The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #801  
Old 07-29-2017, 08:13 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dee Anna View Post
Well my thoughts exactly ..... but this thread has unravelled .....
Muhler responded (in January) to one post by eya where the Australian Monarchist League told its members to start preparing for the death of the Queen, warning it will feel as though a safety net has disappeared. And I don't think this thread has unravelled at all.
__________________

__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 07-29-2017, 08:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
How do you change the Australian Constitution in the first place?
This, I imagine, is very much a change of the Constitution.

Would a 51 % majority of votes be enough? Or do you need a X % majority of the voters to vote in favor of a change? (That makes a huge difference!)
Actually it is 50%+1 - not even 51% e.g. if there are 15 million voters and 7,500,001 vote yes and 7,4999,999 vote No it is a Yes vote.

There is another wrinkle however - there also has to be 4 out of 6 states vote yes.

It is called the 'double majority' - majority of the population and a majority of the states.

It actually means we could end up with a relatively high percentage voting one way - well over 50% but it still not getting up if the smaller states voted no.

Quote:
IMO a yes/no to a republic cannot be anything but a political guideline, if there are no concrete alternatives presented to the voters.
That is why it would be a plebiscite and not a referendum. It is a technical difference of course but it is still a difference.

Quote:
The republicans can't say after a yes, to a republic, that a republic is now certain and that the monarchy has been finally rejected, on the basis of such a referendum.
If such a plebiscite was a vote for Yes then the government would have to continually put referenda to the people on the type of republic we wanted until a model received the requisite 50%+1 and 4/6 states' support.

Quote:
It only means that a majority of the voters wish to be presented with alternatives to a monarchy.
So a yes to a republic, does not automatically mean a no to the monarchy.
Yes it does as that would be the very question - 'Do you want to be a republic?'

No would mean No to a monarchy.

Quote:
It could be binding if the referendum presented these alternatives:
Do you prefer:
A) A monarch as head of state, status quo.
B) A politically neutral president as head of state
C) A president with executive powers?
D) The Speaker of the Parliament as head of state?
- and so on.
But presented with such an option, the republicans would extremely likely to loose the first round. Because the republican votes would be divided.
Referenda in Australia can't present alternatives.

The only type of question we can have are straight Yes/No - no options.

That is why a one off question 'Do you want Australia to be a Republic?' would also rule out the first option if it was a Yes vote. That option would have been voted out.

Then each of the other options would have to go to a separate question and one at a time - not at the same time - as that could lead to a series of Yeses and we would be no further ahead.

What would happen is that the Republicans would get together and put their preferred option to a referendum. If that is successful then that is the model but if it isn't then another referendum on a different model until there is a Yes vote. It could be one vote or it could take many votes and even revisit models previously rejected.

Along with the way of choosing the new Head of State they would also have to consider the powers of that Head of State - the minimalist simply replacing the monarch's powers as exercised by the GG or more limited or greater powers.

Then there is the situation with the states - are they separate monarchies (given that they all had to pass the recent Succession to the Crown Act before it went to the Federal parliament that would suggest 'yes they are' but there was also a challenge to that idea some years ago that suggest that they aren't separate monarchies in some circumstances. So would it actually be possible that Australia was a republic but say Queensland remained a monarchy with the monarch of the UK still appointing the State Governor as his/her representative in that state.

This is a complicated process and all that Shorten is promising is step 1 of a process that could take years to accomplish.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 07-29-2017, 08:47 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,107
As I wrote in my other posts, It's likely to happen like this:

1. A plebiscite in Bill Shorten first term on a straightforward question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?" That would mean one vote to see if there’s an appetite to change.

2. A second vote on how to pick the President. After much debate - likely a choice betwen an apolitical president elected by direct election, or the parliament.

3. Then finally a referendum to change the constitution.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 07-29-2017, 09:08 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 10,002
Thank you for a very comprehensive reply, Iluvbertie.

What I meant by a yes at such a referendum, not necessarily leading to an abolishment of the monarchy, is that it's a plebiscite. And as I understand it the politicians are not obligated to adhere to the result.
Another matter is if the republicans can't agree on presenting a solution a majority will accept or that it takes so long that the monarchists can mobilize enough opposition to a republic to call for a new referendum.

