Republic

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:32 am

Because such a stupid technical debated doesn't belong on the other thread.

Incidently, I think that forcing them to answer the question was hardly sabotage, because it's a pretty critical part of the question - I'd vote down any US style presidency as fast as humanly possible, because the absolute last thing we need is a president who might think that it is a good idea to veto things.

It WAS an act of sabotage. The simple question "Do you want a republic?" is a valid one to put to the Australian people. And back then at least that question would have passed with a yes EASILY.

As it SHOULD.

Beyond that we can spend a good couple of decades if we need to running through various proposals and throwing them out there as referendum questions on some of the bigger points.

But all the same the whole "forcing them to give an answer" is NOT what you make it out to be. Monarchists were in that body as were large numbers of other appointees hand picked by Howard for the specific purpose of scuttling it all and they worked to sabotage it.

It wasn't the republicans plan, it was HOWARDS plan. His own personally crafted lame horse.

Not that it mattered. ANY plan was all he needed. He ran a scare campaign based on basically three planks.

1) Unknown is Scary, Known is Good.

2) Look Obscure specific (minor) technical point you don't understand because I obfuscate like hell about it, but it's in the specific proposal "republicans" want to ram down your throat AAAAH BOOOGA BOOOGA

3) We might have to stop going to the Commonwealth games and feeling big by pushing around all those half starved third world athletes.

For plank 2 he just needed you know, a document to wave in the air and decry vocally.

The document could have been nothing but a proposal to provide free hot sexy sex to all Australians and that would have worked.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:36 am

Speaking as an American, I would like to point out that you generally need large-scale armed revolt to throw off the British Monarchy.

But I heard a rumour that you might want to ask someone from India about other options.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:36 am

If you are not only asking Australians, then I offer this...

I know of only one Republic, and we saw what happened there after Order 66.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:52 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Speaking as an American, I would like to point out that you generally need large-scale armed revolt to throw off the British Monarchy.

Tell that to the tiny tin pot (yet strategic) Island nation of Malta.

They just changed their constitution in 1974 and BAM, republic. It's not hard, if that particularly dysfunctional nation can do it then we can.

They even stayed in the Commonwealth, so they get to go to the commonwealth games and sit in on the silly commonwealth business/government holiday junkets where you spend all your time pointedly not kicking Zimbabwe out each year.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:59 am

Yeah, it would obviously get up. Everyone can agree with that. It's like saying 'do you want teddy bears for children'

So having established that, you pick an option

1) Make the de facto situation de jure

2) Do what they voted in the referendum

3) Do a direct election US style president.

The problem is that 1/3rd of the people don't care, 1/3rd want 1 or 2, and 1/3rd want 3, and the people who want 1 or 2 think that 3 is the worst idea mankind has ever created, and the guys behind 3 think the reverse.

It WAS an act of sabotage. The simple question "Do you want a republic?" is a valid one to put to the Australian people. And back then at least that question would have passed with a yes EASILY.

That's a plebiscite, like that bloody stupid one on the national song. And yes, if you put a plebiscite with that question I agree 100% that the answer would be yes. But seriously Gallop can tell you that right now, so who cares. Everyone knows this.

So what we're talking about now is not 'should we have a republic (though some people clearly still are, that debate is over), what we're talking about is actually changing the constitution.

What goes into the referendum has to be an actual substantive measure, because it's going to go in the constitution. It doesn't get more important than this.

Yeah the monarchists torpedoed the republicans by making the republicans fight over how the Australian Republic should look - but damnit, we have to have that fight anyway! It's hardly sabotage when we need to do it ourselves.

Finding a compromise between the direct election and 'fuck off with the US shit' camps is going to be tough. I seriously doubt that if instead of legally required 'yes or no' the two options on the vote were options 2 or 3 that I outlined above that either would carry a referendum.

Personal opinion: 2 is probably the best solution, but I don't give a shit if the current de facto hangs around. Any conspiracy theory that involves the Queen in the double dissolution is just hilarious, and once you get past that it's just politics.

