bye bye Mr Rudd

[Psyber]

R&B. The constitutional monarchy is a token only, and always has been, except in the one situation when the people had to be given the chance to vote again in 1975 - and even then, the Queen had no hand in it. The decision was shaped by forces in Australia, not overseas by that German/Austrian family, Battenberg, known as "Windsor".

I am not saying the motives of 1975 were pure:
GW wanted to be free to do whatever he and his cabinet decided, and was angry the tame puppet turned out not to be.
John Kerr, though a skilled lawyer and one time friend of past Labor leaders, was a known drunk and mainly interested in preserving his pension.
Malcolm Fraser wanted to win power, and used everything offered to him.
When GW threatened to sack Kerr without his pension, he pushed Kerr into Fraser's hands.
The way the Australian people voted vindicated the decision of "The Dismissal". They could have voted Whitlam back had they believed him.

There was another crisis at the time - Australian Military intelligence was doing exercises in Queensland - based on the concept of an attempted military coup in Australia. It may have become more than an exercise had the crisis not been resolved by declaring a new election, as the CIA was worried about "security" in Australia and talking to our military. A new election, even if GW had won it, would have headed that risk off.

It doesn't matter who the head of state is - just that the powers of the pollies are balanced and limited. The rubbish about alleged superiority of birth is a smoke screen put up by those who want their power unfettered, and want to use the emotional appeal of that token "superiority" to shape people to their side. The only reason the UK has not disposed of the Monarchy is the history of what happened under their unfettered "Republic" under Cromwell, and their inability to come up with an alternative the public there will accept.

Yes, I want a republic.
I want a true republic owned by the public and answerable to the public.
I would want any Australian head of state, whatever their title, to have that power to take the issue to the public in a time of crisis.
Then we can fight about the flag - when QANTAS folds I'd go for their stylised Kangaroo in wattle gold on a dark green flag and a gold Southern Cross.

[redandblack]

While we have citizens with your attitude, Psyber, you'll never get the chance to see your flag flying in your lifetime.

Keep your 'token' constitutional monarchy of England in charge of our country.

It seems your second choice is the CIA.

God help us all.

[Psyber]

While we have citizens with your attitude, Psyber, you'll never get the chance to see your flag flying in your lifetime.

Keep your 'token' constitutional monarchy of England in charge of our country.

It seems your second choice is the CIA.

God help us all.

R&B - you are reading with your emotions, not your eyes and brain. It is impairing your comprehension of the words.
I have said several times I support a republic, and have done for a very long time - just not something dressed up as a "Republic" that is really entrenching an oligarchy run by two small unrepresentative clubs, the party machines.

The public are more important than any political party. When their rights are protected I'll worry about the flag.
I described the CIA thing as a threat we needed to avoid by having an election in 1975, regardless of who won..

[mick]

Bye Bye Mr Rudd is the topic of this thread. Apparently big Kev is off on another junket, Bye Bye

I think a republic is inevitable and desirable, it is likely to happen very quickly after the death of Elizabeth II. I can never understand those who get so upset about the current constitutional monarch. Do they feel oppressed? In the 50+ years I have lived I've never felt oppressed, one of the highlights of my childhood was seeing the Queen during a royal visit in 1963, but I voted for a republic in the last referendum, I can wait another 10-20 years for the inevitable republic and besides what will happen to the public holiday for the Queen's Birthday?

[redandblack]

No Psyber, I just didn't have the time to give a lengthy response. I've already done that on many occasions.

To the extent I'm passionate about it, I agree. I have little patience for the argument you put forward, as I suspect your view wouldn't change no matter what model was proposed. That is because your premise about politicians power will never change. However you may wish to dress it up, our current system did result in the events of 1975 and the subsequent result in no way validates the actions of the then GG. As an analytical person, I'm sure you'll agree with that legal point, even if you disagree with it emotionally.

In the end, the first question to be answered is whether our Head of State should be a citizen of another (competitor) country. Whatever your answer to that, you're clearly comfortable with it.

(We've already disposed of the silly argument that the GG is the HOS, so let's move on).

If you think our HOS should be an Australian Citizen, then vote for it. If you don't, then rightfully wear my criticism of your alliance with Queen Elizabeth. (Who, for the record, I admire as an effective HOS of England, a Commonwealth country whose traditions I respect greatly).

[Psyber]

... If you think our HOS should be an Australian Citizen, then vote for it. If you don't, then rightfully wear my criticism of your alliance with Queen Elizabeth. (Who, for the record, I admire as an effective HOS of England, a Commonwealth country whose traditions I respect greatly).

Yes, I agree our HOS should be an Australian citizen, and I will vote for change when our pollies offer a form of change I think will be better for the country, not just for them.
If they are serious they will give us options, not ask us to sign a blank cheque in their favour.

I also agree that Queen Elizabeth has done an admirable job for the UK. I have no alliance with her beyond the fact I shall be living in her country for a while from next year and shall behave respectfully to UK customs and law while doing so. I believe the heir apparent is a thorough twit though!

[redandblack]

That's OK, Psyber, but you have avoided answering any of the questions I have asked.

Principally, you would rather a foreigner be HOS under a birthright system, than an Australian under a system you disapprove of?

Secondly, applying an even handed approach, what would be your assessment of the fairness of the current system?

[silicone skyline]

You do realise you have engaged in conversation with Psyber?

You will never be the same man again.

[redandblack]

Not for the first time on this subject

[best on hill]

You do realise you have engaged in conversation with Psyber?

You will never be the same man again.

im still in the theraphy and licking windows after engaging psyber in a conversation.

[Psyber]

That's OK, Psyber, but you have avoided answering any of the questions I have asked.

Principally, you would rather a foreigner be HOS under a birthright system, than an Australian under a system you disapprove of?

Secondly, applying an even handed approach, what would be your assessment of the fairness of the current system?

Yes I would accept this benign foreigner we know, but not just any foreigner as you imply, until we get a system I believe I can trust offered to us as an option.

The important thing to me [as I have said several several times in our exchange] is that the pollies of whichever party do not get unfettered or unmoderated power, which both parties are united in wanting.
The present system does offer this protection, at least to some limited extent.

As an initial step I would accept a directly elected, by the public, "President" or "Governor" with similar powers to the present Governer-General, who will see himself or herself as primarily responsible to the public, not a set of political masters of either party, or both parties, because they appointed him or her. The referendum we were presented with offered an Australian HOS , but an Australian with all power to oppose politicians in protecting our constitutional rights removed from the office.

Beyond that I would like to see the role of this HOS expanded to make them a guardian of our civil rights, and of the independence of our legal system, making them free of manipulation by cynical politicians.

Of course, the pollies yell "unworkable" because it doesn't suit them, but I think it can be done.

[redandblack]

Thanks for that considered argument, Psyber, but of course we both know that what you want will never happen.

That means you will no doubt be voting for QE2's heir apparent, which means you will be voting for (and I quote) "a thorough twit".

[Psyber]

Thanks for that considered argument, Psyber, but of course we both know that what you want will never happen.

That means you will no doubt be voting for QE2's heir apparent, which means you will be voting for (and I quote) "a thorough twit".

Yeah - that would give me pain...

I am hoping the pseudo-Republican push will eventually realise the model preferred by the pollies is not that preferred by the public and offer a more acceptable option before it comes to King Charles III [or Edward 9th as he was fond of his great-uncle]. After the last referendum failed there was discussion in the media of the fact that statistically the referendum should have romped it in if everyone the previous polls indicated were pro-Republic had voted for it, so it must have been the model that was unacceptable to the public.

So, the pollies know that, but they will have another go because they think they are the brightest people in the country and can manipulate the rest of us. I predict that when the second shot fails, too, they will start to consider other models.

[redandblack]

Time for a re-think, Psyber.

Presumably you vote for a politician at each election. Presumably you vote for a different party in the Senate, to be consistent with you avoiding giving too much power to politicians. You're saying that you won't vote for a republic because the President won't have enough power, so you'll vote to maintain the staus quo where you say the HOS has only token power.

I'm a bit confused with the logic of that, but out of all this, you prefer Charles to an Australian as HOS of Australia, unless there's an elected President with meaningful power. If not, you prefer to have the politicians with unfettered power.

[Psyber]

Time for a re-think, Psyber.