Personally I find the notion of a plebiscite, which the politicians are not obliged to respect, pretty chilling. I don't trust the politicians enough to let them take major decisions without a binding referendum. In fact a referendum giving the politicians here in DK permission to not necessarily putting major issues up for referendum was rejected here in DK about a year ago - after a referendum...

Where are the republicans stronger? In rural Australia? Or in the cities? If rural Australia is pro-monarchy it would AFAIU (as far as I understand) mean that three or four states are likely to vote no.

I've tried to view myself as a new Australian, having immigrated to Australia say some fifteen years ago and gained citizenship five years ago. I.e. While I would very much feel Australia is my country, I wouldn't be an Anglo-Saxon Australian and have no particular affiliation to the BRF, not even QEII. Nor would the cultural and historical bonds to UK mean that much to me personally.
I would look at whether this meant anything in regards to diplomatic and economic connections to UK and the rest of the Commonwealth. - Wouldn't make much difference I believe.
Okay, feeling Australian and seeing the future for me and my children in Australia I would probably be in favor of having an Australian head of state, so I would lean towards a republic.
(That I'm a hardcore monarchist here in DK is beside the point, because that's the best form of government in DK, IMO).
The decisive point for me would be how the Australian president would be appointed and what political power such a president has.
Having a president with no constitutional power at all, would IMO be meaningless, so a president should have some political role, like appointing governments.
Having to vote among a number a candidates every few years, would IMO be pretty silly and a waste of money. - So that option would get a no.
Okay, a president appointed by politicians, mostly from their own ranks then? - Bah! Having has-been politicians as presidents? Yeah, hurrah! - No!
Okay, how about appointed former diplomats as presidents? Say former ambassadors? - They are more or less politically neutral, having been career diplomats. And they are well versed in what to say and do, and in representing Australia and themselves. - They will also be pretty much unknown by the general public. But looking detached at the issue that option would get a yes from me.
That's the detached, objective view on the issue. Now we come to feelings. As a fairly new Australian, who do I look to when I wave the flag or something serious has happened in Australia? (I can't answer that, not being an Australian.) Do I feel a former ambassador is the best suited for the Australians to rally around? Or can the BRF fill that role? - That would depend so much on the BRF!
So to conclude this thought-experiment, I would probably be about 60 % republican.

- Am I completely off the mark here in regards to the sentiments of many Australians?

Forgive me if this doesn't make too much sense, I'm right now together with a handful of parents keeping an eye on a teenage party, and that's pretty distracting! (We need a smiley holding his ears!)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 07-29-2017, 09:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,916
As an Aussie of several decades standing, Muhler, I think many Australians won't be stuffed to go and vote on the issue. That's the honest truth.

We have compulsory voting here, for Federal, State and local government elections, (which are always held on a Saturday.) I'm a lifelong Labour/Australian Labor Party supporter, and have helped the ALP in several capacities over the years at Federal and State elections. I've stood there sometimes, handing out 'How to Vote ALP' cards (under our system it's not 'first past the post') and know that a lot of voters (perhaps a majority) would not be lining up to vote if it were not for the fact that here you are fined if you do not present yourself to vote on Election Day or send in a prior absentee vote (holiday/on business away etc.)

Plebiscites by their very nature are (usually) voluntary. Referenda are not. That's what scares me about this. The young, energetic, politically aware, will trot off to vote in this plebiscite. The old, congenitally ill, those with no interest in the political process, those who have difficulty reading English or reading forms of any kind, likely will not.

People eager to change to a new system will be all charged up to get to that booth and change things. Those who don't care or think the result is a foregone conclusion probably won't bother to turn out to defend the status quo.(As we saw with Brexit.)

As a monarchist I intend to vote No. However, I recognise that this is a brilliant move by Bill Shorten, a committed republican. I might be cynical but I think by holding a plebiscite he knows the average Aussie voter very well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 07-29-2017, 09:53 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Actually it is 50%+1 - not even 51% e.g. if there are 15 million voters and 7,500,001 vote yes and 7,4999,999 vote No it is a Yes vote.

There is another wrinkle however - there also has to be 4 out of 6 states vote yes.

It is called the 'double majority' - majority of the population and a majority of the states.

