It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Republic of Australia

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:17 PM
(Australian) Republicans claim support surge

Australia's republican movement said it has received a surge of support since Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles announced their engagement.

I love the Brits. I hold a British passport aswell as an Australian passport. But I am strongly in favour of Australia becoming a republic. Prince Charles and his 2nd wife Camilla Parker Bowles are to be married, which I don't have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the fact that Australian taxpayers are going to foot some of the costs for Charles to visit Australia at the end of Febuary. This is ridiculous, and I'm sure my British brothers and sisters agree. Why should we pay for any trip the Royals make to Australia? Can they not afford it themselves?

The Australian Republican Movement (ARM) said it was the biggest growth in support since Charles' son, Prince Harry, visited Australia partially at the expense of the Australian taxpayer 18 months ago.

Here is another example. Partial or not, we should not have to pay for these people to come here. All this does is fuel the republic issue and grow the support base, which is a good thing. Australia becoming a republic does not mean it is no longer part of the commonwealth I believe. I would love for nothing more than to keep our commonwealth ties, but I have serious objections to Australians living under a monarchy (albeit a monarchy without much more than a symbolic representation).

An Australian republic is inevitable, so why are we pussy-footing around it? Besides the fact that Howard and Downer are staunch monarchists. I hate to sound rude, but I really don't give a hoot about Charles, Camilla, Harry, William or Liz. I don't dislike them either, but there comes a time when you move on.

Australia is pretty much a republic already anyway:

The first definition of a republic is, "A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. A nation that has such a political order."

By this measure Australia is, undeniably, already a republic. Writing in 1867, Walter Bagehot described the Westminster system of government as "disguised republicanism". While the symbols of monarchy had been preserved, the substance of executive government had been republicanised through the practices of representative and responsible government.

More recently, the High Court of Australia has determined that, in our system of Government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people (cf. Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 at para 17 per Deane and Toohey JJ; Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106 at para 37 per Mason CJ; Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 104 at para 13 per Deane J).

The only thing holding Australia back from being a full republic is that our head of state is a monarch and not a president. So there for we are not a republic yet. Let's stop mucking around and get on with it!

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:23 PM
By the way, I do not really have a problem with Australia paying for security. But that could also be an issue. I would love to see a breakdown of what we are actually paying for.

Edit: Why on earth does the ATS language filter target the word pu$$y when I typed "pu$$y-footing" in the original post? Shouldn't it also target the word "knob"

[edit on 10-2-2005 by cargo]


log in