Topic: Aussie Prime Minister calls for Republic when the Queen dies

[S.M.A.]

Does she think that bringing up this issue (again) will affect the polls for the coming Aug. 21 election?

Isn't there some similar anti-monarchist sentiment here in Canada and N.Zealand as well?

AFP link

Australian PM backs republic after queen's death

 
48 minutes ago

SYDNEY (AFP) - Australia should become a republic when Queen Elizabeth dies, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Tuesday in comments which may revive a long-running debate just days ahead of national polls.

Gillard, whose centre-left Labor Party is in a tight electoral race against a conservative coalition, said the queen's death would be an "appropriate" time for Australia to move away from having a British monarch as head of state.


"I believe that this nation should be a republic. I also believe that this nation has got a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth," Gillard, Australia's first woman prime minister, told reporters.


"What I would like to see as prime minister is that we work our way through to an agreement on a model for the republic, but I think the appropriate time for this nation to move to being a republic is when we see the monarch change."


Australians voted against turning the former colony into a republic in a 1999 referendum, and debate on the issue has often proved divisive.


"Obviously I'm hoping for Queen Elizabeth that she lives a long and happy life and having watched her mother, I think there's every chance that she will live a long and happy life,"

(...)

[ModlrMike]

Isn't there some similar anti-monarchist sentiment here in Canada and N.Zealand as well?

It doesn't matter if there's sentiment or not. Canada will no sooner legally become a republic than pigs will fly. We have Richard Hatfield to thank for that. His clause in the constitution requiring unanimous agreement of the provinces WRT changes to HM's role virtually ensures the Crown's continued presence in Canada.

Interestingly, he's also responsible for two other significant clauses: the right to minority language instruction, and the notwithstanding clause.

[AJFitzpatrick]

It doesn't matter if there's sentiment or not. Canada will no sooner legally become a republic than pigs will fly. We have Richard Hatfield to thank for that. His clause in the constitution requiring unanimous agreement of the provinces WRT changes to HM's role virtually ensures the Crown's continued presence in Canada.

Interestingly, he's also responsible for two other significant clauses: the right to minority language instruction, and the notwithstanding clause.

Except that if we are getting rid of the monarchy, the constitution wouldn't have validity since the constitution is dependant on the authority of the to be abolished monarchy.

[HavokFour]

I just don't see what the big fuss is about. I for one like having a Queen, it's not like she makes everyone's lives miserable.

[ArmyVern]

It doesn't matter if there's sentiment or not. Canada will no sooner legally become a republic than pigs will fly. We have Richard Hatfield to thank for that. His clause in the constitution requiring unanimous agreement of the provinces WRT changes to HM's role virtually ensures the Crown's continued presence in Canada.

Interestingly, he's also responsible for two other significant clauses: the right to minority language instruction, and the notwithstanding clause.

Oh those evil New Brunswickers eh?? We actually do rule the world. 

(You didn't mention anything at all about his pot-in-his-suitcase incident!!?? You must like him.  )

[ModlrMike]

Except that if we are getting rid of the monarchy, the constitution wouldn't have validity since the constitution is dependant on the authority of the to be abolished monarchy.

I did stress the word legally. Regardless of the method used, it would plunge us into a constitutional crisis and likely spell the end of the nation as we know it.

[Infanteer]

I did stress the word legally. Regardless of the method used, it would plunge us into a constitutional crisis and likely spell the end of the nation as we know it.

Probably not.

[Gunplumber]

Why does no one ever mention how much money it would cost to do the change? Sawing off crowns from badges is easy but
but Parliment would change and all books and documents would have to be rewritten. The price would be astronamical!

[boboyer]

Eh,
From my point of view, money and everything aside, it seems like it would be 'closing the door' and breaking the final link Canada has to the Monarchy. Which seems pretty darn exciting.

I know the money and the legal side of it ARE a huge part of it. But it's nice to be 18 and have ignorant fantasies and visions durastic stuff happening, I guess.

[Gunplumber]

You actually think wasting untold BILLIONS of dollars is worth becoming a republic for? The Queen does not really effect what we do as a county in any way. Even without her it would run exactly as it does now. And you can imagine how much corruption would creep in, lots of contracts going out to change small stuff, that does not effect us in any way.

This would cost us way too much for making a few people feel like they were "over 18"

You can pay for it if you want but I will be against getting rid of the Monarchy. Its just not worth the cost.

[boboyer]

This would cost us way too much for making a few people feel like they were "over 18"

I don't understand.

[Grimaldus]

Confederation and Republic sound cool.
My vote is one of those.

[Petamocto]

I don't understand.

That comment with the one above about breaking the last tie is a metaphor for leaving the nest (double metaphor = mind officially blown).

The posters are comparing Canada to a young adult who is at the final stage before leaving their parents' house.

Breaking ties with the Queen/monarchy would be equivalent to moving out (a little less dramatically than the way the US did it when they knocked Dad out on their way out the door).

