King Charles says a republic is up to Australian people

[Still Waters]

King Charles has confirmed that it is up to the Australian people to decide whether the country remains a constitutional monarchy or becomes a republic.

Ahead of the King's visit to Australia next week, the Australian Republic Movement exchanged letters with Buckingham Palace officials, writing on the King's behalf.

Correspondence from the palace, first revealed by the Daily Mail, says that "whether Australia becomes a republic" is a "matter for the Australian public to decide".

The future of the monarchy in Australia is likely to be an issue during the royal visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla, which includes events in Sydney and Canberra.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4d22yl9kpo

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

As long as the referendum isn’t sabotaged like the last one (ie organised by an admitted Die Hard Monarchist and his cronies (Howard, Abbott etc)) it’ll pass. It only failed last time because the model chosen for government post-republic was intentionally chosen to be the worst possible so no one, even republicans, would support it. 

[psyche101]

No immediate changes ahead.

Australia puts republic referendum plan on hold

The Australian government has indicated that it has put on hold a proposal to hold a vote on removing King Charles III as its head of state.

It is a longstanding policy of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to hold a referendum on becoming a republic.

But a minister has told local media that such a vote is "not a priority" and there is "no timeline" for it.

The government last week said it was expecting a visit from the king "later this year".

 

 

I for one wouldn't want a republic. America isn't inspirational in that regard. 

[Golden Duck]

Reading the previous two posts, I'll point out the benefit of the model favoured by the Australian Republican Movement and proposed in the 1999 referendum.

A President appointed by two thirds of the Commonwealth Parliament  would have been the minimal change and would ensure the head-of-state would have continued to be ceremonial and not political.

[Still Waters]

On 10/12/2024 at 4:43 PM, Still Waters said:

The future of the monarchy in Australia is likely to be an issue during the royal visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla, which includes events in Sydney and Canberra.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4d22yl9kpo

Sydney Opera House was lit up with images of past royal tours as King Charles and Queen Camilla touched down in the Australian city on Friday.

The couple arrived on a Royal Australian Air Force aircraft, following a torrential rainstorm, to begin their six-day tour of the country.

Australia’s Governor-General Sam Mostyn was there to greet the King and Queen, along with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

It is the King’s first visit to Australia since he became the country’s head of state in September 2022.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g917rnk39o

[psyche101]

On 10/18/2024 at 9:18 PM, Golden Duck said:

Reading the previous two posts, I'll point out the benefit of the model favoured by the Australian Republican Movement and proposed in the 1999 referendum.

A President appointed by two thirds of the Commonwealth Parliament  would have been the minimal change and would ensure the head-of-state would have continued to be ceremonial and not political.

Excuse my ignorance.

What's the actual benefit? 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Excuse my ignorance.

What's the actual benefit? 

What!s the benefit of King Chuckles the Pom as our head of state?

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Excuse my ignorance.

What's the actual benefit? 

I would say that it is better to choose to become a republic before Britain does.

Seeing someone in line to be the future King of Australia wearing an English jumper to the Rugby is not a good look.

[psyche101]

50 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What!s the benefit of King Chuckles the Pom as our head of state?

It works. We've got a system that is better than most. It would be a tragedy to see Australia become like America. 

[psyche101]

44 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I would say that it is better to choose to become a republic before Britain does.

Seeing someone in line to be the future King of Australia wearing an English jumper to the Rugby is not a good look.

If Britain becomes a republic that would force our hand to follow suit wouldn't it? 

As mentioned above, I would be loathe to follow the American model. Our current system is far superior.

Edited October 20 by psyche101

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It works. We've got a system that is better than most. It would be a tragedy to see Australia become like America. 

It’ll work precisely as well with an Aussie HoS - you’re right, the system we have in Australia, with Australians is fine. The GG stops being the foreign useless ******’s representative and just does their same job with the same level of authority and powers. 
The buck stops with the GG rather than Chuckles, neither of whom have any authority over laws or governance and play mostly symbolic roles. 

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

It’ll work precisely as well with an Aussie HoS - you’re right, the system we have in Australia, with Australians is fine. The GG stops being the foreign useless ******’s representative and just does their same job with the same level of authority and powers. 
The buck stops with the GG rather than Chuckles, neither of whom have any authority over laws or governance and play mostly symbolic roles. 

Thats why I'm pretty comfortable with how things are. As you say, they are symbolic, and nothing seems more free than the king saying, if that's what you want, we will honour your wishes and step aside. 

I'm more concerned that if we go with a republic that someone will use some loophole to exploit it like the American constitution which shows how widely it can be interpreted. And should that be exploited to allow a Donald Trump type character to gain power, we should probably just give the country back to the natives and send everyone back to the place of previous ancestral origin now. We wouldn't deserve the country if we let it deteriorate like that. You've seen musk is buying votes at the moment. It's a bottom of the barrel moment for America. We can see how bad things can get. It's a stark warning.

Edited October 20 by psyche101

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

35 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Thats why I'm pretty comfortable with how things are. As you say, they are symbolic, and nothing seems more free than the king saying, if that's what you want, we will honour your wishes and step aside. 

I'm more concerned that if we go with a republic that someone will use some loophole to exploit it like the American constitution which shows how widely it can be interpreted. And should that be exploited to allow a Donald Trump type character to gain power, we should probably just give the country back to the natives and send everyone back to the place of previous ancestral origin now. We wouldn't deserve the country if we let it deteriorate like that. You've seen musk is buying votes at the moment. It's a bottom of the barrel moment for America. We can see how bad things can get. It's a stark warning.