Take solace from the fact if the republican camp can remove it's head from its own arse it'll get the measure up - the Australian people do consistently pass political reform votes.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:03 am

PhoneLobster wrote: Tell that to the tiny tin pot (yet strategic) Island nation of Malta.

What part of "Speaking as an American" did you not understand? We don't know where tiny countries (nor most large ones) are, nor do we care, unless they have oil we can invade them for.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:26 am

cthulhu wrote:That's a plebiscite, like that bloody stupid one on the national song. And yes, if you put a plebiscite with that question I agree 100% that the answer would be yes. But seriously Gallop can tell you that right now, so who cares. Everyone knows this.

No.

The one in question had a distinct difference. It had an overriding ostensible agenda of "How shall we implement a Republic" but the nature of the decision reached would determine whether the overriding agenda went ahead in any form at all.

And a large number of delegates were there with the exclusive goal of sabotaging the supposed over all agenda. They were in no way there to craft an honest proposal that had any chance of passing, they were indeed there with the goal of doing the direct opposite of that.

That is abnormal.

And a referendum on "should we have a republic" is not a useless motherhood question. It is the nail in the coffin of monarchists that would cry to high heaven about a lack of a democratic mandate to spurn the public's much known "love of the monarchy".

What goes into the referendum has to be an actual substantive measure, because it's going to go in the constitution. It doesn't get more important than this.

And yet it doesn't have to work like that at all. After all that is not how democracy generally works at all

For the most part for issues like this a candidate says "I will give you Cake!"

And when he is elected on his cake mandate he THEN crafts his Cake legislation and it is modified and voted on by elected representatives.

Howard's appointed committee consisting of at least largely of guys entirely opposed to the whole idea IS NOT THE SAME THING.

Yeah the monarchists torpedoed the republicans by making the republicans fight over how the Australian Republic should look - but damnit, we have to have that fight anyway! It's hardly sabotage when we need to do it ourselves.

So why the fuck were monarchists writing the proposed changes?

No really what is your explanation for that?

I seriously doubt that if instead of legally required 'yes or no' the two options on the vote were options 2 or 3 that I outlined above that either would carry a referendum.

And yet you claim that the "should we have a republic?" question would carry a yes easily tomorrow and is as good as lovable teddy bears.

If we really don't need to ask the "Republic Yes/No?" question because we know the answer is and should be yes then why not run those two options you claim are so stark and opposed as the only two options on the referendum?

Why not "President, appointed and symbolic like Governor General or elected and actually does stuff?"

With no "Fuck off no republic for you!" option.

Hell why not run TWO referendum questions?

1) "Republic Yes/No?"

2) "If 1 passes, President Real/Fake?"

The answer to why the referendum was never set up in such a manner and why opposition to the republic got to craft the question presented is because the question was specifically crafted to go down in flames and create a situation where the monarchy survived against the desire of the majority.

I can't imagine why you have trouble with this, there virtually isn't a single fucking expert commentator on Australian politics that doesn't share my view on this. You would have to dig to the deepest depths of the most INCREDIBLE of partisan sub human morons to find any so called "expert" on Australian politics that saw Howard's gambit as anything other than undemocratic sabotage.

Really. If Howard had put up the two part question we WOULD have a republic. Right now. No doubt about it.

Any conspiracy theory that involves the Queen in the double dissolution is just hilarious, and once you get past that it's just politics.

Er. What?

Recent History ring a bell at all?

Whitlam?

No?

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:24 am

If we really don't need to ask the "Republic Yes/No?" question because we know the answer is and should be yes then why not run those two options you claim are so stark and opposed as the only two options on the referendum?

Because that is illegal.

Why not "President, appointed and symbolic like Governor General or elected and actually does stuff?"

With no "Fuck off no republic for you!" option.

Hell why not run TWO referendum questions?

1) "Republic Yes/No?"

2) "If 1 passes, President Real/Fake?"

Because that is illegal.

