Considering that having the UK now King as Head of State dosnt not actually cost the Australian taxpayer anything, but the caveat to that is that there is a representative for the King in Australia and that’s the Governor-General currently Honourable David Hurley, AC DSC (Retd). His annual salary is the last I saw was $495000AUD plus running his office and offical residences

https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/fil ... 022-23.pdf

Wouldn't Australia have the same thing if they become a republic? The only added hassle is that there will be a need for another election just to select a president who is also a mere figurehead, unlike America.

It depends what they follow. When Barbados moved to become a republic last year, the president (who was also their final Governor-General) was chosen by their Parliament and I believe their system moving forward is for Parliament to select the president and not by a direct election, though could be wrong. Then again, unlike Antigua who have made noises about holding a referendum (not sure if Jamaica will do the same or just go ahead and move to a republic without a vote), Barbados didn't have a referendum on whether to become a republic, they just did it.

Kiwirob wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

You and me both, I see no reason to change. Having a president adds another level of politics and increased cost, the monarchy is politically neutral and they cost us nothing most of the time.

Well, apart from the Governors General. Australian states also have Governor each. I haven't seen anything which seeks to estimate the cost of moving to a limited change Republic model for Australia.

I don't think it would be cheap, referendums cost, so does changing all sorts of things like uniform badges, crests, signs, letterheads, webpages.......you could co on an on, when all is said and done it could run to billions for what noticeable benefit? If a change to a republic in NZ meant we could rip up the Treaty of Waitangi and put everyone in NZ on an equal legal footing then it might get my vote, but if the status quo remained the same I don't see any reason to change.

When I was in Barbados a few months ago, I saw a police Portakabin and a police boat still with the old police force badge which include the initial 'R' for 'Royal' that used to be part of the police force's name there (Royal Barbados Police Force). I assumed they hadn't yet got round to re-branding everything at the time.

Something I learned since the death of QE2 is this "EIIR" thing, that is now "CIIIR". So there will have to be plenty of rebranding...

Aesma wrote:

Something I learned since the death of QE2 is this "EIIR" thing, that is now "CIIIR". So there will have to be plenty of rebranding...

Starting with Royal Mail vans used in England, Wales and (I think) Northern Ireland.

The vans in Scotland don't have 'EIIR' as the Queen was the first Elizabeth to reign in Scotland, but instead they have a Scottish crown on the door where 'EIIR' would be. The Royal Mail logo used on vans in Scotland also have the Scottish crown instead of the crown used elsewhere. I'm not sure if it changes if the van is moved to another depot in another part of the UK - I know for some time there was a ex-Welsh van in my local depot's fleet for a number of years still with 'Post Brenhinol' on the side as it's the Welsh translation for 'Royal Mail' and never changed when it moved to an English depot.

Up to the Aussies if they want a republic or not, it’s no one else's business to comment really.

This will not happen in the 1st term of the Albo government. He has other issues like indigenous recognition etc. to get passed the public 1st.
He would not want to loose two referendums in one year.

an767

An767 wrote:

This will not happen in the 1st term of the Albo government. He has other issues like indigenous recognition etc. to get passed the public 1st.
He would not want to loose two referendums in one year.

an767

Immediatly after the lection he indicated it would not be in the first term of government. When asked by the media whther the death of the queen would change this he explicitly said that they would not do it until their second term if relected.

The media beat this one up in light of the Queen's death.

Crazy for developed and successful countries like Canada and Australia to have foreign heads of state. Unelected monarchs is undemocratic enough, but unelected monarchs who are not Canadian or Australia and live on the other side of the world is bananas.

cedarjet wrote:

Crazy for developed and successful countries like Canada and Australia to have foreign heads of state. Unelected monarchs is undemocratic enough, but unelected monarchs who are not Canadian or Australia and live on the other side of the world is bananas.

Do you have about 4-6 hours for an interactive slideshow on the 1800s?

We can also do a few games, and I will order Chipotle catering or similar for you.

Long story short, it wasn't really a choice.

cedarjet wrote:

Crazy for developed and successful countries like Canada and Australia to have foreign heads of state. Unelected monarchs is undemocratic enough, but unelected monarchs who are not Canadian or Australia and live on the other side of the world is bananas.

You are confusing the Monarch of the United Kingdom, with that of the Monarch of Australia and the Monarch of Canada. Although they are the same person, they are different entities.
The Monarch of those two countries isn't a foreigner, they are both Australian and Canadian. Passports and citizenship are in their name (via their appointed representative, who performs their duties).

ChrisKen wrote:

You are confusing the Monarch of the United Kingdom, with that of the Monarch of Australia and the Monarch of Canada. Although they are the same person, they are different entities.
The Monarch of those two countries isn't a foreigner, they are both Australian and Canadian. Passports and citizenship are in their name (via their appointed representative, who performs their duties).

Technically, but no one realistically looks at Queen Liz or King Charles or whoever is occupying Buckingham Palace and thinks "that person is an Australian or a Canadian or a Jamaican or a Solomon Islander or a Saint Vincent and the Grenadines-ian". That person is British, full stop.

