"Australian Monarchists to fight republic plan of Labour Prime Minister Rudd"

Smidgey · 10-04-2008, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

This has been proposed before hasn't it - I am sure I read somewhere that someone tried to stand as the "none of the above" candidate and was told he could not do so by the Electoral Commission.

I never knew that. Sneaky way to win a majority.

Smidgey · 10-04-2008, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

If the people of Australia voted to have a directly-elected Presidency (and, as a Royalist, I would hope that they did not opt for any kind of republican system) there are many who think that such a decision could undermine the office of the Australian Prime Minister (who, unlike the President would not be elected directly by the people and who might be seen by some to have less political legitimacy than the directly-elected President).

That would be an issue for Australia to resolve. I, however, in an ideal system would not use the Australian system.

Since their system already exists, they would have to rectify this issue, if it is indeed a big problem. I, on the other hand, do not believe that it is.

Quote:

It would be like in France whereby the Prime Minister has less power than the President. Indeed, as you will know, Smidgey, the French President can dismiss the Prime Minister (and many have done so before now).

That is a flaw of the French system, which is by no means perfect.

Just because one supports republicanism doesn't mean they support all forms of republic, as I am sure you do not support all forms of monarchy.

Quote:

On the other hand, there is the example of Germany which has a President who is not chosen in a direct vote by the people of that country. The result is that hardly anyone has heard of the German President.

Why should we care if politicians are heard of or not? They should be doing their job, not trying to win a popularity contest.

Quote:

My view is that rather than have a directly-elected political President whose office could undermine the office of the Prime Minister (like in France) and rather than having a low-profile political President not chosen by the people (as they have in Germany) - I suggest the non-political Royalist system we have here in the UK.

I would support a system where the president had limited powers and the ability to overrule the prime minister on these specific limited powers - for example, the power of veto, unless a majority in parliament (say 2/3 or 3/4) were to overrule the president on his veto. The idea would be to restrict the state and build consensus, not to make it easier for politicians.

Quote:

I can't see many people turning up in the Mall to cheer a President Kinnock or a President Heseltine as his carriage went by.

Under a good political system we shouldn't be wasting tax payers money on ridiculous things such as ornate carriages.

Smidgey · 10-04-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eurosceptic Atlanticist

True, but interesting as it is, what would you do then, "Ah, the majority of the public hate us - they voted 'none of the above', but since we're the second most popular group at 20% of the vote, we'll govern"?

Perhaps a second election? I would have to think about it.

Quote:

Or do you just continue on with no government until the next election?

Sounds super!

Britannist · 11-04-2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northumbrian

But isn't the real issue that Australia is an independent country - so why have a Head of State who is not an Australian citizen?

If Australia, as a sovereign independent nation, chooses to have a Constitution whereby it has a Head of State who happens to be Head of State of other countries too then that is their right.

As for citizenship. There is no such thing - Elizabeth II is Queen of Australia and Australian Head of State and the people of Australia are subjects.

We are subjects too despite the term citizenship coming into use in our country from about two decades ago.

Elizabeth II is The Queen of Australia - she is their Queen too. Her roles as Head of State of the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica and of other nations are quite separate from her position as Head of State of The Commonwealth of Australia.

Britannist · 11-04-2008, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

That is a flaw of the French system, which is by no means perfect.

As we know, the French Constitution puts the office of President above that of the office of Prime Minister. That is a matter for them, of course.

My point is that if a nation chooses to move to directly electing a President then the power of the office of Prime Minister is reduced.

Unless, of course, a country has a system whereby the Prime Minister is directly elected by the people in a national election and the President is appointed by members of Parliament.

Do you know of any nation having such a Constitutional arrangement Smidgey? I cannot think of one just at the moment.

Britannist · 11-04-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

I would support a system where the President had limited powers and the ability to overrule the prime minister on these specific limited powers....

My point was that there are many who take the view that a directly-elected President (and you say, Smidgey, that you support the idea of a directly-elected President) with limited powers would be seen by some people as having more legitimacy in his/her role than an unelected Prime Minister - because s/he (the President) would have been elected or re-elected by the people of the country in a direct vote.

For instance: if someone were elected next week as President of a particular country (in a direct vote held across that nation) s/he would be able to claim that s/he had more legitimacy politically than the Prime Minister who had been in the job for the last two or three years and who had been not been elected directly by the people of that country. We can be sure that the new directly-elected President would - if he were from a political party which was different to that of the Prime Minister - quickly claims that s/he had the people of the country on his/her side rather than the Prime Minister (even if the Prime Minister, in theory, had more powers than the directly-elected President).

There are many who believe that there is likely to be friction between the offices of President and Prime Minister in quite a few of the nations where both posts exist.

Here in the UK, a Constitutional Monarchy, we do not have this problem. Neither do they have such a problem in other Constitutional Monarchies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Jamaica.

Britannist · 11-04-2008, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

Under a good political system we shouldn't be wasting tax payers money on ridiculous things such as ornate carriages.

There are plenty of ornate carriages in republican nations.

Australia rightly said no to the 'politicians' republic' in the 1999 referendum.

The office of President is filled in nearly every case around the world by a politician. We do not have that here in the UK because we are a Constitutional Monarchy.

The British people do not want a political Head of State or the republican system which costs a fortune in most countries stuck with Presidencies.

rjt · 11-04-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

So? There is no evidence to suggest that a pro-republic Prime Minister would have been able to win the referendum of 1999. In fact, the very reverse may have been the case.

The constituency of the pro-Monarchy Prime Minister you refer to, by the way, voted for a republic and the constituency of the pro-republic Labour opposition leader strongly backed the Monarchy (in the 1999 referendum).

Indeed as was seen when the ghastly Paul Keating was PM, he told the Queen that Australia would be a republic and look what happened to him.

HMQ has seen off plenty of failed political leaders and I beleive she will see off a few more yet.

rjt · 11-04-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

There are plenty of ornate carriages in republican nations.

Australia rightly said no to the 'politicians' republic' in the 1999 referendum.

The office of President is filled in nearly every case around the world by a politician. We do not have that here in the UK because we are a Constitutional Monarchy.

The British people do not want a political Head of State or the republican system which costs a fortune in most countries stuck with Presidencies.

Time and time again the public show there overwhelming support for the monarchy in this country causing the republican movement to be involved in one of the longest sulks in history. I beleive the point you make about an expensive republican system is right but overwelmingly the thing that sustians the monarcy is the love and respect that people hold for it in there hearts.

Britannist · 11-04-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

Indeed as was seen when the ghastly Paul Keating was PM, he told the Queen that Australia would be a republic and look what happened to him.

Exactly. What an awful politician he was. I understand that he left politics after his time as Australian Labour Prime Minister ended.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode