The republic of Australia.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I have been thinking that replacing the Governor General with a President is a mistake. It would be an opportunity for Australia to come up with something very different. For example, replace him with a Triumvirate -- three people -- one elected by the general population, one elected by the premiers, and one elected by Parliament. It could be interesting if there was a ban on politicians, lobbyists, and entertainers from serving on the Triumvirate. No legislation would be passed into law unless there was complete consensus by the three of them. ... yes, I am liking my idea more and more .

originally posted by: Kapriti
No legislation would be passed into law unless there was complete consensus by the three of them. ... yes, I am liking my idea more and more .

So you want to go from a system where the GG just signs legislation passed by parliament, to one where 3 randoms pick and choose which legislation is passed - after a majority in a democratically elected Parliament have just talked about and decided on!

A dictatorship by 3!

As a Brit myself I really don't blame any Australian who wants rid of the royal family as I do to! Having a family who have descended from a bunch of ruthless cowardly dictators to inherit a fortune for doing sod all isn't something that I'm proud of at all. Unfortunately not many in my country seem to agree with me...

All I have to say is if Australia become a republic please will you let us join

a reply to: alldaylong
You didn't answer the question.

reply to: ClandestineKid

Of course, all are welcome here!

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
reply to: ClandestineKid

Of course, all are welcome here!

Except those that aren't and are sent to Manus Island - Australia has some seriously tough immigration policies...

a reply to: stumason

Not all of us agree with that policy, but that is a discussion for another thread.

a reply to: Krusty the Klown

I can see why Australia does it, even if it might be a tad harsh - I wasn't criticising

a reply to: hellobruce

No, not a dictatorship, but rather a sort of failsafe. Say a piece of legislation that looks good on the surface upon further inspection contains an unnoticed provision to cede all mining rites to the People's Republic of China..... I'm just pulling this from the air as a wild and woolly example. The Triumvirate would meet to sign off on various thins, but one of the Triumvirs notices this huge problem. He raises a warning, refuses to sign it goes back to Parliament to be worked through and then all is in the best interest of the nation. That is the sort of thing I have in mind. But admittedly, these are just first thoughts (with the imbibing of significant libation)... my point is that the figurehead President is a lousy system, and Australia is smart enough and vibrant enough to come up with something no one else is doing.

But I still like my idea of Prince Harry as a transitional Governor General. He knows to have fun, and it would be good thing for the nation to look at a different way the House of Windsor could play an active role rather than being booted to the kerb.

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: hellobruce

No, not a dictatorship, but rather a sort of failsafe. Say a piece of legislation that looks good on the surface upon further inspection contains an unnoticed provision to cede all mining rites to the People's Republic of China.....

That would be found when it is debated in the Senate and House of Represantitives....

but one of the Triumvirs notices this huge problem. He raises a warning, refuses to sign it goes back to Parliament to be worked through and then all is in the best interest of the nation.

Funny, that is exactly what the Senate does! -

The Senate is a house of review and a powerful check on the government of the day

www.aph.gov.au...

my point is that the figurehead President is a lousy system,

True, that is why the current system is much better!

But I still like my idea of Prince Harry as a transitional Governor General.

So we go from a Australian as GG to a Pom.... I am sure the republicans would love that!

a reply to: hellobruce

I would think the republicans would love Prince Harry as GG simply waiting for the next cock up. He could prove to be really good, or he could prove to be a disaster and that would work to the advantage of the republicans. Yes, imagine Price Harry as GG at Mardis Gras in Sydney dressed up as a cowboy in white leather vest, chaps, hat, and thong.

And if it worked out as a positive thing for the nation and the Windsors, then why not have Harry become an Aussie citizen and name him King of Australia. Let his progeny follow on after him.

Imagine the news reports, "Today King Harry participated in World Naked Bike Ride to show his solidarity and because he enjoys getting his kit off." As my Zambian friend Nicola likes to say, "It would be brill !"

a reply to: stumason

Except those that aren't and are sent to Manus Island - Australia has some seriously tough immigration policies...

Seriously tough laws for serious cue jumpers . I think Tony is a tripper but occasionally he nails it . And lets face it if they can afford to come here that in itself makes most of them well off in their country of origin . Also a lot seem to lose their documentation . Go figure .

a reply to: Krusty the Klown

You didn't answer the question.

Of course i answered the question, if you actually read the reply i gave. Here is your question:-

As far as foreigners go I've only ever come across English people who oppose Australia becoming a republic and having its own flag. Scots, Irish and Welsh don't seem to have a problem with it or any other nationality. Why is that?

And here was my reply:-

Maybe the real question that should be asked is.......... "Do the Aborigines want everyone else to just go away and let them have their country back" ? Now that would be a really good idea and it would have my vote

The reason i don't want Australia to become a republic and have it's own flag , is i would rather prefer The Aborigines were given their land back and everyone else should bugger off.

Is that plain enough for you?

originally posted by: stumason

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
The queen, and only the queen, has the power to appoint a new governor general. Our politicians merely suggest a potential candidate but have no real say in who gets the job.

And when has she turned one down?

How do you know she hasn't? How do you know how many people were nominated?
Were you there when she chose cosgrove?

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Were you there when she chose cosgrove?

She did not chose Cosgrove, the PM did....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Were you there when she chose cosgrove?

She did not chose Cosgrove, the PM did....

Cosgrove was nominated. Only the QUEEN can appoint a governor general.

Goddamn you are seriously not understanding how this works, no matter how many times I post the link to the official governor general website.

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Cosgrove was nominated. Only the QUEEN can appoint a governor general.

Goddamn you are seriously not understanding how this works,

I know exactly how it works, back on page 1 I stated "the Queen appoints the Governor General the PM nominates. "

Which is what happens, the Queen does not choose a GG, the PM does that....

The Governor-General is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister

eg. The PM tells the Queen who to appoint....

Telling the queen who to appoint, and "The act or an instance of submitting a name for candidacy or appointment" are two totally different things. If she doesn't think they are a suitable candidate she won't appoint them. Simple.
The PM doesn't influence her decision whatsoever. He merely makes a suggestion.

originally posted by: alldaylong

Maybe the real question that should be asked is.......... "Do the Aborigines want everyone else to just go away and let them have their country back" ? Now that would be a really good idea and it would have my vote

The reason i don't want Australia to become a republic and have it's own flag , is i would rather prefer The Aborigines were given their land back and everyone else should bugger off.

Is that plain enough for you?

So you would have 23 million people homeless and out of work, a complete economy vanished and an indigenous population of 460,000 people to defend the second largest coastline in the world of a land mass rich in mineral wealth, fossil fuels and arable land and a decaying infrastructure.

Australia would become a haven for every pirate, fugitive, terrorist organisation, drug cartel, organised crime syndicate and would be warlord.

And I'm sure England would welcome these 23 million homeless people back with open arms.

Good plan

It's interesting that you believe you have a right to vote in another country's sovereignty!!!

originally posted by: Krusty the Klown
reply to: ClandestineKid

Of course, all are welcome here!

That's lovely to know! But I don't think I'd like it. I'm terrified of the spiders we have in the UK. The ones in Australia would be the death of me!