The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #601  
Old 08-26-2015, 06:24 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I think it's rather simplistic to say that people didn't listen last time and probably won't next time. Over 45% of people voted for the republic last time, and that was for a model that was not popular. Had a different question been asked, it is quite possible we would have been been a republic already.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #602  
Old 08-26-2015, 06:56 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
Yes, but as you know, referendums to change the Constitution don't involve 'first past the post' voting, or simply an overall majority, but a number of other hoops that have to be jumped, a majority of people in a majority of States and Territories for example, which wasn't achieved in any of them.

Also, yes 45% did vote Yes last time, but it is also simplistic in my view to claim (as some republicans do,) that a huge chunk of those who voted No did so simply because they disagreed with the model put up. There were no formal surveys carried out which prove this assertion, though it's often averred by disappointed republicans. It ignores the fact too that many Australians just simply did not want a republic.

I return to the point in my post above. Would republicans be happy and satisfied if a huge constitutional change such as this hinged on a 51% yes, 49% no, result? It would scarcely be a ringing victory, would it, and may well leave a large aggrieved section of the population?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #603  
Old 08-26-2015, 06:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Yes, but as you know, referendums to change the Constitution don't involve 'first past the post' voting, or simply an overall majority, but a number of other hoops that have to be jumped, a majority of people in a majority of States and Territories for example, which wasn't achieved in any of them.
The Territories don't count in the majority of 'states' at all. The people count in the majority of the population but it only requires 4 of the 6 states not either of the territories. ACT, by the way did vote in favour last time - but as it isn't a state it didn't count.

Quote:
Also, yes 45% did vote Yes last time, but it is also simplistic in my view to claim (as some republicans do,) that a huge chunk of those who voted No did so simply because they disagreed with the model put up. There were no formal surveys carried out which prove this assertion, though it's often averred by disappointed republicans. It ignores the fact too that many Australians just simply did not want a republic.
The only 'formal' polls that are ever taken are the elections.

There were many polls in the lead up that indicated that many people were going to vote 'no' due to the model.

Quote:
I return to the point in my post above. Would republicans be happy and satisfied if a huge constitutional change such as this hinged on a 51% yes, 49% no, result? It would scarcely be a ringing victory, would it, and may well leave a large aggrieved section of the population?
Yes - that is all the current constitution requires - so a Yes vote on 50%+1 is enough - if there are also 4/6 states in favour.

The framers of the constitution said that was enough and therefore that is all that is required (not 51% by the way but 50%+1 which means say there are 14,000,000 votes and 7,000,001 vote Yes and 6,999,999 vote No and 4 out of the 6 states vote Yes the constitution changes on any issue - that is the law of the land)

I know many republicans who voted No in 1999 who would have voted Yes had it been for a directly elected president (every member of my school staff except for myself then - but I would vote Yes for any form of republic now - thanks to TRF which opened my eyes to the stupidity of having a Head of State and family who actively campaign against Australia e.g. William and the World Cup - they also cheered for British athletes against Australian and even actively competed against us - e.g. Zara at the Olympics who also married a man who had played in the World Cup of Rugby final against Australia - can't blame Mike for that as he hadn't meet Zara but Harry was there cheering for England over Australia and his grandmother is our Head of State - a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs in the 21st century).

Our politicians realise that our future is in Asia. We don't teach British history in our schools but we do teach Australia's relationship with Asia and how that has changed for instance.
Reply With Quote
  #604  
Old 08-28-2015, 04:21 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I think it's rather simplistic to say that people didn't listen last time and probably won't next time. Over 45% of people voted for the republic last time, and that was for a model that was not popular. Had a different question been asked, it is quite possible we would have been been a republic already.
Absolutely agree!! I voted NO last time but would certainly vote YES this time around.
Reply With Quote
  #605  
Old 08-28-2015, 04:23 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,502
But you have no idea what we are voting for or against yet !


