I'm too young for most of this (was just a kid when the Australia act was passed) but my parents tell me that Australia was extremely "british-centric" until attitudes started to change in the 70s. We've systematically dismantled all practical ties to britain and are effectively independent, the country has been better for it too. The symbolic ties serve no purpose but make people feel something is there that doesn't actually exist and it does effect how we conduct ourselves.

Contradictions much?:-# :-"

"its the race that stops the nation"

No it isnt

I don't think it will make a very big difference. It would be good for the national psyche blah blah but lets not bloviate about how it will change the nation and make us an international powerhouse. It won't.

So claming everyone is a leftie who doesnt agree with you isnt an assumption you idiot? Socawho you did say assuming makes an ass out of you and me when defendng your right to be an idiot but cant hack it when someone calls you out for it. Face it you have no clue and just go with whatever you think will get people to like you.

Not disagreeing with you mate, just curious to see where you were coming from.

Hard to quantify. I guess you can use the NZ flag debate as a yard stick (even though it hasn't changed yet).

That would be an exaggeration that I wouldn't make :) It will change the nation though and in a good way.

All good mate, I didn't really sense you were looking for a fight on this but I thought I'd add it anyway :lol:

It depends if you define the head of state as the queen or her representative, who IS Australian born. It doesn't bother me that much the Queen can be considered our head of state, her powers are mostly symbolic and serves as a stabilising force for our parliamentary democracy. Should we elect a PM who turns out to be a despot she can theoretically invoke her powers to remove that person from the job. An Australian elected President might have the same power but they would be much closer involved in politics and therefore susceptible to influence, prejudice, bias and possibly corruption than someone like the Queen who is at arms length from Australian society and politics. I would vote for a Republic because of the symbolic advantages but I trust the Monarchist model to work better in practice.

This will be the Asian century. I for one will be happy once the old British colonialism is shaken off once and for all and we can all look towards our neighbours.

Flag change, anthem change and becoming a republic are all inevitable. The only problem will be is that we'll end up choosing a shit flag. Oh well.

Sorry rusty but there is nothing more cringeworthy and with all due respect utter nonsense than that statement in bold.

Seriously, do people believe that someone who is not a citizen of Australia and never have been a resident of Australia has any affect on Australia's stability and democracy :lol:. We are a stable and democratic nation and only so because we the people of Australia make it so. We get 100% of the credit. It's an insult to every Australian to claim a foreigner living on the other side of the planet gets any credit for the way we are. Becoming a republic will only prove how totally irrelevant to Australia this foreign monarchy really is.

The head of state is the British monarch. The Governor General isn't our head of state. He's just her rep. in Australia who acts on her behalf. Only monarchists try to muddy the definition of our head of state because even they can't justify us still having a foreign head of state.

Edited by Jeff W: 3/11/2015 05:57:54 PM

Yeah I do, otherwise what's the point in having a head of state. The Prime Minister has be to accountable to someone, and I'd prefer that someone be someone who has limited involvement in Australian affairs. That is because the Queens role as a head of state of virtually conventional and symbolic and as it should be, whereas an Austrlaian elected President would concentrate too much political power to too few people at the top. The Queens stabilising effect on the parliament is perhaps better demonstrated by what she hasn't done rather than what she has done.

tbh the only people who want a republic are immigrants, traitors and wogs.

So the overwhelming majority of Australians... :lol:

Britain is fighting Australia in a war.

Who do you fight for?

go.

Would never happen, so irrelevant question.

This thread has gone waaay off track...

But it really is embarrassing that some Australians continue to have this devotion towards a foreign country.

You pick one or the other. That's it. There's a million ways two countries could fight a war. Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible.

Now answer the question.

Wow!

The usual wankers were saying that last time it went to a referendum and it was overwhelmingly rejected and failed to get a majority in even a single state. Support for a republic has fallen since then.

Every single poll, up to and beyond election day, showed a clear majority of Australians supported a republic. There are lots of reasons that the referendum failed, but lack of support for a republic was not one of them.

The biggest issue was disagreements over the model amongst Republicans - about half of all people who voted 'No' did so because they wanted a republic with a directly-elected President. All the info's here.

Lol, you sound like a Wanderers fan, whining that your team really won even though the other team scored more goals. There was only one poll that mattered, and it was a huge loss for the republicans.

Right... obviously the republicans lost, but that doesn't mean it was a rejection of the principle of an Australian republic. At the time of the referendum, far more Australians wanted a republic than wanted to keep the monarchy - look at that report, it is a statistical fact. The problem in 1999 was that the particular conditions of that referendum meant many republicans ended up voting 'No.'

And hey, even if the majority of Australians did want to keep the monarchy, that doesn't make that view any less embarrassing.

Monarchists vs Republics? isn't that how the American Civil War started?....maybe down the track we will have our own.

:lol: Oh dear

Edited by JP: 4/11/2015 01:23:03 AM

Please let this be sarcasm ffs.

No one is saying abolish the position of head of state. So your point there is moot.

As for the rest, you're once again dismissing and insulting the Australian people who are 100% responsible for our stability and democracy. The proof of that is shown by the same foreign monarchy being the head of state of numerous other countries and dominions around the world where it has failed to be this stabilising effect you're claiming and in many cases has failed to prevent violence and turmoil within these lands.

The funny thing is your same arguments of us Aussies needing a foreign overlord to save us from ourselves :oops: were used when PM Scullin wanted to appoint the first Australian-born Governor General (Issacs) prior to the statute of Westminster. Both the then king George V and the British Parliament opposed the appointment. It was proven nonsense back then just as opposing an Australian-born head of state is utter nonsense now.

The American Civil War was started over the issue of slavery and states' rights. The old South economically depended on slavery (for cotton) while the Northern manufacturing states opposed slavery as rightly inhuman.

The American War of Independence is closer tp monarchist vs republican but even that wasn't the reason why it started. Initially, American colonists just wanted representation in the British parliament before any new taxes were imposed on them. When this was rejected, it grew to wanting 'home rule' while remaining loyal to the British crown (the first US flag had the Union Jack on it). Within a year of the war starting, it became a fight for total independence as a republic when King George III accused the Americans of being traitors and employed non-British mercenaries to fight against them. Upon American (republican) victory, British loyalists (monarchists) fled north into Canada.

Monarchists are more likely to call the American War of Independence by its other name 'the American revolution'. If you read their websites, they claim the USA is a "type 1" constitutional monarchy - it's just that the Americans don't know it lol. In their eyes, the Yanks only replaced the King with a local American (president) as its 'sovereign' and they returned to being friends with Britain, so it was all just a misunderstanding :lol:. It's some weird and crazy stuff the monarchists are smoking :shock:.

Probably should have put my writing in blue. :d