The Governor General Australia publically comes out and supports Australia being a republic, Monarch - Polidicks

But I'll always love this flag [img]http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/images/flag_template_colour.gif[/img]

I think the monarchy is great. There. I said it. It's useful having someone who can just rock up to a place and suddenly you have hundreds more tourists spending there money just to be near by. Dr.Critic is right. There are always going to be people more powerful than you, at least with a monarch you know they do and exactly what they have limits on and that their general intention is to do good (because if they don't everyone removes themselves from the Monarchy). If Rupert Murdoch (within the law) starts acting totalitarian there is little you can do if he does it cleverly. If the Queen starts acting totalitarian she won't be the Queen much longer. If a bill of rights is your concern then consider that the UK has a bill of rights and still has a monarchy. (and in my opinion making it quite clear what your rights are restricts your rights, not the other way around because only the rights listed are the ones you get) Additionally, look at what the general opinion of [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/republic-monarchy-vote-compass/5012360"]Australians are in terms of the monarchy[/URL] more people support it than don't (and note unlike things like same sex marriage and climate change, rather than the older you are the more likely you are to support the monarchy, 18-25 year olds are basically on the same level with the 55 year olds); but there are a lot of people who are unsure. Any kind of presidential style election would additionally be foolish. Our current political system is much better than a lot of places. I like having someone who is above politics as the head of state. They can act with reason, not intention to get re-elected.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42962971]I think the monarchy is great. There. I said it. It's useful having someone who can just rock up to a place and suddenly you have hundreds more tourists spending there money just to be near by. Dr.Critic is right. There are always going to be people more powerful than you, at least with a monarch you know they do and exactly what they have limits on and that their general intention is to do good (because if they don't everyone removes themselves from the Monarchy). If Rupert Murdoch (within the law) starts acting totalitarian there is little you can do if he does it cleverly. If the Queen starts acting totalitarian she won't be the Queen much longer. If a bill of rights is your concern then consider that the UK has a bill of rights and still has a monarchy. (and in my opinion making it quite clear what your rights are restricts your rights, not the other way around because only the rights listed are the ones you get) Additionally, look at what the general opinion of [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/republic-monarchy-vote-compass/5012360"]Australians are in terms of the monarchy[/URL] more people support it than don't (and note unlike things like same sex marriage and climate change, rather than the older you are the more likely you are to support the monarchy, 18-25 year olds are basically on the same level with the 55 year olds); but there are a lot of people who are unsure. Any kind of presidential style election would additionally be foolish. Our current political system is much better than a lot of places. I like having someone who is above politics as the head of state. They can act with reason, not intention to get re-elected.[/QUOTE] Australia get tourism income the monarchy? Intriguing. I thought the queen and all her castles and landmarks were in England. I guess she's moved. And OK sure, you don't want a presidential system? Then don't get one. Why does that necessitate a monarch?

[QUOTE=Flyingman356;42962217] striking, has meaning and history[/QUOTE] I think alot of aboriginals might object to this. Not to mention the people who hate them.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42963005]Australia get tourism income the monarchy? Intriguing. I thought the queen and all her castles and landmarks were in England. I guess she's moved. And OK sure, you don't want a presidential system? Then don't get one. Why does that necessitate a monarch?[/QUOTE] There is property in Australia that is owned by the monarchy and I said when a person shows up, not a building. They organise numerous events you can attend when royalty visits (the Queen comes to Australia you know). Yes, it does boost tourism and assists the retail industry. Presidential system will be the preferred system since people know very little about other systems and are less likely to support it. Presidential system will be what we get if we remove the monarchy. Also I forgot to mention, if we do become a republic I damn well better be offered duel citizenship with Australia and Britain or I will be quite upset.