The answer to why the referendum was never set up in such a manner and why opposition to the republic got to craft the question presented is because the question was specifically crafted to go down in flames and create a situation where the monarchy survived against the desire of the majority.

No, it is because your formulation is illegal. I do note that a number of referendums have been beaten despite the desires of the majority because a minority did not wish it to be so. The question was specifically crafted yes, but the model was that proposed by the republican movement, and it was a great job by Howard - but it didn't kill the vote.

The republicans got up the model they wanted, but the fucking republicans killed the vote by voting against it. If all the republicans who wanted direct election decided to just suck it up and go indirect, we would have had a republic. But nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. That was to hard

Really. If Howard had put up the two part question we WOULD have a republic. Right now. No doubt about it.

It would be illegal for Howard to have done that.

Why repeatedly suggest a course of action that is illegal and unconstitutional? The formulation of referendum questions is strictly defined, and it must be a yes or no question, where an answer to the affirmative endorses the proposed change, and a answer to the negative votes down the change.

Two part questions are illegal. Choice A or B is illegal. You cannot do any of what you proposed, because it is illegal.

You're changing the constitution man. We have rules for that shit. Part of the deal is that you have to play by the rules. The rules dude!

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:36 am

I rather prefer the current situation to the US model though. Yes, the US presidency is that bad that I'd rather keep the queen than have something like that despite preferring a republic in theory.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:41 am

I really don't see how two referenda are illegal.

It says a yes/no. But the referendum can change how you have referendums! So you can say 'yes, I want to ask an a or b question' and 'no I do not want them able to ask an a or b question.'

The first question makes the second legal.

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:44 am

I agree. This is actually the problem - a direct election GG with no powers would probably get up for both sides, but meh.

Accusing howard of torpedoing the vote - while trueish, he did just aim for an existing fault line and go hard - the funny thing is, he picked the model preferred by liberal voters.

All said and done, if the direct election crowd had of just swallowed their pride, they would have won easily. The indirect model owned the media, just needed a united front.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:47 am

Crissa wrote:I really don't see how two referenda are illegal.

It says a yes/no. But the referendum can change how you have referendums! So you can say 'yes, I want to ask an a or b question' and 'no I do not want them able to ask an a or b question.'

The first question makes the second legal.

-Crissa

Err, I guess you could have a referendum on changing the procedure for referendums, but that would fly like a lead ballon that was on fire and full of explosives, because it would give the two big states more power, and the other states consistently vote that shit down.

Anyway, it's not currently legal. You can try and change that part of the constitution first but good luck with that.

Incidentally, allowing A or B questions is the worst idea I have ever heard.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:26 am

The republic question allowed one, specific A or B question. It could have been A or C or D as well, there was no real reason to choose only two, aside from simplicity.

In fact, often yes or no questions become A or B. A we do something specific, B we do this via current methods.

-Crissa

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:48 am

Nah, thats not allowed in Australia. The constitution provides for a process that requires steps before and after the acceptance of the question by the people, so doing the double in one isn't go to fly.

You have to go through the entire process each time, so your right to ask the question question is going to be moved as ammendement one, then you have to wait, then you can go in again. Also, because the procedure requires a majority of states AND a majority of people nationally, you'd have to change the scoring procedure to prevent a situation where both proposals do not achieve a double majority

Changing the scoring procedure (even for 1 time) is likely to cause controversy.

Anyway, this is a wild hypothetical that wasn't even remotely considered at the time, so I'm not particularly how it's entirely relevant!

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:01 am

He is prevaricating and deliberately obfuscating the issue Crissa.

They could have just asked the two questions in two separate elections.

Perfectly legal and actually widely suggested at the time by EVERYONE other than the monarchists.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:15 am

I missed that in the news coverage at the time then, and I cannot turn up anything now in 5 minutes of goggling. But I didn't think the minimalists and the direct elections were even close to a resolution at the time.

Either way, Turnbull and Rudd are in, Turnbull even lead the republican movement. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen now.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:11 am

cthulhu wrote:If it's going to happen, it's going to happen now.

I disagree with that and your "its still obviously a yes if asked" suggestion.

