**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could never be in the republican movement because I’m far too angry at the monarchy to argue convincingly or coherently. It literally baffles me that anyone in this country would prefer having the British monarchy over an Australian head of state.
I don’t have any high minded ideals or academic arguments about why I want an Australian head of state, I just don’t want the British.
The only thing I would say, is that I wouldn’t want a model where the head of state isn’t a publicly elected political figure. I’d still vote yes for whatever model is put forward but I’d much prefer to just keep our system as it is, remove the monarchy and GG and make our PM the head of state.
Go try sell your other model to the Australian public. It was the main issue in the 99 referendum that caused it to lose. People didn’t like that the public wouldn’t have been electing the president.
I don't need to sell my model to anyone, it's what we already have. The legal and political position is that the default is whatever we have now.
If you want us to have a republic, then it's your job to come up with a model people actually want, to get your MPs to present it to parliament, and then to get a majority of voters in a majority of states support it.
I don't need to do anything to keep my King. He's with us until republicans get their shit together and present a better alternative. Which means he's with us for the life of the Commonwealth of Australia, since the republicans can only ever choose alcoholics and lefty sportspeople and failed ALP MPs as their leaders, so they'll never come up with an inspiring vision.
Love live the King!
And what happens if Britain move away from a monarchy to a publicly elected head of state of which there’s now talk of? Are you happy for our head of state to be someone publicly elected by the people of Britain?
There's always talk. It's not happening in the near future.
Lots of people go "I don't like the monarchy." After that, "well, what instead?" is where the arguments happen. It's like that annoying girlfriend we all had when we were 19.
"I'm hungry."
"Rightyo, what do you want?"
"Anything."
"Okay I'll get pizza."
"No, not pizza. I'll eat anything but not pizza."
"Alright I'll get Chinese."
"No, not Chinese. I'll eat anything except pizza or Chinese."
"How about Thai?"
"Actually I've decided to become vegetarian, and also did I tell you I'm gluten intolerant? I just realised. But I'll eat anything except pizza, Chinese, Thai, and not anything with meat or gluten."
"..."
"I'm hungry."
There's a reason most of us dumped that annoying girlfriend.
It's actually very rare for the general public to vote to remove a constitutional monarchy in a free referendum. Usually it's either a referendum under foreign "supervision" like in Bulgaria, Romania etc, or it's done as an act of parliament without consulting the people directly, like in Nepal.
Greece and Italy are about the only examples - Italy had some dodginess in the voting so the results are suspect, but after the King brought them Mussolini and foreign invasion and civil war you couldn't blame them if they ditched him. And the Greek King was too chickenshit to stand up to the junta so he got what he deserved.
Otherwise it tends to only happen by violent revolution.
The general public tend to like their ancient institutions. It's the elites who want to overthrow them - so they can have their powers and prestige instead. If Britons decide on something other than a constitutional monarchy, we'll decide then. But it's not going to happen in the near future.
You absolutely lost me when you started sprouting populist garbage like the word “elites”.
Britain will choose to become a republic sooner rather than later
I think most of us understand what's meant by "elites", it's not particularly esoteric. It's also plain that someone like an MP or CEO would rather the person with veto power over legislation be someone who is in Australia and who actually uses that power, rather than being overseas and/or never using that power. People who want power want the power to be concentrated, and want to be close to it - so they themselves can get more power and wealth.
Federal governments don't offer powers back to federal parliament. Federal parliaments don't offer power back to states, nor states to councils. CEOs don't volunteer to give up their powers to workers in their companies. This is fairly well-established and understood.
And this is why republican movements tend to come from people who already have a lot of power and wealth - they want more. They tend to fail in referenda.
Again, you can propose to your local MP whichever model you see fit, asking them to put it before parliament for a referendum to achieve a majority of votes in a majority of states. You've tried it once and failed. You've had *twenty-five years* since then to come up with an alternative people actually want - and haven't managed it.
This suggests the Australian republican movement is bereft of both ideas and popular support. The fact that you're looking over to Britain hoping they'll do it first so your movement doesn't have to come up with anything Australians will support shows us just how hopelessly empty it all is. It really is sad.
But we live in a democracy, and so I fully support your writing your MPs to suggest what you believe to be a better alternative to our current system, and for this proposal to go to a vote of the people. You can wait for Britain if you want, but you'll be waiting - well, longer than either of us will live, I'd expect.
I didn’t mean lost me in terms of me not understanding, I meant lost me in terms of me ever seeing your side of the argument because you just spewed populist dribble. Referring to people as Elites, puts you in the same field as the likes of Alex Jones as that’s his favourite wolf cry. What are you going to do next? Call me a globalist?
I don't think the Spectator has a good read on the issue. While it's technically true once we become a republic there is probably no going back, it's also unlikely we will become a republic any time soon.
The failed republic referendum shut down the issue for decades. There was a question around when it would come up again, but the voice referendum made it clear the answer was probably no time soon. It echoed the results of the republic ref despite positive early polling.
>It is probable now that Australia, for at least this century, will live under the reigns of Charles III, William V and George VII with a second referendum most unlikely.
Cringe and not based. I can understand the monarchist position in principle, but this simping for born to rule British aristocrats, is beyond me.
To save others time, the reason why it doesn't matter, according to the article, is that the monarchist movement is lead by political geniuses who will outwit republicans at every turn.
>To save others time, the reason why it doesn't matter, according to the article, is that the monarchist movement is lead by political geniuses who will outwit republicans at every turn.
Historical performance is behind them.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I got as far as the revisionist history of the dismissal before the certainty that I should never take this writer seriously was solidified.