It actually means we could end up with a relatively high percentage voting one way - well over 50% but it still not getting up if the smaller states voted no.



That is why it would be a plebiscite and not a referendum. It is a technical difference of course but it is still a difference.



If such a plebiscite was a vote for Yes then the government would have to continually put referenda to the people on the type of republic we wanted until a model received the requisite 50%+1 and 4/6 states' support.



Yes it does as that would be the very question - 'Do you want to be a republic?'

No would mean No to a monarchy.



Referenda in Australia can't present alternatives.

The only type of question we can have are straight Yes/No - no options.

That is why a one off question 'Do you want Australia to be a Republic?' would also rule out the first option if it was a Yes vote. That option would have been voted out.

Then each of the other options would have to go to a separate question and one at a time - not at the same time - as that could lead to a series of Yeses and we would be no further ahead.

What would happen is that the Republicans would get together and put their preferred option to a referendum. If that is successful then that is the model but if it isn't then another referendum on a different model until there is a Yes vote. It could be one vote or it could take many votes and even revisit models previously rejected.

Along with the way of choosing the new Head of State they would also have to consider the powers of that Head of State - the minimalist simply replacing the monarch's powers as exercised by the GG or more limited or greater powers.

Then there is the situation with the states - are they separate monarchies (given that they all had to pass the recent Succession to the Crown Act before it went to the Federal parliament that would suggest 'yes they are' but there was also a challenge to that idea some years ago that suggest that they aren't separate monarchies in some circumstances. So would it actually be possible that Australia was a republic but say Queensland remained a monarchy with the monarch of the UK still appointing the State Governor as his/her representative in that state.

This is a complicated process and all that Shorten is promising is step 1 of a process that could take years to accomplish.
Can plebiscites be held on constitutional matters ? It appears that Shorten's game plan is a succession of technically non-binding plebiscites that nevertheless would make the republic look like a fait accompli and then influence the results of a future binding referendum. To me, that looks awfully like cheating, in other words trying to force a constitutional amendment through the back door circumventing the proper amendment procedures. If he wins the election and puts a plebiscite bill before parliament, I would advise the monarchists to challenge it in the High Court.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 07-29-2017, 10:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,112
Plebiscites, like refereda are compulsory in this country. The reason for compulsory voting is actually to force the government to get the polling station to the people - otherwise many Australians wouldn't be able to vote due to their distance from a town and thus from a polling station.

Yes plebiscites can be held on constitutional matters. They can be held on any matter.

Referenda must be used to change the constitution.

As for a career diplomat - that limits the field remarkably as most of the senior diplomatic posts, the ones that people would know about, are former politicians e.g the current High Commissioner to the UK (the equal top diplomatic post for an Aussie - the other being the Ambassador to the US) is Andrew Downer, former leader of the Liberal Party. The current Ambassador to the US is Joe Hockey another former leading light in the Liberal Party. He replaced Kim Beazley, former leader of the ALP.

Many former politicians in Australia actually go onto to be diplomats as a reward for their service to the country.

What we will end up with is quite clear - either former politicians or celebrities.

Shorten is doing what should have been done in the first place. Asking whether Australians actually want to be a republic. Had that been done in 1999 we would be well on the way now as there was over 60% support for a republic but many of them voted no due to the model put forward - many stated that very fact. They rejected the model not the concept.

If Shorten puts the question to the people of whether they want to be a republic and the vote is 'no' he won't go ahead with anything further as that would mean the people have voted to remain a monarchy with a non-Aussie as their Head of State.

Given the furore about dual citizens at the moment it does seem strange that a person who chooses to become an Aussie, even though they also are a citizen of another country, can't be elected to the parliaments in this country but a foreigner who may or may not be a dual citizen can be the Head of State. That would even be an interesting constitutional argument.

As both Rudd, in 2007 and then Julia, in 2010 both promised this plebiscite in their first terms and it never happened I am not holding my breath just yet.

Who supports the republicans - rural versus city - city by far and we are one of the most urbanised countries on earth. Last polls support for a republic growing Australian public: poll shows support at record levels again. It isn't as high as it was in the 90s but it is growing. The impact of William and Kate's tour in 2014 has disappeared with support returning to the republican ideal.

