Australia's Labor opposition vows republic referendum - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40763946"]BBC News:[/URL] [QUOTE]Australia's Labor opposition has vowed to hold a referendum on whether the country should formally become a republic if it wins the next election. Its leader, Bill Shorten, said the move "does not change our respect to the Queen for her service, but we are not Elizabethan, we are Australians". He was referring to PM Malcolm Turnbull's description of himself as a "very strong Elizabethan", before meeting the Queen this month. The last referendum was held in 1999. Australia is a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy, with the Queen as head of state. Mr Shorten revealed the policy decision at the party's [I][B]Queensland[/B][/I] state conference in Townsville. The referendum would be held in the first term of a Labor government, he said. The Turnbull government returned to power in the 2016 federal election but with a razor-thin majority. Barring dissolution, the next election must be held between August 2018 and May 2019 for half of state senators and before 2 November 2019 for the House of Representatives and for Senators from territories. Mr Shorten said: "We will put a simple Yes or No question to the Australian people - do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state." He said the country should avoid repeating the 1999 referendum, which offered two questions and set out a model for the republic that was rejected by voters by 54.87% to 45.13%. Mr Turnbull was the leader of the republican movement at that time but since coming to power, he has said that no change should occur until the reign of Queen Elizabeth II ends.[/QUOTE] I'd make the obvious joke based on what I've bolded but that's not allowed :V:

And it'd have the same result as the 1999 referendum Here's the problem, nobody in this country can agree on a presidential system or a parliamentary system (where Parliament would pick the leader and the prime minister is still the key decision maker) Republicans here fight about it all the time which caused many of them to vote no bc Howard wanted parliamentary. To educate the population in choosing 3 (president, parliamentary, monarchy) is a fucking nightmare and results in so much confusion that people will either spoil or tick option 3 That and when the federal government exit the monarchy (if successful) the states have to do a state referendum which might create some states being monarchy or republics. Then you've got the billions of dollars that need to be spent on decrowning everything and constructing new systems on both the federal and state level All this boils down to one question "should we waste money on patriotism" and the answer is a solid no. I'm not a monarchist and I'm a full Labor left socialist voter but I cannot see any justification or reason in ditching Westminster without a huge meltdown and waste of money for us all to feel a tiny bit more Australian. [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] Oh and assuming this referendum will more than likely fucking die, Shorten would probably resign and we'd have another prime minister

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52519490]And it'd have the same result as the 1999 referendum Here's the problem, nobody in this country can agree on a presidential system or a parliamentary system (where Parliament would pick the leader and the prime minister is still the key decision maker) Republicans here fight about it all the time which caused many of them to vote no bc Howard wanted parliamentary. To educate the population in choosing 3 (president, parliamentary, monarchy) is a fucking nightmare and results in so much confusion that people will either spoil or tick option 3 That and when the federal government exit the monarchy (if successful) the states have to do a state referendum which might create some states being monarchy or republics. Then you've got the billions of dollars that need to be spent on decrowning everything and constructing new systems on both the federal and state level All this boils down to one question "should we waste money on patriotism" and the answer is a solid no. I'm not a monarchist and I'm a full Labor left socialist voter but I cannot see any justification or reason in ditching Westminster without a huge meltdown and waste of money for us all to feel a tiny bit more Australian. [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] Oh and assuming this referendum will more than likely fucking die, Shorten would probably resign and we'd have another prime minister[/QUOTE] Thanks for that, that explains the history of the republican movement in Australia a lot to me. I certainly believe a system like Ireland's (where the President is a mostly ceremonial role designed to represent all Irish people in a non-political manner, and the Taoiseach - the Irish Prime Minister - is the true leader of the country) is better than the system in say Britain or having a monarch as head of state. It was certainly incredibly important for us in Ireland to no longer have the British monarchy (or Britain full stop) involved in decisions made in the country... so much so that a simple oath (later called "an empty formula") of allegiance to the British monarch caused our civil war. But it certainly seems that the monarchy has little effect on Australian life or politics today. Do you think perhaps it was a mistake that Australia did not cut that monarchy tie in the past, where it would have been much less expensive to do so?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52519517]Thanks for that, that explains the history of the republican movement in Australia a lot to me. I certainly believe a system like Ireland's (where the President is a mostly ceremonial role designed to represent all Irish people in a non-political manner, and the Taoiseach - the Irish Prime Minister - is the true leader of the country) is better than the system in say Britain or having a monarch as head of state. It was certainly incredibly important for us in Ireland to no longer have the British monarchy (or Britain full stop) involved in decisions made in the country... so much so that a simple oath (later called "an empty formula") of allegiance to the British monarch caused our civil war. But it certainly seems that the monarchy has little effect on Australian life or politics today. Do you think perhaps it was a mistake that Australia did not cut that monarchy tie in the past, where it would have been much less expensive to do so?[/QUOTE] Unlike Ireland, Britain only disenfranchised a small amount of the population which are our indigenous population whereas anyone who isn't indigenous didn't care. The love affair with Britain in Australia was incredibly high on par with NZ and Canada throughout a lot of republican/decolonisation movements sweeping Africa in the 50-60's. Also, Britain gave extensive power to Canada, NZ, Australia, South Africa and Rhodesia (before hell broke lose) allowing them to be independent countries but the only tie they have is with Westminster which seemed like a fair deal. I don't know if it was a mistake, but if you held a referendum back in the 60's to even before 1999 the majority would vote no and I will assume the majority will again vote no on this

The Irish experience is different to quite a number (though not all) of former British colonies, so I suppose I should recognise my bias when talking about topics like this. Thanks for the information.

another colossal waste of money on some bullshit circle jerk it was voted to stay, we don't need a referendum every 20 years. I don't know why politicians have such a fucking hard on for becoming a republic other than having their name in the history books because they did it. it's pathetic really. Go fuck yourself shorten + Turnbull

I'm starting a civil war if you people vote to become a republic.