And the symbol currently says “we are not mature enough to govern ourselves”. 

[Golden Duck]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If Britain becomes a republic that would force our hand to follow suit wouldn't it? 

As mentioned above, I would be loathe to follow the American model. Our current system is far superior.

The model proposed in 1999 was not the American model.  There would be no direct election and it wouldn't be a political position. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

And the symbol currently says “we are not mature enough to govern ourselves”. 

I hadn't heard that. Do you mean Chuck of the GG? 

And do they mean economically or politically? 

[psyche101]

47 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The model proposed in 1999 was not the American model.  There would be no direct election and it wouldn't be a political position. 

So it would be the same, just replacing Chuck with an Australian figurehead? 

Sorry, not quite up to speed on this, appreciate your insights. 

[Golden Duck]

26 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

So it would be the same, just replacing Chuck with an Australian figurehead? 

Sorry, not quite up to speed on this, appreciate your insights. 

Pretty much correct.  The President would need two-thirds support of the Parliament.

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Pretty much correct.  The President would need two-thirds support of the Parliament.

What would be than advantage of splitting from the Commonwealth? 

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

What would be than advantage of splitting from the Commonwealth? 

We wouldn't split from the Commonwealth.  We would no longer be a Commonwealth Realm.

You could also ask what advantages does a Commonwealth Realm have?  There was no assistance when the USA invaded Grenada.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I hadn't heard that. Do you mean Chuck of the GG? 

And do they mean economically or politically? 

Our head of state is Chuckles. 
what sort of head of state supports another nation at the football or the cricket or lives in another country entirely?

[psyche101]

On 10/20/2024 at 9:38 PM, Golden Duck said:

We wouldn't split from the Commonwealth.  We would no longer be a Commonwealth Realm.

But what's wrong with it now? 

We have things better than most countries. Why change what's working? 

On 10/20/2024 at 9:38 PM, Golden Duck said:

You could also ask what advantages does a Commonwealth Realm have?  There was no assistance when the USA invaded Grenada.

Well isn't being in a group of civilised nations mutually beneficial with regards to economy and knowledge? We enjoy very good and supportive relationships with the rest of the realm for the larger part 

[psyche101]

On 10/21/2024 at 6:17 AM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Our head of state is Chuckles. 
what sort of head of state supports another nation at the football or the cricket or lives in another country entirely?

However..... better than a leader who says he thinks Putin is a genius and Kimmy and he are in love. Whilst staging Mchappy day and his toads buying votes. The corruption and stupidity or the world's most notable country is a disgrace to it. 

As such, a republic isn't an attractive proposal. Any chance of a Trump like candidate is reason enough to abandon the idea. I think Ruddy was our biggest clown yet, but next to Trump he looks like a Harvard professor. Biden's like a second hand Joh. From here it looks like stepping backwards. Currently the Katter party is a joke, but I reckon Maga would go full Katter in a heartbeat. If that was what we were reduced to, nuke us first I reckon. 

America is the largest red flag regarding the republic idea. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

However..... better than a leader who says he thinks Putin is a genius and Kimmy and he are in love. Whilst staging Mchappy day and his toads buying votes. The corruption and stupidity or the world's most notable country is a disgrace to it. 

As such, a republic isn't an attractive proposal. Any chance of a Trump like candidate is reason enough to abandon the idea. I think Ruddy was our biggest clown yet, but next to Trump he looks like a Harvard professor. Biden's like a second hand Joh. From here it looks like stepping backwards. Currently the Katter party is a joke, but I reckon Maga would go full Katter in a heartbeat. If that was what we were reduced to, nuke us first I reckon. 

America is the largest red flag regarding the republic idea. 

And a system where we get to chose none of our leaders is .. what? 
We don’t vote for the monarch. They’re anointed by God. 
We din’t vote for the GG. They appointed by the crown, based on recommendations from the PM. 
We don’t vote for PM. They’re chosen by The Party. 
We don’t vote for Premier. They’re chosen by the Party. 
 

You’re focused so hard on the US system that you forget the system with GG works just fine without the crown. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

And a system where we get to chose none of our leaders is .. what? 

Better?

Better than the most well known republic on the planet. 

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

We don’t vote for the monarch. They’re anointed by God. 
We din’t vote for the GG. They appointed by the crown, based on recommendations from the PM. 
We don’t vote for PM. They’re chosen by The Party. 
We don’t vote for Premier. They’re chosen by the Party. 

That works though. Because they have to qualify and because we vote for actual policy as opposed to people we don't get toads like musk bribing people to vote for someone. We have enough personal bulldust what with the PM more focused on rubbishing Dutton than doing his job. Taking that up a notch is self harm. 

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You’re focused so hard on the US system that you forget the system with GG works just fine without the crown. 

Because any chance of that system infecting ours can only be to our detriment. We need to remain a nation focused on policy and performance as opposed to the biggest fanfare and individual personality. It would be a step backwards to ruin a great system and implement something that is easily abused. Trump is a global red flag that just can't be ignored. We need to distance ourselves from that system as far as we possibly can. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

**** me sideways … we can’t get rid of a useless, non-representative appendix to governance that has no active role in the everyday life of Australia beyond being a face on a coin because of ****ing Trump.