King Says A Republic Is Up To Australian People

[naomi24]

//King Charles has confirmed that it is up to the Australian people to decide whether the country remains a constitutional monarchy or becomes a republic.

 

Ahead of the King's visit to Australia next week, the Australian Republic Movement exchanged letters with Buckingham Palace officials, writing on the King's behalf.

 

A referendum on the issue was held in Australia in 1999, where people voted to remain a constitutional monarchy.//

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4d22yl9kpo

 

The quest rumbles on.  Should they stay or should they go?

[ToraToraTora]

20:02 I thought you were talking about the organisation not bleating about the result.

[DTCwordfan]

return the 10 million boxes of Fosters consumed by us?

[DTCwordfan]

and forget that pisswater called 4X

[Ellipsis]

Yes, I am talking about the [lack of] organisation that resulted in expensive and divisive constitutional change following a result like that ... 37% of the registered voters.

[tomus42]

It's ridiculous that a country should (in theory) be ruled by a king on the other side of the world.

It's purely symbolic anyway. In reality they're entirely independent.

They'll undoubtedly vote to become a Republic next time.

[Togo]

The King does not rule, in the modern constitutions, he prevents someone else taking the position. Constitutional monarchy is a very good attenuator of the despotic tendancy in Governments. . 

[tomus42]

//Constitutional monarchy is a very good attenuator of the despotic tendancy in Governments. //

How does that work then? 

If the govt decides to become a dictatorship does the Monarch step in and forbid it?

[Togo]

There are many examples all around the World where the people of a Country have rid themselves of what they perceived to be an overbearing or parasitic inherited Monarch. Only to find themselves with much worse in the fullness of time with no prospect of asking them to go, or voting them out. Always be careful of what you wish for or desire, to satisfy emotional fulfilment,  without looking at the alternative. 

[Togo]

See above!^^ No we can vote them out. Geddit? A Monarch, as yet, guarantees that. 

[tomus42]

//A Monarch, as yet, guarantees that. //

How? Monarchs have been completely powerless for some time now.

If anything, they're used as puppets by despots to add some kind of legitimacy to the despotism.

[Peter Pedant]

 the people of a Country have rid themselves of what they perceived to be an overbearing or parasitic inherited Monarch. Only to find themselves with much worse in the fullness of time with no prospect of asking them to go, or voting them out. , 

an example of " if you vote there is no going back!"

Mugabe and Mangragarwa - Egypt has nt had a very good ride. Sudan - did NOT solve their cviil war

 

[1ozzy]

🥱😒 should this thread be moved to jokes?

[seekeerz]

And if we've got any sense we'll leave it just as it is !!

[davebro3]

//Yes, I am talking about the [lack of] organisation that resulted in expensive and divisive constitutional change following a result like that ... 37% of the registered voters.//

Well, we have a government who only 20% of voters said they wanted so 37% is pretty conclusive really.

[1ozzy]

So the minority should win Dave?

Democracy at its best 

[davebro3]

In the EU referendum the majority of those who voted won.

In the GE the majority of those who voted lost.

We don't have a properly functioning democracy.

[Old_Geezer]

Each area did get the representative they most wanted.

Any implementation of democracy will have both strengths and weaknesses. Until it becomes possible to remove the "representation" aspect we probably have as good a system as any. It does allow a parliament where a particular view can be implemented without compromises that ruin the intent; unfortunately it can be a particularly bad choice of action sometimes, but that's life.

[DDIL]

Should they stay or should they go?

It is up to them.

[Togo]

//How? Monarchs have been completely powerless for some time now.//

You really are slow on the uptake. Is it deliberate? You may notice, if you look hard, that all the armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch. The politicians loan them now and again to counter threats to our safety(or not if you are a Bliar). However should a politician decide not to vacate the premises when we vote them out, or to try and use the armed forces to stage a coup then the reigning Monarch may decide to flex the as yet unused command muscle. The armed forces would obey that command without demur. That is why the politicians hate the armed forces and do their best to diminish them. They prefer a tame police force and look towards the police state solution.    

[Togo]

As I said when I came in. It is not what the Monarch does that counts, it is what the Monarch prevents a wannabe, would be, dictator from doing. As our votes begin to mean less and less due to the constant deliberate erosion of their effectiveness then a Constitutional Monarch becomes more and more valuable.