Earlier last year the figures were the other way round Nocookies | The Australian with the younger people supporting the monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 07-29-2017, 11:11 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,916
Plebiscites in this country have NOT been compulsory for voters in the past. We await to see whether the Shorten government will go with a compulsory vote on this.

Your questions on notice - Question details

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-...ebiscites.html

I'm well aware of the historical reasons for compulsory voting in elections. My views still stand that, unfortunately, many many Aussies are not particularly interested in the political process and probably wouldn't bother to vote if they weren't fined for not doing so.

I well remember the last vote on a republic. There were a lot of republicans confident that there would be a Yes vote then too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 07-30-2017, 03:30 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 225
Australia can only become a republic by abolishing the Australian monarchy, and that comes down to the text of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. It can be done by merging the Queen and the Governor-General into a presidency by amending the current text, or by replacing the current text all together. Either way, it must be approved by a majority of voters in the majority of States. Non-binding plebiscites, jingoistic squabbles over who is or is not heads of state, and all those old cliches about apron strings, cutting ties and standing on our own two feet, are irrelevant. Republicans need to propose a couple of viable, alternative models, complete with a draft of the required constitutional changes. Until then there is nothing to consider.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
7. From me to australians: I'm so tired (as a half-Brit) of this nonsense, so just spend a lot of money on electing that president of yours, who will not have a fraction of the Queen's popularity. So do it now, it's Australia's loss. It was nice to share the world's most popular/iconic and famous head of state with you, but goodbye and good luck!
You're tired of this nonsense? How do you think we feel? But, quite frankly, Royal Norway, the issue has bugger all to do with the United Kingdom, so there's no reason for a half-Brit to let it get on their nerves.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 07-30-2017, 05:24 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,107
Chubb Fuddler, nice to see you back. A bit difficult to understand for a non-Australian all this - because the commentators say something different from what Iluvbertie writes while the politicians say something different from that again. What do you think - will Shorten succeed?

Some commentators (or so-called experts) says it could happen like this this:

1. A plebiscite in Bill Shorten first term on a straightforward question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?" That would mean one vote to see if there’s an appetite to change.

2. A second vote in the next term on how to pick the President. After much debate - likely a choice betwen an apolitical president elected by direct election, or the parliament.

3. Then finally a referendum to change the constitution.

While other politicians says this:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/3654...st-term/#page1
Quote:
Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese dismissed suggestions there would be a need for two plebiscites - one to determine if Australians wanted a republic, then a second to approve a model - as well as a referendum to change the constitution.

A model would emerge by consensus during the debate to the first plebiscite about an Australian head of state, he said.

"It's a plan to achieve a republic by doing it in a two-stage process," Mr Albanese told Sky News of the Labor proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As both Rudd, in 2007 and then Julia, in 2010 both promised this plebiscite in their first terms and it never happened I am not holding my breath just yet.
But she also said this: ''The appropriate time to be a republic is when we see the monarch change. Obviously, I'm hoping for Queen Elizabeth that she lives a long and happy life, and having watched her mother I think there's every chance she will.''
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 07-30-2017, 06:21 AM
Dee Anna's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Here, Ireland
Posts: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
Muhler responded (in January) to one post by eya where the Australian Monarchist League told its members to start preparing for the death of the Queen, warning it will feel as though a safety net has disappeared. And I don't think this thread has unravelled at all.
This is actually a very interesting thread (as personally not being well versed on Australian policy) but it did seem to be running away with its self where the Queen was concerned a few pages back!
__________________
Be yourself; everyone else is already taken ..... Oscar Wilde
Reply With Quote
  #812  
Old 07-30-2017, 09:11 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 10,002
I find this discussion fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about how the Australian system works.
I do like that voting is compulsory.

But back to the republican issue. Would a similar serious political move towards turning Canada and/or New Zealand into republics, i.e. asking the public, seriously influence the Australian stand, you think?
Regardless of the outcome. Say a no in Canada, would that influence the Australian public and help the monarchists?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 07-31-2017, 04:27 AM
Sun Lion's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,206
Today's news -

A court case is being brought to have the National Archives release the approximately sixty letters that passed between the Queen and her advisors, and Australia's Governor-General of the time, Sir John Kerr, during what is known as "The Dismissal".

