Political Crossfire Forums

The Redcoat · Joined: 22 Aug 2005 Posts: 411 Location: Hampshire, England

Alrighty let's see here, what do the Australians on this forum want their country to be, a Republic, or a Commonwealth..

In other words, do you want change or are you happy with the way things are?

Eternal · Joined: 29 Mar 2005 Posts: 2043 Location: Somewhere

F*CK the Queen! Up the revolution!!!!!

Cheers, Eternal

wakes · Joined: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 3

I can't say I really give a s--t, but hey Eternal! Can I go seconds with the Queen?
:-D wakes

The Redcoat · Joined: 22 Aug 2005 Posts: 411 Location: Hampshire, England

wakes wrote: I can't say I really give a s--t, but hey Eternal! Can I go seconds with the Queen?
:-D wakes
Well it doesn't matter what your contribution is wakes because your neither Australian or British :-D, shouldn't your post be regarded as trolling? (Coming into a thread to insult someone). :lol:

Come on aren't there any more Australians who have opinions about this on PCF?

thundertaker · Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject:

Would it really make a difference? They'd still be a democratic country run by elected leaders either way. But re-drafting the Australian consitution could adveresly affect the balance of Excutive and judiciary. Unless the current system is clearly deficient and is a clear detriment to the welfare of the people, is it really worth the risk of changing?

The Redcoat · Joined: 22 Aug 2005 Posts: 411 Location: Hampshire, England

I think it's more a sense of the Oz equivalent of redneck patriotism being the main reason to become a republic :lol:, joke.

Lancaster · Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 79 Location: Ottawa

australia is a country and a continent! I want to be in the same commonwealth as that country!

Kindred · Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:11 am Post subject:

I say republic of course. We owe the Queen nothing, indeed as a classic old aussie song goes:

They say God save the Queen?
Well I think f***ing not!
And I pray everyday
That in hell she may rot!
Cause they broought us in chains
Convicts the lot
And when we tried to stand up
They took aim and shot

watermelon · Joined: 20 Jul 2004 Posts: 40 Location: Tasmania

For too long Australia has been afraid of standing on its own with such an obvious reliance on either Britain or the US to give leadership on international situations. Australia need to be a republic, and contrary to the UK situation, there would be no real need for dramatic changes to the Legislator or the Judiciary. The Australian Constitutional system could remain the same with a publicly elected government and PM and the President, being in a figurehead position not unlike the Governor General, being appointed by mutual decision of both sides of Parliament.

kickback · Joined: 18 Dec 2005 Posts: 2 Location: Brisbane

I still dont think we should become a republic! Even know the queen does nothing for oz, i could not see any benifits to be a republic!

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK · Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:37 am Post subject:

I don't see why Australians would want to become a republic, the Queen does bugger all for us now and is more a figurehead then nothing. There are certainly some really good perks to being in the commonwealth. We maintain ancestral ties to our original motherland and her constituents, we have British military superiority to back us up if the s**t hits the fan and we also get some excellent benefits to do with foreign affairs and trade for being in the commonwealth.

Unfortunately, at the present time, there are a number of factors why Australia cannot stand on its own two feet by herself and for the immediate future at least we should remain a commonwealth country.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 762

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: I don't see why Australians would want to become a republic, the Queen does bugger all for us now and is more a figurehead then nothing. There are certainly some really good perks to being in the commonwealth. We maintain ancestral ties to our original motherland and her constituents, we have British military superiority to back us up if the s**t hits the fan and we also get some excellent benefits to do with foreign affairs and trade for being in the commonwealth.

Unfortunately, at the present time, there are a number of factors why Australia cannot stand on its own two feet by herself and for the immediate future at least we should remain a commonwealth country.

In ealier times membership of the empire meant being sent to fight Britains wars - and I don't think much of the likelihood of British miltary superiority beling a trump card in the back pocket.

In more recent times we've sent our soldiers to fight other people's wars - I think the US will back us up in any conflict with our neighbours ... but that's because they like a rumble, not from any sense of loyalty, and I would be more inclined to count on their support than the Brits.

I think membership of the commonwealth doesn't do us any harm - in terms of trade and international relations generally, but how much it actually benefits us I'm not so certain of. I don't know what we get any special treatment - although 'goodwill' for being part of the commonwealth is probably worth something.

thundertaker · Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:11 am Post subject:

cassandrabandra wrote:
In more recent times we've sent our soldiers to fight other people's wars - I think the US will back us up in any conflict with our neighbours ... but that's because they like a rumble, not from any sense of loyalty, and I would be more inclined to count on their support than the Brits.

