Is Australia Being Royal-Bombed?

[jackspratt]

This from the ABC today - you need to click on the link to see the lead photo:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-21/ ... /104010018

Which follows hard on the heels from this a week ago - again, click on the link.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-16/ ... /103984948

As an Australian, I can do without this conniving inbred lot - others may feel differently.

[AlexO]

They probably dont lose a hell of a lot of sleep worrying what you and your fellow republican countrymen think about them.
There are however a good few Aussies who are not from the original white criminal deportee's stock who quite like the historical links that are associated with the Head of State.

[jackspratt]

They probably dont lose a hell of a lot of sleep worrying what you and your fellow republican countrymen think about them.

In what may be a first, you are probably right Alex.

In their cosy, closeted and privileged world, protected and projected by a huge PR machine, and swallowed by a gullible local Oz press, why would they care.

But in a break from recent form, I see that the Willie and Cathie + kids show has been overshadowed by the devastating news of Annie doing something with her horse.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-24/ ... /104016826

Nothing against Anne, and hopefully she gets well soon, but does anyone outside Britain really GAF?

[Whistler]

They probably dont lose a hell of a lot of sleep worrying what you and your fellow republican countrymen think about them.
There are however a good few Aussies who are not from the original white criminal deportee's stock who quite like the historical links that are associated with the Head of State.

Alex, name one single anti monarchist who has a background as a criminal deportee in Australia. No need to quote 2, or 3 just one single individual.

[AlexO]

Alex, name one single anti monarchist who has a background as a criminal deportee in Australia. No need to quote 2, or 3 just one single individual.

Dont know many Aussies Whistler so cannot give you names, however are you claiming that 'every' descendent of criminal stock who were deported to Australia (many Irish) is a Royalist? The Law of Averages would be on my side.

[Whistler]

You have a limited knowledge of Australian society. Many who were deported served their time and became emancipists. This group were given land grants and became very rich. Their distaste for the British legal system did not necessarily extend to the Monarchy. In fact many of Australia staunchest monarchists are from this group of people, they are overwhelmingly conservative.

[AlexO]

You have a limited knowledge of Australian society. Many who were deported served their time and became emancipists. This group were given land grants and became very rich. Their distaste for the British legal system did not necessarily extend to the Monarchy. In fact many of Australia staunchest monarchists are from this group of people, they are overwhelmingly conservative.

Define many Whistler. Yes some became rich, same as American Immigrant's from Ireland etc. Dont think you will find many Monarchists in the likes of Boston, Chicago's descendent population though.
But again I will repeat, We Dont Care! Why the Pratt has to keep insulting the Royal Family is pathetic, have another vote, if the Republicans win, fine. No one in the UK gives a second thought to the Union Jack being removed from your flag. Honest!

[Whistler]

What has America got to do with Australian society? A totally different dynamic.

Australia never voted about being a Republic so there cannot be 'another vote'.

[AlexO]

What has America got to do with Australian society? A totally different dynamic.

Australia never voted about being a Republic so there cannot be 'another vote'.

Following years of widespread community discussion about Australia becoming a republic, the major event which lead to the 1999 referendum was the 1998 Constitutional Convention.

You might have missed this one, never mind.

[Whistler]

What has America got to do with Australian society? A totally different dynamic.

Australia never voted about being a Republic so there cannot be 'another vote'.

Following years of widespread community discussion about Australia becoming a republic, the major event which lead to the 1999 referendum was the 1998 Constitutional Convention.

You might have missed this one, never mind.

No Alex, the referendum did not ask Australians if they wanted to be a Republic. The 1999 referendum asked if they wanted a specific model where it would be a Republic, but Parliament would have total control over the President. Australians would not be able to select or elect their own President. It was a model that was designed by John Howard to be so repugnant that it was bound to fail.

There was no option to broadly change to being a Republic, it was a tightly worded question that only offered a single, unpalatable version of a republic. This was a cynical move by the 'Lying Rodent' who was a staunch monarchist.

Alex, you persist in making comments about a country where you have scant knowledge of its history, society or attitudes. Why?

