Thread: A new monarch.

For a long time I've been on the fence, leaning toward being a small R republican. Giving the issue further thought, I'd prefer to maintain the status quo.

Becoming a republic is like a child growing up, leaving home and cutting ties with the parents who brought them up.
It also means the figurehead becomes a political position.

Retaining the monarchy is akin to a child growing up and leaving home but remaining a caring family member. Who knows, it may emulate so many family situations, with the offspring looking after the parents.
The monarch, as head of state for Australia, is truly independent and apolitical.

In summary, considering the politics and the fact that I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I'm now in the remain camp.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

In summary, considering the politics and the fact that I'm a bit of a traditionalist, I'm now in the remain camp.

If our recent history shows anything, it's we're crap at nominating and/or electing sane and stable people to any role, be it member or leader of a party or Australian of the year. It's always political, it's often single issue, mostly divisive and apparently driven by social media "likes".

Originally Posted by V8Ian

... ..... ....
It also means the figurehead becomes a political position.

.... .... .....
.

Why would it necessarily be political?

Why couldn't it be like the state Governors and the Governor General?

Have many of them been political?

Originally Posted by vnx205

Why would it necessarily be political?

Why couldn't it be like the state Governors and the Governor General?

Have many of them been political?

Most, I'd say. The success or failure of the person holding the position is entirely dependent on the ethics and ethos of the nominee.

Some people are asking why we need a head of state at all.
The argument goes that the chief judge of the High Court could swear in the PM and Ministry, as happens in the USA.
Laws would become effective as soon as passed by parliament.
Ceremonial duties could be done by various people.
We would save the salaries of 75 people plus many other expenses.
Laws could be passed to spell out in greater detail that if the politicians mess up elections are called.
Interesting argument.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Some people are asking why we need a head of state at all.
The argument goes that the chief judge of the High Court could swear in the PM and Ministry, as happens in the USA.
Laws would become effective as soon as passed by parliament.
Ceremonial duties could be done by various people.
We would save the salaries of 75 people plus many other expenses.
Laws could be passed to spell out in greater detail that if the politicians mess up elections are called.
Interesting argument.

I do not think that the US is a particularly good model to use as an example - the US Supreme Court is quite overtly political, as is much of their justice system, with judges either elected or political appointments.

The savings cited would be unlikely to ever eventuate, as much of the day to day work of the governors and GG is ceremonial - such as attending functions to represent the country and presenting honours. Someone has to do these things.

Shook my head at a report that Charles is preceded everywhere by a truck carrying his bed and the pictures he wants on the walls in the room where he will sleep.
Maybe he should just get a caravan and connect it to the royal Rangie.

I read the Royal Mail Post Office has been renamed Charles III Post Office - C3PO for short.

Big ears is independently wealthy and can afford to take his bed and pictures with him, Who really cares what or how he spends his own money.