Comments on: Queen’s Birthday Message

By: gordon

gordon — Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:53:08 +0000

I wouldn’t know what to do with a pony. What I want to keep is what PMLawrence (on your own site)was talking about – identity, cultural inheritance. A very large part of this is the British constitution. Adopting a Bill of Rights would help to protect this, though perhaps not totally. What gets up both our noses, I think, (mine and PML’s) is the practical futility of republicanism in a world in which so many other things need attention. It may be trendy, but it’s not much use. And if PML is right, republicanism will be actually harmful, because it will damage our cultural integrity. Why are people (including you) so scandalized by the Abu Ghraib disclosures? Because you have the equipment to evaluate it. Why is the US Govt. prepared to perpetrate these horrors? Because they haven’t. That’s one example. I’m sure PML and I could come up with others – it might be an instructive exercise.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:02:07 +0000

As I said in the post Gordon, I favor both direct election and codified powers for the President. I don’t see, though, how these issues are related to a Bill of Rights (although I’m inclined to support one). Are you sure you don’t want a pony as well?

By: gordon

gordon — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 11:45:27 +0000

Happy Birthday, Your Majesty! Hip, Hip, Hooray! She does little if any harm. The republican movement, on the other hand, is a nice little vehicle for the politically ambitious whose egos outrun their policy ability, or who think that policy is a liability and only image and spin count. There are lots of fellow-travellers who enjoy agreeing with each other and the influential leaders of the republican movement, in hopes of getting invited to a better class of cocktail party and/or getting some sort of job. The outrage is manufactured. For the record, the referendum led me to consider under what circumstances I would vote for a republic. I have at least three prerequisites: (1)direct election of the Head of State, (2)careful Constitutional limitation of his/her powers (no more undefined “reserve powers”) with a strong preference for a purely ceremonial figurehead, and (3)a Bill of Rights with Constitutional standing. In any future referendum (provoked for purposes of self-advertisement by cocktail-drinkers aforesaid), I’ll just go down my little list. Three out of three and no weaselling, or I vote “No”.

By: Errol

Errol — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:51:24 +0000

I wonder how common these “legacy of empire” voting-rights exceptions are. Do Canada or NZ have similar rules? NZ has similar arrangements. There are a couple of twists – eg they are able to vote, but can’t be elected. This impacted an election I was involved in – one of the leading candidates (as printed on the postal ballot) was actually a Brit cit, and this wasn’t checked for when nominations (for local body elections) were accepted. Therefore there were a lot of invalid votes, even given the extensive publicity in the district. The wording on the acceptance of nomination form (as mandated by law) was changed to mention this restriction in later elections.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:17:02 +0000

It seems to me that the main problem with the republicanism is coming up with a positive proposal as opposed to a negative idea – not the British Monarch. So how about replacing the Brtitish/greek/german monarch with an Australian monarch? Wouldn’t if be possible to ask Mary Donaldson for her second born to be king/queen of Australia? This puts an Australian as head of state without the difficulties of concocting a scheme to put some semi popular old fart in office. It would also be hard for the monarchists to resist and since it would take a few years to put into action, gives people time to adjust to the transition.

By: JamesW

JamesW — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 16:10:07 +0000

For the title of an Australian titular monarch, I propose “Eponymous Archon” as in ancient Athens. Possibly change the adjective to “Apomynous”, meaning “not a Pom”.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:51:17 +0000

I agree with cac regarding the incompetence of the Republican campaign, and put the blame for this primarily on Malcolm Turnbull. His faults were both strategic (the assumption that there existed a large body of minimalist republicans) and political (projecting an image which alienated nearly everybody).

By: cac

cac — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:01:16 +0000

While Howard was no doubt pretty pleased with the result of the republican referendum I’ve never actually understood how he was supposed to have sabotaged the result other than 1) stating his view that he believed in the continuance of the monarch (admittedly some of the loonier extremes of the republican movement appear to think this an illegitimate view that should not be uttered) and 2) allowing the republicans to come up with a dog of a model that ignored what every poll had told them Australians thought on the issue. But I don’t really think it’s a monarchist PM’s job to rescue republicans from what was probably the most incompetent political campaign ever. Part of me still wonders whether there were some monarchists in the republican movement sabotaging it because it’s the only way to explain some of the things they did. And WA does of course celebrate the Queen’s birthday, just at a different time as Foundation Day is the first/second week in June so it’s shifted to avoid back to back holidays. I think this has precisely zero to do with the number of poms in the State.

