The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 06-24-2010, 07:27 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
That's not the case in Australia. Constitutional amendments there require a referendum (which must pass nationwide and in a majority of states).
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 06-24-2010, 08:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hereditary Thane View Post
...under the British and Commonwealth constitutional monarcy the constitution does not allow for a democratic choice in the form of a referendum. For Australia to become a republic all it needs is the current government to decide so. This is the legal requirement...
NO - our constitution requires a referendum to get any change. To get a referendum through we have to have a majority of the voters agree i.e. 50%+1 of all voters AND a majority of the states also vote in favour. That is clearly spelt out in the constitution which is why we had the referendum in 1999 and will have to have another one to get a republic. We don't need to do it separately at state level though as the states gave control of that aspect of our nation's identity to the Federal government in 1901.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 06-24-2010, 10:48 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisscross1 View Post
You are so right. We don't really have a lot to choose from at the moment. I wouldn't trust Abbott as far as I could throw him. From a personal point of view, bring back Howard, things were so uncomplicated when he was PM
I dont trust Abbott either, crisscross. And although I was never fond of Howard, things were much less complicated as you say
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 06-25-2010, 08:50 PM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
For those interested, here is a video of the Swearing-in of the Hon. Julia Gillard MP as Prime Minister by Her Excellency the Governor-General

In the past, an Oath of Alliegance to the Queen was also taken, but this is no longer the case. All MP's and Senators take one after an election.

Do they do anything like this in the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms?

------------------------------------------
I would just like to say I can understand the confusion regarding the way in which Gillard has become PM. I spent yesterday consoling the Kevin Rudd fan club at school and explaining that she has every right to be PM as she commands a majority in the House of Representatives. The Consititution doesn't say anything about the people getting a say in the matter as Iluvbertie has stated and I am pretty sure it doesn't actually mention the term 'Prime Minister'
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 06-25-2010, 09:02 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
They do in Canada. The ministerial oath doesn't mention the Queen, but if a new minister is being sworn in who isn't already a member of the (Canadian) Privy Council, he or she will also take a plain oath of allegiance to the Queen as well as a longer oath specific to the Council. Since Stephen Harper was already a member of the Privy Council when we was appointed PM in 2006 (the leader of the opposition is usually appointed to the council), he took a single oath, similar to the one taken by Ms Gillard.

As far as I know, ministers in the UK only take an oath upon being sworn of the Privy Council (which they are often already members of), and they don't even read it out loud (it's read to them). The appointment is effective upon "kissing hands" with the Queen.

Edit to add: For comparison, here are the Australian and Canadian oaths:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Australia
I, _______________, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the prime minister, (so help me God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canada
I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trust reposed in me as Prime Minister, (so help me God).
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 08-17-2010, 03:06 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
Queen's death right time for republic move: Gillard - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the death of the British monarch would be the appropriate time for Australia to become a republic.

Ms Gillard says while Australians have a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth, she would like to see the country work through the debate to decide on an appropriate model for an Australian republic.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 08-17-2010, 07:21 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410

In other words, it's off the agenda.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 08-17-2010, 08:27 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

In other words, it's off the agenda.

I don't think it is 'off the agenda' as such but that we have currently have a PM who isn't prepared to risk the defeat that a referendum would bring at the moment.

The Labor Party did promise before the last election that it would be on the agenda in a second term - but what is a broken promise from a political party - they all practice them.

She did say we should move towards and agreed upon model and that will take a series of plebiscites to get that process going.

The sooner we are a republic the better in my opinion so I am angry that she has not committed to when we will get a second chance to vote on this issue.

Leaving for another 20 years is ridiculous in my opinion.

To have it in place to happen the instant the Queen dies though will need the process to start soon, as, despite the Queen's apparate good health and the longevity of her mother and other ancestors, she is 83 and things could change very quickly and suddenly we are left with Charles as King - a thought that most Australians I think would not enjoy - just as people in Britain don't really want him (sadly).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 08-19-2010, 01:10 PM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,215
Your current PM will be long gone and forgotten by the time HM QE II decides to change for Eternal Life,and all will have forgotten her craze of the day not worth mentioning verbal diarhea to gain a few votes.How Cheap.Politicians with low self-esteem use anything to raise attention as some,like this woman who pretends she's the next Maggie but fails every time and again as you will see in the near future,she's nothing.She got lucky one sec,but soon loose that again,she isn't PM material.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 08-19-2010, 05:23 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
She simply made a comment when asked about an issue and gave an answer. She may be gone when the Queen goes and she may not be.

She may very well be PM from tomorrow for a number of years.

When you say she isn't PM material what do you mean? She is the PM of Australia, has fought a hard campaign and well probably wake up Sunday morning still PM of Australia so obviously she is PM material - if she has the job she is seen as the right person by those who matter - the members of her party who elect the PM.

In Australia we don't all elect the PM (despite what many people think).
Tomorrow we will vote and the polls seem to say she will win.

If she does win I can see the Labor Party starting the process to us being a republic at some time in the future such as asking the simple question 'Should Australia be a republic?' Until that question is asked and given the answer yes we can't move forward.

Personally I would like to see Australia become a republic tomorrow and not wait any longer. We need our own Head of State and not an aging foreign woman who has no ties to this country or its people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 08-19-2010, 05:37 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post
Your current PM will be long gone and forgotten by the time HM QE II decides to change for Eternal Life,and all will have forgotten her craze of the day not worth mentioning verbal diarhea to gain a few votes.How Cheap.Politicians with low self-esteem use anything to raise attention as some,like this woman who pretends she's the next Maggie but fails every time and again as you will see in the near future,she's nothing.She got lucky one sec,but soon loose that again,she isn't PM material.
You have no idea when the Queen will pass away or how long this PM will last. She could be there for years, and IMO I hope she is.

