Australian Republic or Commonwealth of Australia

[Glasses]

But that's what you think ^^. 

Obviously, which is why I used phrases such as "I don't believe..", "I think.." and "I view.."

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)

There is a relatively large social push for an Australian Republic, and by consequence, a new Australian flag. Polls show that the majority of Australians support Australia becoming a republic; especially when considering the prospect of Charles becoming our head of state. As well as that, the Australian Republic Movement is substantially increasing in members; and in response, Bill Shorten has made an election promise to hold a referendum on the republic within his first term of government (if elected).

[K888]

There is a relatively large social push for an Australian Republic, and by consequence, a new Australian flag.

I want a republic purely so I can vote for a flag design that has a kangaroo or emu with laser eyes on it

[Glasses]

I want a republic purely so I can vote for a flag design that has a kangaroo or emu with laser eyes on it

I present exhibit A.

[Calebark]

I want a republic purely so I can vote for a flag design that has a kangaroo or emu with laser eyes on it

You may be interested to know that there was a flag design for NZ that was similar to this

[The Special One]

I'm down for the return of the British Empire with brexit looming and China playing hardball.

Could use a trading partner like the UK.

I would love to retain a consititutional monarchy I personally hate republics.

[Calebark]

I would love to retain a consititutional monarchy I personally hate republics

Might I ask your reasoning for this?

Kings and queens and royals have that cool factor from fantasy novels (guilty), but in the real world, it's something I'm strongly against. Nobody should have morer or less power in society just because of who their parents are.

[The Special One]

Might I ask your reasoning for this?

Kings and queens and royals have that cool factor from fantasy novels (guilty), but in the real world, it's something I'm strongly against. Nobody should have morer or less power in society just because of who their parents are.

Well being from Europe I know a lot about European history and if I had to be honest a monarchy unites the people while a republic has the opposite effect.

You look at countries like the Kingdom of Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and they are among the happiest countries in the world with the lower crime rate.

Can we say a monarchy is awful then? And that is has no place and that republics are the future? I'm not convinced at all!

Greece was  a country which was much stronger politically and economically when it was a monarchy compared to a republic. .

I just heavily dislike republics as they encourage division and people don't have a figurehead to look to for accountability. It's always 'blame the opposite political party they screwed up vote us in and we will fix the mess they made' instead of the people and the head of state getting together to discuss the issues and what can be improved on  and what needs to change to represent the majority.

Cooperation over the blame game. And I know that you may say no one should have absolute power and you're right they shouldn't. But monarchies are constitutional these days and they can go beyond what is ruled in the constitution.

Besides who do we like better the queen or Tony Abbot?

[Calebark]

You look at countries like the Kingdom of Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and they are among the happiest countries in the world with the lower crime rate.

Can we say a monarchy is awful then? And that is has no place and that republics are the future? I'm not convinced at all!

I don't think we can say that the reason for their happiness is due to a monarchy. It's due to a range of factors, including easier access to tertiary education, great support programs for unemployed, more vacation days, a different work culture, accessible healthcare, etc. I think these are all factors that affect day-to-day life rather than having a royal.

Greece was  a country which was much stronger politically and economically when it was a monarchy compared to a republic.

What do you mean 'politically'? Greece voted 69-31 in a referendum to become a republic in 1974 -- that doesn't sound overly divisive, especially considering support for the monarchy has dwindled dramatically since.

I'm not too versed on Greek economics over the past half-century, so I can't comment too much, but I don't know how much of that we can pin on the presence -- or lack thereof -- of a king... these things are never pinned to one person.

I just heavily dislike republics as they encourage division and people don't have a figurehead to look to for accountability. It's always 'blame the opposite political party they screwed up vote us in and we will fix the mess they made' instead of the people and the head of state getting together to discuss the issues and what can be improved on  and what needs to change to represent the majority.

Division isn't always bad. Divison stems from discussion, and discussion is needed to progress. People have a right to their opinions. I don't really see why blaming a figurehead is a good idea... like you just said, they're a figurehead, so it's not their fault... so why blame them? So the people can lie to themselves? That can't be good.

The majority can be more easily represented by people the majority actually vote in, rather than somebody born to a rich family that conquered a bunch of shit years ago.

Besides who do we like better the queen or Tony Abbot?

I don't think that's relevant. My opinion of them as people is more to do with who they are (or what I know about them) rather than their positioning. That's like asking who we like better, King Leopold II or Kevin Rudd... it's easy to pick and choose like this.

[sudodds]

Well being from Europe I know a lot about European history and if I had to be honest a monarchy unites the people while a republic has the opposite effect.

I'm also from Europe (England to be exact), and I like to think I know a bit about history as well I wouldn't necessarily say that unity has always been the case under a monarch, particularly today - England is incredibly politically and socially divisive right now, as have many other nations with a monarchy in history.

You look at countries like the Kingdom of Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway and they are among the happiest countries in the world with the lower crime rate.

As Caleb said, very simplistic to just say that this is due to them being a constitutional monarchy. Iceland, Finland and Switzerland are also some of the happiest countries on earth according to the World Happiness Report (higher than the Netherlands and Sweden in fact), and they have been republics for some time. That doesn't mean then that all republics are good, and all monarchies are bad (even if I do inherently disagree with the system), it means that there are more nuances and issues that must be considered.

According to your logic, I could make the exact same argument with socialism - Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway have all embraced a more socialist system of governance, and are some of the happiest countries on earth, therefore socialism 100% works, without considering the nuances (I'm assuming given your stance on monarchy you would not be a fan of socialism, forgive me if I'm mistaken).

Greece was  a country which was much stronger politically and economically when it was a monarchy compared to a republic.

