Think before we get rid of the monarchy

Today in The Australian

Shorn of its bombast, the argument for becoming a republic is that it would complete the “Australianisation” of the office of head of state without altering the ­substance of our constitutional ­arrangements.

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas AO is a columnist for The Australian. From 2009 to 2015 he was Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia and from 2009 to 2017 was Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the University of Wollongong’s SMART Infrastructure Facility. He joined SMART and Deloitte after working as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Prior to that, he was an economist at the OECD in Paris from the late 1970s until the early 1990s. At the OECD, he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment (1984-1987), which concentrated on improving the efficiency of government policies in a wide range of areas, and was subsequently Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department. He has taught at a range of universities, undertaken a number of government inquiries and served as a Lay Member of the New Zealand High Court. In 2016, he was made an Officer in the Order of Australia.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to Think before we get rid of the monarchy

  1. A Lurker

    Conservative maxim – “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

  2. Jonesy

    No bloody way! As basic as it is, our constitution protects us from the full force of the leftist un backed dogma…a bill of rights written by the current crop of internationalists would leave the majority with no rights. Even section 18, as amended by my schoolmate leaves no protection from even stating truth of fact! Imagine the re-write? No! No republic for the simple fear of destroying the constitution. It aint broke!

  3. Crossie

    No republic for the simple fear of destroying the constitution.

    Our present constitution is a slim volume and does the job admirably. Europe’s runs into thousands of pages that nobody knows what it says but I expect that is the aim.

    No to republic for the same reason I voted against it in 1999, the idiots who want to bring it on do not have the nation’s best interest at heart. They all just want to be known as the father of the republic even if it’s a bastard child.

  4. hzhousewife

    Until we can all agree on a specifically described alternative (a pipe dream), I’ll stick with what we’ve got, thank you.

    Conservative maxim – “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

    and

    Our present constitution is a slim volume and does the job admirably

  5. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    There is no groundswell of public demand for any change. The left and both Shorten’s Labor Party and Lord Stumbull’s Labor Party are making a noise about it in response to whoever is the republican lobby.

    I do not know why they support change and I do not care, for the reason that they simply cannot be trusted. The lobby driving them has its interests clearly in focus, not the interests of Australians.

    In my lifetime the politicians have not been as far removed from ordinary Australians as they are now. Their priorities are firstly themselves, secondly themselves and, a long way third, whatever informal grouping they rely on for their standing, which may be found within or outside their party. Their party is merely a useful means of transport.

    Do not trust the governments and do not trust the Federal, State and Local bureaucracies. Make a point of showing distaste for the politicians’ presence whenever the opportunity arises.

  6. Peter

    “Shorn of its bombast, the argument for becoming a republic is that it would complete the “Australianisation” of the office of head of state without altering the ­substance of our constitutional ­arrangements.”

    The lie is that is that it would not complete the “Australianisation” of the head of state, it would instead increase the Americanization of that office by turning it into a Presidential system. Australian citizens have already shown that they will not trust politicians to appoint a figure head (which is what the present Governor General is, albeit an important figure head) to the top job. They fear that politicians could corrupt and politicize it in an effort to seek personal advantage by appointing their ideological mates (even though it could mirror what we presently have). And so Australians will only agree to an elected Head of State. An elected Head of State means a candidate with an electoral campaign and a platform to push. And inevitably that will be divisive – which is EXACTLY what the Head of State should not be.

    Which of course automatically also makes a lie of the second promise – that it would not alter the substance of our constitutional arrangements. It would instead destroy them. We will end up with more government, more elections and more chaos than we already have. Every time the Government does something the Opposition dislikes the new “president” (however named) will have an opportunity to use his bully pulpit to attack and undermine them if that is his inclination.

    And will the Left use that office ruthlessly to advance their own agenda? You betcha.

  7. Mundi

    If you want a leftist bill or rights, just read the UN human rights, and see how they behave.

    Also a president like America would be terrible. We need someone who is forced into question time at parliament.