I wish we'd have this kind of republican drive in Canada. I despise the monarchy as an institution, but as people they're pretty good people.

Feels like a distraction to me. The monarchy is powerless as it is, there's no point wasting time on a referendum for it.

[QUOTE=download;52521002]Feels like a distraction to me. The monarchy is powerless as it is, there's no point wasting time on a referendum for it.[/QUOTE] exactly, for that and their own egos.

[QUOTE=Zelpa;52520814]I'm starting a civil war if you people vote to become a republic.[/QUOTE] is your brother going to come to all of our uni campuses or?

[QUOTE=download;52521002]Feels like a distraction to me. The monarchy is powerless as it is, there's no point wasting time on a referendum for it.[/QUOTE] are you just going to pretend the dismissal never happened? [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;52519490]And it'd have the same result as the 1999 referendum Here's the problem, nobody in this country can agree on a presidential system or a parliamentary system (where Parliament would pick the leader and the prime minister is still the key decision maker) Republicans here fight about it all the time which caused many of them to vote no bc Howard wanted parliamentary. To educate the population in choosing 3 (president, parliamentary, monarchy) is a fucking nightmare and results in so much confusion that people will either spoil or tick option 3 That and when the federal government exit the monarchy (if successful) the states have to do a state referendum which might create some states being monarchy or republics. Then you've got the billions of dollars that need to be spent on decrowning everything and constructing new systems on both the federal and state level All this boils down to one question "should we waste money on patriotism" and the answer is a solid no. I'm not a monarchist and I'm a full Labor left socialist voter but I cannot see any justification or reason in ditching Westminster without a huge meltdown and waste of money for us all to feel a tiny bit more Australian. [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] Oh and assuming this referendum will more than likely fucking die, Shorten would probably resign and we'd have another prime minister[/QUOTE] lol @ a 'labor left socialist' not supporting the republican referendum because of money. seriously dude?

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52521119]are you just going to pretend the dismissal never happened? [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] lol @ a 'labor left socialist' not supporting the republican referendum because of money. seriously dude?[/QUOTE] because its not fucking important we got other shit to deal with that I know Shorten will do like healthcare and education but I am the least worried about Westminster

I'll support an Australian republic, but only if the nature of the head of state is the same as the current de facto head of state - largely ceremonial with limited reserve powers, and appointed by the Prime Minister. Elections for an Australian head of state would be a big mistake. A head of state's office should be apolitical, unifying and representative of all Australians; if it were elected, that necessarily politicises the office. And after what happened with the Turkish President being granted executive powers, I would not like to see that here.

The government isn't some entity that can only do one thing at a time frux. Besides, how are you going to achieve socialism if you continue to let an Australian monarch exist? Doesn't make any sense from a socialist perspective to not support the referendum

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;52521132]because its not fucking important we got other shit to deal with that I know Shorten will do like healthcare and education but I am the least worried about Westminster[/QUOTE] When is it ever going to be an appropriate time then? We're always gonna have more important issues, and we're going to have to bite the bullet one day. We can tackle multiple things at once.

I feel like lots of people will vote to keep shit the same after Brexit

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52521182]The government isn't some entity that can only do one thing at a time frux. Besides, how are you going to achieve socialism if you continue to let an Australian monarch exist? Doesn't make any sense from a socialist perspective to not support the referendum[/QUOTE] I would only vote yes for a parliamentary system where the President is the Governor General renamed, otherwise no

Lol, how does a monarch with no power prevent socialism? [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;52521119]are you just going to pretend the dismissal never happened? [/QUOTE] Whitlam couldn't pass supply bills. In that instance a double dissolution is supposed to be called, but instead Whitlam tried to force an election of just half the senate so he could preserve his majority in parliament because he knew in a double dissolution he'd lose most of his seats. Whitlam was removed as PM and Fraser ordered a double dissolution like should have happened when Whitlam couldn't pass a supply bill. Whitlam then went on to lose 36 seats in the new election only a month later. Most republican efforts have the Governor General replaced with President who fulfils the same role. They would likely have done the same thing.

[QUOTE=download;52521912]Lol, how does a monarch with no power prevent socialism? [editline]30th July 2017[/editline] Whitlam couldn't pass supply bills. In that instance a double dissolution is supposed to be called, but instead Whitlam tried to force an election of just half the senate so he could preserve his majority in parliament because he knew in a double dissolution he'd lose most of his seats. Whitlam was removed as PM and Fraser ordered a double dissolution like should have happened when Whitlam couldn't pass a supply bill. Whitlam then went on to lose 36 seats in the new election only a month later. Most republican efforts have the Governor General replaced with President who fulfils the same role. They would likely have done the same thing.[/QUOTE] Fundamentally it was signed off by someone external to Australia (who is a monarch), which isn't really conducive for the kind of government I nor socialists desire. A monarch with 'no power' is still anathema to socialism in the way that any hereditary and non-elected position of power should be to a system where ownership of the means of production is securely in the hands of the proletariat. And let's not pretend Queen Lizzie has 'no power' anyway. She is the Queen of Australia, which grants here a position of influence which no-one else has. And on what basis? Because she was born into the royal family? Uh-ah, not on my fucking watch.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52519427]He said the country should avoid repeating the 1999 referendum, which offered two questions and set out a model for the republic that was rejected by voters by 54.87% to 45.13%.[/QUOTE] so they're just going to hold a vote with no actual plan in place for if they win? look how well that turned out for Brexit hint: shitshow