These have been sealed for more than forty years.

("The Dismissal" was the sacking of the Federal Government by the Queen's representative.)

The National Archives are fighting to keep them secret.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #814  
Old 07-31-2017, 04:41 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I find this discussion fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about how the Australian system works.
I do like that voting is compulsory.

But back to the republican issue. Would a similar serious political move towards turning Canada and/or New Zealand into republics, i.e. asking the public, seriously influence the Australian stand, you think?
Regardless of the outcome. Say a no in Canada, would that influence the Australian public and help the monarchists?
Maybe a vote in NZ because it is our neighbour and a country with which we have a very special relationship. Remember that NZ actually was asked to join us at the time of Federation and voted 'thanks but no thanks'.

Canada - I doubt it. We hardly ever get any news from there and it is seen as being part of America (I suspect that many Aussies wouldn't even know that Canada is part of the Commonwealth e.g. there was virtually no coverage in Australia of Canada's 150th birthday celebrations.

Then again I have seen many people claim that The Queen would be sad to see a country become a republic ignoring the fact that she has seen it many times during her reign as most of the countries of which she was Queen when she ascended the throne have already removed her from that position with quite a few of those left actively talking about dropping her.

We would probably get more coverage of Jamaica or Barbardos - due to the fact that these two countries play cricket and thus have a more regular sporting connection - than with Canada that we only seem to compete against at the Commonwealth or Olympic Games.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 07-31-2017, 06:28 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,107
1. I'm a constitutional monarchist, but I for one agree that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the twelve other countries that has HM as monarch should become republics - why? Because I find it strange that you can have a foreigner as head of state, but Bill Shorten could have had the decency to wait to after the Queen's death.

2. The reason for him (Bill Shorten) to start with this now is because he thinks he can win votes on it, while the even more republican Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull thinks he would loose votes on it due to the Queen's popularity and therefore wants to wait to after her death. Turnbull was (as you of course know) one of the founders of the Australian Republican Movement in 1991, but now describes himself as an Elizabethan.

3. There have been some polls on australian news-sites today and most of them show a lead for the monarchists (not to be taken seriously, i know). I also read the Facebook comments on ABC/Sky News Australia sites, and the vast majority were negative to spend a lot of money on this as long as the Queen lives.

4. And according to the two monarchists organisations and others, more young voters support the monarchy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Maybe a vote in NZ because it is our neighbour and a country with which we have a very special relationship. Remember that NZ actually was asked to join us at the time of Federation and voted 'thanks but no thanks'.

Canada - I doubt it. We hardly ever get any news from there and it is seen as being part of America (I suspect that many Aussies wouldn't even know that Canada is part of the Commonwealth e.g. there was virtually no coverage in Australia of Canada's 150th birthday celebrations.

Then again I have seen many people claim that The Queen would be sad to see a country become a republic ignoring the fact that she has seen it many times during her reign as most of the countries of which she was Queen when she ascended the throne have already removed her from that position with quite a few of those left actively talking about dropping her.

We would probably get more coverage of Jamaica or Barbardos - due to the fact that these two countries play cricket and thus have a more regular sporting connection - than with Canada that we only seem to compete against at the Commonwealth or Olympic Games.
As usual, I very much disagree with you.

1. I very much doubt that australians see Canada as being part of America.

2. Yes, she have seen other realms go. But that was countries that became independent after she ascended to the throne, with the exception of Ceylon, Pakistan and South Africa, which already was independent when she become the monarch. The last independent realm who replaised her with another head of state was Mauritius in 1992. But there is something else about Canada, Australia and New Zealand who has had her as monarch since she ascended in 1952.

