I love how you never expand on your points, it's always drive-by insults and vague generalities with no substance.

I'm not stupid enough to come on here looking for substantial discussion, and clearly you and your buddies are too stupid to offer it to me anyway.

Besides, I've made a post of some substance on this page already; I'm not seeing any contributions on your part of comparable value.

Maybe you're incapable!

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Will this mean we might see a 1 Horse race in La Liga and Catalan playing in the World Cup
:lol:

/r/iamverysmart

Agreeing with Australia having a constitutional monarchy (and incidentally the most stable political system in the entire world as a result of a strange combination of circumstances) does not make one's views nonsensical or mutually incongruent.

With the exception of Switzerland, France and Germany, the best countries in the world to live in all have constitutional monarchies. Correlation not causation but still worth being mindful of.

There are also myriad cultural and legal reasons (or underpinnings) which justify the status quo.

NZ and Canada both have constitutional monarchies in the same circumstances.

Neither has this parochial, chip-on-the-shoulder, tall poppy syndrome, inferiority complex that Australia has in this respect. Nor is either NZ or Canada particularly sycophantic in how they deal with Britain and the Royal Family.

You can be a big fan of the system Australia has and not be the kind of person who dreams of camping out on Pall Mall with the hope of catching a glimpse of a the Royal Family driving past.

Edited by quickflick: 24/6/2016 10:04:52 PM

Saudi Arabia, have a Monarchy too! You are drawing very long bows.

Fact is, all EU countries are also Republics and they are pretty damn politically stable. There are 27 of them too. Not to mention Norway and Switzerland.

Edited by Aikhme: 24/6/2016 10:08:15 PM

I'm out, what a joke of a continent.

See I used to have this exact view until I finally saw the 99 referendum question I was too young to vote for, it essentially maintained the status quo of a non-politicised head of state with a governor-general type role with the only difference being they would be representative of the nation, not the queen. The remarkable thing able the republic debate is the actual implementation of it is not that remarkable at all, it would be a purely symbolic change with no practical change whatsoever. That being the case, if I'm ever asked to vote for a republic in the future I will be all for it.

Edited by imonfourfourtwo: 24/6/2016 10:25:12 PM

Having a foreign monarch as the head of state with no actual power makes things better than having an Australian head of state with the same powers :roll:

:lol:

Saudi Arabia has an absolute monarchy. Australia has a constitutional monarchy. Australia's political system has more in common with that of the United States than that of Saudi Arabia.

I'm not the one drawing long bows.

As for the EU/EEC countries...

the best ones all have constitutional monarchies; Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland.

And formerly the UK.

The only good ones that don't have constitutional monarchs are France, Germany and Switzerland. And much as I like the Swiss, boy are they dull.

We don't have a head of state now, in effect. Australian or otherwise. There is none. We don't need one, either.

And that's the beauty of the current system.

Who's the head of state out of the PM, the G-G and the Queen? None.

The Queen is just Queen of Australia. Nothing more, nothing less. She has no Royal Prerogative (unlike, I gather, in NZ). She cannot do anything. Strictly speaking, she cannot even force the G-G to veto a bill.

The extent of her power is that she can sack the G-G. This would hold things up but wouldn't influence Australian executive or legislative power. And, anyway, protocol demands it would not happen. The beauty of the British system. Lots of customs which are just obeyed.

The Queen has less power in the Australian political system than a man from South Sudan who has been living in Broadmeadows for the last few years and has just been granted his Australian citizenship. At least he can vote. She can't do jack shit.

We have a G-G who represents the Queen (nominally). The G-G cannot really be regarded as a head of state. The G-G simply approves of the bills that both houses of parliament have sent through. Protocol dictates that the G-G does not veto.

The G-G cannot introduce bills. The G-G cannot make executive decisions.

The G-G's only real meaningful power is that he/she can sack the government if they step too far out of line.

This is fine because it just leads to a double dissolution (democratic outcome). And the G-G cannot exactly step into the PM's role.

We have a PM, who is the most known person and represents the leadership choice of the party which wins most of the vote. The PM's government has executive power. They also, usually, can throw a majority vote behind any bill on legislative matters which passes through the two houses.

And, of course, judicial power is further separated.

The system is, by sheer fluke, as close to perfect out of all political systems in the entire world.