A101 wrote:

Personally I can’t see the point in changing and will vote no

You can't see the point in making the Head of State of Australia an Australian? Also at the moment non Anglicans are banned from ever becoming Australia's head of state. Anglicans (Church of England) now only make up 9% of Australians.

We can even have the exact same system of government with a Governor General selected in the same way exercising the full Head of State authority, which they do now in practice. Since it isn't realistic that the British Monarch will ever overrule the decision of a Governor General or Australian Parliament then what is the point?

Although I did read an interesting article from esteemed lawyer Geoffrey Robertson where he argued the reserve powers of the GG in Australia could be exercised by the Justices of the High Court, abolishing the need for a head of state entirely.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal ... 5bhhf.html

A101 wrote:

Whilst far from being a decisive poll from those poll favour the Status Quo

https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/a-re ... a-republic

An increasing majority of Australians, 60% (up 5% points since November 2012) believe Australia should remain a Monarchy while only 40% (down 5% points) say Australia should become a Republic with an elected President.

Elected president? That is kind of the French or American model of a presidency. While a German, Austrian, Israeli or Italian model might be more appropriate, that doesn't change anything fundamentally to government.

All depends on how you ask things.

It is quite strange that the King of the UK, still "rules" over former colonies of the UK. It is up to them to decide for themselves what they want. A number of Caribbean islands have decided or might decide to abolish the King as their head of state. Would be interesting to see what the Australians decided and if yes, the Canadians might follow suit.

cedarjet wrote:

Crazy for developed and successful countries like Canada and Australia to have foreign heads of state. Unelected monarchs is undemocratic enough, but unelected monarchs who are not Canadian or Australia and live on the other side of the world is bananas.

As sovereign Charles isn't even a citizen of the UK, they are sovereign, we the people are citizens.

As a kiwi I don't see any benefits in changing from the current system, I honestly do not believe that are any kiwis worthy of representing us on a world stage as our Head of State. The only New Zealander I would have liked and voted for as a President is Sir Edmund Hillary, but we don't make kiwis like this man anymore.

Dutchy wrote:

It is quite strange that the King of the UK, still "rules" over former colonies of the UK. It is up to them to decide for themselves what they want. A number of Caribbean islands have decided or might decide to abolish the King as their head of state. Would be interesting to see what the Australians decided and if yes, the Canadians might follow suit.

He's not the King of the UK in New Zealand, Australia or Canada, he's the King of New Zealand, King of Australia and King of Canada, that fact that he's king of multiple countries is irrelevant to his role as King of New Zealand.

An767 wrote:

This will not happen in the 1st term of the Albo government. He has other issues like indigenous recognition etc. to get passed the public 1st.
He would not want to loose two referendums in one year.

an767

How much will holding a public referendum cost? In the current challenging economic climate? Even if the majority vote is to break away from the monarchy, how much will it cost Australia to rebrand all its official stationery, letterheads, etc?

Will probably happen eventually, but I do not see it happening for the next 10 years. It's on the to-do list, but not a priority right now...well, definitely NOT BEFORE the next Commonwealth Games in Victoria in 2026 anyway....

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It is quite strange that the King of the UK, still "rules" over former colonies of the UK. It is up to them to decide for themselves what they want. A number of Caribbean islands have decided or might decide to abolish the King as their head of state. Would be interesting to see what the Australians decided and if yes, the Canadians might follow suit.

He's not the King of the UK in New Zealand, Australia or Canada, he's the King of New Zealand, King of Australia and King of Canada, that fact that he's king of multiple countries is irrelevant to his role as King of New Zealand.

For you perhaps, but in general, he is viewed as the King of the UK, that's where he lives anyway. But all is fine if the Kiwi's want their head of state living abroad and sharing their head of state with a number of other countries.

To be pedantic, when he is in New Zealand, he is still the King of the UK.

The lunar probe himself has spoken:

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/c ... 1f8c10ec4d

Poking away in the outer reaches of idiocy and disrespecting this occasion by politicising this into his usual left-v-right culture war.

The death of the Queen is just a useful thing to further his attacks.

https://www.monarchist.org.au/are_there ... a_republic

Are There Any Benefits in Becoming a Republic?


Interesting read something I agree with

Monarchist.org.au? Surely there are less biased sources.

cpd wrote:

Monarchist.org.au? Surely there are less biased sources.

Off course it’s biased but fundamentally it is not wrong is it nothing untrue

And I do t see any convincing arguments for change

https://republic.org.au/faq

The biggest reason to go to a republic is the rusted on Monarchist movements and some of their senior people...

AML - campaign chairman Eric Abetz for instance. Repulsive character. Total opposite to the late Queen.

cpd wrote:

The biggest reason to go to a republic is the rusted on Monarchist movements and some of their senior people...

AML - campaign chairman Eric Abetz for instance. Repulsive character. Total opposite to the late Queen.

that's as good as any reason to change

A101 wrote:

https://www.monarchist.org.au/are_there_any_benefits_in_becoming_a_republic

Are There Any Benefits in Becoming a Republic?


Interesting read something I agree with

That is a funny website, full of internal contradictions.

There are no discernible benefits as we already have as good a system as is humanly possible to devise but the answer below will address some of the points which republicans believe.

Having a non-Australian head of state, is the best system one can design?

Thanks for the laugh.