Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reudh]

Out of curiosity, what was meant by "Turn Australia into a republic", isn't Australia already a republic?

Australia is a Westminster Democracy. That is, the Queen or King of England is the head of state, and can elect to overrule the Prime Minister's decision.

But because there are so many countries in the Commonwealth that are still Westminsters, for efficiency a 'Governor-General' is put in place to represent the king or queen. The Governor-General's role is to make sure that the Commonwealth countries do not behave in a way counter to Britain's interests.

They do this by having the ability to overrule any decision made by the government though this is a very rarely used power.

It works like this.

- Prime Minister gets fed up with Britain and declares war on it.
- Governor-General says 'oh no s/he didn't', impeaches the PM, charges them with high treason, installs PM of their choice (and in such a situation, probably dissolves the party too)

It's only been used once, the GG's ability to overrule. That being in 1975, where Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was ejected from power and replaced by Malcolm Fraser as PM.
Governor-General Sir John Kerr was the one who chose this; the reason being that Whitlam had some political instability present in his party, and a bare majority over the Liberals. He called for a half-senate election, but instead,
Governor-General Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and installed Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister.

This among other things, caused massive outrage with the public, who felt that we were still little better than a colony of Britain as a result of Kerr's meddlings.
1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis.

As a result, in the late 1990s, a referendum was held to determine whether Australia should become a Republic, and sever our colonial ties with Britain.

It was defeated by the slimmest of margins. Voter turnout was 96%, and the results were thus:
54.8% No
45.2% yes

Most states voted no by a bare margin, but as Queensland, NSW and Victoria held the largest combined population, they ultimately had the deciding votes.

They voted no.

[Reelya]

The only caveat to that Queen's rule bit, is that the current Australian government appoints the Governor General, and the British monarch merely rubber-stamps the appointment.

The 1975 ouster of Goth Whitlam was linked to the CIA, not MI6

During the crisis, Whitlam had alleged that Country Party Leader Anthony had close links to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Subsequently, it was alleged that Kerr acted on behalf of the United States government in procuring Whitlam's dismissal. The most common allegation is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam. In 1966 Kerr had joined the Association for Cultural Freedom, a conservative group that was later revealed to have received CIA funding. Christopher Boyce, who was convicted for spying for the Soviet Union while an employee for a CIA contractor, claimed that the CIA wanted Whitlam removed from office because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including Pine Gap. Boyce said that Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr". Whitlam later wrote that Kerr did not need any encouragement from the CIA. However, he also said that in 1977 United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with him and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes.

So...Republican's do regime change in Australia, 1975, then the Democratic president Jimmy Carter in 1977 basically disavows what happened.

[Max White]

Although after that there was a constitutional upgrade that if the Big GG ever wanted to pull something similar, the new PM would need to be from the same party.
Although to be honest I would be surprised if Governor General remained as anything more than a token role. If anything like that ever happened again, there would be open revolt. Nobody cares what Ms. Bryce has to say.

EDIT: Oh hey, I just realized that the top three figures in Australia, that being Queen E-Lizard Beta, Convict Enforcer Bryce and Cut Throat Julia, are all woman. Cool.

[Mech#4]

I like having Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state. At least to my mind she's been quite the progressive monarchy and it would be a bit sad to lose such a connection. Can you guess I come from a family that tends to like having ties with the old country?  Besides, she does so little it's not much more then a token object that does little negative.

Whether that changes when the monarchy changes is... well... dependent on how well Prince Charles ends up comparing to his mother.

[Dutchling]

I was under the impressions that you were going to skip that fellow.

[kingfisher1112]

The only caveat to that Queen's rule bit, is that the current Australian government appoints the Governor General, and the British monarch merely rubber-stamps the appointment.

The 1975 ouster of Goth Whitlam was linked to the CIA, not MI6

During the crisis, Whitlam had alleged that Country Party Leader Anthony had close links to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Subsequently, it was alleged that Kerr acted on behalf of the United States government in procuring Whitlam's dismissal. The most common allegation is that the CIA influenced Kerr's decision to dismiss Whitlam. In 1966 Kerr had joined the Association for Cultural Freedom, a conservative group that was later revealed to have received CIA funding. Christopher Boyce, who was convicted for spying for the Soviet Union while an employee for a CIA contractor, claimed that the CIA wanted Whitlam removed from office because he threatened to close US military bases in Australia, including Pine Gap. Boyce said that Kerr was described by the CIA as "our man Kerr". Whitlam later wrote that Kerr did not need any encouragement from the CIA. However, he also said that in 1977 United States Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher made a special trip to Sydney to meet with him and told him, on behalf of US President Jimmy Carter, of his willingness to work with whatever government Australians elected, and that the US would never again interfere with Australia's democratic processes.

So...Republican's do regime change in Australia, 1975, then the Democratic president Jimmy Carter in 1977 basically disavows what happened.

Erm, Goth Whitlam?

[sneakey pete]

It was defeated by the slimmest of margins. Voter turnout was 96%, and the results were thus:
54.8% No
45.2% yes

I wouldn't call that a slim margin...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It was defeated by the slimmest of margins. Voter turnout was 96%, and the results were thus:
54.8% No
45.2% yes

I wouldn't call that a slim margin...

It is if you're pro-Commonwealth. Anything over 5% support would be a heart stopping near-doom margin for them.

[Scoops Novel]

I was under the impressions that you were going to skip that fellow.

I wonder how having a king will change things. More uncomfortably embedded then queens, i think.

[scriver]

"Uncomfortably embedded"? Come again?

[Scoops Novel]

It might be because it's catchier or the prominence of some historical figures, but saying "god save the king" strikes me as being more uncomfortable to more people then the current version.

[Owlbread]

Though Novel's written cadence is often nebulous, I agree with him here. I think people would find a King harder to take than a Queen. That's why Prince Charles would probably abdicate in favour of William and Kate - there's a strong female personality there. Having a strong female leader like Elizabeth covers up the ugliness of the monarchy.

[kingfisher1112]

Though Novel's written cadence is often nebulous, I agree with him here. I think people would find a King harder to take than a Queen. That's why Prince Charles would probably abdicate in favour of William and Kate - there's a strong female personality there.

Why would it be harder to take?

[Owlbread]

Why would it be harder to take?

It's rather hard to describe. Having a King i.e. Charles might show up the archaic, medieval nature of the system. I would hazard a guess that having a Queen as our unelected head of state, put there by god with the power to dissolve parliament and unto whom we are all subjects, not citizens, is more palatable to people than a King.

After all, if Northern Irish loyalists were jumping up and down bellowing that they were "Loyal to the King" it would sound different to "Loyal to the Queen". One sounds more progressive in that it shows a woman in a position of great power, one shows loyalty to a single man. Authoritarianism has been received better in the UK when it was exercised by a woman - e.g. Margaret Thatcher. If Margaret Thatcher had been a man with her policies I doubt she would have been so popular.

[kingfisher1112]

Why would it be harder to take?

It's rather hard to describe. Having a King i.e. Charles might show up the archaic, medieval nature of the system. I would hazard a guess that having a Queen as our unelected head of state, put there by god with the power to dissolve parliament and unto whom we are all subjects, not citizens, is more palatable to people than a King.

So basically Woman= New and 'Progrssive' and Male= Archaic and Medieval?