In fact, having a foreign sovereign, with no actual meaningful power, stabilises it further than countries with constitutional monarchs in their own country. The constitutional monarch here has less influence and less conflict of interest.

Plus there are myriad cultural and legal reasons (or underpinnings) for just this one, single constitutional tie with the sovereign of the United Kingdom.

All EU Republics are pretty good and stable democracies.

There are no differences between Germany and Greece, or Italy. All systems must meet EU Acquis.

A Republic is in actual fact the same as a Monarch. The only difference is that there is a ceremonial President as opposed to a Governor General representing the Crown, or Royal Family.



Edited by Aikhme: 24/6/2016 10:47:40 PM

Heard this all before and your argument makes no sense whatsoever. What difference does the Queen having less influence and less conflict of interest improve stability over not being there at all?

It doesn't.

It's just embarrassing that a country like Australia holds on to the apron strings.

But in any case, Australians are not as brave as Brits. What the Brits did was bloody gutsy. Credit where credit is due.

100% correct and QF it makes no difference what arguments you throw up. You can talk about it all day, and you probabbly will but the fact is a foreign monarch is Australia's head of State.

A position no Australian EVER can aspire to.

Ceremonial or not that is a joke.

Sorry mcjules but I've explained why it makes sense. Claiming it doesn't make sense doesn't render it so.

It makes sense because we've, by sheer fluke, wound up with a system of checks and balances which would have had Polybius, John Locke, Condorcet, Lafayette, J.S. Mills, etc.. frothing.

As you should have gauged from my post, none of those three groups has anything like too much power. The one person, who is wrongly perceived to be the head of state (when no such role exists in Australia), actually has the least power and has less power than Australian citizens.

It's perfect.

How is it better than that the Queen has less influence and less conflict of interest?

It's certainly better than in the UK where she has more influence and, by virtue of being British, will want to effect certain outcomes (although she's as impartial as she can possibly be, to her credit).

Here she just adds another dimension of checks and balances. Somebody should be able to sack the G-G, to balance out the system. This should never happen in practice, but it should be theoretically possible

Who should that somebody be? Somebody with no vested interests. Somebody not appointed by anybody in Australia (because we all have vested interests). And somebody with no power other than the ability to sack the G-G.

It's a bit like how sometimes an international mediator is required for some things. This particularly mediator represents the very culture that created parliamentary democracy in its current format, liberalism, abolished the slave trade, has produced the greatest literary works in history, etc. So it works out perfectly.

I've a question for you mcjules.

The Canadians and the NZers don't care about this. Why do you and so many other Australians get your knickers in a knot about it?

Morgan Stanley already in the process of moving 2000 of its key investment banking staff to Frankfurt or Dublin.

No. A foreign monarch is Queen of Australia. That's not the same thing as "head of state".

No Australian can aspire to a position that is non-existent.

My words some people get emotional about this.

You know, I have traveled quite a bit over the years. My passport reads like a novel with all the stamps and stapled pages within.

I have encountered many who express disbelief that Australia is still connected to a foreign British Monarch. There is also the misnomer that we are not completely sovereign and many times I was at pains to explain that the Monarch is ceremonial only and that Australia is sovereign. Then they point to the Union Jack.

They just can't fathom it. And these people are not from Germany, Switzerland or Sweden either.

That's not Australia's fault for not their not being particularly bright.

Canada and NZ have basically the same arrangements. Canada and NZ are terrific countries.

I've also done a reasonable amount of travel. I've also explained this to people from other countries with no connection with Australia.

It usually takes a good five minutes to explain it. But I found the ones I've spoken to, particularly those keen on political stability or who have studied political science, thought it was a brilliant arrangement which balances things out perfectly.

@ QF. You know that giant key they give you at your 21st?

It's not a real key.

No it doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense.

The Queen's powers are no different to the G-Gs as the G-Gs is her representative here

No because we have an anachronism as our head of state (or non-head of state in your unorthodox opinion)

Sure but I'm asking why her having even less power and influence (i.e. absolutely none) would be better.

In the current system, the prime minister can sack the G-G. In practice it doesn't happen and the G-G is given the opportunity to resign. The Queen can't act on her own.