[AlexO]

Perhaps the 'majority' of Australians I have ever worked with or had to socialise with have effected my general view of Australians. There are some good ones, my nephew and niece carry Aussie passports so slightly biased there.
Could be that I have the same sort of view of Australia that many Australians seem to have of anything not Australian.
"The 1999 referendum asked if they wanted a specific model where it would be a Republic"
Says it all really.
You would have had a fully functioning parliament along with a Prime Minister who were all elected and run the Country, the President as is now, is only a title without executive powers. I was under the impression, wrongly or otherwise that it was a huge vote by mostly Poms who wanted to keep the links to the Crown much to the angst of the Republicans.

[noosard]

I think I voted status quo back then
Reasoning why fix something if it is not broken
and especially when replacing it with a square wheel

[noosard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Aust ... ,_1999.svg

This map sums up how the country voted
Only the state capitals had areas which were in favour of

[jackspratt]

My memory was that it was a de facto vote on whether Australia should cut the English apron strings, and invest the same or similar powers as currently enjoyed by the Governor General (and state Governors) to a local ie someone who didn't answer to Buckingham Palace..

It became divisive because people started arguing about how a President would be selected ie by Parliament, or by popular vote.

Many argued that a popularly elected President would assume greater political clout than the Prime Minister. And then there was the question of how candidates for such an election would be chosen, without it becoming open slather, or alternatively, candidates chosen by political parties.

So Little Lying Johnny set it up so it became bogged down in details, rather than a simple Yes or No on becoming a Republic, and working the details out later.

[AlexO]

So Little Lying Johnny set it up so it became bogged down in details, rather than a simple Yes or No on becoming a Republic, and working the details out later.

Remind us the question on the ballot papers again. Dont say Google it, just tell us your version.
Look at Eire, call themselves a Republic but run by an elected Government with the leading parties head man as Prime Minister, every now and again they wheel out a vertically challenged old man, The President, who is without one ounce of power. Dont know why so many Plastic Paddies get their Y's bunched up about being a Republic.
Look what the leaders of the free world are going through just now.

[jackspratt]

I've told you my version, Alex.

If you disagree, look it up for yourself.

WTF has Eire got to do with this thread?

[AlexO]

I've told you my version, Alex.

If you disagree, look it up for yourself.

WTF has Eire got to do with this thread?

The year was 1999 and the referendum had two questions; both failed to get anywhere near enough Yes votes to pass.

Australians were asked to vote Yes or No on altering the Constitution "to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President" and whether to "alter the Constitution to insert a preamble."
Clear enough, YES or NO
Eire was just an example of Kiddy on Republics having different versions of Republicanism. Tell me the massive difference from the present Aussie model that causes you to abuse the British Royal Family behind your false ID's etc.

[Whistler]

Exactly what I said. No President selected or elected by Australian citizens. Just a puppet of parliament of course it failed, that was why it was worded so. Zip to do with Eire and I have made no disparaging statements about the monarchy up until now now, but let's address that.

Why should the Australial head of state be a guy who got the job because of his mum,? He would not even be legally allowed to sit in parliament, but he is head of state, ridiculous

[tamada]

My memory was that it was a de facto vote on whether Australia should cut the English apron strings, and invest the same or similar powers as currently enjoyed by the Governor General (and state Governors) to a local ie someone who didn't answer to Buckingham Palace..

It became divisive because people started arguing about how a President would be selected ie by Parliament, or by popular vote.

Many argued that a popularly elected President would assume greater political clout than the Prime Minister. And then there was the question of how candidates for such an election would be chosen, without it becoming open slather, or alternatively, candidates chosen by political parties.

So Little Lying Johnny set it up so it became bogged down in details, rather than a simple Yes or No on becoming a Republic, and working the details out later.

You mean a simple Yes or No without details like the UK's Brexit vote?

[tamada]

Exactly what I said. No President selected or elected by Australian citizens. Just a puppet of parliament of course it failed, that was why it was worded so. Zip to do with Eire and I have made no disparaging statements about the monarchy up until now now, but let's address that.

Why should the Australial head of state be a guy who got the job because of his mum,? He would not even be legally allowed to sit in parliament, but he is head of state, ridiculous

Because that's how royal accession works?

That was an easy one. I didn't even have to Google that.