Republic

[_RAAF_Stupot]

Originally Posted by Seamus

NOT even an option I've ever heard mooted. I certainly would not support the notion of an appointed Head Of State,that's what we have now.

Nonsense,it's a matter of roles. Head of government and head of State are very different positions.Our head of State is NOT the governor general, ,but the Queen. The GG is her representative.There is no political conflict between the head of government and the head of state; it is not permitted under our constitution,which I suggest you read. It's available on line. (it's not very long.)

I have read it - many times. My positition is if the GG, as the Head of State, were popularly elected, it would in effect make the GG a political position whether written in the Constitution or not. People voting for the GG would take into consideration what they know (or imagine) of the candidates' political leanings. Furthermore when we get into the murky waters of reserve powers, being popularly elected creates a potential conflict of interest - even for the most fair-minded person.

Originally Posted by Seamus

In forming a republic, the powers of the head of State would be defined by law and I would expect the position to be purely ceremonial.

I am suggesting that the powers of the GG remain as they are currently, even under a republic.

Originally Posted by Seamus

There is no necessity to even have two positions. Under the American system the elected president is both the head of government and the head of State. The position of both PM and GG could be amalgamated into the position of president. I have always hoped that will be the case here, as it seems the most ratitional and pragmatic to me. But,people can be ineffably bloody minded and stupid,so perhaps not.

I like that having two positions maintains a bit of a 'dilution of power'......

[bipedalhumanoid]

Originally Posted by Xeno

LOL. The last one would succeeded at a referendum if a bunch of stupids had not split the pro-republican vote.

People are stupid for rejecting a model they utterly despise? Since you've brought the tone down to the level of name calling, let me ask you a question. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Originally Posted by Xeno

Has it occurred to you that some republicans would actively oppose a popular-election model, and may have sound reason for doing so?

Has it occured to you that a future referendum probably won't be structured in the same way, given the lessons learned from the previous referendum?

The Australian Republican Movement are proposing that we go to the people and ask them what kind of republic they want first.

1. A non-binding plebiscite on the threshold question of do you want Australia to become a republic with an Australian Head of State?
2. A second plebiscite on the form of a republic including the selection method (following the full development of forms of a republic, including the selection method, by experts).
3. A referendum offering a choice between adopting the form of republic approved by the second plebiscite or remaining a constitutional monarchy.

Originally Posted by Xeno

Really? That was the majority vote was it? More than 50% of people were opposed to a republic solely because it did not offer an elected president? I deduce that Australia has a monarchist population of 0%, although that 0% seems equally vociferous in claiming that the referendum result proved that Australians wanted to retain the monarchy.

Yawn... no I didn't say that at all. No matter which way you look at it, the majoirty of Australians rejected the constitutional model on offer.

Originally Posted by Xeno

By the way, would you mind explaining what is elitist about Australian democratic government? Are you actively opposed to most laws passed by the Parliament on the grounds that they are all quite obviously elitist and undemocratic because not one of them has been passed by the democratic system defined above?

I'm not against elected representatives passing laws. I am against them excluding me from an election process.

Originally Posted by Xeno

Why should a president be a representative of the people?

That's what a head of state does. What do you want our head of state to do that's different from other heads of state?

Originally Posted by Xeno

What mandate do you imagine the president would have had under the actual proposals?

Under the actual proposals s/he doesn't have a mandate from the people.

Originally Posted by Xeno

What aspect of the powers proposed for the president do you imagine require a democratic rather than undemocratic selection? I use the references to democracy as I defined above.

Nothing to do with specific powers but a as a figure head who will from time to time meet foreign dignitaries and make speaches on behalf of Australia, it would be nice if Australia actually put him/her in that position.

Originally Posted by Xeno

Why do you equate the current method of appointment of a G-G with the then proposed model for selection and appointment of a president?

Because both methods exclude the people of Australia from chosing their head of state, or in the current situation, the HOS's representative.

Originally Posted by Xeno

Do you actually know much about Australian Constitution and government at all?

Of course we are not stuck with it. So fucking what? Do you always decide issues based on large dollops of fantasy about future actions?

This is getting tedious already. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[bipedalhumanoid]

Originally Posted by Xeno

I did not say it meant directly nominated. Unless you have some reasonable if rough facsimile of the Turnbull model, your problems are in the nomination. My questions and implied answers stand.

Whatever I assume, it is not that I have yet satisfied Bertrand Russell's search.

I have probably said what I want on this thread and am unlikely to re-enter it unless I happen to be misrepresented.

Unless you made assumptions about what it means to have a directly elected president, you can't leap to the conclusion that you're going to end up with some dodo in power.

I'll refer you, again, to the Irish system. Where the parliamentarians are responsible for nominating presidential candidates and the vote still goes to the people.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, I have no interest in furthering this conversation with you.

[wolty]

BPH, personal abuse is frowned upon. Perhaps you would like to re-phrase before I fix it for you.

The two instances please.


Actually three.

[davo]

The eye of Sauron is fixed on personal attacks

[bipedalhumanoid]

Originally Posted by wolty

BPH, personal abuse is frowned upon. Perhaps you would like to re-phrase before I fix it for you.

The two instances please.


Actually three.

So you can call people stupid isn't personal abuse?

I guess there's a line there somewhere.

[wolty]

Originally Posted by bipedalhumanoid

So you can call people stupid isn't personal abuse?

I guess there's a line there somewhere.

An opinion is not personal abuse. It was not directed specifically at you, although you may have taken it that way.

Yours was personal abuse directed at someone.

[Mister Pervert]

Malcolm Turnbull is an idiot. Plato had 11 (eleven) "slaves" at home while he was "down at the Agora" defining "the Republic".

If THAT is a "republic", bring it on!

[Spud Henley]

Originally Posted by bipedalhumanoid

This is how the Australian Republican movement suggests the process should go ahead...

I like the idea that we first vote on being a republic and after that is done we have proposals put forward on how it will work and how the new Presidnet / Head Of State is elected. If we don't like the republic election model such as the awful John Howard farce model displayed to the public during the last referendum we reject it and wait on more models to be proposed.

[Spud Henley]

Originally Posted by Mister Pervert

Malcolm Turnbull is an idiot. Plato had 11 (eleven) "slaves" at home while he was "down at the Agora" defining "the Republic".

If THAT is a "republic", bring it on!

In this day and age slaves are called contract workers.