Australian Republic or Commonwealth of Australia

[MathsQuestIsBad]

Hey guys!

To me, this is a topic I'm a lot more interested and passionate about (a lot more than SSM). With Australia day just around the corner fueling speculations in regards to a plebiscite for an Australian republic, I'd love to get a gist of what this age group has to say! (Pro-monarch)

[vox nihili]

To be honest, I think that for the most part this generation doesn't really care. I have a mate who did some research in exactly this area and that is, by and large, what he concluded. There's an affection for the royal family among young people, but beyond that young people don't mind so much.


Personally, I think that we persist as a constitutional monarchy is an appalling anachronism. Not only does it demean us, it also ties us to the last vestiges of a morally corrupt empire that subjugated more than half of the world's population. When people say we shouldn't ditch the royal family because of "tradition" this is the tradition we're signing up to. In a modern, outward-looking Australia why it makes sense to have a non-elected, foreign head of state beats me.

I will qualify all of that, however, with the fact that I do not support a directly elected president. The model advanced at the referendum in 1999 (i.e. parliament appoints a GG as head of state) was a responsible model that I believe retains the stability that people crave whilst also giving the royal family the boot.

[brenden]

To be honest, I think that for the most part this generation doesn't really care. I have a mate who did some research in exactly this area and that is, by and large, what he concluded. There's an affection for the royal family among young people, but beyond that young people don't mind so much.


Personally, I think that we persist as a constitutional monarchy is an appalling anachronism. Not only does it demean us, it also ties us to the last vestiges of a morally corrupt empire that subjugated more than half of the world's population. When people say we shouldn't ditch the royal family because of "tradition" this is the tradition we're signing up to. In a modern, outward-looking Australia why it makes sense to have a non-elected, foreign head of state beats me.

I will qualify all of that, however, with the fact that I do not support a directly elected president. The model advanced at the referendum in 1999 (i.e. parliament appoints a GG as head of state) was a responsible model that I believe retains the stability that people crave whilst also giving the royal family the boot.

Pretty much sums it up.

[MathsQuestIsBad]

To be honest, I think that for the most part this generation doesn't really care. I have a mate who did some research in exactly this area and that is, by and large, what he concluded. There's an affection for the royal family among young people, but beyond that young people don't mind so much.


Personally, I think that we persist as a constitutional monarchy is an appalling anachronism. Not only does it demean us, it also ties us to the last vestiges of a morally corrupt empire that subjugated more than half of the world's population. When people say we shouldn't ditch the royal family because of "tradition" this is the tradition we're signing up to. In a modern, outward-looking Australia why it makes sense to have a non-elected, foreign head of state beats me.

I will qualify all of that, however, with the fact that I do not support a directly elected president. The model advanced at the referendum in 1999 (i.e. parliament appoints a GG as head of state) was a responsible model that I believe retains the stability that people crave whilst also giving the royal family the boot.

It's fair that there's affection for the royal family, I mean the pomp and circumstance is truly something to behold!

I personally think this "tradition" is certainly more than exploitation, corruption or imperialism. I also strongly disagree that a British head of state inhibits Australia's social advance. I myself do not have any Anglo ties but the British Empire has been a great advocate for globalisation despite brutal conquest; every empire or country will at some point subjugate and discriminate another, an idea of a republic almost seems to be a way to remove blemishes inconsistent with the contemporary Australia we live in. I don't quite understand what you mean by anachronism, the very idea of a monarch is for it to be timeless, regardless if their powers shift or not and we have seen a shift. The British monarch is almost completely ceremonial to this stage, it has almost no power over the Westminster system let alone Australia. I would also argue that criticism of the current royal family for their ancestral crimes is as unreasonable as blaming Germany for fascism, however I do understand the connotations people may hold.

Continuing from tradition, the tradition I think we are preserving are the ANZAC soldiers and their role in WW1. I also want to acknowledge that at the same time, ANZAC day is an opportunity for frivolous nationalism and the majority probably do not welcome that by any extent; I would however, respect the "for king and country" mindset that the ANZACs held. An Australian republic would almost discredit and dishonour the vain attempts of the ANZACs fighting for the commonwealth.