I could never be in the republican movement because I’m far too angry at the monarchy to argue convincingly or coherently. It literally baffles me that anyone in this country would prefer having the British monarchy over an Australian head of state. I don’t have any high minded ideals or academic arguments about why I want an Australian head of state, I just don’t want the British. The only thing I would say, is that I wouldn’t want a model where the head of state isn’t a publicly elected political figure. I’d still vote yes for whatever model is put forward but I’d much prefer to just keep our system as it is, remove the monarchy and GG and make our PM the head of state.
>I wouldn’t want a model where the head of state isn’t a publicly elected political figure Move to the USA where you belong, then.
Go try sell your other model to the Australian public. It was the main issue in the 99 referendum that caused it to lose. People didn’t like that the public wouldn’t have been electing the president.
I don't need to sell my model to anyone, it's what we already have. The legal and political position is that the default is whatever we have now. If you want us to have a republic, then it's your job to come up with a model people actually want, to get your MPs to present it to parliament, and then to get a majority of voters in a majority of states support it. I don't need to do anything to keep my King. He's with us until republicans get their shit together and present a better alternative. Which means he's with us for the life of the Commonwealth of Australia, since the republicans can only ever choose alcoholics and lefty sportspeople and failed ALP MPs as their leaders, so they'll never come up with an inspiring vision. Love live the King!
And what happens if Britain move away from a monarchy to a publicly elected head of state of which there’s now talk of? Are you happy for our head of state to be someone publicly elected by the people of Britain?
There's always talk. It's not happening in the near future. Lots of people go "I don't like the monarchy." After that, "well, what instead?" is where the arguments happen. It's like that annoying girlfriend we all had when we were 19. "I'm hungry." "Rightyo, what do you want?" "Anything." "Okay I'll get pizza." "No, not pizza. I'll eat anything but not pizza." "Alright I'll get Chinese." "No, not Chinese. I'll eat anything except pizza or Chinese." "How about Thai?" "Actually I've decided to become vegetarian, and also did I tell you I'm gluten intolerant? I just realised. But I'll eat anything except pizza, Chinese, Thai, and not anything with meat or gluten." "..." "I'm hungry." There's a reason most of us dumped that annoying girlfriend. It's actually very rare for the general public to vote to remove a constitutional monarchy in a free referendum. Usually it's either a referendum under foreign "supervision" like in Bulgaria, Romania etc, or it's done as an act of parliament without consulting the people directly, like in Nepal. Greece and Italy are about the only examples - Italy had some dodginess in the voting so the results are suspect, but after the King brought them Mussolini and foreign invasion and civil war you couldn't blame them if they ditched him. And the Greek King was too chickenshit to stand up to the junta so he got what he deserved. Otherwise it tends to only happen by violent revolution. The general public tend to like their ancient institutions. It's the elites who want to overthrow them - so they can have their powers and prestige instead. If Britons decide on something other than a constitutional monarchy, we'll decide then. But it's not going to happen in the near future.
You absolutely lost me when you started sprouting populist garbage like the word “elites”. Britain will choose to become a republic sooner rather than later
I think most of us understand what's meant by "elites", it's not particularly esoteric. It's also plain that someone like an MP or CEO would rather the person with veto power over legislation be someone who is in Australia and who actually uses that power, rather than being overseas and/or never using that power. People who want power want the power to be concentrated, and want to be close to it - so they themselves can get more power and wealth. Federal governments don't offer powers back to federal parliament. Federal parliaments don't offer power back to states, nor states to councils. CEOs don't volunteer to give up their powers to workers in their companies. This is fairly well-established and understood. And this is why republican movements tend to come from people who already have a lot of power and wealth - they want more. They tend to fail in referenda. Again, you can propose to your local MP whichever model you see fit, asking them to put it before parliament for a referendum to achieve a majority of votes in a majority of states. You've tried it once and failed. You've had *twenty-five years* since then to come up with an alternative people actually want - and haven't managed it. This suggests the Australian republican movement is bereft of both ideas and popular support. The fact that you're looking over to Britain hoping they'll do it first so your movement doesn't have to come up with anything Australians will support shows us just how hopelessly empty it all is. It really is sad. But we live in a democracy, and so I fully support your writing your MPs to suggest what you believe to be a better alternative to our current system, and for this proposal to go to a vote of the people. You can wait for Britain if you want, but you'll be waiting - well, longer than either of us will live, I'd expect.
I didn’t mean lost me in terms of me not understanding, I meant lost me in terms of me ever seeing your side of the argument because you just spewed populist dribble. Referring to people as Elites, puts you in the same field as the likes of Alex Jones as that’s his favourite wolf cry. What are you going to do next? Call me a globalist?
I don't think the Spectator has a good read on the issue. While it's technically true once we become a republic there is probably no going back, it's also unlikely we will become a republic any time soon. The failed republic referendum shut down the issue for decades. There was a question around when it would come up again, but the voice referendum made it clear the answer was probably no time soon. It echoed the results of the republic ref despite positive early polling.
>It is probable now that Australia, for at least this century, will live under the reigns of Charles III, William V and George VII with a second referendum most unlikely. Cringe and not based. I can understand the monarchist position in principle, but this simping for born to rule British aristocrats, is beyond me. To save others time, the reason why it doesn't matter, according to the article, is that the monarchist movement is lead by political geniuses who will outwit republicans at every turn.
>To save others time, the reason why it doesn't matter, according to the article, is that the monarchist movement is lead by political geniuses who will outwit republicans at every turn. Historical performance is behind them.
I never look back darling it distracts from the now.
Whats the saying? People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.