Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Roylion]

Exactly. If the English monarchy evaporated overnight, it would have no effect here.

There would still be an Australian monarch

I say practically, there’d be plenty of hand wringing

Some prefer the system of a constitutional monarchy to that of a republic.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

There would still be an Australian monarch


Some prefer the system of a constitutional monarchy to that of a republic.

Don't think that is correct.

The English monarch's representative in Australia is the Governer General, if the English monarchy disappeared overnight, so would the governor generals' powers.

Australia does not have its own Monarchy, it still falls under the English, which is a hereditary monarchy. IE bloodline.

 

[Roylion]

The English monarch's representative in Australia is the Governer General, if the English monarchy disappeared overnight, so would the governor generals' powers.

That is not correct. The Governor-General is the representative of the monarch of Australia.

Australia does not have its own Monarchy, it still falls under the English, which is a hereditary monarchy. IE bloodline.

The Crown of Australia is legally separate to the Crown of the United Kingdom. Were the UK to become a republic tomorrow, that would not alter our own status as a constitutional monarchy. And the reverse is also true.

Succession to the legally separate and independent Crown of Australia is governed by the Australian Constitution Act (1900), the Act of Settlement (1700) and the Bill of Rights (1689) and all three are now Australian law. This means that were the UK to repeal or alter any of the above Acts, it would have no effect in Australia. It is the Australian Constitution Act (1900) that sets the governor-general's powers.

The monarch, if required, acts with regard to Australian affairs, exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers.

The Australia Acts terminated the power of the United Kingdom to legislate for Australia on March 3rd 1986 and the Crowns of the Uk and Australia were legally separated by the 1931 Statute of Westminster. This was adopted in Australia on 9th October 1942 but backdated to 3rd September 1939.

The Statute recognised:

• the formal equalness and separateness of the British Crown and the Australian Crown.
• that any alteration to laws regarding the Succession to the Throne or the monarch's Royal Style and Titles needed the assent of the Australian parliament to be valid in that country. This includes the abdication of any monarch.
• that the Parliament of the United Kingdom no longer had any legislative authority over the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
• laws made by the Parliament of Australia which were repugnant to British laws were no longer invalid.

 

[Gralin]

The fact it's the same guy for both countries is just a teeny tiny insignificant detail

 

[schneebly111]

We're already an independent nation and have been since at least March 3rd 1986.

The fact you said “at least” means you can’t say for certain when the date of independence was, therefore there are still questions on the status of said independence.

Probably also relevant for the national day debate. I read over 140 countries observe their date of independence as their national day; 48 celebrate their date of independence from the UK as their national day. Only 1 celebrates it on their date of colonisation.

 

[Gralin]

The fact you said “at least” means you can’t say for certain when the date of independence was, therefore there are still questions on the status of said independence.

Probably also relevant for the national day debate. I read over 140 countries observe their date of independence as their national day; 48 celebrate their date of independence from the UK as their national day. Only 1 celebrates it on their date of colonisation.

I think pretending the King has no conflict of interest because his roles are legally separated is exactly the kind of bullshit the establishment runs with.

 

[Roylion]

The fact you said “at least” means you can’t say for certain when the date of independence was, therefore there are still questions on the status of said independence.

There are no questions at all.

The Australia Act eliminated the remaining possibilities for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court.

The act formally severed all legal ties between Australia and the United Kingdom from March 3rd 1986 onwards. If others wish to regard Australian independence beginning on 1st January 1901 or 9th October 1942, then they can do so. However without doubt, Australian independence from the UK was achieved from March 3rd 1986 onwards.

Only 1 celebrates it on their date of colonisation.

Talk to the Federal Government. I don't really care what date 'Australia Day' is on.

 

[Roylion]

I think pretending the King has no conflict of interest because his roles are legally separated is exactly the kind of bullshit the establishment runs with.

The monarch of Australia, if required, acts with regard to Australian affairs, exclusively upon the formal advice of his/her Australian ministers only.

The reserve powers that are exercised by the Governor-General are vested in the person of the monarch.

 

[Gralin]

The monarch of Australia, if required, acts with regard to Australian affairs, exclusively upon the formal advice of his/her Australian ministers only.

The reserve powers that are exercised by the Governor-General are vested in the person of the monarch.

That doesn't change anything I said does it though.

Merry Christmas

 

[Roylion]

That doesn't change anything I said does it though.

I thought it was pretty clear when I said that the monarch, acts with regard to Australian affairs, exclusively upon the formal advice of his/her Australian ministers only.

In most cases, its the Australian Governor-General that exercises the powers vested in the person of the monarch, in regards to Australian affairs.

What 'conflict of interest' are you referring to?

 

[Gough]

Haven't much from Buck House by way of defending the King's Canadian subjects from Trump's attacks but Charles has invited him for a State Visit which will be nice for someone. You get the feeling Canadians might be better off with a local Head of State representing their interests right now.

 

[Roylion]

Haven't much from Buck House by way of defending the King's Canadian subjects from Trump's attacks

What are you expecting?

The King has already met personally at Sandringham on March 3, with his outgoing Prime Minister to discuss Canada's "sovereign and independent future."

The symbolism of Charles III, the King of Canada, smiling as he greeted his prime minister whom Trump refers to as "governor," was, according to the New York Times, "lost on no one."

The King as a constitutional monarch has to stay as apolitical as possible. As monarch, he is constitutionally bound to remain "above politics." The King has a role as a diplomat - albeit one that works behind the scenes. The Palace has already clarified this by saying "His role by necessity and constitutional obligation is to offer symbolic gestures, rather than express comment."

but Charles has invited him for a State Visit which will be nice for someone.

Foreign monarchs, presidents or prime ministers are invited to visit the king on the advice and request of the Foreign Office, with the decision made by the government. Trump is apparently not pleased that the King has already met with Trudeau and Zelensky.

You get the feeling Canadians might be better off with a local Head of State representing their interests right now.

And do what?

 

[Gough]

If my country is under attack from a near neighbour I don't want Private Pyke from a foreign land defending my interests.

 

[Gough]

If push comes to shove over Canada Britain would have to pick a side.

 

[Roylion]

If my country is under attack from a near neighbour I don't want Private Pyke from a foreign land defending my interests.

The fact that Canada is in a shared monarchy arrangement may well be one of its bigger strengths in resisting the ambitions of the president of its southern neighbour. Like Australia, Canada has a governor-general (Mary Simon) who acts as head of state in Canada.

The new Prime Minister of Canada will be visiting the UK and France this week. Stand by for another pointed message to Trump from the King of Canada who will greet his new Prime Minister and will once again express his "deepest affection" for Canada.

 

[Boston tiger]

If my country is under attack from a near neighbour I don't want Private Pyke from a foreign land defending my interests.

You are not talking about war are you ?

 

[peetoo]

Yeah that monarchy and aristocracy sure stopped the rise of Hitler

That stuff finished at bosworth

 

[Roylion]

Yeah that monarchy and aristocracy sure stopped the rise of Hitler

Germany was a republic.

That stuff finished at bosworth

What "stuff"?

 

[Boston tiger]

Germany was a republic.


What "stuff"?

I think that is his point. ( “Germany was a republic”) Russia was the USSR .. USA etc.

The WW1 was royal families (cousins) fighting each other. He’s using hyperbole in using the battle of Bosworth to exaggerate his point.

 

[peetoo]

Roylion is not giving me his usual lecture as he knows the various monarchies did not cover themselves in glory in the first half of the 20th century.
I’m not holding out for miracles from a king who can’t even reconcile his own warring family.

 

[Roylion]

The WW1 was royal families (cousins) fighting each other.

It was the governments of the countries that they were head of states of, that were fighting each other. The monarchs didn't really have much of a say.

He’s using hyperbole in using the battle of Bosworth to exaggerate his point.

Absolute monarchies are obviously different to constitutional monarchies.

 

[Boston tiger]

It was the governments of the countries that they were head of states of, that were fighting each other. The monarchs didn't really have much of a say.


Absolute monarchies are obviously different to constitutional monarchies.

Check Russia for me can you ?

 

[Roylion]

Check Russia for me can you ?

I'm well aware of the Tsar's powers and the ineffectual Fourth Duma. However Nicholas II was a weak-willed man and easily influenced by his ministers.

Nicholas wrote to Wilhelm II (via telegram) on 29th July 1914

"I foresee that very soon I shall be overwhelmed by the pressure forced upon me and be forced to take extreme measures which will lead to war."

and later that same day again to Wilhelm II

"Thanks for your telegram conciliatory and friendly. Whereas official message presented today by your ambassador to my minister was conveyed in a very different tone. Beg you to explain this divergency! It would be right to give over the Austro-servian problem to the Hague conference. Trust in your wisdom and friendship. Your loving Nicky"

The cancellation of Russian general mobilisation by ordered by Nicholas II on 29 July 1914, but under pressure from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Sazonov, this was resumed two days later and war began.