Australians, unite! (Republican debate)

[Gottservant]

Hello and G'day,

All you wonderful Australians encourage me to keep going - I really appreciate your spirit and hope.

But we have to start a conversation: how long are we going to secede to a foreign nation?

Our culture is ours, it should not be someone else's, but by choice?

I'm talking about England: they landed here, but gave us no autonomy of our own!

I'm not going to chew you out if you have your own reasons, its just that I am a little tempted to know what they possibly could be - care to share?

The peace of Jesus be upon you and throughout your days.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hello and G'day,

All you wonderful Australians encourage me to keep going - I really appreciate your spirit and hope.

But we have to start a conversation: how long are we going to secede to a foreign nation?

Our culture is ours, it should not be someone else's, but by choice?

I'm talking about England: they landed here, but gave us no autonomy of our own!

I'm not going to chew you out if you have your own reasons, its just that I am a little tempted to know what they possibly could be - care to share?

The peace of Jesus be upon you and throughout your days.

God ordains leaders. We mess with God's ordering at our own peril. If Australia does move to a republic, what will we have instead? If France, Canada, a host of African nations, North Korea, China and even the good ole USA are examples, I suggest that we are better off as we are. We are not saddled with a President, who is either a pointless figurehead or an overbearing autocrat. Her Majesty does not interfere with Australia's government. And God used the Governor General at the time to rid this nation of the worst PM in out history - Gough Whitlam. If it's not broken, don't try to fix it. Australia rejected the republic model some years ago.

We need all the friends we can get. The US is our ally, but I have no assurance that they will have our backs if there is conflict with China. The UK is supplying highly advanced warships for Australia's defence. They may well be the supplier of the nuclear submarines that will eventually be procured for the RAN. "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition" (Pearl Harbor) is still the best strategy. We cannot overcome China alone.

 

[Gottservant]

God ordains leaders.

1 point: A leader beholden to another, is a mascot, not a leader.

We need all the friends we can get.

2 point: what true friend is there, but one who sees you as you are?

Thanks for sharing your faith, you made some good arguments. I don't know, for me, anything that is not the foundation, is not the foundation.

 

[Aussie Pete]

1 point: A leader beholden to another, is a mascot, not a leader.




2 point: what true friend is there, but one who sees you as you are?

Thanks for sharing your faith, you made some good arguments. I don't know, for me, anything that is not the foundation, is not the foundation.

In that case we should all be under Aboriginal law. No thanks.

 

[Gottservant]

In that case we should all be under Aboriginal law. No thanks.

The Aborigines would be better off without England, the same as us.

(but do I detect, a little jest? that we have no law of our own?)

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Aborigines would be better off without England, the same as us.

(but do I detect, a little jest? that we have no law of our own?)

I'm just following your logic. Non Aborigines are invaders. They brought foreign laws and form of government to the land. To be consistent with your logic, we should give the land back to the blacks, as they used to say in the 50's and 60's. It was an expression of disgust with the governments of the time.

I married a woman who was part Aborigine. My two children identify as Aborigine. I have nothing against Aborigines. But I do doubt their capacity to govern a nation that is primarily Western in culture and government.

The influence of the UK on Australian life is near zero. And that influence is mostly ceremonial. I can see no reason the change the status quo. Change for the sake of change is pointless.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm just following your logic. Non Aborigines are invaders. They brought foreign laws and form of government to the land. To be consistent with your logic, we should give the land back to the blacks, as they used to say in the 50's and 60's. It was an expression of disgust with the governments of the time.

I married a woman who was part Aborigine. My two children identify as Aborigine. I have nothing against Aborigines. But I do doubt their capacity to govern a nation that is primarily Western in culture and government.

The influence of the UK on Australian life is near zero. And that influence is mostly ceremonial. I can see no reason the change the status quo. Change for the sake of change is pointless.

No (and I am keeping debate to a minimum deliberately here) there is a cultural under-pining of lawful expectation that you are not (at least initially) doing anything to bring to light - you could bring it to light, but you are happy to say "I am invested, in Australia" and saying nothing further: that helps you, but who else does it help?

What about the young, that need examples, the elderly that need constant care, the heroes that get spat upon because their work is taken for granted, the do gooders that are told the work they do is imaginary, the leaders that can't read their constituencies expectations, because they are layered and complex, without any expectation, the poor that want social recognition to keep them from suicide and they just don't get it, the people who rally to the leader's side only to be told that a small fraction of the public objects, I could go on - the Devil has taken hold of this country, the angels of the Devil have divided this country into dated cultural boundaries, with no future of their own, evil upon evil done in the name of just pushing ahead, who welcome the Aborigine and the foreigner as cultural chattel, and a not a far stronger bond of mateship that identifies them as better than those who have come to them, seeking shelter and provision.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

Interesting topic.
---
It seems that there are many countries- (in commonwealth of nations).
---
I was in Australia & NZ..some years ago.
- Short trip.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello and G'day,

All you wonderful Australians encourage me to keep going - I really appreciate your spirit and hope.

But we have to start a conversation: how long are we going to secede to a foreign nation?

Our culture is ours, it should not be someone else's, but by choice?

I'm talking about England: they landed here, but gave us no autonomy of our own!

I'm not going to chew you out if you have your own reasons, its just that I am a little tempted to know what they possibly could be - care to share?

The peace of Jesus be upon you and throughout your days.

Most people arriving in Australia have no association with the Queen. Our link to England will be broken in time, you don't have long to wait.

I would not agree that we have a culture of our own. Australia is a very young country and I don't think we have had time to develop a distinct culture.

As far as I am concerned, Australia has some marked advantages that most other countries do not have.

1) No common border with another country
2) Vast resources embedded in a large country
3) A near perfect climate which not many countries are fortunate enough to have
4) A relatively small population but growing unfortunately
5) A free medical system
6) World class universities
7) Beaches with sand not pebbles
8) An ally of the most powerful country in the world
9) We also lack the divisions in society which other countries have
10) We have the Ashes Test approaching!
11) I could go, on and on, for hours

 

[Gottservant]

a distinct culture.

A distinct culture - you said it!

See? We can do this.

11) I could go, on and on, for hours

Amen and Amen.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

We need all the friends we can get. The US is our ally, but I have no assurance that they will have our backs if there is conflict with China.

I'm sorry to hear that. I believe my country the US should do its best to reign in China as far as its global ambitions to dominate the World (when it has actually done the opposite as far as building China up to get its business), but unfortunately their are some folks in my country that seem OK with China being an unscrupulous Super Power, and are more or less OK with letting it do what it wants just as long as it keeps us out of war, and lets us spend all our money on welfare programs and "Build Back Better" green energy projects.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I think we should be a republic. But I'd be a pariah if I really made my thoughts known.

Let's just say I think we Europeans (mostly Anglo-Saxon at that) were put here in a caretaker role, between the original indigenous population and what will be our eventual Asian dominated culture.

Unlike the USA which has a population of about 330 million and the world's strongest military, we've never developed a large population or a strong military.

According to the 2016 census, around 82% of Australians nominated British or Australian ancestry as their origin, with the "Australian" content being about 31%. I'd imagine that a significant portion of that group would also have been of British origin.

Ancestry | Australia | Community profile

We're a European outpost in an Asian sea. We have about 25 million people.

Indonesia our nearest neighbour has 255 million people, China has 1.37 billion, India has 1.3 billion, Japan 126 million, and the Philippines 103 million.

Recently former Prime Minister Paul Keating stated that -

... Scott Morrison’s Coalition government was wrongly “trying to find our security from Asia rather than in Asia”.

‘Throwing toothpicks at the mountain’: Paul Keating says Aukus submarines plan will have no impact on China

You may or may not agree with his speech, but Australia needs to indulge in some "real-politic" as I think the Germans call it.

Including becoming a republic.

 

[Malleeboy]

If we had another election on becoming a republic than the no side add writes itself.

Alternating pictures of QEII (and even other monarchs) and various current or recent Presidents of other countries

Duterte, Mugabe, Putin, Trump, Biden,

v

QEII, Queen Margrethe, Queen Beatrix, Carl 16, etc

Monarchs just make better heads of state then politicians

 

[Bob Crowley]

Monarchs today don't have to do the dirty work that politicians do. They're mainly window dressing these days; visible and traditional rallying points for their nation.

But when they had executive power of their own, way back in the good old days of the "divine right of kings", they could be as unethical and self-serving as any politician. King Henry VIII was an absolute mongrel in my opinion.

One of the first steps towards democracy was because the feudal lords in England didn't trust King John. The Magna Carta wasn't promulgated for the benefit of the ordinary people - they could go on being serfs as far as the barons were concerned, but it did allegedly guarantee some rights for the nobles and the church.

There are different presidential models other than the over-hyped (and too powerful) US executive type. France has a semi-presidential model (currently Emmanuel Macron, with whom our PM had a difference of opinion about a cancelled submarine contract). Slovenia's president is Borut Pahor, whose main role seems to be putting out poses on Instagram and other media outlets (he was a model in a previous life).

If we became an Australian Republic, we would need to be careful what form of Presidency we chose, how much power the President would have, how he would be chosen, how long his or her tenure would last, and how often.

 

[Aussie Pete]

I think we should be a republic. But I'd be a pariah if I really made my thoughts known.

Let's just say I think we Europeans (mostly Anglo-Saxon at that) were put here in a caretaker role, between the original indigenous population and what will be our eventual Asian dominated culture.

Unlike the USA which has a population of about 330 million and the world's strongest military, we've never developed a large population or a strong military.

According to the 2016 census, around 82% of Australians nominated British or Australian ancestry as their origin, with the "Australian" content being about 31%. I'd imagine that a significant portion of that group would also have been of British origin.

Ancestry | Australia | Community profile

We're a European outpost in an Asian sea. We have about 25 million people.

Indonesia our nearest neighbour has 255 million people, China has 1.37 billion, India has 1.3 billion, Japan 126 million, and the Philippines 103 million.