Current 16 Commonwealth realms:

Australia 1952–present
Canada 1952–present
New Zealand 1952–present
Jamaica 1962–present
Barbados 1966–present
The Bahamas 1973–present
Grenada 1974–present
Papua New Guinea 1975–present
Solomon Islands 1978–present
Tuvalu 1978–present
St. Lucia 1979–present
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1979–present
Belize 1981–present
Antigua and Barbuda 1981–present
St. Kitts and Nevis 1983–present

Former 16 Commonwealth realms:

Pakistan 1952–1956
South Africa 1952–1961
Ceylon 1952–1972
Ghana 1957–1960
Nigeria 1960–1963
Sierra Leone 1961–1971
Tanganyika 1961–1962
Trinidad and Tobago 1962–1976
Uganda 1962–1963
Kenya 1963–1964
Malawi 1964–1966
Malta 1964–1974
The Gambia 1965–1970
Guyana 1966–1970
Mauritius 1968–1992
Fiji 1970–1987
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 07-31-2017, 09:31 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,916
Would Australians be influenced by New Zealand or Canada beoming a republic before we voted? We have a much closer relationship with NZ than with Canada as it's our nearest neighbour and in many ways we have a shared history. It might influence some of the thousands of Kiwis who live in Australia and have become citizens, but I doubt it would make much difference to the figures.

I don't think most Aussies think of Canada in terms of being part of North America. I believe, with the amount of travel that goes on today that they are very well aware of Canada as a fellow Commonwealth nation.

If those unlikely circumstances Muhler mused on were to happen, I think there would be an enormous amount of publicity in the Australian media and inevitably some would want to jump on the bandwagon. However, I tend to think that at base, it would confirm people's opinions yea or nay. I can't see too many voting on the basis that 'that country has changed course. We have to do the same.'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #817  
Old 07-31-2017, 09:47 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Would Australians be influenced by New Zealand or Canada beoming a republic before we voted? We have a much closer relationship with NZ than with Canada as it's our nearest neighbour and in many ways we have a shared history. It might influence some of the thousands of Kiwis who live in Australia and have become citizens, but I doubt it would make much difference to the figures.

I don't think most Aussies think of Canada in terms of being part of North America. I believe, with the amount of travel that goes on today that they are very well aware of Canada as a fellow Commonwealth nation.

If those unlikely circumstances Muhler mused on were to happen, I think there would be an enormous amount of publicity in the Australian media and inevitably some would want to jump on the bandwagon. However, I tend to think that at base, it would confirm people's opinions yea or nay. I can't see too many voting on the basis that 'that country has changed course. We have to do the same.'

As I said and I suppose the Canadian posters can comment further, support for the monarchy is actually softer in Canada than in Australia . The thing is that, at the same time, there is no harcdore support for a republic either. Apparently, it is an issue that Canadians simply don't seem to care about. The most important practical difference, however, is that there is no major national political party campaigning for a republic in Canada as there is in Australia. My experience is that issues like the abolition of the monarchy only enter the realm of possibility once mainstream politicians embrace them and lead public opinion in that direction.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #818  
Old 07-31-2017, 09:48 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,668
Quote:
I can't see too many voting on the basis that 'that country has changed course. We have to do the same.'
I agree, were that the case there would be a rush for the gates of the EU, following Brexit !
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 07-31-2017, 10:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,916
Republicanism has been a matter of public discourse in Australia since at least 1850. It first peaked in the 1880's and 1890's when several national figures spoke in favour of it. The idea therefore has a long history. It's been part of the platform of the Australian Labor Party for many many years. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard were Prime Ministers who were in favour.

However, support for republicanism has definitely ebbed and flowed in the general population. It has often been considered as something on the horizon, something to be considered tomorrow not today. Since the 1990's referendum it's been very much on the back burner for most people I think.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 07-31-2017, 11:40 AM
Duke of Marmalade's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
TRF Author
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Posts: 12,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Lion View Post
Today's news -

A court case is being brought to have the National Archives release the approximately sixty letters that passed between the Queen and her advisors, and Australia's Governor-General of the time, Sir John Kerr, during what is known as "The Dismissal".

These have been sealed for more than forty years.

("The Dismissal" was the sacking of the Federal Government by the Queen's representative.)

The National Archives are fighting to keep them secret.
Push for release of ‘palace letters’ between Queen and the man who dismissed Gough Whitlam from office after 40 years of secrecy

Push for release of Queen's 'palace letters' about Whitlam | Daily Mail Online
__________________

__________________
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
baptism birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill coel hen crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge cocktail dresses earl of snowdon family general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hereditary princess sophie infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia italy iñaki iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy nazi news philippe prince prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince jean prince liam prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary current events princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen letizia gowns queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima hats queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family theatre victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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