You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
Aussie PM backs snapping ties with British monarchy
2010-08-18
[Arab News] Australia should drop its ties to the British monarchy after Queen Elizabeth's reign, the prime minister said Tuesday, raising the contentious issue of a republic just days before tightly contested national elections.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, whose center-left Labor Party has long held that the country should dump the British monarch as its head of state and become a republic, said Australians have "deep affection" for Queen Elizabeth but that she should be Australia's final monarch.

"What I would like to see as prime minister is that we work our way through to an agreement on a model for the republic," Gillard told reporters. "I think the appropriate time for this nation to move to be a republic is when we see the monarch change. Obviously I'm hoping for Queen Elizabeth that she lives a long and happy life, and having watched her mother I think there's every chance that she will." The queen is 84, and her mother lived to age 101.

Many Australians are British immigrants or descendants who feel strong loyalty to Britain and the queen, but younger Australians especially view the idea of a foreign royal being the country's highest power as anachronistic.

The British monarch is formally Australia's head of state, and its representative, the governor general, swears in the government and signs legislation into law. Australian coins bear the queen's profile. Governing power, however, resides with the elected government.

Many members of the opposition Liberal Party are monarchists, and its leader, Tony Abbot, said he sees no need to change the status quo. "I think that our existing constitutional arrangements have worked well in the past and I see no reason whatsoever why they can't continue to work well in the future," Abbott told the National Press Club.

"So while there may very well be future episodes of republicanism in this country, I am far from certain - at least in our lifetimes - that there is likely to be any significant change." Opinion polls indicate Saturday's election may be Australia's closest in decades, and both sides are focusing their campaigns on a handful of districts held by small margins. The comments by Gillard and Abbott are likely to influence some voters.

Gillard's party wants to replace the governor general with a president. Parliament would retain its power to rule, with the president a largely symbolic figure.

During national debates in the 1990s, the issue divided Australians. Replacing the monarchy with a president elected by Parliament was voted down in a 1999 referendum.

Some critics accused then-Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch monarchist, of ensuring victory for the "no" side by including the method of the president's election in the question. Many republicans wanted the president chosen by popular vote instead of by Parliament.
Posted by:Fred

#7  Harry is the only chance for the survival of the Royal Family. The others are just too stupid and un-studied.
Posted by: newc   2010-08-18 18:19  

#6  I'm sure lots of Commonwealth citizens are leery of having Crazy Charlie as King. Even Liz seems to be re-thinking that, and looking at young William as a replacement.
Posted by: mojo   2010-08-18 13:31  

#5  Elizabeth has done a good job of "providing her people with a sense of identity." She learned that from her parents, who stayed in London during the Blitz and worked hard to keep up the people's morale. The exiled rulers of Norway and the Netherlands, and King Christian of Denmark, also encouraged their people during WWII.

Victoria inherited her throne from "an imbecile (George III), a profligate (George IV) and a buffoon (William IV)." She and Albert failed miserably to provide moral leadership during the famine in Ireland, but in most other ways she "gave the people a sense of identity". While the crown lost power, it gained a great deal of prestige.

Her descendants, except for the Duke of Windsor, carried a sense of responsibility and duty and moral leadership through 5 generations. Unfortunately, Charles doesn't have the charisma or the good sense to keep it up.
Posted by: mom   2010-08-18 11:57  

#4  Sounds good, Steve, but Liz won't live forever. How does your theory of the wise/prudent/discreetly strong monarch accommodate idiot spawn like the self-described "Defender of Faith" in the photo above?
Posted by: lex   2010-08-18 11:19  

#3  There's a fair bit to be said for a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy in which the monarch, as head of state, provides quiet leadership and stability, and otherwise stays out of the way.

Elizabeth has been a darned good example of that. She provides her people with a sense of identity (well, the people who originated in South Asia might not feel British but the rest do). The King of Thailand has saved his country from chaos a couple of times. We make fun of the Nordic monarchies but they too provide a quiet presence that is an important part of the glue that holds their culture together.

A non-royal 'president' in a parliamentary system has no swat. That person is a figurehead even by definition. It's usually some formerly august patrician politician who wants one more title before he retires or dies. He looks serious but he can't do anything, and no one really listens to him. It's all ceremony. Why bother?

If one gives a non-royal real power as a president or premier in a parliamentary system then you end up with a system like Israel or France or South Korea, wherein the prime minister is now the figurehead whose only real mission is to take the blame when something goes wrong (which always happens). Or worse, you have the prime minister and the president competing with each other.

If one wants a true parliamentary system, one would do well to have a royal family. Iraq, for example, could use a wise king right now to (quietly and behind the scenes) crack a few heads and get the pols to form a government already.
Posted by: Steve White   2010-08-18 09:21  

#2  Gromky, you meant figurehead.
Posted by: twobyfour   2010-08-18 01:35  

#1  
The Head of State of Canada!
Posted by: gromky   2010-08-18 01:29  

00:00