I've just figured out that a truckload of Australian footballers are eligible for UK ancestry visas. I'm sure a number would play there on ancestry visas. They may not have EU passports but, through British-born grandparents, can get UK ancestry visas. This permits them to live and work in the UK for five years (by which time they can get permanent residency).

Obviously, it's very, very difficult to get a work permit to play football in the UK. This ancestry visa is extremely helpful. And it's not just helpful for footballers, it's great from the viewpoint of anybody eligible and wishing to live in the Europe but not having an EU passport. Get work permits these days for Europe is an uphill battle.

If Australia becomes a republic, I gather (but I cannot say with certainty) that the ancestry visa deal may no longer apply. I was under the impression that one must have a UK-born grandparent and be a citizen of a Commonwealth realm. Well, if Australia becomes a republic, it ceases to be a Commonwealth realm.

This is another reason why there's no actual benefit to becoming a republic and plenty to lose. There's absolutely no point. It's difficult enough to work in Europe. Let's not make it any more difficult.

It's exceptionally difficult for Australian footballers without EU passports to play in Europe, as we know. This ancestry visa, while unfortunately not helping for the Holy Trinity, does at least work for the UK (which is not the worst place in the world to develop).

As such, it's bad from the perspective of Australian footballers if the country becomes a republic.

Edited by quickflick: 17/11/2015 03:14:19 AM

Won't matter soon anyway. if English migration to Australia is dropping, it won't matter anyway.

A family member of mine missed out on playing in England in the 90s after he couldn't get a visa. The clubs that tried to sign him did everything but still couldn't get him on board. The issue being that his Great Grandparents were all English, but all his grandparents were born here.

But there are still so many people now who are eligible for UK ancestry visas. The number of Australians with British-born grandparents must be huge. As it is I can think of any number of my friends who have a British-born parent. As for grandparents...

Even if British migration stops tomorrow (and it won't), there will still be loads eligible now. And in the years to come, when people now (who have a British-born parent) bring up their own kids, there will still be loads.

In any event, I can't see British migration dropping too much. We know a load of people who've arrived here recently from the UK.

Your story attests to why it's very handy for Australian footballers to be eligible for a UK ancestry visa.

Sorry, but this is just factually incorrect.

Ancestry visas are available to anyone who is a Commonwealth Citizen as defined by the British Nationality Act (1981) - that includes Australia, whether or not we become a republic. It also includes republics such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria and many others.

You really are clutching at straws here if this is your reasoning against becoming a republic. The republic debate simply isn't a debate about practicalities - nothing practical will change. It's purely about symbolism, and there's no contest when it comes to finding a better symbolic representation of Australia: a democratically elected (or meritocratically appointed) Australian head of state is vastly preferable to an English, Anglican billionaire chosen based on who their parents are.

Are you sure it's a citizen of a Commonwealth country? Not a Commonwealth realm?

I didn't think Indians, for example, could get ancestry visas. You rarely hear of Indians using UK ancestry visas. But great if they can.

All good then. No harm done in this respect if we become a republic.

I still don't think we should. The Canadians don't have massive inferiority complex so I cannot understand why we do. Australia has no clear head of state. We have a parliament with legislative power. We have a PM, whose government has executive power. We have a G-G who can not introduce bills but must approve of them. The G-G may sack the PM/government. We have this lady whose title is Queen of Australia but has no Royal Prerogative. She can neither ratify nor disapprove of bills. She cannot sack the PM. She can do nothing. Theoretically she could probably sack the G-G. But that's it. The system is perfect as things stand. Far better than that of the UK, the US or any other country.

The checks and balances of the system are a thing of beauty. The Queen of Australia has less political power in Australia than an old man living in Broadmeadows, originally from Sudan, who only gained his Australian citizenship yesterday. That's a thing of beauty.

In practical terms, we are a republic now. The most balanced republic ever to have existed. Polybius, Rousseau, all those blokes would be frothing about our political set-up.

In order for various state constitutional documents/writs, we need some sort of link (i.e. merely Queen of Australia) or else things like habeas corpus and Magna Carta destabilise the state constitutions as they are rendered constitutional documents from a foreign power.

With the exception of France, Germany and Switzerland, all the best countries in the world (at least the best in which to live) are constitutional monarchies; Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Canada, NZ, Japan, UK and Australia. It's nice to be part of that club.

The other benefit is the diplomatic benefit. The type of diplomatic relations which can only be maintained by countries sharing the same monarch are worth keeping.

But it's less problematic for Australia to become a republic if ancestry visas remain available to those from Commonwealth countries, not just Commonwealth realms.

Edited by quickflick: 17/11/2015 03:38:51 AM

This is one of the most misinformed posts I have ever read - the commonwealth ALREADY INCLUDES REPUBLICS!!!! India anyone????

https://www.gov.uk/ancestry-visa/overview

If Australia becomes a republic (which it should), we will still be a part of the Commonwealth.

So this thread about a negative impact on football is totally misinformed

Australia's head of state should be someone born (or at least lived most of their life) in Australia.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Yep.