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #606  
Old 08-29-2015, 12:32 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal rob View Post
But you have no idea what we are voting for or against yet !


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
You are right, but I do not wish to wait for the wheels to be put into motion. Again. Last time I did not approve of the model. That was read as "you don't want a republic". I wish to avoid that perception even if it means I am not 100% happy with what is put up...within reason of course.
Reply With Quote
  #607  
Old 08-29-2015, 02:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
If those that want a republic would be quite happy with a 50% win, leaving a divided country and a half of the country unwilling, that says a lot about them! in my opinion.

Anyway, the only people who appear newly enthused about a republic at the moment are some ALP ministers scenting the blood of the Abbott Government's demise. I come into contact with many members of the Australian public socially and it's not in the forefront of the minds of people I speak to. The polls too don't show any great resurge of longing for a republic. Quite the reverse.

Good luck in (a) getting a change through in a future referendum, and (b) getting parliament to agree to a directly elected president model.
Reply With Quote
  #608  
Old 08-29-2015, 03:11 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
The law of the land says 50%+1 for ALL referenda - regardless of what the question is - and I am happy with that as that is the law that is in our constitution.


If it was good enough for the framers of the constitution in 1900 to write in that number than who are we to disagree now.


Yes - I would expect the entire family of the President of Australia to support Australia at all events - even if they were born elsewhere. If they can't then they should say so before the election so that their partner etc is disqualified from standing.


It won't need parliament to agree to a directly elected president IF that is what the referendum question is as that will be it.


Notice that the Treasurer is also in favour of a republic.


I hear this topic discussed quite regularly and the issue is 'when' not 'if' - everyone I know believes that it is a matter of time.


The first thing we need is a simple plebiscite - 'do you think Australia should be a republic?' Had that question been put in 1999 I have no doubts that we would already be a republic.


Once we have an answer to that question then the negotiations about the way the President is chosen will begin and could easily take three or four more votes to get the required majority.


There are many members of both sides of politics who support Australia as a republic but largely both sides have agreed not in the present reign. The two most likely to replace Mr Abbot as Leader of the Liberal Party - Mr Hockey or Mr Turnbull are both Republicans.
Reply With Quote
  #609  
Old 08-29-2015, 04:17 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
It must have been a great shock to the republican political elites when they lost the last time as they thought everyone would agree. I can remember Hazel Hawke inferring that all who voted 'No' were stupid. Well, I don't happen to be stupid and I prefer the queen as my Head of State and shall continue to do so, however many academics, celebrities and politicians try and persuade me otherwise. They tried to persuade the Australian population last time and didn't succeed.

If the Queen lives for another ten years then I take it there'll be no referendum on the republican question then.

Cabinet and their legal advisers would frame the referendum question. Last time parliamentarians argued that a directly elected president was incompatible with the Westminster system. Therefore that model is not likely to be on the referenda form.
Reply With Quote
  #610  
Old 08-29-2015, 04:36 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
The politicians can frame the question - but if the leaders of both sides want a republic (and remember it was John Howard as PM who had a large say in that question) - they will ensure that it is worded to get up - particularly if there is a plebiscite first that shows that the majority of the nation do want a republic as they will be obliged to keep putting the question to the people until they give the people want they want - that is a democratic system.


I voted No last time but wouldn't do so again regardless of the question. I voted No last time because I believed in the idea of a monarchy for Australia but I am now convinced that Australia would be better off without any ties to a foreign monarch on the other side of the world who has NO role to play in our nation - she actually has nothing to do with our lives, our laws etc. She can't even sign any laws - only the GG can do that, we can't appeal to her as the top level of justice - only can go as far as the High Court. She is really a 'nothing' person in our system so time for her to go in reality as she has in practice.


I know that the monarchist would be happy with a No vote of 50%+1 so why would the Republicans object to the same level of support?
Reply With Quote
  #611  
Old 08-29-2015, 04:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
Why? Because changing the Head of State is a huge change and one that you can't go back on. It's very different to voting for the status quo, which doesn't change anything.