Thing is, I struggle to understand what kind of real benefit Australia will gain as a republic apart from basically being re-branded into a new country with a new independent identity. With all that money going into reforming parliament, government, judicial systems and heraldry, the financial losses far outweighs the new identity we're after. Having the GC as the proper head of state is beneficial for umpiring parliament to balance the powers of government and individual ministers as we saw in the 1975 constitutional crisis whilst also minimising corruption, I think this is something well keeping considering how incompetent Australian leaders have been recently.

Anyway, that's just a bit with what I have to say. I wish I were more articulate! D:

[Yertle the Turtle]

Personally I don't really care too much, but I do have more respect for British history than most people seem to and I am pro-Commonwealth. If we don't stay tied to the UK then we will have no stability. At present they don't interfere with our government, so what's the point of giving them the boot? It's useless except to rid ourselves of the history that we have.

[Quantum44]

I don’t have particularly strong feelings about the monarchy, but I am philosophically opposed to the idea of someone being born to rule; an idea perpetuated by the royal family. If people want to remain tied to the hollow existence of monarchs, then by all means keep Australia a Commonwealth, but I’d certainly be in favour of a Republic.

[Glasses]

Continuing from tradition, the tradition I think we are preserving are the ANZAC soldiers and their role in WW1. I also want to acknowledge that at the same time, ANZAC day is an opportunity for frivolous nationalism and the majority probably do not welcome that by any extent; I would however, respect the "for king and country" mindset that the ANZACs held. An Australian republic would almost discredit and dishonour the vain attempts of the ANZACs fighting for the commonwealth.

This is a really interesting point. However, I'd in fact argue that by becoming a Republic, we are further honouring the ANZACs. I say this because:
1) Following the role of the ANZACs in WW1, Australia came to be perceived, globally, as more of an independent nation. Consequently, an Australian Republic would uphold the memory of the ANZACs by continuing what they so greatly influenced - Australia's independence and national identity.
2) Ultimately, I feel like the ANZACs were never fighting for the Monarchy in WW1. Instead, I believe the soldiers were fighting for their families and their country - not another family (the Royal Family), nor another country (the UK).

Additionally, I think it's extremely important for people to understand that Australia could, and most likely would remain in the Commonwealth of Nations, despite becoming a republic. In fact, the majority of countries in the Commonwealth are republics.

If you haven't inferred from the above, I am a big supporter of Australia becoming a republic. Primarily (amongst other reasons) because I strongly disagree with someone simply being born into a position of Executive Power. I find this practice quite archaic, undemocratic and frankly bullshit.

Spoiler

Funnily enough, Australia becoming a Republic was the focus of my Year 12 Oral Presentation back in 2016.

[The Special One]

Okay before anyone starts talking about a republic submit a decent flag design for once for Pete's sake.

The proposed ones I've seen are dreadful simply dreadful, enough to turn anyone into a monarchist.

I would be extremely unhappy if Australia ever becomes a republic.

[Glasses]

Okay before anyone starts talking about a republic submit a decent flag design for once for Pete's sake.

The proposed ones I've seen are dreadful simply dreadful, enough to turn anyone into a monarchist.

Have you seen the current flag though? It's a bit shit that our flag is basically the same as New Zealand's. Obviously it's okay for Australians and Kiwis who recognise the difference, but I'm doubtful those overseas can distinguish between the Australian flag and the New Zealand flag.

Not to mention the fact that the current flag makes us look like the property of the UK, in my opinion.

[The Special One]

Have you seen the current flag though? It's a bit shit that our flag is basically the same as New Zealand's. Obviously it's okay for Australians and Kiwis who recognise the difference, but I'm doubtful those overseas can distinguish between the Australian flag and the New Zealand flag.

Not to mention the fact that the current flag makes us look like the property of the UK, in my opinion.

That's okay plenty of flags look similar look at Ivory Coast and Ireland for example. Can't expect anyone to know the difference and it doesn't matter as long as the residents of a nation recognise the difference.

Really I wouldn't consider it as a property of the UK as  it merely  recognises our colonial roots.

It's just a part of our history so it's reeesnted in the flag. Like the Union Jack is made up of the flag of England, flag of Ireland , Scotland and Wales ( kinda )

Our flag is made up of the Australian flag which has the stars and that famous constikation uniquento Australia.

And the Union Jack recognising our parent countries  historical  significance

[Glasses]

Really I wouldn't consider it as a property of the UK as  it merely  recognises our colonial roots.