In a strange way I hope this republican sentiment catches on in Australia, if they left the commnonwealth I hope it would make people take a more in depth look about how having a Monarchy affects people in the UK.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42963012]I think alot of aboriginals might object to this. Not to mention the people who hate them.[/QUOTE] I think a lot of people will also be quite upset if almost all our military honours and the flags that soldiers have been buried with are suddenly worth less than previously. Not to mention naval ships and military bases as well as squadrons and regiments that have their name changed after possibly more than a hundred years of history. You're always going to insult someone. At least we can work on mending the rift that exists with the people who are disenchanted with the monarchy, rather than creating a new one with a republic.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42962971]I think the monarchy is great. There. I said it. It's useful having someone who can just rock up to a place and suddenly you have hundreds more tourists spending there money just to be near by. Dr.Critic is right. There are always going to be people more powerful than you, at least with a monarch you know they do and exactly what they have limits on and that their general intention is to do good (because if they don't everyone removes themselves from the Monarchy). If Rupert Murdoch (within the law) starts acting totalitarian there is little you can do if he does it cleverly. If the Queen starts acting totalitarian she won't be the Queen much longer. If a bill of rights is your concern then consider that the UK has a bill of rights and still has a monarchy. (and in my opinion making it quite clear what your rights are restricts your rights, not the other way around because only the rights listed are the ones you get) Additionally, look at what the general opinion of [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-10/republic-monarchy-vote-compass/5012360"]Australians are in terms of the monarchy[/URL] more people support it than don't (and note unlike things like same sex marriage and climate change, rather than the older you are the more likely you are to support the monarchy, 18-25 year olds are basically on the same level with the 55 year olds); but there are a lot of people who are unsure. Any kind of presidential style election would additionally be foolish. Our current political system is much better than a lot of places. I like having someone who is above politics as the head of state. They can act with reason, not intention to get re-elected.[/QUOTE] Fuck this reactionary nonsense. A possible Republican Australia doesn't have to imbue the presidential branch of government with any more power than it has currently. Look to Ireland if you want an example of a Republic where the head of state functions essentially the same as the Queen does, except with the added benefit of you know, being fucking democratically elected. This is contrived apologetics for an archaic system.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963095]I think a lot of people will also be quite upset if almost all our military honours and the flags that soldiers have been buried with are suddenly worth less than previously. Not to mention naval ships and military bases as well as squadrons and regiments that have their name changed after possibly more than a hundred years of history. You're always going to insult someone. At least we can work on mending the rift that exists with the people who are disenchanted with the monarchy, rather than creating a new one with a republic.[/QUOTE] Why would any of those things need to be done?