Presumably you vote for a politician at each election. Presumably you vote for a different party in the Senate, to be consistent with you avoiding giving too much power to politicians. You're saying that you won't vote for a republic because the President won't have enough power, so you'll vote to maintain the staus quo where you say the HOS has only token power.

I'm a bit confused with the logic of that, but out of all this, you prefer Charles to an Australian as HOS of Australia, unless there's an elected President with meaningful power. If not, you prefer to have the politicians with unfettered power.

R&B, I don't usually vote a party ticket unless things are looking desperate. I have often, but not always, voted differently for the upper and lower houses, because I do prefer tempered power. I tend to favour independents for the upper house if there are good ones, not just the loony fringes on offer. I have on occasion given first preference to an independent in a lower house. I would actually like the upper house to be based on proportional representation. Although I have been a member of the Liberal Party I am not totally and dogmatically committed to everything they stand for. I have even disagreed with Peter Costello, to his face, when he was Treasurer.

A semi-independent HOS with mostly token power, but some potential for intervention like in the 1975 crisis, is I believe preferable to one who will do whatever the PM instructs and has no independence, which is what our referendum offered. If that meant I had to vote to retain Charles as HOS because our pollies refuse to offer a better alternative I would do it, as much as I would dislike it.
I would like an Australian HOS but not a puppet Australian. Real democracy and justice matter to me more than symbols.

I can't really see why you are confused. I seem to be saying the same thing over and over, rephrasing it each time you turn it inside out, trying to make it more clear.

[redandblack]

I'm no longer confused, Psyber.

You would vote for King Charles as our Head of State in preference to an Australian HOS.

That's fine, but I wouldn't.

As for your statement that you prefer real justice and democracy instead of symbols, yet you prefer the above approach, I remain totally confused.

[Psyber]

I'm no longer confused, Psyber.
You would vote for King Charles as our Head of State in preference to an Australian HOS.
That's fine, but I wouldn't.
As for your statement that you prefer real justice and democracy instead of symbols, yet you prefer the above approach, I remain totally confused.

I would not vote for Charles or any other UK citizen as our HOS in preference to an Aussie if their were no sting in the tail of the deal, but I would vote to preserve the status quo, rather than accept a token and purely symbolic Aussie HOS set up as bait to increase the power of the party machines! How can that confuse you??

I may think poor old Charlie is a twit, but we also buy his Duchy Original biscuits occasionally because they are good.
I never let my philosophical prejudices interfere with enjoyment or quality of life, whether it is about food, or preserving civil rights.

[redandblack]

You're not reading your own words.

Voting for the status quo is voting for Charles.

The rest sounds good, but is just indulgent waffle

[am Bays]

The McGahvie republican Model anyone?

[Psyber]

You're not reading your own words.
Voting for the status quo is voting for Charles.
The rest sounds good, but is just indulgent waffle

As I have said several times, I would rather accept Charles as nominal HOS, and an Australian Governor-General to act in his stead in practice as we do now, than give the PM of the ruling party, at any time, total control under a changed constitution - be it Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating, Howard, or Rudd. The aim of the proposed change offered in the past was not to give us a true Aussie HOS, but to strengthen the power of whoever has the numbers at the time, and both major parties want that.

I can only assume you deliberately pretending to be unable to see that, because I don't think you are stupid..
You are too good at turning statements inside out, and shifting the ground subtly, for that to be so!

The McGahvie republican Model anyone?

Wikipedia: "Under the McGarvie Model, a Constitutional Council would appoint and dismiss the head of state, the Governor-General. The Constitutional Council would be bound to act in accordance with the Prime Minister's advice by a convention backed by the penalty of public dismissal for breach."

Unfortunately that only moves the control back one step. Ultimately the party of the day can still put in a puppet, and control them by the threat of dismissal.
I really can't see anything but direct election working after the powers of the elected HOS has been agreed to by public referendum first.
Anything else reduces our constitutional protection and centralises power in the hands of too few.

I could possibly accept an HOS elected by the public with the existing powers of the Governor-General and no constitutional obedience to the UK Crown, but they are not offering that.
That may be the simplest solution, but I'd need to read the details of those existing powers.


Anyway, we must be boring everyone else by now.... Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree, like the gentlemen we are.