VCE Stuff > AN’s Language Analysis Club

2018 AA Club - Week 23

(1/3) > >>

scout:

--- Quote ---Background: the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's royal tour in Australia has reignited the debate about whether or not Australia should become a republic.
--- End quote ---

There's no reason to delay our republic debate

The visit by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Australia has been delightful, especially since the happy surprise announcement that they are expecting a baby. Today they will be welcomed with open arms by the people of Melbourne. Back in Britain, however, there is reportedly growing impatience concerning Australia’s uncomfortable impasse on whether to become a republic.

According to a new book, Buckingham Palace is frustrated that out of misplaced respect for the Queen some in Australia are delaying discussion of becoming a republic until after her death. The book calls this approach a ‘‘death watch’’.

Tying Australia’s political debate to this unhappy event is indeed gruesome and guarantees prolonged uncertainty. The Queen is now 92, but perhaps she will become the first centenarian monarch.

From her point of view, it is also bad for her successor. If Australia delays this debate until after her death, the reign of her eldest son will begin under the shadow of the loss of one of the monarchy’s crown jewels. The Queen, who at every stage in her reign has shown a total sense of responsibility to her duties, would be the last to want to shirk the burden of managing such a transition.

The republican debate has been put on the back burner in the past decade largely as a result of Australia’s fissile politics. The failure of the 1999 referendum on the issue underlined how hard it would be to move to a republic without bipartisan support, and that has been lacking in recent years, even when the prime minister was on side.

With a one-seat majority and then opposition leader Tony Abbott promising to fight tooth and claw for the monarchy, Julia Gillard first hit on the formula of shelving the republic until after Queen’s death. Similarly, when Australia’s most famous republican, Malcolm Turnbull, came to power in 2015 he did not fight for the cause for fear of antagonising the right-wing of his party, where Mr Abbott was still active. Fat lot of good that did.

The next election will pose a significant choice. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised to hold a plebiscite in the first term of a Labor government on whether Australia should become a republic. If the answer were ‘‘yes’’, he would then start consultations on the form of republican government to adopt.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is not closely identified with the debate, although he seems to favour current arrangements.

What the leak from the palace shows is that it is not disrespectful to the royal family to talk about the republic now. It makes sense to run the debate under the Queen, who has the experience to manage it. Her reign coincided with the end of the British Empire.

Nor is it a sign of disrespect to talk about the issue during the visit of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As they travel around Australia, the couple are showing themselves to be intelligent and modern adults. The duchess is an American who would understand exactly why Australia would not want to have a foreigner as its head of state.

The Age has long advocated that Australia should become a republic as a useful symbol of the reality that the historical ties to England are no longer the focus of our national identity. The republic is not the most important issue on the agenda. But there is no reason to delay it out of protocol.


Our long-term strategic interests lie with Britain

The Age continues to push the republican agenda (Editorial, 18/10) but there are bigger issues to address before we decide on our ideal head of state. Australia has not had a prime minister who has served out a single term since John Howard. In contrast, the monarchy has provided stability for years.

As seen this week, our record on foreign affairs is poor. Not only has Scott Morrison got China, Indonesia, Palestine and their allies off-side with an ill-informed stance on our embassy in Israel, but he has failed to eyeball Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Russia on issues (eg, the shooting down of flight MH17 and the Khashoggi killing) that have affected local and international communities. Why add the United Kingdom to this list? Why would we want to destroy a system that is not broken? Our long-term strategic interests are with the UK.

-Leigh Dawson, Kew

Anonymous:
Here is an introduction and body paragraphs. I struggled to fully understand the issue but I gave it ago. Feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.



Recently the debate has resurfaced regarding the issue of Australia becoming a republic targetted towards Australian citizens. In an editorial written for the age newspaper titled there is no reason to delay our republic debate, the anonymous author critically contends that Australia should stop placing the issue on the “back burner” and rather become a republic.  This is followed by a comment titled our long-term strategic interests lie with Britan, by Leigh Dawson. In a logical yet rational demeanour, Dawson argues that there are other urgent issues at hand and that the monarchy has provided “stability” to this country.


From the onset of the article, the anonymous author starts by introducing the positive news in Australia. By using words and phrases such as “delightful” and “welcomed with opened arms” which carry positive connotations of happiness and a sense of belonging. Therefore it instils a sense of positivity on the readers. Thus encouraging readers to consider the author's viewpoint on the issue as they are interested in the news. In addition by starting off by mentioning the Duke and Duchess “visit”. The author garners the attention of readers, gaining a sense of interest as they are more likely to be interested in the Duke and Duchess pregnancy announcement and their visit to Australia.

