Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics

  Author   Comment  

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 461
Reply with quote  #1

Luckily Turnbull isn't supporting the idea of an immediate change, and it seems more like an attempt for attention by a group of republicans to remind people they're still relevant.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #2 
They can't fool us. In fairness it isn't so much politicians or media who are doing the most damage in this country, but education where the left-wing, anti-monarchist and self-hating nonsense is taught.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 110
Reply with quote  #3 
It happens every Australia Day and Queen's Birthday. Any excuse really to get on TV and in the news. A lot of comments I've read today, and not necessarily from card carrying Monarchists, have been along the lines of they're ruining Australia Day with this stunt and why can't we just celebrate the day in peace without the predicable calls to "change this" and "change that".

At the end of the day it's a beat up about nothing, the republicans got their air time but HM The Queen of Australia still reigns on these shores! 4000 signatures is a drop in the ocean (and less than the ARM's supposed membership of 5000) and the fact that the republican premiers have signed means little. The fact is they only get one vote in any referendum just like the rest of us. The people spoke in '99 and these 4000 were defeated then and they'll be defeated if and when there is a next time.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 5,345
Reply with quote  #4 
The last I saw, support for a Republic in Australia has dropped from about 45% in the late Nineties to the 35% range today.  Rather Quixotic of these Jacobin types...
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #5 
You wouldn't believe that if you listened to the hand-wringing, self-hating, "White Guilt" SJW crowd who make themselves heard every Australia Day telling is what bad people we supposedly are.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #6 
Greg Sheridan:

Whenever I hear the word republic I reach for my mouth — to stifle a yawn. The idea that we are going to spend another year discussing a republic bores me to sobs.

And yet it is an important issue. But the people adjudicated it decisively 17 years ago. There is something alien to the democratic spirit when the ruling class puts a fundamental constitutional question to a vote and decides the answer is unsatisfactory so will just keep repeating the exercise until the people do as they’re told. It’s reminiscent of East Germany under the communists — the government has lost confidence in the people, so will dissolve them and create a new one.

It is understandable that Labor likes the republic. They can contrast the old Malcolm Turnbull with the new, and it is an issue which divides the Libs. Yet conservatives, if a touch more cynical, should welcome the debate, because in the unlikely event it gets to a referendum, it will validate conservatives in the most important way, through the electorate, which will vote no.

I write as, literally, a lifelong republican. The first article I ever wrote for anyone, before I reached even my teen years, was a plea in my school paper for Australia to become a republic.

My father used to send me letters with the stamp upside down to protest at the illegitimacy of the Queen’s role in Australia. As a family we refused to stand for God Save the Queen.

In 1999 I wrote columns urging a yes vote in the referendum on the grounds that it would give us a clearer identity internationally. Turnbull, who led the yes case very capably, was too smart to make this an important part of his campaign. The more I wrote it the more I realised it was mistaken. No one in Asia could care less about our constitutional arrangements.

Now I am within a hair’s breadth of joining that select but growing group — republicans for a constitutional monarchy. This is because the nature of the republic debate has changed, and the dangers and disadvantages of constitutional tampering grown.

Having gone through the 1999 referendum, there is now no statement more meaningless and fatuous than the bald assertion that you are a republican, without specifying what type of republic you mean. The only model worth any consideration is the absolute minimalist version.

This would have the governor-general remain the governor-general, without changing his title to president. And he should still be chosen by the prime minister, but instead of being appointed by the queen, the GG would be appointed by a panel of retired High Court judges convened for the sole task of accepting, and appointing, the PM’s recommendation.

Anything else changes the function of the Constitution and the two questions — cutting the constitutional ties to Britain, and changing how the Constitution operates — are entirely separate and should always be considered separately.

Transforming the governor-general to a president changes fundamentally the moral and political nature of the position. Even having the president elected by a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives means the opposition has a veto on the identity of the president. That’s no good either. It makes the office more political, not less.

I believe we have not had a poor governor-general since World War II. Most of the great figures who have served quietly and well in the position would never have run for office, would probably not even have submitted themselves to nomination to be confirmed by parliament.