How anyone can not see that the head of your own country should not be someone from that country is off their chops.

Sorry quickflick, plenty of other good stuff but way off beam in this thread.

AzzaMarch

you don't seem to understand the difference between Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth countries. Commonwealth countries, such as India, are (or can be) republics. But India is not a Commonwealth realm. Commonwealth realms have the queen as their queen. So Australia is a Commonwealth realm, at the minute, as it has the Queen of Australia.

My post is not misinformed. I said in my original post that I wasn't sure if those from Commonwealth nations, as opposed to Commonwealth realms, were eligible for an ancestry visa.

As such it wasn't misinformed. I said I wasn't sure. Get it?

It seems, according to some, that ancestry visas apply for citizens of Commonwealth nations, not merely Commonwealth realms. In that case, it's not such a big deal.

But it ain't misinformed. Uninformed on that point, yes. But not misinformed. There's a difference.

Australia has no head of state. We need no head of state.

It's perfect the way it is. Absolutely no point in changing a thing. Once we have a head of state, then we have problems.

All good. Always a pleasure to discuss just about anything with you; whether in agreement, disagreement or somewhere in between.

Bear in mind, Australia has no 'head'. There is just the PM, who, effectively, has executive power. The G-G who rubber stamps bills and has the power to sack the government but cannot introduce new legislation. Then there is the Queen of Australia who has no power whatsoever.

She is just the Queen of Australia. That's all.

I like the intricacies and quaintness of the system.

By the way, what do you think of the Canadians?

Are they off their chops? The Canadians have NO intention of becoming a republic. They know, based on sharing a border with the United States, how stupid it is. Yet Canada is regarded as one of the most enlightened countries in the world.

Whether or not Canada is a republic is neither here nor there for me.

The main thing for me is that no Australian alive today or born from now on can ever be the head of our country is wrong.

If it were me I wouldn't even have a GG or a president. Waste of time and money to have a hierarchical head of a country (not too mention every state has one too) but if it's a step we need to take to have an Australian as a stand alone head of state then that's OK by me.

Then we can move on to changing the flag. I love that bit about the Canadians.

Textbook servile Monarchist claptrap.

Yeah pretty incredible to be reading this in 2015 #-o

Just a shame that that attitude is so prevalent even amongst younger folk who seem to be happy with the status quo.

Having a monarchist as a PM pretty much their entire childhood is part of the problem.

Just a shame that that attitude is so prevalent even amongst younger folk who seem to be happy with the status quo.

I don't get why people are saying we don't have a head of state, and that we don't need one.

Every country has a "Head of State" and a "Head of Government". This is embodied by the same person in both roles in the USA, but in most countries the head of govt is the Prime Minister who runs the joint day-to-day, with a ceremonial President etc as formal "head of state" with reserve powers to sack a govt and call an election.

The Queen is our head of state, and she is represented in Australia by the G-G. It may be symbolic in general, but it is still true, and it is gross that this is the case in 2015.

But she's not really our Head of State. She's just Queen of Australia.

In order to prosecute the argument that she is the Head of State, she'd need to have a Royal Prerogative (as she does in the UK). But she does not.

As such, she is simply Queen of Australia. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The G-G is probably the closest thing to a Head of State. And the PM, or his government at least, exercise executive power.

It's the best system ever devised.

The irony is it wasn't exactly devised. It just sort of developed in this way.

We don't have a head of state. We have no need for a head of state.

Imo, absolutely no point in changing it.

Why does it matter so much where someone is born ? are republicans that xenophobic

Obviously the republican movement needs to get out there and educate people about the current system as well as the proposed republican model.

He didn't say that our head of state has to be born here, but the person should live here and be a proper citizen of the country.

No need to be rude, chaps. We're agreed on a heap of things so let's at least be polite about this issue which harms nobody (unlike things being discussed in other threads). I've outlined my reasons, mainly constitutional, for supporting the status quo. At least have respect for the opinions of others when they're well-argued.

I respect your opinion as republicans. I can see the arguments in favour of a republic (in the nominal sense). Imo, the best argument in favour of the republican argument is that having a constitutional monarchy is innately not egalitarian.

That's a valid point. I know many in the UK want a republic on those grounds. I rebut it by pointing out that the most egalitarian countries in the world have constitutional monarchies. So in practice, it's not anti-egalitarian. Whereas some of the least egalitarian countries on the planet are republics.

As I have said, I have outlined constitutional reasons why we should retain a constitutional monarchy.

There's more to this than that.

One thing that has always pissed me off about Australia(ns) is a series of traits which, while not universally, are possessed with some degree of prevalence. And I think these traits are what drives a lot of the republican movement. I refer to "tall poppy syndrome", "chips on the shoulder" and "blind pride in all things Australian". In many Australian quarters there's a heck of a lot of spite and bitterness. These kind of things make me cringe and make me greatly look forward to leaving Australia.