A referendum on the monarchy in Australia from what I have heard from posters in this forum is very much on the minds of people in Australia, it is hardly "verbal diaorhea" if it is on the mind of the majority of people is it? She is the PM and speaks for the people.

This woman seems like a very confident person, surely she didn't get to being PM of Australia by not being confident in her own abilities. You are assuming she wants to be the next "maggie", I have never ever seen an article comparing her and I have taken an interest in this woman.

Your predicting the future, that she's going to disappear soon? Why do you have something against her?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 08-19-2010, 08:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
I woudn't take much notice of lucien's post (respectively). They have little, to no idea, concerning the topic of which they speak. Being ill informed, as is clearly the case, does not aide an argument. . .
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 08-19-2010, 09:02 PM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
This woman seems like a very confident person, surely she didn't get to being PM of Australia by not being confident in her own abilities.

Your predicting the future, that she's going to disappear soon? Why do you have something against her?
Gillard became PM because the Labor government lost confidence in Rudd. It had nothing to do with her confidence more a case of being in the right place at the right time. I for one, hope that the Liberal government is elected tomorrow and Labor takes it's seat on the back burner again. They have all but ruined this country in 3 years by giving money away, (school halls, baby bonuses, a one off 'suck-up' payment and making promises that they didn't/couldn't keep.)
You can probably tell, I'm not a Labor supporter.
As for the referendum.....I don't know how anyone can say that a mojority of Australians want it. At the last referendum in 1999 only 39% of those who voted, voted 'Yes' which would suggest that a minority of Australians would prefer a republic.
I personally don't care either way but the cost involved with such a move would be tremendous and as far as I can see the Queen has very little input into this country so 'Why change what isn't broken?'
JMPO
__________________
Everyone is born right-handed, only the gifted overcome it!!
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 08-19-2010, 09:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisscross1 View Post
At the last referendum in 1999 only 39% of those who voted, voted 'Yes' which would suggest that a minority of Australians would prefer a republic.
It was 45% voting Yes and 55% voting No and many of the Nos said they would have voted Yes with the right model.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:27 PM
crisscross1's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
It was 45% voting Yes and 55% voting No and many of the Nos said they would have voted Yes with the right model.
I would love to know where I can find those figures and the statement so that I can read it. Thanks
__________________
Everyone is born right-handed, only the gifted overcome it!!
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 08-19-2010, 11:44 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by crisscross1 View Post
I would love to know where I can find those figures and the statement so that I can read it. Thanks

These were the figures annouced at the time - like that night.

Australian republic referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has the statistics and a summary of the different types of people who voted the way they did.

The figures you are quoting look more like the ones for the preamble referendum held on the same day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 08-20-2010, 01:23 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 50
I think that if the UK ever became a republic (highly-unlikely) that the Queen would move to Australia and the Governor-General and all of the State Governors would be dismissed, since they act on behalf of the Queen there would be no need for them. I think that all of the state houses in Australia would be occupied by the royal family. The Queen would live in one, and she would place her children and grand-children in some of the others. I think she would do all of the ceremonial duties.

Or there is a chance that all of the Commonwealth Realms will get together and sign a treaty that will banish the crown from all of their countries. And they all at one become republics?

Do you think I am correct, or what do you think will likely happen if otherwise?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 08-20-2010, 01:58 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
You couldn't be more wrong, I'm affraid wedmonds.

But even so, and in this day and age, if the British monarchy was abolished (so very very unlikely in the present and forseeable future), there would be no need for them to live outside Britain. Not that I can see anyway.

They (the RF) would certainly retire from public view for the most part, however. Probably wishing to live outside the main centres (Sandrigham and Balmoral then being the principle places of residence for the former head of state) and often travel abroad.

Of course that is but one scenario and theres an entire royal family to consider into the equation.

But as for moving to Australia? Not a chance and dare I say that if Britain had removed the monarchy, you can be certain Australia would have already done so aswell.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 08-20-2010, 02:13 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
She couldn't just up and move to Australia and set up court there. She needs the permission of the government to even visit (let alone move in!), she would have no official budget, and it's possible that there would be significant public opposition to a locally-resident monarchy suddenly popping into existence.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 08-20-2010, 04:32 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
The Queen has lived in the UK all her life, why would their be any reason for her leave just because the monarchy had been abolished?

As for setting up herself as sole "Queen of Australia", why would she? If the monarchy in the UK had been disbanded, why move to another country that wants to get rid of the monarchy now, which the UK doesn't atm.

Why would her family and grand-children follow her? They would have a choice of what they would do with their lives, and IMO some of them would love to be without their titles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crisscross1 View Post
Gillard became PM because the Labor government lost confidence in Rudd. It had nothing to do with her confidence more a case of being in the right place at the right time.
Exactly, they lost confidence in the old PM, so her party must have more confidence in her. And if you have no confidence in your self, people can't have confidence in you.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
australia, british commonwealth, elizabeth ii, governor general, julia gillard, monarchy versus republic, parliament, queen elizabeth ii


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Queen and Canada, Residences, Governor General, etc... Duchess Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 401 09-27-2014 10:35 AM
General discussion about royal residences auroraDaniel British Royal Residences 87 08-09-2014 08:29 PM
Swedish Residences General Discussion Josefine Swedish Royal Residences 54 06-21-2014 10:12 AM
Official Visit from Australia to The Netherlands; September 26-27, 2006 fanletizia Dutch Royals 46 10-08-2006 01:22 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]