A position of authority but not of politics, a position of reserve and restraint, a symbol of supreme but extremely limited power, almost never exercised, limited above all by convention and custom, is foreign to the spirit of our times. Therefore it is an essential and rare corrective to the excesses of that spirit.

I was once a republican because I thought a republic would affirm and expand the universality of our citizenship, with no citizen prevented in principle from being our head of state. And citizenship, I believe to my core, is the moral and political bedrock of our civic identity.

But now that notion of citizenship is under threat in many ways. There are proliferating proposals to distinguish classes of citizens through a provision for constitutional recognition of Aborigines, whereas the Constitution should make no distinction between citizens at all, because all citizens are absolutely equal in a civic sense.

As an Australian of Irish descent, no one could be more aware than I of the injustices and infamies carried out by, and in the name of, the British crown.

But I also recognise that overall British civilisation, above all British institutions and ideas, have been a profoundly beneficial influence on global history. A post colonial country like India can easily celebrate both the good and the bad in the British phase of its history.

Our Constitution today imposes no injustice on anyone and repudiating our past through constitutional tinkering is not only dangerous in its mechanical outcomes, so to speak, but offensive to the shared identity we all have as Australians.

The move for a republic today brings with it a baggage of left-wing ideas, prejudices and assumptions. Above all it embodies the single most noxious and destructive disposition animating Western intellectuals around the world — the hatred of their own culture and civilisation.

A central part of conservative wisdom is a happy willingness to live with anomalies when they are functioning well, and a willingness to embrace change but to do so gradually and only when it leads to demonstrable improvement.

The republic fails those tests. There is also a deep need to celebrate and affirm the essence of Western civilisation, about as unpopular a task as can be imagined when tackled explicitly.

Tony Abbott addressed this point clumsily in a recent speech and was chastised with the usual pack howl from the herd of independent minds courageously transcending their own identities.

But the work needs to be done. Becoming a republic makes it harder.

Mind you, Abbott could probably reclaim a popularity of 60 per cent if the republic goes to a referendum and he leads the opposition, for he would inevitably be on the side of the people, and the people would be right, just like last time.


Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #7 
The nation’s youngest voters — the generation who missed out on casting a ballot in the republic referendum 17 years ago — are the least supportive of the new push for Australia to dump the Queen.
A special Newspoll, taken ­exclusively for The Weekend Australian, also reveals a sharp divide has opened between the sexes, with 57 per cent of men backing a republic but only 45 per cent of women in favour.
The poll of 1837 voters finds overall that 51 per cent of Australians are in favour of the constitutional change, up 10 points from 41 per cent five years ago, but back to the same level as 1999 when the referendum failed.
Some 37 per cent are opposed, with 12 per cent undecided.
Malcolm Turnbull’s belief that the republic is not worth revisiting until the end of the Queen’s reign is reflected by the poll. It reveals that support for the republic would jump to 55 per cent if Prince Charles became king — the highest level recorded by Newspoll since it began measuring the ­debate in 1987 — with majority support across all demographic and political groups, including women and younger voters.
The poll, taken from January 28 to 31, shows a majority of baby boomers and Gen X members are happy to abandon the royals but support for constitutional change has not reached a majority among Gen Y — those people who grew up or were born during the John Howard era.
Tony Abbott recently said support was growing for the monarchy because of interest in the young royals. Prince William has visited Australia twice in recent years, including a highly successful 10-day tour with his wife Kate and baby George in 2014, which drew solid crowds.
Jessica Winning, 23, represents the very clear divide shown by the poll. She supports a monarchy while her father Brent, 53, wants a minimalist republic. Ms Winning, a history major at Macquarie University with a particular focus on the period between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, said she didn’t mind who was on the throne, be it Charles, William or George.
“Whatever changes in future years, there will be a sense of excitement I think with someone new and what that new generation will bring to the position,” she told The Weekend Australian.
Last week Ms Winning got into an argument with her aunt about the issue.
“I just said to her, ‘what exactly do you want from a republic? Do you want Malcolm Turnbull’s face on the coin? Our coin has a tiara’.
“I just think it is really important that young Australians understand their history and their roots and where all the institutions come from, what they are founded on.”
Support for a republic stands at 46 per cent among 18 to 34-year-olds, rising to 51 per cent among those aged between 35 and 49, and climbing to 54 per cent among the over 50s.
GRAPHIC: Republic Newspoll
Mr Winning, a project manager and town planner by training, said he was “buggered if he knows” how he ended up with a daughter who was a monarchist.
When he was her age he was as republican as she is now a royalist.
“Her mother and I gave her a good upbringing,” he said.
“Who knows where we went wrong? Who knows what our children get up to?”
Mr Winning said he supported a minimalist republic model but agreed with Mr Turnbull the time to move might not come until after the Queen moves on, by whatever means. “I don’t think people are ­apathetic, but the time is ­approaching. It’s not here yet,” he said.
The Prime Minister, who led the failed 1999 “yes” campaign for the republic, last month said he did not expect the issue would be ­revisited until “after the end of the Queen’s reign”. “I’ve led a ‘yes’ case for a republic into a heroic defeat once. I’ve got no desire to do so again,” he said.
He said a move for a republic would not succeed if it was seen as politically driven and it needed to have grassroots support.
The poll shows Coalition voters are divided over the debate, with 47 per cent supporting a republic and 45 per cent against. There is much clearer support among Labor voters where 59 per cent are in favour of dropping the monarchy and 30 per cent opposed.
The poll shows if Prince Charles became king, support for a republic would rise from 51 to 55 per cent, with those opposed ­declining from 37 to 34 per cent.
The biggest rise in support would be among women, those aged between 18-34 years and ­Coalition voters.
Under that scenario, 59 per cent of men and 51 per cent of women would back a republic.
Support would also climb to 52 per cent of 18 to 34-year-olds, 53 per cent of 35 to 49-year-olds and 59 per cent of the over 50s.
Among Coalition voters support for a republic would rise from 47 to 53 per cent.
The only group where the switch to King Charles would make no difference was Labor voters. Their support for a republic is 59 per cent regardless of whether it is the Queen or her son on the throne.
The Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy group has in recent years cheered the rise of “young fogeys”, saying people aged under 30 have become strong supporters of the existing system.
The Australian Republican Movement has sought to revive its purpose under the leadership of Peter FitzSimons and recently ­appointed Australian of the Year David Morrison lent his support to the cause.
Labor leader Bill Shorten says he would advance the case for a ­republic if he won the election, promising a referendum within a decade. “While it’s clearly not the most important issue facing Australia right now, we believe this is a debate we should be having,” the Opposition Leader said.

Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #8 
The republic has become the poor child of progressive politics. Newspoll tells the story and the bell rings a tale of woe.
Young people are old fogies on the republic. Perhaps they like the new royals. Maybe they only care about same-sex marriage. But they are less republican than the baby boomers. Anybody who thinks the republic is inevitable needs a dose of reality.
Republicans might rejoice that a Newspoll taken late last month shows overall support for the republic running at 51-37 per cent over the monarchy. Such rejoicing is unjustified. This figure is almost identical with the 51-35 per cent ­recorded before the defeated referendum in 1999.
That’s right, 17 years later and the republic has made no progress. It is stalled. Even worse, it may be losing ground, a cause that has lost fashion and passion. The 18 to 34-years generation backs the republic only at 46 per cent compared with 54 per cent among the over-50 baby boomers.
Malcolm Turnbull was correct in his recent refusal to run on the republic. It lacks energy and the numbers are weak. Given the split among republican over models, an iron law is that such polls exaggerate the support for the republic at any referendum. The situation is worse than it looks. There is a minor glimmer of hope when the Queen passes and King Charles ascends the throne.
Newspoll shows support for a republic at that point would be 55-34 per cent.
But don’t be fooled. That change is hardly significant. Moreover, the huge ceremony that would surround the coronation of a new king would boost the monarchy anyway.
Less than a quarter of young people in the 18 to 34 age bracket are strongly in favour of a republic. Since the 1999 referendum, the cause has been drifting. Republicans are now beating the drum again. But success is far distant and the road is long.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 653
Reply with quote  #9 
I hope the road goes out to nowhere and disappears  entirely within a few score years for those traitors to King and Country.
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.