It is regarded as having been rendered politically unpalatable, and the labor party it just to broken and cowardly after various (humiliating) defeats adding up ever since Whitlam.

The republic referendum was a swift kick in Keating's nuts while he was down with the intention (that succeeded) of reminding his party not to help him or his ideals get back up again. And it largely worked.

Rudd will need to retain his current popularity and see a safe election to a second (if not third) term with a wide margin of success before they have the confidence to expend or risk the political capital they so poorly trust and desperately need on a "minor" issue like the republic.

So hey, MAYBE second term Rudd will put together a referendum on it for his third term election. Maybe. Don't hold your breath.

Certainly not in Howard's legacy economy.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:13 am

Republic was polling at 88% prior to vote.

Yeah, I agree with you about political capital, but seriously, libs would need a miracle to win the next election.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:23 am

cthulhu wrote:Yeah, I agree with you about political capital, but seriously, libs would need a miracle to win the next election.

And yet those things happen in politics. I mean this IS Australian labor we are talking about, a rival party member looking to personal advancement could out Kevin Rudd for eating babies and planning to sell the snowy river scheme to Chinese terrorists tomorrow.

All the liberals need to do for a chance is cross their fingers and turn up with an intact opposition party.

I mean hell. It's basically what labor did. Tread water until Howard promptly jumped onto his own sword for them.

Of course. The way they are going the libs won't manage that whole "turning up with an intact opposition party" bit.

But like I said in the Australia information thread. They are a VERY ineffective party in opposition.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:34 pm

Every Australian party is.

Edit: Also, I didn;t address this before.

Er. What?

Recent History ring a bell at all?

Whitlam?

No?

Kerr specifically did an end run around the Queen to avoid the possibility of Whitlam asking the Queen to dismiss him, which was entirely possible - Kerr refusing Whitlam the opportunity to have the Queen dismiss him is part of the entire debacle.

There isn't even, as far as I know, any record of Kerr talking to the Queen about any of it. He specifically didn't want Whitlam to be able to talk to the Queen and overrode precedent to do so!

Kerr was a fucking jerk, but the Queen specifically didn't have anything to do with it, because if she did, Kerr was fucked.

Anyway, according to the ABC it was the CIA: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1479968.htm

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:14 pm

cthulhu wrote:Every Australian party is.

No, federal labor was really very good actually.

Probably just Kim Beasley alone gave you the wrong impression on that.

Kerr specifically did an end run around the Queen

As usual with anything political I have the impression there are REALLY basic things you either don't understand or blatantly choose to ignore.

The governor general is the queens representative. All his power stems from the queen, all hit actions are meant to be effectively proxy actions on behalf of the queen.

At ANY point if the governor general does something the queen dislikes she can say "No, I disagree, he can't do that". The queen is totally his boss and she can totally trump him at the drop of a hat.

To suggest the queen didn't at the very least play a passively accepting role in the Whitlam dismissal is to suggest she never heard about it at all.

And that is silly.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:44 pm

PhoneLobster wrote: As usual with anything political I have the impression there are REALLY basic things you either don't understand or blatantly choose to ignore.

What the fuck? It's like you're chosing to ignore stuff

The governor general is the queens representative. All his power stems from the queen, all hit actions are meant to be effectively proxy actions on behalf of the queen.

Yes, this is true. But please note - the POINT of the constitutional crisis, the entire THING THAT HAPPENED was Kerr belived - and has not been legally challenged as wrong - that he could exercise the reserve powers whenever he wished for whatever purpose without consultation. I mean the actual legal advice was

The Constitution binds the Crown. The Constitutional prescription is that executive power is exercisable by the Governor-General although vested in The Queen. What is exercisable is original executive power: that is, the very thing vested in The Queen by Section 61. And it is exercisable by The Queen’s representative, not her delegate or agent.

also, if it was President Kerr and not GG Kerr, it still could have happened. It would have been worse, because it removes the 'nuclear option' of

At ANY point if the governor general does something the queen dislikes she can say "No, I disagree, he can't do that". The queen is totally his boss and she can totally trump him at the drop of a hat.