[boboyer]

That comment with the one above about breaking the last tie is a metaphor for leaving the nest (double metaphor = mind officially blown).

The posters are comparing Canada to a young adult who is at the final stage before leaving their parents' house.

Breaking ties with the Queen/monarchy would be equivalent to moving out (a little less dramatically than the way the US did it when they knocked Dad out on their way out the door).

I have a pretty good collection of mind = blown pictures from various image boards. I'll review them after reading that

On the 'leaving the parents house' comment, I agree 110%

[Rogo]

This will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm sure nothing will come of it but still none the less interesting to see what the former colonies try to do.

On a separate note, why now? Is the Queen dying and no one knows?
To be honest yes she is old, but she was old when I was born, is old now, and considering her access to wealth she will probably be old when she outlives me.


If Nixon can do it, can't the queen?

[karl28]

              I sure hope that the Aussie government does this and in my own personal opinion I have always believed that we as Canadains should also cut our ties to the monarchy . I really believe it's a useless tie to the past that does absolutely nothing for us . We need to be more independent as a nation and do things our own way .       

[Rogo]

But Karl, sure the Monarchy does relatively nothing for us. But it does nothing to harm us either.

Cutting ties would waste so many years and dollars trying to fix and frankly de-**** the gvt.


If they do nothing for us then how is cutting ties making us more or less independent, you said it yourself they really don't do anything for us.

[karl28]

 Rogo
              I here your thoughts but I still have to disagree with them . I still think we could get rid of the monarchy ties and that would also to get rid of the Governor General position also we than could change our ships from HMCS to something like the Canadian Service Ship witch sounds  allot more Canadian  .  It just gives us more of our  own approach to things instead of the same old thing handed to us a long time ago .

[N. McKay]

The posters are comparing Canada to a young adult who is at the final stage before leaving their parents' house.

Breaking ties with the Queen/monarchy would be equivalent to moving out (a little less dramatically than the way the US did it when they knocked Dad out on their way out the door).

I would submit that we moved out in 1982 with the Constitution Act.  What's being discussed now is whether or not we should disown our mother.

              I sure hope that the Aussie government does this and in my own personal opinion I have always believed that we as Canadains should also cut our ties to the monarchy . I really believe it's a useless tie to the past that does absolutely nothing for us . We need to be more independent as a nation and do things our own way .       

How are we not doing things our way now, that would change if we were to become a republic?

You will have much difficulty demonstrating how anything would be better for anyone if we were to do this.  You're arguing on the basis of sentiment rather than practicality.  There are sentimental arguments on both sides of this issue, but all of the practical arguments tend towards keeping the monarchy.

[uptheglens]

Oh, yes, please! It's been nearly a generation since we've opened up that hideous constitution for discussion, and we're about due for another constitutional crisis. It'll feel like 1992 all over again as Ottawa makes a bold pronouncement, Quebec's premier (whoever it'll be) objects and demands more concessions, Eastern Canada (minus Quebec) accedes, Western Canada howls with outrage, the First Nations get run roughshod over politically, the whole project gets bogged down as more objections are raised by more groups as more arguments are started, at least five Royal Commissions are passed by parliament, one chaired yet again by Keith Spicer on defining Canada's future, and the whole mess gets dropped without one single change (apart from yet more bitter acrimony between the various regions) being made after spending billions of dollars.

Personally, I'd sooner keep HM, and her heirs and successors, as Canada's Head of State, as Canada's track record of creating public institutions in the past 40 years is something I'm not quite confident about.

My 

[ColdNorth]

Rogo
              I here your thoughts but I still have to disagree with them . I still think we could get rid of the monarchy ties and that would also to get rid of the Governor General position also we than could change our ships from HMCS to something like the Canadian Service Ship witch sounds  allot more Canadian  .  It just gives us more of our  own approach to things instead of the same old thing handed to us a long time ago .

A lot more Canadian would be keeping our ties with the Monarchy.  If you take a look at how this country was founded, dropping it would be very much American.

[Brutus]

God save the Queen!

[Rogo]

A lot more Canadian would be keeping our ties with the Monarchy.  If you take a look at how this country was founded, dropping it would be very much American.

And as much as younger people (which being in university surrounded by hippies I feel I can represent their feelings) don't like to be repressed by "the man" or in this case I guess "the woman" there is an even stronger sentiment of separation and dislike of the United States.

[ModlrMike]

And as much as younger people (which being in university surrounded by hippies I feel I can represent their feelings) don't like to be repressed by "the man" or in this case I guess "the woman" there is an even stronger sentiment of separation and dislike of the United States.

Precisely, how do you feel you're being repressed?

[a78jumper]

While the current Queen has served long and honourably, I have little time for her adulterous heir and successor. A vote to end our association with a foreign monarch, though he/she would remain head of the Commonwealth of which we are a part. I certainly do not want Charles III's picture on my money and stamps.