  8. Ooh Honey Honey

    I know this is long, but it also has girth.
    *****
    We don’t need to be a Republic, but sadly Australians want a debate on the subject of the Republic, and the government wants to encourage it.
    The reason they want it is because all people have some appetite for discussion of large, philosophical themes, as it meets a need to feel as though they are significant players in world affairs.
    However “some” in most people is very little, and the stamina and rigor that they are able and willing to bring to philosophical debate is flimsy and will collapse into dust after exposure to and attempted analysis of the most meagre quantities of information.
    So there is a demand that must be met with a supply of topics for debate that are cartoonish in their simplicity, composed of nothing but empty clichés, like the fan paraphernalia you wave from the stands at a sporting event, that neither contain nor signify anything other than your desire to fit in with the mainstream or be an irascible outsider.
    The state and the media cooperatively supply the public with a constant stream of these topics: climate change, saying “sorry” to indigenous people, gay marriage, and now the Republic etc. – none of which will ever have any practical bearing or effect on the lives of most people; all potentially pathways to interesting philosophical discussion, but where none of this potential is ever developed because the participants in the debate generally have zero understanding of any of the platitudes they are retailing, and that’s fine. That’s the whole point. These topics are intended simply to soak up excess public passions. They confine the public awareness of politics to strictly harmless and meaningless topics so that the political and media classes can get on with their jobs.
    These topics are poured into the fishbowl of public discourse and the public obediently sucks it all down, consuming all the energy they would otherwise have available to get really interested, and really angry, about the things that really matter. Because if they were exposed to and allowed to think about those things for long, we wouldn’t be talking about “postal votes”, we would be buying ammunition.
    I haven’t got a fucking clue whether a republic or a monarchy is “better” or “worse” for Australia and the spectacle of fellow Australians earnestly debating this as though they had the remotest grasp of all the philosophical issues will be like watching a pack of chimpanzees fighting over a calculator.
    It is bread and circuses. Nothing more than a distraction that will make everyone feel righteous for whichever symbolic stand they take, and carefully inscribe on their social media CV, just like they did with all those other non-issues, and all the while politicians and media celebrities and subject matter experts will be front and centre stoking the debate, and the Turnbulls and Duttons and whoever else will exhibit faux concern and nod and agree like “MMmm yes Republic, so important, much impact, public debate, very democracy” and all the while the sweat will be trickling down their backs as they whisper to themselves through clenched teeth “For fuck’s sake don’t ask about how we have almost destroyed our manufacturing industry through regulation and interference, and don’t think about how we are importing hundreds of thousands of unemployable, fighting-aged men raised since infancy to harbour murderous hostility for every value we hold dear, and for Christ’s sake don’t start looking at all the domestic violence and child sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities, and dear God don’t start quizzing us on how public sector spending is robbing future generations of Australians of all their prosperity.”
    And none of them will. They will all continue to give a shit about whether we are a Republic. I don’t.

  9. entropy

    In my lifetime the politicians have not been as far removed from ordinary Australians as they are now. Their priorities are firstly themselves, secondly themselves and, a long way third, whatever informal grouping they rely on for their standing, which may be found within or outside their party. Their party is merely a useful means of transport.

    Quite effing so.
    The cause of our present malaise in a nutshell.

    Needs to be a liberty quote if ever there was one.

  10. Texas Jack

    Agree with the comments above, but what to do? The republicans are never going to stop. Maybe not this decade, or the next, but eventually they’ll find a profitable seam of public sentiment to mine and they’ll seize their moment. Jones and Flint won’t live forever, and an old-guard of the Liberal Party is no longer recognisable.

    I care far more about the form of constitutional arrangements than I do about the position of the royals within them. I’d far rather parley with the republicans today than run any risk of a banana republic disaster down the track. If an ultra-minimalist position were on the table today, with all that that might entail for how to appoint a Governor General (yes), I’d go for it with open arms.

    Sorry!

  11. Ainsley Hayes

    For some reason last year, there was a stall for the ARM at Canberra’s multiculti festival. I truly enjoyed giving one poor hapless volunteer an earful about my views on their republic. He was earnest and sweet but unprepared.

    I was keen, inter alia, to know which type of republic he wanted – Congolese, Nork-style or American etc? What did he mean precisely when he spoke about having a republic? Would his movement actually publish nitty gritty details of how their fave design might work and what benefits would it bring and to whom…cui bono? Had he forgotten that for most Australians any politician proposing something ‘for our own good’ or ‘for democracy’ is the very time to run away and hide?

    I also reminded him of the old saying, which do you want as a national leader – a figurehead or a dickhead? Governments, as Belgium proved a few years ago, are really at their very best when they are busy being ceremonial and not interfering with people’s lives and choices.

  12. Chris M

    Our “Australianisation” was complete when Kevin Rudd was elected, most Aussie bloke evah! Hahahaha….

  13. Mother Lode

    What is the benefit of having the British Monarch as our Head of State?

    Most of the time she does nothing – it is the GG that is part of the mechanics of government. Most of the time it is as if she isn’t there.

    It is not who the Monarch is. By and large she need not exist. Who the GG is is the key. Have we had good choices? When Barbie Doll was GG was the Queen able to pull her back in line?

    Would we essentially have the same arrangement by appointing a ‘President’ with the same criteria and constraints as the current GG?

    At the moment the Monarch is Elizabeth II, and she has been wonderful. Calming, measured, impervious to controversy, always decorous and sublimely elevated.

    The next Monarch will either be that greeny gull, Charles. And if anything happens to William, we will get King Harry, who just recently had a bromance with Obama.

    And through all this our effective Head of State will remain the GG.

  14. The USSR had a Constitution too.
    Just sayin’…

  15. harry buttle

    I’ll trade them a republic for freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

  16. Rococo Liberal

    What happens to the States? Do they all have to become little republics too? Or will the monarch still be the HoS of NSW or Tasmania but not of Australia?

  17. 2dogs

    The states must go first.

    After the first state to become a republic flops, we will have learned enough to either not do it, or do it properly.

  18. Up The Workers!

    Just as a man can be known by his choice of friends, so can an idea be assessed by a study of its supporters.

    Look at the seedy bunch of carpet-baggers, Leftards, crooks and degenerates who flog the alleged benefits of a “republic”, and contrast them with those in favour of the status quo.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of an Australian Republic, OTHER THAN the oily bunch of untrustworthy shysters who push the concept.

    By the same token, there is nothing inherently wrong with our current system, and the people who wish to preserve it are NOT a bunch of anti-Australian Leftards, so if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it (and especially don’t trust a Leftard who promises to do so).

    I have no love for that family of bastardised krauts who reside in Buck Palace – at this distance, they’re a pretty benign bunch from our perspective – but I’ve a damned sight less respect for those pocket-lining Leftard shysters and carpet-baggers who see virtue in the future appointment of a President Gillard, Rudd, Short-One, Setka, Alwaysleazy, Turncoat, or Halfwit-Bung.

  19. Snoopy

    And if anything happens to William, we will get King Harry,

    Wrong.

  20. struth

    Yeah, let’s talk about a republic.
    Three journalists in the Press Gallery and a fuckwit with a too tight bandana want one.
    That’s public opinion according to our traitorous scumbag PM who’s head of state is Antonio Guterres.

    There is no such thing as public opinion, only printed opinion, a wise Churchill once said.

    I’m getting to be so much more less diplomatic. So bandanaman and your 3 supporters, just shut up and fuck off.

  21. Texas Jack

    struth
    #2607829, posted on January 12, 2018 at 10:10 am

    Three journalists in the Press Gallery and a fuckwit with a too tight bandana want one.
    That’s public opinion according to our traitorous scumbag PM who’s head of state is Antonio Guterres.

    Hear. Hear. Comment of the week?

  22. The ONLY reason why these virtue signalling arseholes want a republic is so that they can say “look at us, aren’t we the tolerant, diverse, multi-culti globalists. We elected a fat, incoherent, disabled, black lesbian muzzie sheila as our head of state.”
    These retards don’t care how much damage they cause to our nation because they hate our nation. That red bandana wearing knucklehead is first among them.

    Our present system is the best in the World precisely because the all powerful office of a head of state lies with a person who would NEVER USE THAT POWER.
    How do the virtue signalling leftards feel about the one and only time some of that power was used back in the 70s by John Kerr?

    Our Governor General signs some papers and performs the odd ceremonial shite. He is essentially the office assistant to the Head of State. A genius system if ever there was one.

  23. Roger

    If you ask me, a system in which the head of state resides 17 000 kms away and takes little real interest in our affairs other than reviewing official papers is just about perfect.

    “Australianisation” means the Left gaining control of the office and using it to harangue us everyday.

  24. chrism

    my teen said ” aren’t we meant to avoid Nationalism? isn’t that what the Germans did? won’t we be out of the Commonwealth Games? will we end up like America? “

  25. Cassie of Sydney

    I might be a republican in my heart BUT my head is quite happy with our existing system. I will NEVER ever subscribe to or join a republican movement headed by that hideous and mediocre hypocritical windbag turd aka the red bandanna roach …..”Mrs Wilkinson”. Actually the best thing going for the monarchist movement is the red bandanna wearing Mrs Wilkinson.

  26. Cassie of Sydney

    I love Struth’s posts.

  27. candy

    On thinking about it, I wonder if Peter FitzSimons sees himself as President and that is what he is aiming for. The way his wife is always putting herself forward too suggests she sees herself as President or Mrs President. A lady President is what the Left would like, so perhaps it’s about getting her into the job, if it happened. The pair of them never give up on it, do they.

    In any case, it is very alarming that Turnbull/Shorten/Di Natale would be allowed near the Constitution. Of the three, Bill Shorten would be the most modest so perhaps it is a long held policy for Labor, but I am very doubtful about the motives of these elite gentlemen.

  28. struth

    Thank you for the positive comments there.

    Isn’t it the case that our constitutional monarchy is worth keeping because the royals are actually irrelevant?

    We don’t get any of them.
    Who cares who is the king or queen?

    I bet they don’t want this to come in before the Commonwealth Games in QLD.

  29. closeapproximation

    Not broken!!!!

  30. Linden

    The only way a republic can up is for the head or state President to be elected by the means of a general election, which is not what the proponets want. An elected President would have more political power than that of the elected Prime Minister, and to my simple of thinking, is and will always be the stumbling block. I cannot see how they think that an appointed head of state or President would accepted by the people. Why then do not these propenets for a Republic start putting up ideas as to how they will do it? As far as effecting the constitution it has massive ramifications. Oh what fun!

  31. struth

    my teen said ” aren’t we meant to avoid Nationalism? isn’t that what the Germans did? won’t we be out of the Commonwealth Games? will we end up like America? “

    This is the bullshit taught in schools……………………………….avoiding nationalism, because Hitler.

    The national part wasn’t the problem, the SOCIALIST part was the problem.
    That’s why all the other nationalists in their nationalist uniforms from western capitalist countries had to come in and fight them.

    What did you tell your teenager, if I may ask?

  32. struth

    The Rebublic question coming up now is a diversion squirrel.

  33. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    On thinking about it, I wonder if Peter FitzSimons sees himself as President and that is what he is aiming for

    I’ll bet good money Malcolm Turnbull sees himself as first President, followed by Julia Gilliard, and Gillian Triggs.

  34. Dr Fred Lenin

    Have the evil u.n.communist puppets we call politicians finally agreed on a working model for their peoples decromatic socialite republic? last time they couldn’t agree if the pres should be elected in or chosen by the other crooked mongrels. The republic will be just anther oppressed province] of the mighty central committee of the u.n.communist party ,the muppets “constitution”will be a doozy , and I am not copied straight from the evil agenda 21,the president will be ,like the politicians chosen for loyalty to agenda 21 and ability to steal enough to pay the bribes the party officials will demand so they don’t end up in a gulag on charges Of deviationism . It is a proven fact that the European monarchies have been the most stable counties ,less politics more freedom .

  35. Tim Neilson

    It’s all very simple.
    We amend the Constitution so that the next monarch isn’t Charles, it’s Scottie Chisholm, the indigenous ex-Dockers and Demons player who’s reputed to be an illegitimate descendant of King Edward VIII (the one who abdicated).
    The duties of a monarch remain unchanged – i.e. just appoint (and if necessary sack) a GG, with the convention being that that’s done only on the advice of the PM.
    The succession then passes to Scottie’s heirs under exactly he same rules as currently apply to the Royals except that instead of a prohibition on Catholics we have a prohibition on Muslims. (Anyone who knows their 18th century history will see that that’s an inexorably logical update to the rules.)
    Thus we actually don’t change the system at all, and we don’t even abandon the genetic link by descent to Alfred the Great and the other great monarchs of history, but we “Australianise” it.
    Are there any racists out there who oppose the “Scottie for King” movement?

  36. Speedbox

    Any Australian President will be a political appointment. Whether elected by the Parliament (by two thirds majority) or by popular election, the end result will be fully immersed in politics.

    Expect the big push to start when Elizabeth II dies. In the meantime, the subtle work is starting now. A few years of softening up the public to the idea, the Queen dies, unbridled ridicule of Charles and Camilla orchestrated by the left and the media resulting in final push to a republic referendum. The ARM are playing the long game. They know it is imperative to achieve republicanism before William becomes King meaning they have a 20-30 year window of opportunity during the reign of King Charles.

    The left are experts at this strategy.

  37. candy

    I’ll bet good money Malcolm Turnbull sees himself as first President, followed by Julia Gilliard, and Gillian Triggs.

    Malcolm Turnbull definitely. But I’m thinking the Lefty media types will be eyeing off this role. Waleed Aly, Carrie Bickmore, Leigh Sales, Lisa Wilkinson. The big names, looking for a global role that does not require any qualifications or political experience or any knowledge of the Constitution itself, but media savvy and some kind of “glamour” or “charisma”, to replace the genuine subtle glamour of the Royal family.

  38. Tim Neilson

    unbridled ridicule of Charles and Camilla orchestrated by the left

    If that’s all it takes a republic is inevitable.

  39. candy

    Not forgetting Karl Stefanovic. It’s safe to say he would be dreaming of the role of President.

    Anyways, people of that ilk, would be eyeing off the role. Not so much political, but for the glamour and global arena and perhaps some chance of influencing the sitting PM.

    I would say it would be a very desirable position in the eyes of the Left.

  40. Just remember how Eddie Obeid would have for decades ticked so many boxes to be Prez.
    By comparison the Windsors do us no harm.

  41. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Malcolm Turnbull definitely. But I’m thinking the Lefty media types will be eyeing off this role. Waleed Aly, Carrie Bickmore, Leigh Sales, Lisa Wilkinson

    Yassminn Axle Magpie ticks all the boxes…

  42. stackja

    Just change the constitution replacing Queen as HOS. Leave the details to MPs. What could possibly go wrong?

  43. candy

    Yassminn Axle Magpie ticks all the boxes…</e

    Very doubtful, Zulu. She's a complete unknown to most. Even Waleed Aly might be too much diversity.
    I'm thinking individuals like Karl Stefanovic would be more the option by the anti Monarchists.

  44. Roger

    Yassminn Axle Magpie ticks all the boxes…

    I’d like to think even the citizens of a failed socialist republic would like their head of state to have a little more dignity than a failed engineer with an overbite in a turban.

    At least Tim Southpossumarse has a PhD and wears a suit most of the time.

  45. Snoopy

    Can you imagine how insufferably out of control another Holy Billy would be if he was President rather than merely GG?

  46. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Can you imagine how insufferably out of control another Holy Billy would be if he was President rather than merely GG?

    Not without shuddering, no. All that sanctimoniousness..

  47. struth

    And introducing the President of the People’s Republic of Hivisastan, Ernie Dingo.

  48. Roger

    Can you imagine how insufferably out of control another Holy Billy would be if he was President rather than merely GG?

    Lex Lasry, come on down!

  49. Terry

    I’ve often said Australian Republicans have no problem with the Monarchy, they’re just upset that they’re not it.

    Look at those involved. A veritable cesspit of shallow, unenlightened narcissists.

    This is why the extent of their proposed changes are limited to a direct swap of the current Monarch with one (this time called a President) elected by them, because Australians need their very own Head of State but somehow can’t be trusted to make that appointment themselves.

    Sure, this time it becomes an “elected” position and they can all share it around amongst their cabal at the exclusion of citizens not part of their broader, self-appointed “royal” family.

    If people want to change our constitution, then there is a mechanism within it to do just that.

    Let’s have that debate about what could be changed and why we might want to do that.

    The theme throughout should ALWAYS be, how can the freedoms of individual citizens be further protected from the ever-present malevolence of existing and potential authoritarians, domestic and foreign.

    The problem with such an undertaking remains the complete unpreparedness of our citizenry, largely due to decades of socialist-inspired non-education of what the constitution is and what it is meant to do.

  50. Leo G

    The problem with such an undertaking remains the complete unpreparedness of our citizenry, largely due to decades of socialist-inspired non-education of what the constitution is and what it is meant to do.

    As reflected by the failure of the citizenry to grasp that, whatever else they may be, the Australian governments (federal, state and local) are all liberal republics.

  51. Bruce of Newcastle

    The New York Times thinks monarchies are a good idea.

    NYT: Countries With Monarchies Better, More Stable, Richer, and Unified (Monday)

    Does that mean Mal wants Australia to be:

    A. worse
    B. less stable
    C. poorer, or
    D. divided?

  52. Stimpson J. Cat

    I’m torn.
    On the one hand is the eternal war against the Royal Reptilian Menace.
    On the other hand I like the flag the way it is.

  53. Rohan

    Does that mean Mal wants Australia to be:

    A. worse
    B. less stable
    C. poorer, or
    D. divided?

    Or E. All of the above?

  54. Rohan

    Jonesy
    #2607721, posted on January 12, 2018 at 6:09 am
    No bloody way! As basic as it is, our constitution protects us from the full force of the leftist un backed dogma…a bill of rights written by the current crop of internationalists would leave the majority with no rights.

    Agreed. It would likely become our version of The Enabling Act, just ripe for the forthcoming Reichstag Fire Decree.

  55. Viva

    People will always find reasons not to change to a Republic.

    A Republic requires republicans just as a democracy requires democrats.Australia will just coast along with the status quo …. until it decides to get out from under the fear that without the British monarch our system will fail.

    It’s all a question of confidence. If failure to agree on a model persists it will be evidence that the will to bring in a workable and credible solution isn’t there yet.

    And please brandishing the possibility of Dick Smith and Kylie as Head of State doesn’t necessarily wash. People like Sir Ninian Stephen and the current GG will continue to be the likely office holders of Head of State.

  56. Boambee John

    candy at 1039

    very doubtful about the motives of these elite gentlemen

    Apart from their own self assessment, what gives you the idea that these fools are in any way “elite”?

  57. egg_

    Adam Goodes for Prez?

    We will truly be a Banana Republic.

  58. candy

    Apart from their own self assessment, what gives you the idea that these fools are in any way “elite”?

    Just their position in life – job/social strata/attendant wealth, ability to influence and form public policy.

  59. yarpos

    Most likely it will happen as none of the arguments presented here get out to the general public, the mainstream media always trots out some crusty old far that wants to cling to the UKs apron strings and looks a fool. Personally I would like to see a problem statement , so I understand the what is being fixed and the consequences of doing nothing.

  60. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    And please brandishing the possibility of Dick Smith and Kylie as Head of State doesn’t necessarily wash. People like Sir Ninian Stephen and the current GG will continue to be the likely office holders of Head of State.

    I wish I shared your cofidence

  61. Mother Lode

    Snoopy
    #2607827, p
    osted on January 12, 2018 at 10:09 am
    And if anything happens to William, we will get King Harry,

    Wrong.

    Ha. Don’t know why I went momentarily blind on William’s kids.

    Nevertheless, I think Elizabeth is the last of a breed.

    I have no enthusiasm for the Republican movement. I think they all secretly believe they should be made President, and have a weird disaffection toward the very benign monarch we already have.

    I just doubt the next generations of monarchs are going to be able to avoid embarrassing themselves. Not helped by the fact that even the conservative politicians in Britain are determined to unravel the fabric that the Queen is woven into.

  62. Norman Church

    It is true that ‘public opinion’ wants a debate on the republic if that term is defined to mean the insular and asinine bleatings of doctor’s wives, members of the Canberra Press Gallery and assorted inner-city trendies. In other words, the views of those who make up the PM’s sounding board and core constituency.

    I think that, secretly, the PM admires Gough Whitlam and wants to seen in the same light by those who love Gough’s legacy. The PM wants to deliver a republic as an adjunct to his legacy in delivering SSM. I really believe that the PM judges success in the same way as the left see Gough Whitlam as a successful PM. By reference to one’s ability to transform the country by imposition of so-called ‘Progressive’ policies and values.

    Yassminn Axle Magpie is exactly the type of person that the left would support as President for symbolic reasons. Migrant, dark-skinned, female, a pig ignorant and blinkered follower of PC dogma. Possibly a whale. She ticks so many boxes.

    There is a tangible risk that appointment of a President would rapidly be transformed into a process akin to the Australian of the Year awards. It would be replete with moral posturing, virtue signalling and a deliberate FU from our ‘elders and betters’ to the great unwashed.

    From a novelty viewpoint, I suppose that Yassminn Axle Magpie would have some value. I suspect that the Presidents of few countries in the world could eat a toffee apple through a tennis racquet. With those choppers. Yassminn Axle Magpie could eat a dozen without difficulty.

  63. Boambee John

    candy

    Tbeir positions in life largely come from nepotism and mutual back scratching. (I was going to say another mutual activity, but decided to use the milder expression.)

  64. Cassie of Sydney

    “There is a tangible risk that appointment of a President would rapidly be transformed into a process akin to the Australian of the Year awards. It would be replete with moral posturing, virtue signalling and a deliberate FU from our ‘elders and betters’ to the great unwashed”. Excellent point. So let us imagine Adam Goodes, Rose Batty, Geoffrey Rush, David Morrison etc. as President. I think I will go away and vomit.

  65. Cassie of Sydney

    And I forgot to add that climate catastrophist and well known dickhead called Tim Flannery. Imagine him as President?

  66. I’ll trade them a republic for freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

    Gimme the US 1st and 2nd amendments and I’m on-board, IF I get them before we have presidential elections.

  67. ArthurB

    Our nation, once egalitarian and successful, has been taken over by the Left, whose chief characteristic is that everything that they touch turns into shit.

    If the old saying — that a nation gets the politicians it deserves — is true, it is also true that the converse applies: politicians eventually create the electorate they deserve. The rulers of this nation have destroyed the education system, thereby creating people who are unable to distinguish between propaganda and truth. They have also allowed our nation to be colonised by hordes of immigrants who are hostile to our culture, they are brought in because the Left believes they will vote Labor.

    It is no coincidence that the issue of the republic is suddenly back on the agenda, and is being pursued by the Left and its servant, the ABC. Having won the campaign over SSM, the Left is now applying the same tactics to the introduction to a republic. We will get a barrage of propaganda from the usual suspects, and, such is the abysmal state of debate in this country, they have a good chance of winning.

  68. Dr Fred Lenin

    Just look at the dickheads who have actually been elected pres of the USA the semi literate clown bushwho strated the massive muslim illegal migrations ,by killing the thugs who kept the lid on . [this was carried on by the two Bob lawyer who was elected and got a Nobble Prize for being half black ,ably abetted by the wife of another two Bob lawyer Clinton then the elites had the nerve to stand the crooked bitch for president . We don’tneed a republic when you see the calibre of “leaders we pick ,the crazed psycho krud ,the theiving harlot giliard the failure in law, merchant-t banking and politics turnbull and potentially the corrupt rapist shortass . The west needs a prolonged guillotineing period to restore sanity.

  69. paul machey

    There are as many busted arse monarchies if not more than republics we’ve even got a few as neighbours PNG, Soloman Islands, Samoa, Malaysia etc.
    The big difference with our monarch versus the rest of the real world is that the monarch is a pom..yes a foreigner who lives on the other side of the planet who has a regal visit every 10 years or so to unveil new hospitals, and infrastructure plaques all named after her/him, visit the armed forces who pledge their allegiance to her/him then go home.
    If there is any dignity in not even having your own head of state I’d like to know where it is, of course all the monarchists are basically 2nd-3rd generation poms (south seas poms) and with a population of 80% anglos and nearly 2 million poms in the country (more than in the Canada and US combined haha) its no wonder we have this indignant pathetic situation, by the way given that half the country is republican the notion that the monarch is an independent umpire is flawed, they will favour whoever wants to keep them in power.

  70. mh

    …the argument for becoming a republic is that it would complete the “Australianisation” of the office of head of state

    Our current immigration intake shows a blatant disregard for keeping anything Australian, so anyone with a few functioning brain cells knows that the argument is total bullshit.

  71. mh

    Donald Trump highlights once again the debate that we actually need:

    Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?

  72. Ross Willis

    Typical lefty idea. No benefits spelled out and proven, no real tangible description of what it is – and I’ll bet every lefty has a different view of what a ‘Republic’ looks like and how it functions. Enough with the social engineering. We live in a wonderful democracy, people love the Queen and love Prince William even more. I’m more concerned about Government expenditure and it’s associated indebtedness, the narrowing bandwidth of our economy. The rise of extremism – left, right and Islamic, power prices, the erosion and hollowing out of culture by the mongrel left and the attacks on free speech. No one I know cares about becoming a republic – so to all you air headed lefties with a million views of what a Republic might be – sod off.

  73. struth

    It’s all a question of confidence. If failure to agree on a model persists it will be evidence that the will to bring in a workable and credible solution isn’t there yet.

    This is bullshit, and typical leftist spin.

    …. until it decides to get out from under the fear that without the British monarch our system will fail.

    We are already without the British Monarch.
    The Australia act gave us a non existent crown, known as the queen of Australia.

    We are confident, and therefore we see no need to change.

    We effectively now have no monarch except a symbolic one, and mature recognition of what country gave birth to this one.
    A historical recognition.
    Mature adults get this.
    Our problems stem from our politicians being unconstitutional in their actions.
    So how could you trust these bunch of unconstitutional U.N. policy activation officers to word a republic constitution that they wouldn’t be able to blow holes in, for their own purposes?

    We don’t need a person for a head of state.
    We need a crown who’s wearer stays the f..ck out of things.

    That’s true confidence.
    Leftist always want leading by someone.
    That’s not confidence.
    Confident people control their lives and their government.
    Unconfident lefties piss their pants and need a “leader”

    Please don’t equate a lack of confidence with wanting to stay a constitutional monarchy with no real leader and a sovereign people in charge of their own government, (we’ve just got to get back control from this traitorous lot) because the reverse is true.

  74. Terry

    “From a novelty viewpoint, I suppose that Yassminn Axle Magpie would have some value.”

    Value? Absolutely. We could have a number of ‘firsts’ as we descend the socialist sinkhole.

    Just imagine. We could have:

    * A changed constitution allowing our very own AUSTRALIAN president (just so long as they’re a marxist, globalist and hate the place); followed by

    * Our very first military coup (how progressive would that be – especially if the David Morrisson types are still running the show). I can picture a Bill Leak Cartoon with rainbows, but stilettos instead of jackboots; and then maybe even

    * Our very own civil war (tribe against tribe) – haven’t had one of those yet (State Of Origin does not count – not quite anyway). We could even televise it live on theirABC. A rating bonanza (not that that sort of thing worries them much).

    C’mon Australia, do you want to remain an international back-water. It’s 2018 for god’s sake. Time to let go of the past and let some totalitarianism in so we can “progress” our society towards the vision our betters have always dreamt for us.

  75. Terry

    struth
    #2608222, posted on January 12, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    +1

  76. Paul

    A Lurker
    Conservative maxim – “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

    Socialist maxim – if it’s not broke, tax it.

  77. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Viva at 12:55 pm:

    “People will always find reasons not to change to a Republic.”

    Kicks off with a cliché – how about the alternative, mate? Carpetbaggers will always find reasons to create a republic from which they will profit.

    “A Republic requires republicans just as a democracy requires democrats.Australia will just coast along with the status quo …. until it decides to get out from under the fear that without the British monarch our system will fail.”

    Another meaningless statement which proves nothing. Prove that there is a “fear” at large “that without the British monarch our system will fail”.

    “It’s all a question of confidence. If failure to agree on a model persists it will be evidence that the will to bring in a workable and credible solution isn’t there yet.”

    “It’s”? What “It’s”? What are you asserting is founded on “Confidence”? More meaningless words.

    Then you finish with a grand platitude.

    “And please brandishing the possibility of Dick Smith and Kylie as Head of State doesn’t necessarily wash. People like Sir Ninian Stephen and the current GG will continue to be the likely office holders of Head of State.”

    How do you know? Last time around people like Lord Stumbles of Wentworth clearly saw themselves as being people like Sir Ninian Stephen. What’s changed?

    People like Sir Peter Cosgrove? Houston led the ADF, and did whatever Comrade Dear Leader said to ensure Australia’s defence forces deteriorated to an insipid shadow of it once was. Dame Ms David Morrithon KCMG BA GTHO DNB managed to lead the Army despite, as is noted among his shiny chest medals, never batting. Plus he is borderline freak show, I reckon. You favor people like them, eh?

  78. rickw

    I see the lazy Susan of shit ideas is back to the Republic….

    Very Fast Train next, followed by multi function polis…. etc. etc.

  79. Viva

    A Republic requires republicans

    A Republican looks at monarchies as being akin to some weird cargo cult

    It infantalises whole populations and encourages celebrity worship

    It is ridiculous in its Ruritanian quaintness

    It undermines our national self respect and diverts the proper focus of our kids’ patriotism

    Sorry guys if you are a Republican that is what you see and feel and there’s an end to it

    This is a world view not an opinion about whether or not something is broke

    Don’t kid yourselves. Lots of us righties are in this camp have no doubt.

  80. Viva
    #2608003, posted on January 12, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    And please brandishing the possibility of Dick Smith and Kylie as Head of State doesn’t necessarily wash. People like Sir Ninian Stephen and the current GG will continue to be the likely office holders of Head of State.

    Only fuckwits and morons would forget that an unqualified community organizer from Kenya became the US President and the leader of the fucking free World just so that a bunch of innercity dwelling virtue signallers can get a hard on.
    Anyone who thinks that a moronic monosyllable aboriginal won’t become the President of Australia in order to satisfy the virtue signalling needs of the globalist leftard fuckwits living in overcrowded innercities needs to shut the fuck up about this most important subject.
    Australia becoming a banana republic is at stake.

  81. struth
    #2608222, posted on January 12, 2018 at 5:16 pm
    +1
    I’m falling in love with Struth. I hope she is a sheila or I’m turning pooffo.

  82. Viva
    #2608484, posted on January 12, 2018 at 10:47 pm

    This is a world view not an opinion about whether or not something is broke

    Don’t kid yourselves. Lots of us righties are in this camp have no doubt

    .
    I’ve used the word fuckwit a lot on this forum.
    Whenever I use it in the future, know that I’m thinking of this Viva fuckwit.

  83. BorisG

    But guys don’t you want to give Australians the option of electing Trump and draining the swamp?

  84. BorisG

    Conservative maxim – “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

    I agree with this – yet I read on Cat every day how Australia is going down the drain bla bla. either it is broke or it isn’t?

  85. BorisG

    The national part wasn’t the problem, the SOCIALIST part was the problem.

    As a J e w, I beg to differ. Communists were evil but they did not commit genocide.

    As a socialist, Hitler was rather moderate. As a nationalist, he was beyond extreme. That part led to gas chambers.

  86. A Lurker

    Conservative maxim – “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

    I agree with this – yet I read on Cat every day how Australia is going down the drain bla bla. either it is broke or it isn’t?

    Australia is currently in the S-bend – changing it to a Republic would flush it past the S-bend and out into the main sewer system.

    You really want that outcome BorisG?

  87. struth

    As a J e w, I beg to differ. Communists were evil but they did not commit genocide.

    FMD.
    Do you think you can dribble this kind of shit and get away with it because everyone else has moved on from this thread?

    As a socialist, Hitler was rather moderate. As a nationalist, he was beyond extreme

    Let’s hope Barnaby keeps taking his medicine then?

    You complete dunce.

  88. BorisG

    struth you are an idiot. thank you for exposing yourself.

  89. BorisG

    You really want that outcome BorisG?

    maybe not because I think the Australian system is fine, despite some irritating shortcomings, creeping socialism etc. But if YOU don’t like the government, politicians etc, maybe you can change it to a system when the people have more control. Under the current system, Trump can never be elected here. if President is popularly elected maybe we can get someone who people want.

  90. BorisG

    get away with it because everyone else has moved on from this thread?

    no I prefer to draw attention to this threat and see you for the idiot you are.

  91. Aqinas

    If we could agree on a better system then I would be all for getting rid of these leeches in England but sadly too many parasites want to try and make any Republican proposal into a power grab. I voted against a republic not out of any love for the freaks in the palace but to stop the politicians getting more power.

    Between Harry marrying a washed up mulatto slut and Charles marrying a horse it is clear the royal family are on a downward spiral but better the devil you know

  92. alexnoaholdmate

    Our very own civil war (tribe against tribe) – haven’t had one of those yet (State Of Origin does not count – not quite anyway)

    Queenslanders disagree.

  93. struth

    Boris G, would you please look at history at some stage before opening your gob.

    Communists didn’t commit genocide?!!!!!!

    FMD.

    As a Joooo

    As a jooo, gives you no greater understanding of the topic than anyone else.

    It’s like me claiming to everything about the second world war because my grandpa fought in it.

    People wore the uniforms of their nations, and warred against the socialist Hitler in defence of their nations.
    Claiming nationalism is a problem anywhere for anything is fucking insane.
    Hitler was a socialist dictator who had no respect for nations that were not his, and tried to expand his borders.
    Nationalists fought Hitler, so let’s get this bullshit out the way that the terrible part of the Nazis was nationalism.
    It’s the main meme the left are using to bring down the borders of the western Nations.

    It was the govern from the top down socialist totalitarianism of Hitler and his Nazis that was the problem.

    Not the word National, that many political parties use, from all sides of politics, for obvious reasons.

  94. Aqinas

    Our very own civil war (tribe against tribe) 

    Australia is full of different groups who barely tolerate each other. We would not have a civil war, we would have a balkanization worse than Yugoslavia

  95. BorisG

    Aqinas good to see you expose yourself by repeating Nazi lies.

  96. BorisG

    Just for those who have reading problems, I do think Communists/Bolsheviks were evil, second maybe only to the Nazis and pretty close at that. Not all socialists are totalitarian communists though.

    Nazis were hardly orthodox socialists; they allowed private enterprise but subjected it to stringent government controls.

    In many areas of social policy they were conservatives. They condemned homosexuals, treasured family values, encouraged women to stay home etc. etc.

  97. areff

    Between Harry marrying a washed up mulatto slut and Charles marrying a horse it is clear the royal family are on a downward spiral but better the devil you know

    Doomlord, please, hit this creature with your banning stick.

  98. BorisG

    Doomlord, please, hit this creature with your banning stick.

    sinc cannot possibly read all the comments. if you want his attention you need to email him.

  99. harry buttle

    BorisG, you are wrong, Communists are pretty big on Genocide –

    During the Soviet famine of 1932–33 that affected Ukraine, Kazakhstan and some densely populated regions of Russia, the highest scale of death was in Ukraine. The events there are referred to as the Holodomor and they are recognized as genocide by the governments of Australia, Argentina, Georgia, Estonia, Italy, Canada, Lithuania, Poland, the USA and Hungary. The famine was caused by the confiscation of the whole 1933 harvest in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, the Kuban (a densely populated Russian region), and some other parts of the Soviet Union, leaving the peasants too little to feed themselves. As a result, an estimated ten million died, including over seven million in Ukraine, one million in the North Caucasus and one million elsewhere.

    Crimean Tatars
    The ethnic cleansing and deportation of the Crimean Tatars from Crimea was ordered by Joseph Stalin as a form of collective punishment for alleged collaboration with the Nazi occupation regime in Taurida Subdistrict during 1942–1943. The state-organized removal is known as the Sürgünlik in Crimean Tatar. A total of more than 230,000 people were deported (the entire ethnic Crimean Tatar population), of which more than 100,000 died from starvation or disease.
    Ukraine recognizes the ethnic cleansing of the entire Tatar population as an act of genocide.
    ————–
    Cambodia
    In Cambodia, a genocide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge (KR) regime led by Pol Pot between 1975 and 1979 in which an estimated one and a half to three million people died. The KR group had planned to create a form of agrarian socialism which was founded on the ideals of Stalinism and Maoism. The KR policies of forced relocation of the population from urban centers, torture, mass executions, use of forced labor, malnutrition, and disease led to the death of an estimated 25 percent of the total population (around 2 million people).[395][396] The genocide ended following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. At least 20,000 mass graves, known as the Killing Fields, have since been uncovered.

    We’ve already killed more people, in recognised genocide by communists, than the Nazis did in the holocaust and I’ve barely scratched the surface.
    It doesn’t make the Nazis nice guys, but the problem was they were socialists – socialists can’t help themselves, if they can’t control it (for its own good), they’ll kill it.

  100. Tel

    I’m pretty sure Boris is impervious to history.

  101. BorisG

    BorisG, you are wrong, Communists are pretty big on Genocide –

    I do not disagree. You are taking me out of context.

  102. BorisG

    I know the horrible history of communism much better than you guys, having lost a number of family in the hands of NKVD etc. On specific genocides mentioned by Harry.

    1) Golodomor was horrific murder on a grand scale. I do not think there is a consensus it was genocide, although Ukrain tries to argue so. Not on the scale of the Holocaust though.

    2) Crimean Tatars, Chechens etc. was also horrible and inexcusable but in the context of the war you can’t compare it to holocaust.

    3) Cambodia – yes agreed.

    In the context of Soviet Union, the biggest crime was the great terror, which wasn’t genocide (no specific ethnic or racial group targeted) but arguably was as bad as genocide.

Comments are closed.