Again, this is too simplistic. Fails to account for problems with the EU and the euro, and poor financial management on the part of the government. Being pro-republic doesn't mean being pro every single government that exists. Shit governments exist, as do shit monarchs. America and Russia are some of the most powerful countries in the world, politically and economically - both of them are republics, and are fairing better than when they existed under monarchical rule (this is subjective, though there are definitely problems with their governments, some of which are VERY severe, and great income inequality definitely still exists, the overall standard of living for the general population has increased since getting rid of their monarchs).

I just heavily dislike republics as they encourage division and people don't have a figurehead to look to for accountability. It's always 'blame the opposite political party they screwed up vote us in and we will fix the mess they made' instead of the people and the head of state getting together to discuss the issues and what can be improved on  and what needs to change to represent the majority.

That'd be all well and good if you could guarantee that the person BORN for the role, rather than elected based on merit and experience, could do the job effectively. But you can't guarantee that. In my opinion, that is why I think monarchy is silly and reckless - you shouldn't give someone such an important position just because their mum and dad held the same position.

I'm not saying that democracy is fool proof - hardly, there are A LOT of issues. But there are a lot of issues with monarchies as well. What happens if the monarch is apathetic about the position, and doesn't really bother (eg. Tsar Nicholas II). What happens if the monarch is cruel, stupid or power hungry (eg. Kaiser Wilhelm II). Even in if it was a constitutional monarchy, and their powers are limited, if they don't do the job well, they shouldn't have the job. Furthermore, there is still very much so blaming of opposite political parties, and pleas for votes based on the incompetencies of the opposition in constitutional monarchies. Look at England! I feel like half of the news is just "Corbyn did this" and "Tories did that". The Queen is so far removed from the political system that nobody holds her accountable at all, not because she is doing her job well, but because really she doesn't have much of a job anymore. As an english person myself, I can say first hand that the only people I know that actively the monarchy are a few elderly individuals I know (mainly my grandpa). Other than that, everyone I know, from family, friends and aquaintences either dislike the concept of the royals, or are apathetic towards them.

Besides who do we like better the queen or Tony Abbot?

I'll take neither thanks. Besides, the Queen didn't even want to be the Queen anyway. Tbh I genuinely feel sorry for her - so much stress and heartache for a job that really doesn't need to exist anymore (imo).

Goodbye from Russia! (where it gets dark at 5pm so I need to find threads like this to pass the time )

[elysepopplewell]

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.

Yes! I'm with this!

[The Special One]

Whether I'm right wing or left wing doesn't matter as I think a monarchy should get the best of both worlds and compromise to suit the needs of the majority so if 70% is right wing and the rest 30% have a mostly right wing system but don't ignore the remainder.

Are those countries more socialist? Potentially but it's not a given at least   nothing to the extent of China or North Korea.

Another monarch is Japan which cannot be considered socialist but it's a technological marvel and again a country with problems but much less so than other Asian countries.

Most people list Canada and Australia as a more peaceful place to live than America.

Also is it fair to say Russia is better off? How many people died under Stalin since the revolution and how many under the Empire of Russia?

Now you hear of Putin killing political opponents and being a dictator. How many modern monarchs do or did this? Tsar Nicholas II certainly didn't but his whole family was killed for circumstances beyond his control.

throught  histroy you can see examples of monarchs caring  for their people, for example King Otto of Greece was chased out of his own country and exiled but he still loved Greece to his dying breath and was buried in his traditional  Greek national costume. What politicians would do the same?

Corruption is rife in republics look at Italy and Greece in Europe, as well as middle eastern and North African countries

I also forgot to add Belgium to my list of monarchies. 

And even in the Middle East with Minarchies  there the people are much happier and in Saudi Arabi women can now drive and progress is being made look at all the conflict in Syria with the government and rebels you don't know who to support.

I know Australia has problems now but it's one o the best places to life in and one of the most developed countries if we were not colonised by a monarchy would we be the successful nation we are today if we were colonised by let's say the Portuguese instead?

I don't think so and I don't think we should ignore our colonial roots by changing the flag.

[PhoenixxFire]

I really don’t see any way you can accurately compare these countries. There are so, so many factors that affect the outcome of these countries and their form of government only plays a small role in it.

You also can not compare a country like America, which has a directly elected president, to a country that does not.

The per capita cheese consumption correlates with the number of people who die by becoming tangled in their bedsheets, however I’m sure you will agree that one does not cause the other.

[The Special One]

So you're saying the system of government has very  little correlation with how happy a population of that country is?

As well as how peaceful it is internally and externally?

Because I would have to disagree if that's the case a system of  government  makes a big difference. Look st the divide in America for starters.

[Vaike]

-snip-

I really don’t see any way you can accurately compare these countries. There are so, so many factors that affect the outcome of these countries and their form of government only plays a small role in it.

You also can not compare a country like America, which has a directly elected president, to a country that does not.

The per capita cheese consumption correlates with the number of people who die by becoming tangled in their bedsheets, however I’m sure you will agree that one does not cause the other.

I'm with PhonexxFire. It's really important to understand the differences between correlation, causation and coincidence. Honestly, I think that implying that the variance between nations today can be simply explained by whether or not they are a constitutional monarchy or not, is an extremely shallow, straw-man like response to the issue.

[The Special One]

Well everyone has their own opinions but personally I would rather have a monarchy and going by the countries that have one they seem better off than republics worldwide just my 2 cents

I also studied religion and a monarchy is mentioned in the bible as the preferred type of governance for the people so that also has an impact as I'm a Christian.

I have a respect for history too and traditions  and don't want to go around changing everything that's from the last for the sake of change.

I'm very happy with a monarchy and I don't want change.