A vote hovering around the 50% mark points to a divided and undecided population. Surely, if republicans are so convinced of the rightness of their cause they would want a sizeable majority if not a huge groundswell of ordinary people who desperately demanded this change, not a miserable technical majority, a falling over the line result?
Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 08-29-2015, 05:27 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It must have been a great shock to the republican political elites when they lost the last time as they thought everyone would agree. I can remember Hazel Hawke inferring that all who voted 'No' were stupid. Well, I don't happen to be stupid and I prefer the queen as my Head of State and shall continue to do so, however many academics, celebrities and politicians try and persuade me otherwise. They tried to persuade the Australian population last time and didn't succeed.

If the Queen lives for another ten years then I take it there'll be no referendum on the republican question then.

Cabinet and their legal advisers would frame the referendum question. Last time parliamentarians argued that a directly elected president was incompatible with the Westminster system. Therefore that model is not likely to be on the referenda form.
Not so. I was a republican and did NOT expect it to stand as the model was unacceptable. I was relieved. I will not make that mistake again! It has delayed the inevitable.
Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 08-29-2015, 08:07 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The politicians can frame the question - but if the leaders of both sides want a republic (and remember it was John Howard as PM who had a large say in that question) - they will ensure that it is worded to get up - particularly if there is a plebiscite first that shows that the majority of the nation do want a republic as they will be obliged to keep putting the question to the people until they give the people want they want - that is a democratic system.


I voted No last time but wouldn't do so again regardless of the question. I voted No last time because I believed in the idea of a monarchy for Australia but I am now convinced that Australia would be better off without any ties to a foreign monarch on the other side of the world who has NO role to play in our nation - she actually has nothing to do with our lives, our laws etc. She can't even sign any laws - only the GG can do that, we can't appeal to her as the top level of justice - only can go as far as the High Court. She is really a 'nothing' person in our system so time for her to go in reality as she has in practice.


I know that the monarchist would be happy with a No vote of 50%+1 so why would the Republicans object to the same level of support?
If the Queen has no say in Australian affairs and all her formal powers are effectively exercised by the Governor General, then the Governor General is, for all practical purposes, a "de facto" head of state. Since the Governor General, however, is nowadays always an Australian, the argument that Australia must become a republic to reaffirm its independence from a foreign head of state becomes moot IMHO.

I suppose the pragmatic question that Australiians must ask themselves is whether a partisan, directly elected president would be better for the country than an apolitical Governor General formally representing the Crown. A directly elected president would fundamentally change the balance of power in Australian politics and could result in a French-like scenario where a president of one party with a popular mandate of his own would clash with a prime minister of another party controlling the House of Representatives. Conceivably, a president backed by millions of direct votes in a national election in a continental country like Australia could easily overshadow a PM, who would be just the Leader of the majority in the House.

In any case, with a directly elected president, the way Australia has been governed for more than 100 years would be fundamentally changed. Are Australians willing to take that risk ? I am not so sure.
Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 08-29-2015, 08:33 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
If those that want a republic would be quite happy with a 50% win, leaving a divided country and a half of the country unwilling, that says a lot about them! in my opinion.

As for showing enthusiasm at international sporting contests, what if the President of the Republic of Australia is him/herself married to a 'foreigner' and also has relatives or stepchildren who were born and brought up in a foreign country, New Zealand, for instance? Would you expect the entire lot to get up and cheer for Australia in those circumstances, at say an Aus versus NZ cricket match? Or would they have to be married to Aussies? The Queen is as neutral in these things as she can be.

Anyway, the only people who appear newly enthused about a republic at the moment are some ALP ministers scenting the blood of the Abbott Government's demise. I come into contact with many members of the Australian public socially and it's not in the forefront of the minds of people I speak to. The polls too don't show any great resurge of longing for a republic. Quite the reverse.

