Australian Republic Movement says most MPs and Senator support abolishing monarchy

[-:Undertaker:-]

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/dec/16/most-mps-and-senators-want-to-ditch-monarchy-says-australian-republican-movement

Most MPs and senators want to ditch monarchy, says Australian Republican Movement

Campaign says majority of parliamentarians in favour of becoming a republic, including leading figures in the conservative government


http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6597342-3x2-940x627.jpg
Malcolm Turnbull pictured in 1999 shortly before losing the referendum to replace the Monarchy with a Republic


A majority in both the lower and upper houses of federal parliament support Australia becoming a republic, the republican movement has claimed.

The Australian Republican Movement is backed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and it claims the support of other senior government figures including deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop, and moderates in cabinet Christopher Pyne, Marise Payne and Simon Birmingham.

Even leading younger conservative figures Josh Frydenberg and George Christensen support a republic, although the latter says his support is “subject to the right model being chosen” including a series of significant and ambitious constitutional changes.


http://fijione.tv/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/160125162314-queen-elizabeth-australia-exlarge-169.jpg



In all, 81 members of the House of Representatives, and 40 members of the Senate have declared their support for an Australian republic, the movement says.

According to ARM the number may be even higher as 58 lower house MPs have not stated a position on the republic. Eleven lower house MPs are committed monarchists.

In the upper house, 21 senators were undeclared or undecided and 15 favour the monarchy.

ARM hopes the figures will help persuade Turnbull to take the lead on amending the constitution to install an Australian head of state.

Turnbull unsuccessfully led the “yes” campaign in the failed republic referendum in 1999. After becoming prime minister in September 2015, Turnbull said that there will be no move to become a republic until Queen Elizabeth II is no longer on the throne.

Turnbull is due to speak at the republican movement’s 25th anniversary speech on Saturday.

Whether or not it's true a majority of the politicians support a republic, who cares? The fact of the matter is they can can't ram a republic through without a national referendum and they lost the last one by a 10% margin even though the monarchy's popularity was at an all-time low back in 1999.

His Excellency President Malcolm Turnbull lording it over in Government House and Prime Minister Bill Shorten, can you imagine?

The good news though is that support for the monarchy in Australia has been growing in recent years and support for a republic has slumped to an all-time low not seen in decades. In addition, the anti-politician feeling has never been stronger and the sight of politicians all supporting a republic could well have an affect like the EU referendum had: in other words shove it!

Only challenge will come when there is a change in reign. It's known that Prince Charles wishes to hold his Coronation within 3 months of coming to the throne rather than the usual wait of a year as to head off early any potential republican challenges. If I am honest, I think the interest/excitement around the change of monarch will do the opposite of what republicans think and many very soft republicans will say "give him a chance". We'll see anyway.

Thoughts?

[-:Undertaker:-]

He's just delivered his republican speech.

810058611602821120

Not content with one referendum result back in 1999 with a 10% victory margin, he now wants another TWO referendums. My thinking though is that could work in pro-monarchists favour as presidency model poll (which would be first) would spit republicans prior to the second stage question. It's kind of like the two-stage New Zealand flag referendum.

Still, he's unlikely to be PM at the next change of monarch. Long Live the Queen!

[abc]

Waste of time for them to have the Queen or any future King/Queen as their monarch. Won't make any difference to them if they abolish it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

abc;

Waste of time and won't make any difference in what sense?

A Presidency would be a huge modification to the Australian constitution placing a political element in a neutral role of the monarch/Governor-General, see the dangers of the 1970s Australian constitutional crisis for that. It would also raise the question on a state level of what to do with the state Viceroys. A directly elected Presidency would cause further problems on top of all that in that it would then place a strain on the legitimacy between the elected Federal Government itself and whoever was residing in Government House. The question of elected vs appointed fatally divided the Republican movement back in 1999 and still does to this day.

That's just the constitutional change. I haven't even gone into the heritage/cultural change & monetary costs.

[abc]

abc;

Waste of time and won't make any difference in what sense?

A Presidency would be a huge modification to the Australian constitution placing a political element in a neutral role of the monarch/Governor-General, see the dangers of the 1970s Australian constitutional crisis for that. It would also raise the question on a state level of what to do with the state Viceroys. A directly elected Presidency would cause further problems on top of all that in that it would then place a strain on the legitimacy between the elected Federal Government itself and whoever was residing in Government House. The question of elected vs appointed fatally divided the Republican movement back in 1999 and still does to this day.

That's just the constitutional change. I haven't even gone into the heritage/cultural change & monetary costs.

Have the PM as Head of State. A similar system to USA but instead of the President, the PM will have the same power/status.

You do not need both a PM and a President.

If the Royal Family did not make UK more money than we invest in them, then I would be calling to scrap them in the UK too.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@abc (https://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=125189); That's unworkable in a parliamentary system.

You want to concentrate the power of the executive, cabinet and Head of State all in one person? Highly dangerous. The separation of those powers, especially with an unwritten constitution like ourselves, is so important. The best historical example is inter-war Germany, when the only obstacle that stood in the way of the National Socialists taking complete control of German state institutions was President Paul Von Hindenburg. When he passed of old age in 1934 - which the Nazis had been waiting for (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_referendum,_1934) - then Hitler had supreme control of the armed forces, the Presidency (which he merged with the Chancellory) and the Reichstag. Had Germany still been a monarchy as Hindeburg wished for all these reasons knowing what could happen when he died, then perhaps there is a chance he [Hitler] could have been stopped.

The Royal Family isn't there "to make money" it is there for important constitutional reasons. It's Her Majesty's Courts and Prisons, not Theresa May's Court and Prisons. It's Her Majesty the Armed Forces abide by and swear loyalty to, not Theresa May. It's Her Majesty who lives in a Palace and receives foreign dignataries, not Theresa May. It's Her Majesty who's portrait adorns walls in public and private buildings as well as coins and bank notes, not Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. It's Her Majesty the national anthem adheres to, not a Stalin figure or an ideological concept.

As George Orwell wrote...


The function of the King in promoting stability and acting as a sort of keystone in a non-democratic society is, of course, obvious. But he also has, or can have, the function of acting as an escape-valve for dangerous emotions.

A French journalist said to me once that the monarchy was one of the things that have saved Britain from Fascism. What he meant was that modern people can’t get along without drums, flags and loyalty parades, and that it is better that they should tie their leader-worship on to some figure who has no real power. In a dictatorship the power and the glory belong to the same person.

In England the real power belongs to unprepossessing men in bowler hats: the creature who rides in a gilded coach behind soldiers in steel breastplates is really a waxwork. It is at any rate possible that while this division of function exists a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power.

On the whole the European countries which have most successfully avoided fascism have been constitutional monarchies. The conditions seemingly are that the royal family shall be long-established and taken for granted, shall understand its own position and shall not produce strong characters with political ambitions. These have been fulfilled in Britain, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, but not in, say, Spain or Rumania.

If you point these facts out to the average left-winger he gets very angry, but only because he has not examined the nature of his own feelings toward Stalin. I do not defend the institution of Monarchy in an absolute sense, but I think that in an age like our own it may have an innoculating effect and certainly it does far less harm than the existence of our so-called aristocracy.

Try thinking about things other than in purely monetary terms for once.

There are values - constitutional, historical, cultural, national - that are worth a price you cannot put a monetary value on.