Now I'm not suggesting that these nasty characteristics are the sole driving force behind republican ideology. I know for a fact that Munrubenmuz is the last person to have "blind pride in all things Australian", but I suspect it motivates much of the ideology.

The Canadians and Kiwis, who do not seem to possess these annoying characteristics to the extent that my countrymen do, could not care less about being a constitutional monarchy.

Edited by quickflick: 19/11/2015 10:06:09 PM

Quickflick, your constitutional arguments are flawed and as Azzamarch pointed out there are many different republic models and the American one is not the most favoured one in the republican movement.

She has royal prerogative here and is most definitely the head of state. I think you are referring to the fact that the Australian PM doesn't have face to face contact with the Queen anywhere near as regularly as the UK PM but he/she does have that with the G-G. There are a bunch of powers that the Queen could exercise on our behalf, she just doesn't by convention.


Technically the G-G holds the executive power but the PM and government direct him/her on how to do so. Not sure what would be so different if we were to replace a G-G with a president with the same powers and operating under the same conventions...


Once again we have a head of state, it's the Queen of Australia. The general operation of the system I don't have many problems with but the symbolism of having a person who doesn't live here and in fact costs us a bucket load whenever she visits is not representative of modern Australia.

The biggest obstacle to Australia becoming a republic is ignorance. Unfortunately, Australians aren't going to be cured of that any time soon.

Yep exactly my point regarding education on the current system. It's half the battle to get the required support.

Sorry mcjules but you don't seem to understand Australian constitutional law, especially pertaining to Royal Prerogative.



Sorry but she does not have Royal Prerogative (at least not meaningful Royal Prerogative) in Australia.

Not to put words in your mouth but you're effectively likening Australia to the UK. It is nothing like that. One of the intricate things about the UK is they have no codified constitution (that doesn't mean they have no constitution, full stop). So it's difficult to work out the exact extent of Royal Prerogative in the UK. Suffice it to say that the Queen gives her assent to bills (Royal Prerogative) and could probably, in theory, dissolve parliament if need be (that point is subject to debate among British constitutional experts). It's nominally HM Government and, to a small extent, it's not just nominally HM Government.

This is NOTHING like the situation in Australia. From what you've written, it seems you believe that in theory (but not in practice) the Queen has Royal Prerogative in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Queen cannot provide assent for, or dismiss, bills from the Australian Parliament. She cannot dissolve Parliament.

The G-G can. But the Australian Constitution explicitly differentiates between the Monarch and the G-G.

These amount to the meaningful exercising of Royal Prerogative. The Queen does not have this in Australia.

The powers to which you refer are basically approving of whomever the government suggest is the G-G and approving of the Queen's Honours List. That's about it. That does not amount to Royal Prerogative (at least not in any executive, legislative, judicial or meaningful sense).

It's not as you suggest. Australia is nothing like the UK, not just in practice, but in theory as well. There are not a bunch of executive functions for Australia which the Queen could perform if the Federal Government wished for her to perform them. She is not allowed to perform any. They fall to the G-G. As such, the Queen has no Royal Prerogative in Australia.

No barrister, with expertise in Australian constitutional law, worth his salt would argue that the Queen has Royal Prerogative in Australia. I should know. I've discussed it at dinner with such barristers.



Here's the constitution, mate.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution.aspx

Pray tell me where exactly the words 'Head of State' appear.

How about the 'Monarch is the Head of State'?

You'll find no such words.

Australia has no defined Head of State. We simply have the G-G who (as you correctly point out) strictly speaking has executive power. We have the Queen of Australia who has no Royal Prerogative and no executive power. She is the Queen of Australia. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have the government of the day who, led by the PM, have executive power in practice. And we have a parliament which has legislative power.

This is the problem. Nobody actually understands that Australia has no proper Head of State. So a whole heap of poorly informed arguments get made.

We have no Head of State. We need no Head of State.

Leaving aside the benefits of diplomatic relations which only sharing monarch can facilitate. Utterly no point in becoming a republic. The Canadians have no inferiority complex in this respect, I wish we didn't.

Edited by quickflick: 19/11/2015 11:47:57 PM

So does the fact that our constitution does not include the words 'Prime Minister' mean that Australia doesn't have a Prime Minister? :lol:

Interesting thing.

The design of the G-G system was a British one with a view to ensuring that us silly colonials didn't step too far out of line.

The idea back in the day was for the G-G to be appointed by HMG and, effectively, representing HMG. The G-G was supposed to be some earl, marquess or whatever who had been a big noise in the British Army. With that in mind, HMG had a degree of control over what we did. Not that they needed it until the Second World War (when the Australian Government and HMG weren't singing from exactly the same hymn sheet for the first time ever). For the most part, British and Australian policies mirrored each other.

But here's the thing. Even though it was supposed to be that way. It has worked out in such a way (and more importantly the wording in the constitution is such) that the G-G is appointed by the Australian Government, acts utterly independently of HMG and (effectively) independently of the Queen.

The system is as perfect as any ever devised. I loved the quirks, nuances and checks and balances involved that have evolved, quite by accident. By accident, we have the best system.