Recently former Prime Minister Paul Keating stated that -



‘Throwing toothpicks at the mountain’: Paul Keating says Aukus submarines plan will have no impact on China

You may or may not agree with his speech, but Australia needs to indulge in some "real-politic" as I think the Germans call it.

Including becoming a republic.

With respect to Paul Keating, he is out of touch with reality. Australia needs a strong military so that it will never have to use it. Australia has probable the best non nuclear subs around. However, they are reaching end of life. A country Australia's size needs something with a range that diesel electric will never have. Maybe he forgets that China has bases in Africa, so our protection by distance is reduced.

I don't believe that Australia could defend itself against a full on attack from China. What we could do is make it too costly. For now, China needs the rest of the world in order to maintain its economy.

I think the current climate is beneficial for Australia. It's awakened us to what everyone but the pollies and business knew already. We depend way too much on imports and we have way too little local manufacturing. We can't even make car tyres here any more. Globalisation only works when all nations are seeking peaceful coexistence. China has stepped aside from that at present. I don't know how long this will last as China's economy may suffer from their aggression. I won't be buying a Chinese EV for my next car, for example.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Monarchs today don't have to do the dirty work that politicians do. They're mainly window dressing these days; visible and traditional rallying points for their nation.

But when they had executive power of their own, way back in the good old days of the "divine right of kings", they could be as unethical and self-serving as any politician. King Henry VIII was an absolute mongrel in my opinion.

One of the first steps towards democracy was because the feudal lords in England didn't trust King John. The Magna Carta wasn't promulgated for the benefit of the ordinary people - they could go on being serfs as far as the barons were concerned, but it did allegedly guarantee some rights for the nobles and the church.

There are different presidential models other than the over-hyped (and too powerful) US executive type. France has a semi-presidential model (currently Emmanuel Macron, with whom our PM had a difference of opinion about a cancelled submarine contract). Slovenia's president is Borut Pahor, whose main role seems to be putting out poses on Instagram and other media outlets (he was a model in a previous life).

If we became an Australian Republic, we would need to be careful what form of Presidency we chose, how much power the President would have, how he would be chosen, how long his or her tenure would last, and how often.

I just don't see the point of change for the sake of it. And that is the reality. We don't need a Putin type, politicians will choose someone who suits them, not the citizens and all this will be paid for by the Australian taxpayer. And for what? So we can sack the federal and state governors-general? Sure, that will probably pay for a head of state. Or do we have state presidents to take over role of governors-general?

The current system works. Leave it alone.

 

[Bob Crowley]

With respect to Paul Keating, he is out of touch with reality. Australia needs a strong military so that it will never have to use it. Australia has probable the best non nuclear subs around. However, they are reaching end of life. A country Australia's size needs something with a range that diesel electric will never have. Maybe he forgets that China has bases in Africa, so our protection by distance is reduced.

I'm currently reading a book "How to Defend Australia" by Hugh White. He addressed the submarine issue briefly. It was published in 2019 before the submarine fracas with France hit the fan.

He wrote "Several countries, including France and America, build nuclear-powered submarines that would meet our needs... we could buy the French Barracuda design with its nuclear power plant ... There have been hints that this is what some people involved in the program had in mind all along....

(but if we don't build our own) ... our submarine capability would be hostage to strategic priorities in Washington or Paris."

He also pointed out that to effectively guard the archipelago to our north from enemy warships, we'd probably need about 24 submarines, of which only six would be on active duty at any one time.

I think Keating is right - twelve submarines (and it will probably take 20 years before we even get them) will be a pinprick against a major power like China.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I just don't see the point of change for the sake of it. And that is the reality. We don't need a Putin type, politicians will choose someone who suits them, not the citizens and all this will be paid for by the Australian taxpayer. And for what? So we can sack the federal and state governors-general? Sure, that will probably pay for a head of state. Or do we have state presidents to take over role of governors-general?

The current system works. Leave it alone.

I'm a pessimist about eternal Australian sovereignty in the long run. As I noted before we're a large land with a small population in an Asian sea. I think sooner or later we're going to be dominated by an Asian power, and I fail to see how we can avoid it.

What we can do is decide which Asian power we'd prefer to be "close partners" with and start moving in that direction.

It would be a lot easier to do that if we were a Republic, and not referring decisions to the British crown and parliament on the other side of the world.

I think we're going to be faced with some hard choices long before this century is out, and quite possibly within your and my lifetimes.

 

[Gottservant]

You can't compromise a king, you have chosen on your own.

Australia may not appear broke, but if its a facade, it's only a matter of time (before something gets very broke).

It's not just us, the whole world is waiting for us to show a sense of purpose, that will do our God proud.

 

[Paidiske]

Personally, I am cynical enough to think that any system we put in place of the monarchy as head of state is likely to be no better, and probably worse.

@Bob Crowley makes an interesting point about choosing now which Asian power might be our best long term ally, but to be honest, I think for most Australians a move away from the Anglosphere as our base of identity is still unthinkable. Australians as a whole are very culturally insular.