What mediation does the Queen do? If you're suggesting that the only reason we are keeping on the current track is because we have the queen as a shining light, I think I might be ill :oops:

I've seen Canadians discuss this, particularly Quebecers care. Even if they didn't, why is that our problem? We're better than both of them (though Canada's current prime minister is pretty good :lol: )

Sweet. Does this mean you're not actually up to tackling with the various points I've made?

FWIW, there are solid reasons for becoming a republic :d I respect the argument, when it's made properly.

I just maintain, and can argue quite compellingly, that there are far more reasons for maintaining the status quo.

Ironically, even though some (but not all) of those who support the constitutional monarchy do so for silly reasons such as wanting to meet the Queen or some bullshit, a lot (but not all) of the republican argument centres on emotional appeals; e.g. why can't Aussies aspire to be head of state of Australia.

it bullshit...Morgan Stanley staying it's not true...

all the EU (MEP) people, are saying really crazy shit today...

What the hell does this mean? Why is everyone going on about it?

C'mon mcjules. You're better than this, pal. Kindly explain how the benefits of the series of checks and balances, which I've outlined, don't make sense.

Otherwise you're merely culpable of the logical fallacy argumentum ad lipidem.



Here your argument is particularly grounded in assumptions rather than knowledge.

Barristers and jurists with expertise in Australian constitutional law will tear you to shreds on this one.

The Governor-General exists as a separate entity to the Queen.

Much like the British Government, which is formally called Her Majesty's Government, only nominally belongs to HM the Queen. The Governor-General of Australia is only nominally the representative of the Queen in Australia.

The powers are exercised by the G-G, not by the Queen.

'WHEREAS, by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, certain powers, functions and authorities are vested in a Governor-General appointed by the Queen to be Her Majesty's Representative in the Commonwealth...'

http://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/S179-2008-LettersPatent.pdf

Note carefully- the G-G is defined as a separate entity to the Queen and the G-G has those powers, not the Queen.

As for the theory and the practice of the the G-G representing the Queen. In theory and practice, the G-G represents the Queen ceremonially. Fine, that causes no dramas.

When it comes to the theory of representing the Queen's views... nothing can be said to oblige the G-G to make the Queen's views influence his/her decisions. And how would this be enforced anyway (given that the the Prime Minister's government nominate a G-G and the Queen has no other power)?

And the practice of the G-G representing the Queen's views? These days, in practice, the Queen doesn't interfere at all. Historically, the Australian G-G was supposed to be some Earl from England or Scotland who could be relied upon to make sure that the Australian Government acted in line with the wishes of HMG.

The beauty of the system was that no provisions were made in the constitution to ensure this was the case. As a result, we just have Australian Governors-General these days, who are well-and-truly distinct from the Queen.

So you're wrong on that count.



This is not substantiated and is, moreover, another emotional appeal rather than a rational argument.



For the reasons I outlined in the point following that. I.e. we require for there to be some force acting to check and balance power, if only hypothetically. This is illustrated by the power the Queen has in being able to sack the G-G.



I'm not sure you're right about that, either. I'm given to understand that only the Queen can dismiss the G-G. Not the PM, although I stand to be corrected if anybody can find a provision in the Constitution to suggest otherwise.

The Queen can act on on her own, in theory. But you're quite right that, in practice, she'd never act unilaterally.

What would happen, as I understand it, is if the Prime Minister's government thought the G-G was unfit for office, they'd ask the Queen to dismiss the G-G.

But the point is the Queen acts as a further check and balance which is more independent and thus a good thing. I argue it's good because the PM can't just abuse his power by sacking the G-G.



In practice, she does no mediation whatsoever. In theory, she's just that final check and balance which makes the system the most infallible of any devised. That's not the only reason we retain the status quo.

Cultural ties are a good enough reason. More importantly, various important British legal documents, writs, etc., are constitutional documents for Australian states and territories. Things like Magna Carta and habeas corpus. If Australia were to become a republic it would destabilise our system by virtue of rendering these crucial constitutional documents for Australia (and in the history of the world) documents emanating from an alien power but with constitutional influence in Australia.

It's a constitutionally incongruous outcome.



We're certainly not better than them. Nor worse.

As for the Québécois. Ceci explique tout! The reasonable ones, who account for the majority, have no such inferiority complex unlike many in Australia.

Edited by quickflick: 25/6/2016 12:25:00 AM

:lol: