The British Monarchy - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
November 13th, 2004  
Airborne
 
Australia is practically a republic anyway... what's so different with the 'republican' model?
November 14th, 2004  
redcoat
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejohn
Sadly not.

Many Australians (mostly the older and conservative generations) are comfortable staying with the Monarchy. They can't see a good enough reason to change.

It will take some years but Australia will become a republic one day.
Same for Britain hopefully
November 14th, 2004  
Darcia
 
Britian is basicly like America except they consider thier Head of State to be the Queen. However they basicly run like America in the end, the Prime Minister calls the shots in the end.
--
Boots
November 14th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
Australia is practically a republic anyway... what's so different with the 'republican' model?
It doesn't make a lot of difference in an everyday practical sense but think of it this way, how would you feel about the legal head of state of the US being the Queen of England and not George Bush? (maybe you would think that was OK!)

The Governor General is the legal regal head of state (the Queens Representative) of Australia, appointed by the Queen. He is usually reccommended by the Australian Prime Minister (legal buffs will argue over who is actually the had of state!). Each state of Australia has their own Governor ( a Queen Appointment). They do mostly ceremonial stuff.

in 1975 a Federal Government was dismissed by the Governor General and General Election was called when the opposition parties blocked supply (money bills ) in the Senate. The Government lost the election.

We have a High Court which is the last word on legal matters in this country but not that long ago things in dispute could still go the Privy Council in England to be dealt with.

I'll talk about the republic models put up some other time. It gets a bit involved.
November 14th, 2004  
Darcia
 
That seems alot like America, However The Govenors hear rule the states and are elected, The Supreme Court is called upon every now in then for major matters, and the President normaly has the support of the House and of the Senete with him so they normaly don't have bills just sitting thier.



However I wish i could find the exact numbers on the % of people who think the Monarch should end with QE2's death.


Btw isn't she married to sumone new I thought I read that somewhere during that whole Germany visit.
November 14th, 2004  
Airborne
 
No, I wouldn't want the queen as soverign due to a little thing called the American Revolution; however, as the Declaration of Independance even points out, long established governemnts shouldn't just be tossed aside because of fads, we had very legit reasons (life and death/ public welfare) for wanting to get rid of the monarchy.... seems like you just want to jump on the republican fad. I mean, if I was born into a good republic, I would stick to Republicanism. If I was in your position, I would stick to the throne. It's not like she's beenmasacred catholics down in the basement.
November 14th, 2004  
Darcia
 
So you wouldn't want to see the queen go bye bye basicly along with the monarch.
November 15th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dameon
So you wouldn't want to see the queen go bye bye basicly along with the monarch.
The Queen have never been the same since Freddie died.
November 16th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airborne
No, I wouldn't want the queen as soverign due to a little thing called the American Revolution; however, as the Declaration of Independance even points out, long established governemnts shouldn't just be tossed aside because of fads, we had very legit reasons (life and death/ public welfare) for wanting to get rid of the monarchy.... seems like you just want to jump on the republican fad. I mean, if I was born into a good republic, I would stick to Republicanism. If I was in your position, I would stick to the throne. It's not like she's beenmasacred catholics down in the basement.
It's no fad mate! ( I am not thinking about purchasing an MP3!)I have spent about 30 years of my life (on and off) discussing and debating this topic with others.

The two models put up at our referendum both retained both houses of parliament (Senate & House of Reps). There would still be a Prime Minister, the leader of the party controlling the House of Reps.

The main difference is that instead of a Governor General (the Queen's man), there would now be an elected President with no connection to the British Monarchy.

One model proposed to have the President elected by a popular vote by the people. The other proposed to have the President elected by a 2/3 majority of a joint sitting both houses of Parliament (I think I got this right!).

As you can see the changes would not have been major. The day to day running of the government would not really change. Its very much symbolic (many would disagree unfortunately!).

The US model was rejected very early on. Too radical a change.

Howard kept out of the debate but many knew which way he wanted the referendum to go. He made a few "smart" comments every now and then which muddied the waters.

Having two proposals put up also confused the issue and split the vote.
November 16th, 2004  
Airborne
 
Selections from the American Declaration of Independance

Quote:
WHEN in the Course of human Events,
it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
Quote:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes
It really sounds to me like you guys are just wooed by the rebublican fad... shit, communism had the same effect in the early 20th century, Capitalism in the 18th century,as Socialism is now.... people have a tendency of not completely thinking thinkings out, going instead with the flow... remember, as powerful and graceful as a tsunami may be, it's going to adventually break land and quickly lose itself in a thunderous collapse.

Man has exsisted under many forms of government of every stripe and color.... some were good, some were bad. There may be intrinsic positive or negative qualities about a certain ideological format, but it's really more or less the quality of the people living in that society who decide if it's going to be a good or bad. America was in a hard place when we made the decision to break, and as you can see from the quotes above, we really thought it out and gave the king every benifit of the doubt. That's perhaps why we're ironically the one nation of English decent still the most English culturally and ideologically; we were British citizen's happy to be British, just wasn't working with pappa back on the throne.