Australian Royal Subjects

[RGH0]

I think you are confusing a constitutional ceremonial head of state with a ruler if referring to the UK case

Personally I prefer our ( Australia's) "free" head of state we borrow from the UK if needed for opening things

cheers
Rohan

 

[Crasher]

@JMR: Clearly you are a man (woman?) of vision!!

Countries that are ruled by despots and those that are ruled by sovereign monarchs are very similar; the despot rules by force and the monarch rules by right of birth. Both have no place in 21st century!

Do you agree comrade?

Don

Strongly disagree, I am devoted monarchist.

 

[DV52]

I think you are confusing a constitutional ceremonial head of state with a ruler if referring to the UK case

Rohan: Alas your view is a common misconception and dangerously for naive democracies, it relies entirely on current practice

This about the UK position from HERE:

Today, the royal prerogative is available in the conduct of the government of the United Kingdom, including foreign affairs, defence, and national security. The monarch has a significant constitutional weight in these and other matters, but limited freedom to act, because the exercise of the prerogative is conventionally in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials.​

​

This about Australia

The Head-of-State presides over the Federal Executive Council. Facilitating the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government. Dissolving Parliament and issuing writs for a Federal election. Commissioning the Prime Minister; appointing Ministers and Assistant Ministers; and swearing-in other statutory ... (see the practical extent of Ms Windsor's powers below)​

Personally I prefer our ( Australia's) "free" head of state we borrow from the UK if needed for opening things

Huh? ""free" head of state we borrow"? Ain't nothing "free", or "borrow" about Australia's Head of State.

Have you forgotten about the Dismissal - when the Governor General (i.e. the representative of the Queen in Australia) sacked a democratically elected government? In any other country, such an outrageous act (the overthrow of an elected government by a foreign Monarch) would be the stuff of revolution!!!

Your words suggest that Ms Windsor's powers as Head of State are simply ceremonial. They are NOT! According to our outdated Constitution, which from a Head of State perspective is a relic of our colonial master, she has the greatest power of any leg of government - and the Queen exercised that power in 1975!

Australia continues to cling to its colonial masters in the same way as an immature adult clings to his/her mother -it's sad and it's more than a tad disturbing.

After 350 years as a colony, Australia has grown-up. It's time that we put-on our big-boy pants. It's time that we had a Head-of-State the was an actual Australian citizen! It's time that Australians chose their own Head-of-State. It's time that ALL Australians recognized that the qualification for our highest constitutional position is NOT the right of birth of a dysfunctional family in another country!!

All this IMO, of course

Don

 

[RGH0]

Hi Don
You ALP / republican credentials are showing I think. We don't need to debate the rights or wrongs of the "Dismissal" from my perspective it happened and was constitutionally legal that all you need to know. I actually liked it when Whitlam came to power as it got me out of national service

I still prefer our low cost model for a head of state

 

[morris39]

Be patient, in time Australia will catch on to the solution to the monarch problem. Last visit to Canada by the future king and his lady was spent almost exclusively cajoling the Indians (apologies for colonialism next) in the boonies and watching a tedious horse ride.Seventy years ago in age of a 44 hr. work week it was much more meaningful, half day off to wave a flag.

 

[DV52]

I am devoted monarchist.

Crasher: as is your right as a citizen of UK. Clearly British voters see value in their Monarch and in the rest of the Royal family.

Accounts for the Sovereign Grant show the monarchy cost the taxpayer £87.5 million during 2020/21 - an increase of £18.1 million on the previous financial year.

It's your taxes - and the monies are yours to spend how ever you decide - but obviously, UK folk believe that there is sufficient rate-of-return.

I happen to have another view about a dysfunctional family that lives a protected lifestyle that is totally out-of-touch with it's obedient subjects!! But then, I'm NOT a British citizen (albeit, I am still a captured colonial - so still subject to your Monarch's wishes)

Don

 

[DV52]

Be patient, in time Australia will catch on to the solution to the monarch problem. Last visit to Canada by the future king and his lady was spent almost exclusively cajoling the Indians (apologies for colonialism next) in the boonies and watching a tedious horse ride.Seventy years ago in age of a 44 hr. work week it was much more meaningful, half day off to wave a flag.

@Morris: yes, I have read about the "royal's in Canada". I have never understood the need for anyone in 21st Century to willingly kowtow to another person who they believe to be their betters!! It's a bizarre and totally obsolete relic of a system of rule from a bygone era!!