I think the main issue is that it doesn't recognise the country Australia is, today. Even though technically Australia is still a constitutional monarchy, in practice, Australia is basically independent. So I don't believe our flag should continue to place such a significant emphasis on the UK.

And I'd argue that having the union jack on our flag goes beyond recognition of Australia's colonial roots. Instead, I view it as embracing and prioritising the time when the UK came to Australia; rather than embracing the diverse, independent and awesome country Australia is now.

[EEEEEEP]

I think the main issue is that it doesn't recognise the country Australia is, today. Even though technically Australia is still a constitutional monarchy, in practice, Australia is basically independent. So I don't believe our flag should continue to place such a significant emphasis on the UK.

And I'd argue that having the union jack on our flag goes beyond recognition of Australia's colonial roots. Instead, I view it as embracing and prioritising the time when the UK came to Australia; rather than embracing the diverse, independent and awesome country Australia is now.

But that's what you think ^^.

Others may think differently. If you ask some people what they think of the Australian flag or Australia, many will say that it represents diversity, a land of multiculturalism and well..  a land of opportunity. They don't think of the UK.

If people wanted the flag to change, there would have been a big social push .e.g. protests or change.orgs...  (but it really isn't a big issue . or something that needs changing in many people's minds)

As for the Flag looking similar to NZ, well what's so sh*t about it? The two countries are close and people migrate to and fro each other. 

[Yertle the Turtle]

Have you seen the current flag though? It's a bit shit that our flag is basically the same as New Zealand's. Obviously it's okay for Australians and Kiwis who recognise the difference, but I'm doubtful those overseas can distinguish between the Australian flag and the New Zealand flag.

Not to mention the fact that the current flag makes us look like the property of the UK, in my opinion.

I don't mind the current Australian flag, and the fact that it looks like the NZ flag doesn't matter since it will remind people that they are a rebellious colony of ours. I think that instead of people trying to change everything about Australia (flag, government, national day, etc) we should just respect the fact that it is that history that so many people hate that has brought us to the country that they say is unrepresented by these things. The nation is represented by these things, since what brought us to where we are today is our history, and there is no getting away from that.

[vox nihili]

The Griffith Review has devoted a whole edition to our relationship with the Commonwealth and its contemporary (ir)relevance. The Conversation are posting some for free. This one is really interesting: https://theconversation.com/relics-of-colonialism-the-whitlam-dismissal-and-the-fight-over-the-palace-letters-89310

Our flag is made up of the Australian flag which has the stars and that famous constikation uniquento Australia.

You do realise that you can see the Southern Cross literally everywhere in the southern hemisphere right?

I don't mind the current Australian flag, and the fact that it looks like the NZ flag doesn't matter since it will remind people that they are a rebellious colony of ours. I think that instead of people trying to change everything about Australia (flag, government, national day, etc) we should just respect the fact that it is that history that so many people hate that has brought us to the country that they say is unrepresented by these things. The nation is represented by these things, since what brought us to where we are today is our history, and there is no getting away from that.

New Zealand was never an Australian colony. It was briefly a part of New South Wales, but became its own separate entity under the Crown in 1841. They "rebelled", as you put it, because of a difference of opinion regarding the treatment of indigenous people. New Zealand was unwilling to join the now Australian colonies because it would mean adopting their laws to indigenous people, which they rightly judged as unduly harsh and inhumane.

[Vaike]

...since what brought us to where we are today is our history, and there is no getting away from that.

I don't think this train of thought is very logical. I think you'll find many countries all across the world attempting to distance themselves from their (often horrible) history. Remembering the past is indeed critical to prevent repetition of prior mistakes, and as a guide for decision making going forward. That doesn't mean we should accept that our all aspects of our history as a nation are okay and should be celebrated, nor should it mean that we ignore how it makes a given section of society feel. Just because past events have made what our country is today, doesn't mean that we can't be cognisant to cultural sensitivities that exist now.

I really, really do think that our past is a essential to our identity as a nation, and what has happened over the last 200 years or so here shouldn't be forgotten. And of course, there is much to celebrate, we live in an amazing country that has done amazing things. But I think it's dangerous to continue to live in the past, by clinging onto roots that no longer bear any relevance to our society today. Such attitudes may inhibit progression, and limit our prospects of creating a new chapter of history, perhaps a chapter that could be unanimously celebrated, rather than one that causes a stark divide.