Umm, not true any more, nor was it true for the specific events at the time.

Curently: Can I point you to the Australia Acts? 1986? Ring a bell? The cutting of almost every tie to the 'mother land?' The only thing she can do is appoint and dismiss him at the advice of the prime minister. That's it. Full stop. She cannot override the writs. She cannot dismiss him without the advice of the prime minister. She cannot appoint someone except at the advice of the prime minister.

Now, if we rewind to 1976, she did have all the functions of the GG to be exercised herself, but the GG does not have the power to 'retract' the writs. That's not a power in the constitution, so it would be illegal to do so. Once the writs are issued, there is literally no turning back. We will have an election.

Incidently, also note their is no provision for the queen to retroactively remove powers either.

To suggest the queen didn't at the very least play a passively accepting role in the Whitlam dismissal is to suggest she never heard about it at all.

And that is silly.

Did I say the queen didn't passively accept what happened? Fuck off.That's standard issue royal policy. The Queen passively accepts every single decision. The ONLY times royal assessent has even been referred to the queen is for a few very specific acts to do with the flag or the existence of Australia as a nation (vis a vis the Australia Acts), AND that cannot even be done any more.

Not that it mattered even if the queen DIDN'T want to accept what happened, because she's not allowed to do anything else.

What I said was that the Queen was not involved - and yes, she only would have heard about it after the writs were issued. I seriously doubt she was consulted in advance. She certainly was not consulted prior to Kerr using the reserve powers to dismiss the government and call an election.

Once Kerr had issued the writs, the Writs cannot be recalled!

Also, seriously - the reserve powers are proposed to be transfered to the president under most republic models suggested, so, again, if it was President Kerr the same thing could have happened except Whitlam couldn't try to have him removed.

What the GG does or does not do is an Australian Problem created by Australia for Australia. Assigning it to the queen is just stupid given the rules and procedures around his operation.

A much better arguement is that the reserve powers are flawed and should be fixed. Implictating the queen for doing XYZ which she has no control over and isn't even allowed to do anymore is just dumb.

Now, Kerr did all this shit, but he's allowed to (because the reserve powers are bad)

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:38 am

You don't quiet grasp the concept of WHERE the governor general's official power comes from.

Do you?

Without the Queen the governor general has no authority whatsoever. Means of appointment, customary limitations or imagined limitations on powers, all of that is all very well.

But there is the very real matter of where his legal authority comes from and that is and always has been the Queen (or King).

And that power is and always has been at the discretion of the monarch.

You are effectively arguing minor procedural matters, precedent and the like against the very foundation of Australian law and government authority.

Hell you are effectively arguing that the person who's sole claim to power is as representative of the Queen in fact (magically) has MORE power than the Queen and can bend her over and spank her and she has to take it like a quiet little girl.

I'd have given you that to some limited degree in the days prior to modern communications. But not in that era. That's just stupid.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:27 am

Please tell me which part of the constitution or the law of Australia or GB gave the Queen the right to revoke the writs issued by the GG in 1975.

It's a matter of fundamental law, so you should no problems with it

I'm still dead keen to hear how Queen Elizabeth (and not the Crown) was involved in the 1975 debacle.Cause really, I missed it - except for the direct statements that it was a matter for Australia and the GG - and not her.

cthulhu · Post by **cthulhu** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:57 am

PhoneLobster wrote: No, federal labor was really very good actually.

Probably just Kim Beasley alone gave you the wrong impression on that.

Err, and Crean? Mark Latham? Latham was the first labour leader to ever actually lose seats in opposition, and he displaced Crean who would have been worse.

Beazly was worse of course, but thems the breaks in the big city

Edit: Wait, not the first but the last one was ages ago.

Edit2: I'm expecting a diatribe about howard's campagin tactics which were dirty and hard hitting, but I'm not sure how that matters. Only one ad campaign had traction - even the dumb handshake move was a null outcome. Surely labor could have put something together.