Osipi
Member - in Memoriam
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 17,267
- City
- On the west side of North up from Back
- Country
- United States
It is not only shrewd but to me, very respectful. It shows just how highly thought of and respected HM is.
Read more: PM's 'Keatingesque' support for republic a 'political death wish' | The New DailyFederal government MPs who support a constitutional monarchy have questioned an address by the Prime Minister to the Australian Republican Movement, with one warning that Malcolm Turnbull had a “political death wish” if he kept talking about the issue.
While some Coalition MPs considered his speech to be “very mild”, others warned it was a distraction the government could not afford to have, amid debate about power prices and the health of the economy.
Nice of him to say, and I agree with everything, she's second to none."Even Republicans like myself can be, and in my case are, very strong Elizabethans as well," Mr Turnbull said.
"Discussions are always confidential, but I'm sure her Majesty will be keen to know what the major issues are and developments in Australia. I look forward to her advice and wisdom, she has after all advised many, many prime ministers.".
"The Queen has embodied selfless public service, dignity, wisdom, leadership for longer and more magnificently than anyone alive today, there is no doubt."
Mr Turnbull said that, back in 1999 when he was head of the defeated Republican campaign, he had never imagined that 18 years later he would meet the monarch as Prime Minister of Australia.
"She has been a remarkable leader of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, she has been our head of state for all of that time, and I will be very honoured to meet her as Australia's Prime Minister and to share my thoughts about Australia and hear what she has to say."
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised a national vote on Australia becoming a republic during the first term of a Labor Government.
Mr Shorten said he would hold a referendum with a simple yes or no answer to decide whether Australia should remain in the monarchy.
"One question — do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state? 'Yes' or 'No'?" he said.
Key points:
Bill Shorten says if the yes vote prevails then it can be considered how head of state is chosen
Second vote could be in a different term of parliament
Announcement may place political pressure on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull
Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the plan was just "a peek into the ultra-left wing agenda" the nation would be subjected to under Labor.
"Australia is the best country on earth yet Bill Shorten and his Labor Party want to change everything about it," he said in a statement.
"Our system of government, our flag, our national anthem and even Australia Day are on the chopping block under Labor in favour of a political correctness crusade of which extreme Green Senator Lee Rhiannon would be proud."
Senator Abetz said Australians would "not stomach these divisive distractions" that were designed to shift focus from issues that mattered.
Mr Shorten is expected to promise to appoint a minister with direct responsibility for driving the debate, during a speech to the Australian Republican Movement in Melbourne on Saturday night.
Read more: Bill Shorten renews push for Australian republic, vows to hold referendum within first term of Labor government - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
1. I actually think that the Republicans will have a chance to win if they ask the question like that.
2. If they had chosen the model (an apolitical president elected by the people or parliament) before asking for a republic with an Australian head of state, then the monarchists would have had a better chance of winning.
3. But the two monarchist organizations are almost confident of victory and 'Australians for Constitutional Monarchy' argues that the Governor-General is the head of state, while the HM is the sovereign.
4. I understand that some Australians want an Australian head of state, but Bill Shorten could have waited until after the Queen's death. She has been your monarch for 65 years and is 91-years-old, and this is the thanks you give her.
5. And 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.
6. But there is something else about Australia, who has had her as monarch since she ascended in 1952.
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!
This is going to be the stumbling block here. I would only vote for an Irish-type presidential system, i.e. replace the current G-G with someone doing essentially the same thing but called President. (This is also the sort of model envisaged by the ARM.) I would not want a popularly-elected political president. IMO once you start giving the president real power you get into the sort of strife they have in the US. I would rather have one of the ineffectual but benign Windsor chinless wonders as the head of state than a Trump. We have a system that works. It has its flaws but it works.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,506
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!)
If they are going to do it like that, then I actually agree with the two monarchist organizations, and believe the monarchists would win.18 years on, the question of how we would chose a President, remains the biggest sticking point in the debate.
Mr Shorten knows that, so does Mr Turnbull. Both are republicans, both want change, but the Labor leader is proposing a time frame.
If the majority of Australians vote 'Yes' in Mr Shorten’s national vote, then a model would have to be chosen.
Would Australians vote in their president? Would the Prime Minister appoint a prominent Australian like they do with the Governor-General? Until that question is answered, the Republic won’t be a reality.
"Once Australians have said whether they want an Australian head of state, the next thing is Australians have to decide what kind of president we should have, how the person should be chosen,” ARM’s Michael Cooney said ahead of the gala dinner Bill Shorten was headlining.
Some Republicans even suggest that too should be put to the people.
That would mean one vote to see if there’s an appetite to change. A second vote on how we’d pick the President. Then finally a referendum to change the constitution.
Referenda are notoriously hard to pass – requiring a majority of voters and a majority of states. And right now support for the monarchy is as strong as it's been in some time.
Easy now, folks. She isn't dead yet.
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.Well my thoughts exactly ..... but this thread has unravelled .....
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!)
IMO a yes/no to a republic cannot be anything but a political guideline, if there are no concrete alternatives presented to the voters.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.''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.
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.