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;42962069]I should remind you that there are people in this world that are more intelligent than you, infinitely more crucial to its better ongoing existence than you and several generations of your ancestors ever will be, unimaginably richer and unimaginably more powerful. I don't give a fuck about any of them. I never have, and never will, so long as their influence doesn't affect me. Jealousy and resentment at the positive state of affairs for another is pointless. When someone punches you it becomes rational to grow a dislike of them. When you watch someone thrive without affecting you directly at all it is in my opinion completely irrational to whinge about how you're not them and want to see them lowered to your level, because you never will be them, and fundamentally that is the way the world works. It would be rational if your tax was going to someone who has never, does not and will never do anything productive other than hold a title and sit in her palace all day every day doing fuck all, with little regard for her responsibility. Yet honestly, that is not true. She has interacted with the public in the past by personally visiting communities and even doing a few things like attending weddings, today she attends ceremonies, gives out awards, and incites happiness for some, while being the embodiment, or relic if you will of traditional culture, that I am glad to see stay any day of the week, and I don't 'love' the monarchy in any sense. I love my culture.[/QUOTE] You happily deem people lesser people based on intelligence, wealth or power and call me irrational when I say I want to be equal to my fellow countryman in an autonomous, self-governing republic? If we were ancient Spartans, perfectly happy to murder children for wincing at a drink of wine a few hours after birth and I came along say thats fucking retarded would you pull the same nonsense as this and say "oh its our culture, stop hurting our identity"? Probably not. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] I can see why you have the title you do.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;42963146]Fuck this reactionary nonsense. A possible Republican Australia doesn't have to imbue the presidential branch of government with any more power than it has currently. Look to Ireland if you want an example of a Republic where the head of state functions essentially the same as the Queen does, except with the added benefit of you know, being fucking democratically elected. This is contrived apologetics for an archaic system.[/QUOTE] The Irish President is not politically impartial, he (currently he) has the discretion to refer bills to the Supreme Court. Which can be used as a significant political tool. For example the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was not referred to the Supreme Court on the basis that if it was and subsequently upheld then no one could challenge the constitutionality therein. Now that's great in my opinion because it allows the chance for reducing the restrictions on abortion in the future (at present when the law is enacted no abortion, no matter the length of time pregnant, is allowed unless there are health considerations). Right. But that is entirely a non-impartial move by the President, a strategic one. That is not the exact same function as the Governor General or the Queen. Both of whom generally remain above politics or can only endorse actions through personal opinion, not actually challenging laws. Whilst the Governor General can refuse assent for laws that doesn't subsequently rule out any challenge ever being made and resting the decision as to whether or not it should be upheld on the strength of the legal argument made at the time, which the Irish President can do. I wouldn't trust a popularly elected Australian with that kind of role. I would much rather a representative of the British Monarchy. Why? Because then they are held to significant scrutiny. One wrong step and they could lose the position forever. I think the threat of a republic is much better than a republic itself. I do not believe that we should drop all pretense for a republic on that basis, but I do believe that getting a republic is a significant gamble that is completely unnecessary just because of this nationalist notion that the head of state should be an Australian. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;42963153]Why would any of those things need to be done?[/QUOTE] The Australian flag has the Union Jack on it (British flag) and that is wrapped around coffins members of the military are buried with; many military honours have history with the monarchy and royal related terminology, naval ships are HMAS Adelaide (Her Majesty's Australian Ship) for example, other military related things are often prefixed with Royal or Her Majesty and not to mention the enlistment certificate you get is basically saying you'll serve the Queen.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963375]The Irish President is not politically impartial, he (currently he) has the discretion to refer bills to the Supreme Court. Which can be used as a significant political tool. For example the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was not referred to the Supreme Court on the basis that if it was and subsequently upheld then no one could challenge the constitutionality therein. Now that's great in my opinion because it allows the chance for reducing the restrictions on abortion in the future (at present when the law is enacted no abortion, no matter the length of time pregnant, is allowed unless there are health considerations). Right. But that is entirely a non-impartial move by the President, a strategic one. That is not the exact same function as the Governor General or the Queen. Both of whom generally remain above politics or can only endorse actions through personal opinion, not actually challenging laws. Whilst the Governor General can refuse assent for laws that doesn't subsequently rule out any challenge ever being made and resting the decision as to whether or not it should be upheld on the strength of the legal argument made at the time, which the Irish President can do. I wouldn't trust a popularly elected Australian with that kind of role. I would much rather a representative of the British Monarchy. Why? Because then they are held to significant scrutiny. One wrong step and they could lose the position forever. I think the threat of a republic is much better than a republic itself. I do not believe that we should drop all pretense for a republic on that basis, but I do believe that getting a republic is a significant gamble that is completely unnecessary just because of this nationalist notion that the head of state should be an Australian. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline][/QUOTE] Ridiculous. If you placed executive power within the bicameral parliament and allowed the President to have reserve powers as the GG currently does, with a mixed member proportional system, you could have a perfectly functioning republic with all the checks and balances required to prevent abuses of power. Regardless, the ability to sent stuff to the Supreme court isn't so bad since it would function to ensure that constitutionality is maintained. It's not like the president will have oversight on the judicial wing of government anyway, since they would be independent in a republic. There is no reason you cannot make the president answerable to the parliament or the parliament to the president or both to the judicial system or all three to the people. It's just a pure lack of will and a complacency with a system that makes you and I still subject to a bunch of foreigners. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] Ha and you don't trust other Australians to govern themselves, why? Because you think they don't know whats good for themselves? Who are you to tell them that?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42958193]it serves a useful function for the uk. parliament makes loadsomonie from the royal estates or w/e they are called.[/QUOTE] If the UKs tourism revolves around having a Queen, then this country does not deserve a culture.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963375]The Australian flag has the Union Jack on it (British flag) and that is wrapped around coffins members of the military are buried with; many military honours have history with the monarchy and royal related terminology, naval ships are HMAS Adelaide (Her Majesty's Australian Ship) for example, other military related things are often prefixed with Royal or Her Majesty and not to mention the enlistment certificate you get is basically saying you'll serve the Queen.[/QUOTE] Old veterans may have been happy to fight and die for the queen. I have nothing against that. Why would changing to a republic have anything to do with that? Also, change the name from HMAS to something else? Is it that big of a deal? New ships are named all the time. What's the big deal? Do RAS (Republic of Australia Ship) or something. [editline]23rd November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Vasili;42963510]If the UKs tourism revolves around having a Queen, then this country does not deserve a culture.[/QUOTE] Also, this. I don't see how it's desirable to sell out your democratic values for tourism.

Australia is basically America. The only things standing in the way are changing Australia to a republic and flipping Australia rightside-up.

Republic of Australia sounds so fucking dumb why not call us just Australia, why the extra letters It's like referring Australia as the Commonwealth of Australia, it's stupid [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Alxnotorious;42963544]Australia is basically America. The only things standing in the way are changing Australia to a republic and flipping Australia rightside-up.[/QUOTE] No, sure society has some American influence but our culture and humour is way different than America. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] We get SNL and the Daily Show on the Comedy Channel and honestly American humour is fucking retarded I can't understand half of it and I don't see why they want us to know about their politics when Australian news rarely makes it to America.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42963546]Republic of Australia sounds so fucking dumb why not call us just Australia, why the extra letters It's like referring Australia as the Commonwealth of Australia, it's stupid [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] No, sure society has some American influence but our culture and humour is way different than America. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] We get SNL and the Daily Show on the Comedy Channel and honestly American humour is fucking retarded I can't understand half of it and I don't see why they want us to know about their politics when Australian news rarely makes it to America.[/QUOTE] Don't deny it. ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

