Why ? We (France) sure as hell stole the land from Native Americans.
Well, stole the *potentiality *of the land, really. Louisiana was very much an ambitious and somewhat bogus claim that we would get around to actually realizing at some point in the indeterminate future.
In practice, when we sold it to the Merkuns for a quick spot of war cash after wrestling it back from Spain, it was for all intensive porpoises still “untamed Indian land” (I know it’s a contentious and stupid term, but it’s what comes to mind to describe it, please disregard the colonial baggage) with a handful of French river trade relays here and there. And N’Orleans.
Anyone who has seen, heard or stood downwind from our current PM. Ideally, we would like the Governor-General to be someone who will make a stand against the government if it is acting against the interests of the people, and that cannot happen if the Governor-General is the PM’s personal toady.
In addition, some Scots object to the current monarch being called Elizabeth II, because Elizabeth I was not Queen of Scotland.
(There wasn’t the same problem with Mary II of England and Scotland, since there had been a Queen Mary I of England, and a Mary Queen of Scots.)
There’s only been one republican referendum in Australia, in 1999. It failed because the republican majority was split between those supporting the minimalist model proposed in the referendum (the President appointed by the PM) and a more radical model (the President elected by the people). I support an Australian republic, but I voted “No” in the referendum, because believed that the model proposed would give more power to the PM. The model I like is the Irish model, of an elected President who is independent of party politics.
I’m sorry, but I have to ask, how do you find a person who is both willing and qualified to be president and who also is independent of party politics?
Very carefully.
(I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist)
I don’t see it being too difficult. For example, there are currently two independent members of the Australian House of Representatives, and most Australian Governors-General have come from a non-party-political background. (And those GGs who came from party politics, like Paul Hasluck and Bill Hayden, have played an impartial role as GG.)
In Australia, yes.
However on matters of policy effecting the Commonwealth any PM who does not seek and give due weight to QEII’s private views, would be a certifiable mug
Well, you’ve got to accept that’s a fairly fundamental flaw in the argument for constitutional change.
The minimalist approach you suggest is termed the McGarvie model after the Victorian state governer who is credited with developing it.
'm a supporter myself.
The hard-line republicans, principally, well the majority of republican actually.
The populist majority of the Republican movement simply don’t understand that their aims and their method are irreconcilable.
They want a direct, popularly elected President.
They don’t want a politician.
They don’t understand that if you elect them, you’ll get a politician.
Inevitably a directly elected president who is in conflict with the elected PM.
So those who claim to be republican, but voted “No” to the proposed model in the referendum have simply shat in their own nests. To preserve their ideological purity for an impractical outcome they have likely deferred the question for half a generation, at minimum the reign of QEII. And it might not get up even then. Monumental own goal.
It wasn’t my preferred position but I voted Yes, which makes me a quantifiable Republican. And were a another plebiscite to be held in my lifetime with it’s core principal being a directly elected President I’d vote No because I’m also a pragmatic Republican.
What are the flaws in the current system that Republicans in Australia want to correct? Or is it just the very concept of monarchy?
Mostly the latter.
The practical difficulty in switching from a monarchy to a republic in countries like Australia and Canada is that on paper, the Gov Gen has tremendous constitutional powers, more than the Prime Minister has (in Canada the PM isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution, except for one obscure provision that is no longer in force).
However, the GovGens normally act on;y on the advice of the Prime Minister, because the PM has the popular mandate that comes from an election; the Gov Gens don’t.
But if you replace the monarchy with an elected GovGen, in nation-wide elections, suddenly you’ve changed the political dynamic entirely: the elected Gov Gen now has a popular mandate, much stronger than the PM (who’s only been elected in his own district, and has support in the Commons). A popularly elected Gov Gen could start using those constitutional powers. You’d have gone from a Westminster system to something like the French system.
So what about having the PM appoint directly? Well, the function of the Gov Gen is to be one check on the PM, to ensure the PM follows the constitution. If the Gov Gen is responsible to the PM, that function is gravely weakened.
That means that if you want to keep a parliamentary system of responsible government, you need a weak GovGen, who doesn’t have the same popular mandate as the PM, but does have enough authority to act as a check on the PM.
That is possible, of course, as Giles and penultima thule have pointed out. Republican parliamentary systems function well in countries like India, Germany and Israel. The key is that in all of those countries, either the popularly elected President does not have a lot of power (Ireland), or is elected indirectly, by the Parliament and state parliaments (Germany and India).
To make the Irish example work in a country like Australia and Canada, and stay a parliamentary system, there would have to be extensive revisions to the GovGen’s powers, to weaken the authority of the office. That would be difficult.
Yeah, basically the dumber people of Australia get their history from American films, which tend to portray the royals as tyrants or, at best, expensive relics of a bygone age.
I was a republican (in the Australian sense, of course) and am now a monarchist, because I grew up and realised that we’re better off with the system we have. It is a long way from broken and does not need fixing.
How would the McGarvie model give more power to the PM or weaken the power of the GG? Isn’t the GG already likely to be the PM’s personal toady, since the PM has no actual check on who he or she selects?
You seem to be arguing (and I realize some of you may be presenting the arguments of others) against solving one problem because it doesn’t also solve a second, mostly unrelated problem: Since the primary purpose of everyone serving in Australian government should surely be to serve the interests of the Australian people, and an appointed GG would be unable to do so by granting magical wishes, an appointed GG is a bad idea. By the same argument, since the Labour party has historically been unable to bring about world peace, you should vote for Abbott in the next election.
As a point of clarification, the McGarvie model wasn’t the constitutional model on the referendum.
Also no GG that I am familiar with has ever been the PM’s toady.
The one PM who thought that was the case got their man totally wrong.
Thanks, penultima. You’ve said you’re in favor of the McGarvie model and voted in favor of the referendum model, so you’re not really the one to ask, but from what you’ve said, it seems that the referendum model DOES address the issue of the GG being a creature of the PM and slightly strengthen the power of the GG relative to the PM by requiring a bipartisan selection process (which still wouldn’t give the GG a popular mandate beyond that of the PM). Sounds like the best of both worlds.
Grumman? Giles? What were the objections?
Some would say you hold a contest for “Worst dressed sentient being in the known universe”
The position didn’t have an advocate.
The absolute republicans trashed it as “the politicians president”.
This queered the pitch for any political leader who stumped for it.
The mainstream republicans didn’t have their heart in it.
The monarchists used “it ain’t broke, don’t fix”.
It did way over the odds to get as close as it did.
(for a Federal plebiscite to succeed it requires a double majority i.e. a majority of states (four or more), and a majority of all the electors voting)
The proposal did not succeed in any state and received 45% of the national vote.
That’s an electoral shellacking.
You know, all of that still doesn’t give sovereignity of 90% of the continent to the US, even if you describe N. America as a continent.
No, absolutely not. She is there because a past Parliament, on behalf of the people (or at least, that part of the people who were considered to count enough to be allowed to vote), decreed who should be monarch, and on what terms - and subsequent Parliaments have gradually taken over the substantive powers of the monarch. By extension, the peoples and parliaments of the other countries hold the whip hand over whether or not there should be a monarch. But your opening point is right - the inertial power simply of the monarch’s existence is key to the survival of the system.
AFAIK every elected president of Ireland has had a party political background, but managed to do the job independently and without favouring their own party. Usually, they will be people with broader cultural interests, experiences and capabilities, and not a machine politician. The present president is a published poet, his predecessor was an academic, reporter and TV presenter, as well as having been involved in party politics.