Democracies are at their very basics about egalitarianism (at least in principle). Community respect is a precious thing - it should given because of actual achievement rather than be required because of a person's ancestors!!

As for patience - yes I agree. Australia's acceptance to adulthood will come "in the fullness of time" - but it's already well overdue!!

 

[DV52]

Hi Don
You ALP / republican credentials are showing I think. We don't need to debate the rights or wrongs of the "Dismissal" from my perspective it happened and was constitutionally legal that all you need to know. I actually liked it when Whitlam came to power as it got me out of national service

Rohan: Exactly my point - indeed "it was constitutionally legal".

The point is not that it was illegal - the pivotal issue is that the Dismissal was legal.

Our constitution legally allows the whim of an un-elected Monarch of another country to decide the legitimacy of a properly elected Australian government. And the ONLY qualification for the person that holds this extraordinary power (which is unparalleled elsewhere in our Constitution) is the lineage of their ancestors !!

By any measure of logic and sanity - totally astonishing!!

I still prefer our low cost model for a head of state

Again, huh?

How does the removal of the words "Queen's representative" (paraphrase) from the Governor General's role in our constitution increase the cost of Australia's Head-of-State?

 

[Uwe]

The above messages have been moved from the Ukraine thread because they have nothing to do with the situation there.

Have you forgotten about the Dismissal - when the Governor General (i.e. the representative of the Queen in Australia) sacked a democratically elected government? In any other country, such an outrageous act (the overthrow of an elected government by a foreign Monarch) would be the stuff of revolution!!!

Now that you mention it, I can think of several other things that have occurred in Australia that should have been "the stuff of revolution".

-Uwe-

 

[RGH0]

UWE - Got my own thread at the Bar

you can go back to the "rum rebellion" for things that were the stuff of revolution

Don - The cost to run a full blown "president" and all the related republican stuff such as elections will exceed by many millions the simple appointment of a governor general. And for what benefit ?, except to assuage the feelings of anti-monarchists. The president will still have the power to dismiss the government if it cannot function so why is it better than a cheap low cost Governor General doing the same thing plus free pomp and ceremony for opening Olympic games and scandal for filling the gossip columns in the media.

cheers
Rohan

 

[Uwe]

The president will still have the power to dismiss the government if it cannot function

Huh? Our president here has no such power.

-Uwe-

 

[RGH0]

That's the difference between a parliamentary model based on the UK system where the executive government is formed by the majority in the lower house of parliament. If the parliament cannot form a working majority to create and hold the executive government ( in Australia this is measured by the ability to pass supply bills that provide money to the executive government) then it can typically be dismissed by the president / governor general / monarch depending on your country and new elections held.

This is different to the USA / French presidential model where the elected president forms the executive government regardless of who holds majority power in the lower house of parliament / congress.

cheers
Rohan

 

[JMR]

I cannot answer your question DV. Not having direct knowledge on how a monarchy works ( at least in my lifetime , though Romania was at one point in time ruled by a King a long time ago ). I d guess it could be a good thing as long as that King/Queen really cares for subjects well being . I could also say the same for a democracy or about a dictator. As long as they care for subjects. However , so far those models fail as power / individual needs of the elected King/President/ dictator seems to fuck up the best intentions . I cannot imagine a ruling formation that will not go haywire on personal gain. Having lived my first 20 yrs under a comunism ruled country( it had it s benefits as a whole when applied right , but that perhaps another thread on discussing how comunism is better sometimes than a democracy ), then another 16 or so years in the "most democratic country on earth " USA , and then another 12 years in a democratic EU style , i can tell you that all models have flaws. I even dare to say that EU style democracy is better than US style , no pun intended but first of all safety of a person in EU trumps by far that of US anytime ( police wise , health care wise ) and the safety of a person in a comunist regime beated all democratic models ( at least a long time ago in comunist Romania ) But that perhaps should be another thread. So..that being said , i expect that some people will agree and others will not agree with my views. I m ready for more explaining if asked why those are my views.