Eh? You think the americans would be more enthusiastic about backing up australia in a war than britain when we have closer ties of kindred (not to mention a shared head of state)?

Quote: I think membership of the commonwealth doesn't do us any harm - in terms of trade and international relations generally, but how much it actually benefits us I'm not so certain of. I don't know what we get any special treatment - although 'goodwill' for being part of the commonwealth is probably worth something.

Being in the commonwealth is not dependent on australia retaining the monarchy, however, as somebody has previously mentioned, becoming a republic would not affect the balance power in Australian politics, so what is the point of changing over to a republic? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Otherwise you may well end up breaking it.....

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 762

thundertaker wrote: Eh? You think the americans would be more enthusiastic about backing up australia in a war than britain when we have closer ties of kindred (not to mention a shared head of state)?

yep. strategically we are far more useful to them than the brits.

Quote:
Being in the commonwealth is not dependent on australia retaining the monarchy, however, as somebody has previously mentioned, becoming a republic would not affect the balance power in Australian politics, so what is the point of changing over to a republic? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Otherwise you may well end up breaking it.....

well then, there's no benefit at all ...

One thing I DO know, and that is if I catch the Chunnel Train from Europe it takes me a lot longer to get through passport control than people who don't share the same head of state, but have european nationality.

I must say that pisses me off and makes me think that any ties we have to your monarchy are worthless.

thundertaker · Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:24 am Post subject:

It doesn't take as long as someone from say, argentina. And you do realise that being australian resident in Britain means that you are qualified to vote in elections, stand for office, join the UK armed forces etc without having to become a citizen? Sadly, this is not reciprocated in Australia (unless you've been there since before 1984), but even so, being a commonwealth citizen gives you more rights and privileges in Britain than say, a Brazillian living in the UK....

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

Ireland has left the club, Scotland is on it's way Australia wouldn't like to be the one staying with Nigeria and Pakistan.

:-D
:-D

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 762

thundertaker wrote: It doesn't take as long as someone from say, argentina. And you do realise that being australian resident in Britain means that you are qualified to vote in elections, stand for office, join the UK armed forces etc without having to become a citizen? Sadly, this is not reciprocated in Australia (unless you've been there since before 1984), but even so, being a commonwealth citizen gives you more rights and privileges in Britain than say, a Brazillian living in the UK....

actually, it depends where you are in the queue if you are non EU.

I'm glad that you pointed out that I can still have those rights as a commonwealth citizen, and that we can still be part of the commonwealth AND a republic. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd definitely be voting against the monarchy.

I have nothing against them personally, but I think its time we moved on ...

thundertaker · Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:49 am Post subject:

cassandrabandra wrote:

I'm glad that you pointed out that I can still have those rights as a commonwealth citizen, and that we can still be part of the commonwealth AND a republic. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd definitely be voting against the monarchy.

But if I had my way, I would extend the same rights of British citizenship to all subjects of the queen, as most of those countries who retain her as head of state are first world democracies or tiny nations. That way we could stop ourselves being over-run by immigrants from all the poor, 3rd world banana republics within the commonwealth.
It's a practical idea, or would be if it wasn't for the bastions of political correctness within the establishment that would perceive it as racist.....

Quote: I have nothing against them personally, but I think its time we moved on ...

Why? Do you realise how much it would cost to make the changeover to a republic, the arguments that would ensue as to what form the republic should take? What is the point? The Queen does not excercise any power of the Australian people, and I'm sure there are better things for the government to be thinking of than how to replace a purely symbolic head of state....

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 762

thundertaker wrote:

Why? Do you realise how much it would cost to make the changeover to a republic, the arguments that would ensue as to what form the republic should take? What is the point? The Queen does not excercise any power of the Australian people, and I'm sure there are better things for the government to be thinking of than how to replace a purely symbolic head of state....

we can afford to do it now - our economy is looking very good. In the long run it would make very little difference ... the difference in cost between a governor general and a president is probably minimal to non existent. the debate over the form has been going on for a long time, and there seems to be a fairly good model, that would probably be acceptable.

In the past thundertaker, the majority of Australians were descended from your part of the world, but over the last few decades things are changing, those ties are weakening. I do not at all identify with England, my children less so. Our sense of humour is closer to the brits than the yanks, but it is also uniquely ours. We are ourselves.

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK · Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 8:51 am Post subject:

Lucky Luke wrote: Ireland has left the club, Scotland is on it's way Australia wouldn't like to be the one staying with Nigeria and Pakistan.

:-D
:-D

Thank christ we weren't discovered or settled by the French