Not because I think they don't know what is good for themselves but I think that they don't deserve to have to spend their time analysing political status critically. People deserve to be able to get on with their life and not have to sift through political rhetoric and spin. Governor General is above all that and so our head of state should be. A Republic may keep the status quo, but it is a gamble and can just as easily become negative as it can become positive, it all depends on who is given charge for drawing up the republic structure. Yes [I]if[/I] you did it this way and [I]if[/I] you did it that way it'd be great and perfect. I agree. But those if's are very unlikely to all get through when devising the republic. There are only a handful of Australians I would trust with making that structure. If I was going to support a republic I would like to see [I]exactly[/I] the republic I am voting for. And the nature of such a vote (because it is a referendum matter) is that in order to win support they have to be ambiguous about it to a certain extent because as is with most things (and the reason the coalition was very clever not to release its policy until the last second) if you have the exact detail in front of you it will get torn apart by your opponents no matter how high quality it is. The ability to send stuff to the supreme court should be left in the hands of all Australians which it currently is, challenges of constitutionality can be made by organisations if they have enough funding and they generally do. Additionally the Prime Minister can make the challenge as well without completely blocking it from ever being challenged again. It is unnecessary for that power to be given to one person. It is pretty bad.

[QUOTE=Vasili;42963510]If the UKs tourism revolves around having a Queen, then this country does not deserve a culture.[/QUOTE] it isn't tourism i'm talking about. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/media] i used to be against the monarchy purely on principle, but now i find it sorta fitting how the monarchy is basically exploited by a representative government to continually profit that government(and the people to an extent)

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42958193]it serves a useful function for the uk. parliament makes loadsomonie from the royal estates or w/e they are called.[/QUOTE] from all the people you believe this. oh lord

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;42963590]from all the people you believe this. oh lord[/QUOTE] unless i'm missing something about the monarchy, it profits parliament greatly to keep the old fucks around with crowns on their head.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42963546]We get SNL and the Daily Show on the Comedy Channel and honestly American humour is fucking retarded I can't understand half of it and I don't see why they want us to know about their politics when Australian news rarely makes it to America.[/QUOTE] Nobody in America is going to make a comedic news parody show for Australians.

a tiger is a fearsome creature in the wild but inside a cage it is nothing but a creature for the people to gawk at and the zoo to profit off of.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42963546]Republic of Australia sounds so fucking dumb why not call us just Australia, why the extra letters It's like referring Australia as the Commonwealth of Australia, it's stupid[/QUOTE] you don't have to actually call it that lol no one calls it "The United States of Mexico" but that's the official name. oops I'm totally late

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42963629]a tiger is a fearsome creature in the wild but behind a cage it is nothing but a creature for the people to gawk at and the zoo to profit off of.[/QUOTE] A tiger isn't a symbol of oppression by a family who systematically shat on people for thousands of years.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42963641]A tiger isn't a symbol of oppression by a family who systematically shat on people for thousands of years.[/QUOTE] so then it isn't a bit ironic that the symbol of oppression is now nothing more than some little tourist attraction that spurs consumerist garbage? the queen is a queen, not by any divine right to rule, but because she makes people money. she is nothing more than a glorified zoo animal, stripped of almost all power and dignity to profit those who pay for her food. she's a rich zoo animal, but a zoo animal she is. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] in a way it's a symbol of how far we have come in terms of societal progress. yesterday's symbol of oppression is now a fucking exotic tourist trap.

they should put a big red "x" over the union jack part of the flag. wait.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42963641]A tiger isn't a symbol of oppression by a family who systematically shat on people for thousands of years.[/QUOTE] An eagle is a symbol of oppression for something that systematically $#!7s on people now. Should we try and remove that? (Calm down I'm making an humorous comment, I don't intend it to be taken seriously).

[QUOTE=gerbe1;42963689]An eagle is a symbol of oppression for something that systematically $#!7s on people now. Should we try and remove that? (Calm down I'm making an humorous comment, I don't intend it to be taken seriously).[/QUOTE] I don't even understand the joke.

[QUOTE=Explosions;42963728]I don't even understand the joke.[/QUOTE] I'm basing it off flag dog saying you're in the US. Could be wrong. US has the eagle as a symbol, can be considered by some to be oppressive, you suggest the symbol of oppression in the UK should be removed, why not too the one in the US. Eg. the US government. I live in my own world of humour. Leave me be a whacko.