Where for a republic?
There is much that was said about Queen Elizabeth in the last days and there is no doubt that the praise he received was fully deserved. His success in business has to make it harder for the Republicans in the United Kingdom, the reasons for the change.
“Why change something,” said the royalist contemporaries, “a part of the popular, effective and reliable system of parliamentary democracy?” What about Australia and the republican movement here?Advertisement: Story continues below
In important respects the situation is different in Australia with the Queen as head of state and governors-general (governors), as their representatives to work. There once was our Vice-Roys were sent from London. Now they are appointed by the local government. They operate under a constitution that considerable power to them, and while most of these powers are exercised on the advice of the elected government is no room for independent action. So it was that we saw, dismiss a Prime Minister, the Governor General in 1975. As a result, it was the Republican argument of type on the powers of the Governor and the Senate in our system. It is quite possible, but for someone who is a radical democrat to be on these issues without wanting it to cut relations with the British monarchy. This puts Australian monarchists in a pretty good wicket, a role for the Queen, who is appointed to the formality and a governor-general of the elected arm of government is limited and approved set of rules in a local level. Always enjoy it to the pomp and ceremony, even if only indirectly, or when the Queen visited, but at the same time may indicate that the real business of our directors is to be controlled. Australia is in a halfway house between monarchy and republic. Can not return to a colonial past, but should not go forward. This remains a fundamental problem for the Republicans as the Australians means that their royalist opponents can always tell them that instinct and desire for reform, many of them did not need a full Republican event. For example, the 1975 problem addressed by a constitutional amendment on the question of power Senate. When the queen was on the way this issue would be a different matter. The royalists, then, a clear vision of what they have to defend (an Australian version of the British government, which is capable of change) and what they reject (a republic in Australia). The Republicans now seem to have agree ment in principle to the process – first a referendum, and to examine if the yes vote a convention that is specific. In addition, there is much disagreement. In their ranks are those who favor the direct election. Similarly, there are minimalists, the less the current system to the Queen. They differ among themselves and with the powers of a president. You can not even say that I agree on the priority list, you will be given to an Australian as head of state. So it was that a significant group of Republicans for a vote in 1999 on the grounds that the proposed model does not have to be called to an agreement. They are fundamentalists. with a referendum in mind is, however, the Republican campaign on the basis of the maximum unit need. At the moment means that the focus on the main point of principle – to replace the British monarch with an Australian as our head of state. The royalist opposition to this proposition is the weakest link in their argument. campaign on this specific point should be a priority and vigorously pursued. It must be noted and will be presented as a case of national pride. That it is not and can not be closed a lot, but it paves the way for a real and serious reflection on the question of what kind of republic to strike.
the Sydney Morning Herald article
No comments:
Post a Comment