By: chris borthwick

chris borthwick — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 04:39:26 +0000

It is now generally accepted that • The majority of Australians want an Australian to be head of state: • The majority of Australians are averse to any very large changes in our constitutional arrangements; • The web of accumulated, derived, and developed constitutional roles and functions of the crown in Australia cannot be transferred from the royal family unless they can be defined, and any attempt at definition brings forth such disagreement as to split the parties into mutually repugnant and uncooperative camps. This being the case, only the arrangements I propose can square the circle and allow Australians to have what they agree they want. 1. Australia shall be ruled by a titular monarch. This permits all existing constitutional structures, understandings and conventions to be carried on unaltered, with the governor-general standing in for the monarch and his or her powers and duties to remain as they have been, whatever that might be, with all existing ambiguity and uncertainty retained unaltered. 2. The monarch shall be chosen by computer by random selection from all persons on the Australian electoral roll born on a randomly chosen day. This ensures that a) the monarch will be an Australian citizen and b) the election or appointment of the monarch will not cause divisions among the populace. 3. The identity of the chosen monarch shall remain in the custody of the computer, neither the governor-general, the government, the public, or the person concerned being informed. This means that a) every Australian could not only aspire to being King or Queen, but every 365th Australian could believe that they might already be King or Queen – producing that pleasant tickle existing at the back of the mind in the time between buying a lottery ticket and the draw, only indefinitely prolonged for no expense b) the person chosen would not be stressed by sudden fame or corrupted by unexpected power (think Di). 4. The only possible objection to this plan would be that as the law now stands the monarch cannot be tried in his or her own courts, and unless appropriate arrangements were made every 365th person brought into court could plead that as it could not be proved they were not king or queen the matter would have to be dismissed; this defect could be cured, however, by introducing a constitutional fiction – the only significant change in the constitutional fabric required by my scheme – to the effect that Australian citizenship involves the waiving of any rights under this head. Any nation that can give a real Queen an imaginary birthday should have no problem giving a real birthday an imaginary Queen. While it might be objected that this proposal is ludicrous, its great merit is that it is considerably less ludicrous either than the existing system of privileging the heirs of Guillaume le Conquerant or the alternative proposal of going through all the trouble and expense of electing a president empowered to do no more than open fêtes.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:33:03 +0000

No I think its something slightly different – the more British than the British idea doesn’t work entirely since it’s not celebrated in Western Australia – which has the highest % of Bristish descendents (I think). I think its more akin to the British May Day holiday – which oddly expresses a desire to be more red than the Russians – an aspiration that was probably a little strange at the time but is now just a little quaint and a reminder of history’s other times. Which is what a holiday should be for.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:25:35 +0000

Giles, the fact that the holiday was instituted in the first place shows that Australians did once see themselves as “more British than the British”. The fact that we now call it “the June long weekend” shows the opposite.

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:52:28 +0000

I think you should make Kylie Minogue Queen of Australia. Why would we replace one expatriate London millionaire with another?

By: Giles

Giles — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:45:03 +0000

“As the non-observance of the Queen’s birthday shows” well given that the queens birthday isnt observed at all in Britain itself, I can’t really see what this shows at all – that the Australains are more Brittish than Britain?

By: Scott Martens

Scott Martens — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:47:30 +0000

Alan, naw, if there’s going to be an Australian monarchy, it has to be Australian. None of this “derived title” crap. I think if you’re going to have an indigenous monarchy, it really out to symbolise Australia to the world. It ought to be a face everyone recognises and can tolerate seeing on their money. I think you should make Kylie Minogue Queen of Australia. Her family’s far better looking and clearly more talented than the house of Windsor, and if paparazzi are going to be popping topless shots of royals on French beaches, there ought to at least something worth seeing. :^)

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:27:04 +0000

A one-stage process, using Condorcet vote counting, would be less expensive and more efficient, and presumably would have the same result. Or, you could do the “California recall” approach and ask both questions on the same ballot, only acting on the answer to the second question (the method of choosing the president) if the first results in support for a republic.