The writer then appeals to patriotism and loyalty to the monarch as delaying the issue will be bad for the queens “successor”. The appeal conjures a sense of suffering on readers.  as the sons ruling will start off with the “loss” of the “monarchy crown jewel” and that the “burden” will be difficult to “manage”. Thus this creates a sense of pity for the son who will have to deal with this If Australia continues to delay the debate as it will result in more difficult problems. This also positions the readers to urge politicians to make a decision as they do not want to deal with the impacts of delaying this issue.


The anonymous author shifts his tone from a formal to a more casual tone. By using words such as “cause” and phrases like”fat lot of good that did” the writer is able to engage with Australians by using phrases which they are familiar with. Thus he is able to assert his position that the government is delaying the choice until the queen's death. Thus readers are more likely to agree with his viewpoint due to the language choice used.  Furthermore, the writer uses the word “fissile” to describe the current state of Australis politics. By using a word that contains a negative connotation the writer is able to paint a vivid picture in the reader's heads of the volatile nature of the politics thus creating a sense of urgency in readers.

Dawson comment  juxtapose Australias problem of not having a prime minister serving more than a “single term” with the one of the Monarchy providing “stability” By comparing  these to issue, Dawson is able to show the reality of the current day and age, thus highlighting the fact that there are other urgent issues at hand. Thus readers are able to see for themselves that there are other problems there to deal with. In addition, Dawson reinforces his idea by providing specific examples of some of the problems faced in Australian politics such as the “embassy in Israel” which affect Australian citizens. Thus compelling readers to focus on the current issues instead of the long going debate of Australia becoming a republic.


 

juicethelemon:
Recent visit from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has ignited contentious debate within Australia, as Australians are conflicted upon the outcome of potentially manifesting into a republic nation. Titled, “There’s no reason to delay our republic debate,” the anonymous writer rationally avers the dispute as only natural and long awaited by the country and its citizens. However, accompanying the article, is a comment by Leigh Dawson who suggests that the British empire is the only constant within the Australian borders thus destroying it will only probe to be fatal for Australia’s welfare.

The writer initially concedes oppositions to the republic proposal as they illustrate the adverse effects of the divergence. Referencing to “death watch” as the method of choice by Australia who wish to wait until the Queen dies to instigate conversation about this issue implies the cynical disposition of the country and the “disrespect” for the Queen. By acknowledging the opposition’s claims, the writer is clear of the dichotomy that is established by this matter; those who wish for a future for Australia as a republic country and those who deem it inappropriate to the British empire. Hence, the writer compounds a rapport with readers particularly those who are opposed that provides emotional leverage when continuing with this discussion, hence subtly manipulating the readership to agree with the debate to agree to the republic Australia in the near future.

Addressing the presumable ‘disrespect’ that would follow Australia’s decision to break ties with the government, the writer challenges this idea by denouncing it as only plausible under current circumstances.  The writer suggests that it only “makes sense” to instigate the debate under the Queen herself who has for years “manag[ed]” Australia’s Commonwealth affairs.  Given this, the readers are more liable to perceive this notion as logical and hence less phlegmatic by Australians concerning the Queen’s temperament. Similarly, deducing the newly wedded couple of Sussex as “intelligent” and “modern adults” as a means to flatter their ability to discern Australia’s decision as pragmatic and almost deferential to the Queen as she is acknowledged to be a essential component to Australian affairs. Presenting the duchess who is an “American” offers correlation with the royal family and Australia’s intentions as the commonality of being controlled by “foreigners” justifies their purport. By addressing this, the writer is able to negate Australia’s wishes to segregate from British entities as discourteous hence encouraging patriotic Australian readers to view the country’s anticipated departure as an ability to rebuild the “national identity.”

Yet, opposing to this, Leigh Dawson illustrates that there are “bigger issues” than the questioning of Australia’s “head of state.” Dawson bolster the appalling behaviour of Australian politics that has failed to see a “single term” prime minister since “John Howard.” Highlighting this, Dawson refutes the oppositions argument as she confronts the fragility of those in power. Certainly, by residing with the Queen, readers are offered a sense of “stability” amongst the volatility that is Australian politics. Thus, readers are more inclined to castigate the rise of Australia as a republic nation in an attempt of maintaining an assured future. Alluding to the countries that have broken international ties with Australia and also the negligence in regards to addressing imperative foreign affairs further purports Dawson’s concept that Australia is merely not capable of being equipped with such monumental complications on their own. Listing this countries exposes to the readership of the possibility of threats that can arise and therefore meticulously orchestrating the question of whether “United Kingdom” should be added to this list. Vehemently posing such an argument, Dawson propels her audience to observe the issue holistically and realise the considerable repercussions that can unfold if Australia choses to become a Republic nation.