Good luck in (a) getting a change through in a future referendum, and (b) getting parliament to agree to a directly elected president model.
Just as a historic referencie, in the 1960 South ┴frica republican referendum, the Yes side won by a very narrow margin of 52 to 48 %, It was a white-only referendum meaning the majority of the country's population didn't actually have a say on the matter.

The white community itself was roughly divided between a majority of the Afrikaners, who backed the republic, and the English-speaking whites plus a minority of Afrikaners who favored retaining South Africa's ties to the Crown. The approach taken by the SA government at the time was a minimalist one whereby the Governor General basically became ceremonial president following the referendum.
Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 08-29-2015, 10:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
^^ I believe that a large number of Afrikaners had no love for the British or the British Crown, did they, a feeling which stretched back to the time of the Boer War? I expect that was a deciding factor as well in an unfair and unrepresentative referendum.

The GG as a ceremonial president would certainly make for minimum disruption, Mbruno. However,a large number of Aussie republicans last time wanted a directly elected President, and I doubt whether they have changed their minds. This, as I've said before, is not acceptable to most Parliamentarians and it does not fit in with the Westminster system of government.
Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 08-29-2015, 10:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
The parliamentarians have to abide by the decision of the population so if that is the model the majority vote for the parliamentarians will have to go with that idea as they are also supposed to believe in democracy.


Last time the PM forced his preferred model on the convention and thus on the public. He suspected that wasn't the model the republicans wanted and wasn't going to offer the preferred republican model but when the next vote is taken there will probably be a few phases:


1. Do you want Australia to be a republic?
2. A series of models with a preferential vote on those models
2. The preferred model from the preferential vote put to the people as a referendum.


Monarchists can believe it won't happen but more and more politicians are actually republicans now - the PM isn't but many within his party are and it will happen - the question is when not if.
Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 08-29-2015, 11:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
Well, we will just see whether the next referendum succeeds. It's not likely for several years anyway, if they wait until the Queen's death and/or possibly the second term of a Labor Government.
Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 08-30-2015, 12:55 AM
AfricanAUSSIE's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 891
"It won't happen overnight, but it WILL happen."

I agree that whilst Abbot is the PM it will stall as he clearly is a stoic supporter of the monarchy. Have we ever had them visit so often? And I have also thought that we would wait for the Queen's death but that is no longer my feeling. People are changing as Iluvbertie has noted.

Your timeline is probable Curryong but change can happen unexpectedly quickly some times.
Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 08-30-2015, 01:21 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,765
This much change in 18 months, especially among young people?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...201-31u1a.html

It's so much on people's minds no poll has been taken since that I could find!
Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 08-30-2015, 02:32 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,937
I used to think that nothing would happen till after the Queen dies, but now I'm not so sure it matters. She could go on for years. The time to act is as soon as we have a republican Prime Minister. My preference is to have the plebiscite as soon as possible, and then start working on the republic models to decide what type of republic we're going to have.

As for such big changes being made with only 51% of the population supporting them, we're used to that sort of thing. After many State and Federal elections, a large percentage of the population has changes imposed on it that it did not want or vote for.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
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 636 10-25-2017 08:04 PM
The Queen and New Zealand: Residences, Governor-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 59 10-23-2017 02:12 AM
General Discussion about Dutch Royal Residences Tina Dutch Royal Residences 21 07-18-2017 05:01 PM
Brazilian Imperial Palaces, residences etc Marengo The Imperial Family of Brazil 23 03-14-2015 10:01 PM
The Queen and the Caribbean: Residences, Governors-General, etc... wbenson Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 48 02-25-2012 05:56 AM




Popular Tags
best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria hats current events denmark duchess of cambridge dutch state visit earl of snowdon english books general news hereditary grand duchess stÚphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia i˝aki urdangarÝn jewels king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince guillaume prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess elisabeth princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess margriet princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen silvia state visit state visit to spain stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria video games zog



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises