Sensational-Adelaide.com

No way. Why? For me its a number of reasons. One, there is the historical links. The UK is effectively our mother, they founded this country. We fought under the British Empire, 'God Save the King', 'Till the last man and the last penny'. 'Victoria', 'Queensland', 'Adelaide', 'QEHosipital', 'Prince Alfred'. Our History is all around us


Then there is the matter of WHAT would change, and HOW would it be any better at all? You must ask yourself. Has the GG done a good job? Well what is his job? And what would a 'President' do any better? Well the fact of the matter is we are too small a country to have both a powerful President and a Prime Minister. the GG at the moment is just there too sit back an make sure things run smoothly, and no dicator or maniac takes government.

The Monarchy has served us well, no need to change. And in my books, if we drop the Monarchy, then WTF is the point of the Union Jack on our flag. And AINT no one changing our flag!!!

The 1931 Statute of Westminster and 1986 Australia Act leave me wondering why on earth a change is needed beyond some kind of symbolic gesture, and I'm not in the mood for changing the Constitution for the sake of a symbolic gesture.

Hands off the flag, too.

Dont change the flag? you guys are nuts

The current flag is an embarrassment. why would a country have the flag of another country on it's flag?

Cruise wrote:Dont change the flag? you guys are nuts

The current flag is an embarrassment. why would a country have the flag of another country on it's flag?

The design of many flags are influenced by those from other countries, for a multitude of reasons.

Shouldn't our constitution reflect the country's status as a modern, confident and independent nation? Are we not mature and stable enough to stand on our own two feet? Sure England gave birth to the modern nation of Australia but we have been acting as an independent nation for over 50 years, we have forged our own identity, made our own decisions, it is well and truly time to make the final constitutional change and become a truly independent and free country.
The British heritage will live on in our system of laws and in state, city, town, suburb and street names.

JamesXander wrote:No way. Why? For me its a number of reasons. One, there is the historical links. The UK is effectively our mother, they founded this country. We fought under the British Empire, 'God Save the King', 'Till the last man and the last penny'. 'Victoria', 'Queensland', 'Adelaide', 'QEHosipital', 'Prince Alfred'. Our History is all around us

The argument is weak JamesXander arguing the fact the UK is our mother is pointless...If we look at that aspect and apply it further, Africa is the mother of all humanity, does that mean that we should all embrace our African mother and start wearing the colours of the Congo???? no, we are a unique country with our own individuality, there is no need to display the union jack on our flag there is no need to hold on the UK values. Australia is a multicultural society with its own individualism, ideals and historical significance..we should cultivate that! We are seriously the only country in the world that accepts being owned by someone else!

JamesXander wrote:Then there is the matter of WHAT would change, and HOW would it be any better at all? You must ask yourself. Has the GG done a good job? Well what is his job?

If you read the constitution of Australia from beginning to end you will know exactly what the GG role is and how close the GG works with HRH the queen!

JamesXander wrote: Well the fact of the matter is we are too small a country to have both a powerful President and a Prime Minister.

There are many countries in the world far smaller than us that have both a powerful President and a Prime Minister. Australia is the 15th highest economic power in terms of GDP (world bank 2006), hardly small at all! All the arguments about the role of the GG, voting for a President and a Prime Minister just highlight how anti-change Australians are!

JamesXander wrote: The Monarchy has served us well, no need to change. And in my books, if we drop the Monarchy, then WTF is the point of the Union Jack on our flag. And AINT no one changing our flag!!!

What has the Monarchy ever done for you personally, nothing!!! should you make it to 100 years you will get a letter from the Queen or King or whatever...Big Friggin Deal.

I hope we all realise that past changes to the Constitution of Australia mean that we have full sovereignty and independence.

Omicron wrote:I hope we all realise that past changes to the Constitution of Australia mean that we have full sovereignty and independence.

Yes the Australia Act of 1986 does argue for full sovereignty however under article s.74 of the Constitution the Queen and the GG resolve the right to overturn any decision. Hence, Australia is not a true sovereign state!

stelaras wrote:

Omicron wrote:I hope we all realise that past changes to the Constitution of Australia mean that we have full sovereignty and independence.

Yes the Australia Act of 1986 does argue for full sovereignty however under article s.74 of the Constitution the Queen and the GG resolve the right to overturn any decision. Hence, Australia is not a true sovereign state!

Theoretically speaking, if the Queen acts on matters related to Australia, she is acting as the Queen of Australia and not as the Queen of England - an entirely separate monarchy. In any case, following the Whitlam affair of 1975, don't count on influence from either the Governor-General or the Australian monarch upon Australian parliamentary or legal affairs ever again. QEII's position is one as a reigning monarch, not a ruling one - one with powers exercised almost entirely under the influence of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Crown in Cabinet.

In terms of the flag, I don't see the presence of the Union Jack as someone else's flag stuck in the corner of our own. All I see is our flag, and how much more it represents than just the influences of the United Kingdom.

Omicron wrote: QEII's position is one as a reigning monarch, not a ruling one - one with powers exercised almost entirely under the influence of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Crown in Cabinet.

Whilst that may be true, fact is that on paper we are not entirely a free state. She and whoever followers after her, has the ability and the capacity to change any aspect of our rule. That is the point im arguing! Whether they choose to or not is a different argument.

So based on that i really do not see why a young free spirited nation, with its own identity, values and nationalistic pride should have to settle for that. Wars a raged all over the world on that principle of freedom and the fight to be truly free and independent, yet on paper Australians accept the fact that we belong to someone else!

It is a matter of opinion...at least this debate is healthy!

stelaras wrote:

Omicron wrote: QEII's position is one as a reigning monarch, not a ruling one - one with powers exercised almost entirely under the influence of the Prime Minister and the Ministers of the Crown in Cabinet.

Whilst that may be true, fact is that on paper we are not entirely a free state. She and whoever followers after her, has the ability and the capacity to change any aspect of our rule. That is the point im arguing! Whether they choose to or not is a different argument.

So based on that i really do not see why a young free spirited nation, with its own identity, values and nationalistic pride should have to settle for that. Wars a raged all over the world on that principle of freedom and the fight to be truly free and independent, yet on paper Australians accept the fact that we belong to someone else!

It is a matter of opinion...at least this debate is healthy!

It is healthy! Much better this time around, too, than the mess that was 1999. Did anyone on either side have a clue as to what was going on back then?

stelaras wrote:She and whoever followers after her, has the ability and the capacity to change any aspect of our rule. That is the point im arguing! Whether they choose to or not is a different argument.

Under the likes of The Australia Act and our constitution, all the monarch can do is, dismiss the government and force us to an election, dismiss individual ministers (not including the PM) who would then be replaced by others from the same party, or refuse a bill. It's important to note that in our constitution that its The Queen of Australia, thus any changes to the monarch do not necessarily have to be recognised by Australia. Either way, any attempt for the monarch to influence local politics would cause a constitutional crisis which would probably result in a republic anyway.

AtD wrote:

stelaras wrote:She and whoever followers after her, has the ability and the capacity to change any aspect of our rule. That is the point im arguing! Whether they choose to or not is a different argument.

Under the likes of The Australia Act and our constitution, all the monarch can do is, dismiss the government and force us to an election, dismiss individual ministers (not including the PM) who would then be replaced by others from the same party, or refuse a bill. It's important to note that in our constitution that its The Queen of Australia, thus any changes to the monarch do not necessarily have to be recognised by Australia. Either way, any attempt for the monarch to influence local politics would cause a constitutional crisis which would probably result in a republic anyway.

I agree with your point entirely...case in point the 1975 sacking of the Whitlam government. I can not see the The Queen or future King getting involved in our politics again as such a crisis as you have explained would definitely arise. However, you never know what the future holds..It would be good for us to forge a path in our own right and omit the reliance on the Queen or GG.

The political system does not have to change that much to what it is now. We can vote the political party as we do now and allow the parliament to elect the best person to head the country... That in principle would stop any Tom, Dick or Hilary with a few hundred million aussie dollars being elected as president.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Australia, despite being a relatively young country, has one of the world's oldest and most stable governments. I can't see any tangible benefits to becoming a republic. The very core of our way of life is not worth messing with one single bit for mere symbolism.

The nation voted down the idea recently and so it should be put to bed for a generation.

Bulldozer wrote:If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Australia, despite being a relatively young country, has one of the world's oldest and most stable governments. I can't see any tangible benefits to becoming a republic. The very core of our way of life is not worth messing with one single bit for mere symbolism.

The nation voted down the idea recently and so it should be put to bed for a generation.

I don't understand this arguement. How will changing the name of the post of Governor General to President and taking down the Queen's picture from the town hall destroy our way of life?