Ultimately, though the anonymous writer suggests Australia becoming a Republic positions the nation towards entitlement of their own identity, Dawson sagely begs the question to Australian citizens who desire to “destroy a system that it not broken” hence suggesting that there are much more demanding issues that need to be addressed by the Australian government.

Anonymous:
Hi! Could someone please read over my attempt at an introduction and give me some constructive criticism? I'm not very confident in my ability to analyse arguments and language, and would love to become more proficient in doing so before the beginning of year 12. Thanks!

A recent visit from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has reignited the polarising debate as to whether Australia should become a republic nation. In an editorial entitled “There’s no reason to delay our republic debate”, anonymous journalist for The Age contends that whilst such a change is of no particular urgency, Australia’s antiquated constitutional structure must eventually be altered in order for the country to establish a sense of independence from the Commonwealth and thus tweak the focus of our “national identity”. In response to this article, Leigh Dawson of Kew comments that such a change may jeopardise Australia’s political “stability” and as such, may instead prove detrimental to the well-being of the country.

Anonymous:

--- Quote from: Anonymous on October 22, 2018, 04:24:57 pm ---
Recently the debate has resurfaced regarding the issue of Australia becoming a republic targeted towards Australian citizens. In an editorial written for the age newspaper titled there is no reason to delay our republic debate, the anonymous author the editor critically contends that Australia should stop placing the issue on the “back burner” and rather become a republic.  This is followed by a comment titled our long-term strategic interests lie with Britan, by Leigh Dawson. In a logical yet rational essentially same demeanour, Dawson argues that there are other urgent issues at hand and that the monarchy has provided “stability” to this country.

From the onset of the article --> from the outset, the anonymous author starts by introducing the positive news in Australia what's the argument, though?. By using words and phrases such as “delightful” and “welcomed with opened arms” which carry positive connotations of happiness and a sense of belonging. Therefore it instils a sense of positivity on the readers - about what? . Thus encouraging readers to consider the author's viewpoint on the issue as they are interested in the news. In addition by starting off by mentioning the Duke and Duchess “visit”. The author garners the attention of readers, gaining a sense of interest as they are more likely to be interested in the Duke and Duchess pregnancy announcement and their visit to Australia.

The writer then appeals to patriotism and loyalty to the monarch as delaying the issue will be bad for the queens “successor”. The appeal conjures a sense of suffering on readers.  as the sons ruling will start off with the “loss” of the “monarchy crown jewel” and that the “burden” will be difficult to “manage”. Thus this creates a sense of pity for the son who will have to deal with this If Australia continues to delay the debate as it will result in more difficult problems. This also positions the readers to urge politicians to make a decision as they do not want to deal with the impacts of delaying this issue.


The anonymous author shifts his tone from a formal to a more casual tone. By using words such as “cause” and phrases like”fat lot of good that did” the writer is able to engage with Australians by using phrases which they are familiar with <-- how do you get to this conclusion --> Thus he is able to assert his position that the government is delaying the choice until the queen's death. Thus readers are more likely to agree with his viewpoint due to the language choice used.  Furthermore, the writer uses the word “fissile” to describe the current state of Australis politics. By using a word that contains a negative connotation the writer is able to paint a vivid picture in the reader's heads of the volatile nature of the politics thus creating a sense of urgency in readers better analysis

Dawson comment  juxtapose Australias problem of not having a prime minister serving more than a “single term” with the one of the Monarchy providing “stability” By comparing  these to issue, Dawson is able to show the reality of the current day and age <-- elaborate on this; what's wrong with the reality/status quo, thus highlighting the fact that there are other urgent issues at hand. Thus readers are able to see for themselves that there are other problems there to deal with. In addition, Dawson reinforces his idea by providing specific examples of some of the problems faced in Australian politics such as the “embassy in Israel” which affect Australian citizens. Thus compelling readers to focus on the current issues instead of the long going ongoing debate of Australia becoming a republic.


--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page