 

[DV52]

Don - The cost to run a full blown "president" and all the related republican stuff such as elections will exceed by many millions the simple appointment of a governor general. And for what benefit ?, except to assuage the feelings of anti-monarchists. The president will still have the power to dismiss the government if it cannot function so why is it better than a cheap low cost Governor General doing the same thing plus free pomp and ceremony for opening Olympic games and scandal for filling the gossip columns in the media.

cheers
Rohan

Rohan: I never said that it's necessary to replicate a system like the American President for Australia to be a fully fledged democracy! I most certainly don't support an American style President as our head-of-state.

There are hundreds of alternative models that are worthy of consideration - and I welcome the opportunity for Australians to debate their relative merits in a serious consideration of which is the best to support our 2 x houses of Federal Parliament

But first, we have to recognise the folly of our existing Constitution. So, ask yourself the question - in the 21st century, why should the head-of-state of our island nation be the Monarch of another country? Specifically, ask yourself what possible logic dictates that a member of the royal family in UK is appropriate for this role?

Do we owe England (and the Royal Family) this role as pay-back for past colonization? Or maybe, you consider that since about 58% of Australians are estimated to have an Anglo Celtic background, they retain their past allegiance to UK rather than accepting a proper allegiance to Australia; the diaspora that is their actual home?

And while you are thinking about the question, remember that the 6 x basic sources of the UK constitution don't allow the Monarch to exercise these same powers in the UK - so why is it OK for the Monarch to have these powers in a country on the other side of the planet in 21st century?

 

[DV52]

Now that you mention it, I can think of several other things that have occurred in Australia that should have been "the stuff of revolution".

Name two!!

 

[DV52]

I cannot answer your question DV. Not having direct knowledge on how a monarchy works ( at least in my lifetime , though Romania was at one point in time ruled by a King a long time ago ). I d guess it could be a good thing as long as that King/Queen really cares for subjects well being . I could also say the same for a democracy or about a dictator. As long as they care for subjects. However , so far those models fail as power / individual needs of the elected King/President/ dictator seems to fuck up the best intentions . I cannot imagine a ruling formation that will not go haywire on personal gain. Having lived my first 20 yrs under a comunism ruled country( it had it s benefits as a whole when applied right , but that perhaps another thread on discussing how comunism is better sometimes than a democracy ), then another 16 or so years in the "most democratic country on earth " USA , and then another 12 years in a democratic EU style , i can tell you that all models have flaws. I even dare to say that EU style democracy is better than US style , no pun intended but first of all safety of a person in EU trumps by far that of US anytime ( police wise , health care wise ) and the safety of a person in a comunist regime beated all democratic models ( at least a long time ago in comunist Romania ) But that perhaps should be another thread. So..that being said , i expect that some people will agree and others will not agree with my views. I m ready for more explaining if asked why those are my views.

oohhh........... if only this was a real bar! Two chairs at a corner table - a BIG bottle of fine single malt and a couple of glasses - and we would have a excellent conversation about the relative merits of Marx/Engels manifesto versus liberal democracy (IMO, both have their advantages/problems)

 

[Uwe]

Name two!!

1) The gun confiscation of 1996-1997.
2) The lockdowns, quarantine camps, and other restrictions/mandates of 2020-2021.

-Uwe-

 

[Uwe]

safety of a person in EU trumps by far that of US anytime ( police wise , health care wise ) and the safety of a person in a comunist regime beated all democratic models ( at least a long time ago in comunist Romania )

Trading liberty for safety is never a good idea.

-Uwe-

 

[vreihen]

Trading liberty for safety is never a good idea.

...and ultimately leads to losing both.

 

[JMR]

Trading liberty for safety is never a good idea.

-Uwe-

Well that depends on how much safety i should trade for how much liberty. It s an equation with many variables but i should incline to trade some liberties for safety and some safety for some liberties. Now comparing safety index related to liberty in most of EU countries , having a nearly 50/50 of my adult life lived in EU and US , i coild tell you hand on my heart that liberties are same if not more in EU versus UD and that a persons safety index for EU beats that in US ( at least i dare compare Romania s somewhat young democracy of about 30 years (democracy/liberty/safety )vs US s 200 + yrs experience in that exercise . I take in this ecuation state provided health care , though you could wait a while they will transplant say a heart/ whatever organ for free of charge if such organ available and you re top of the list ( same with any ilness ). As i said , there are differences between EU and US regarding some things and i could say that i speak from experience. I have no idea of other european countries .I could tell you that I feel safer at any time of day/night in Romania than versus in middle of New York at noon time . I ve got my JW Black ready DV52 !