king kong

no foreplay , thats extra .

Bernieboy

Ha ha so true,reminds me of the so called Irish freedom fighter's i went to school with who were adamant the brits should leave Ireland,but claimed everything thing they could off the brit gov,you name it they claimed it

MartinLuther

Did you leave Switzerland out of the Western World then?

Amazulu

And Germany.

Swerv-o

This assumes that they don't decide to move for an executive president like the USA has.

My feelings tell me that people wouldn't stand for an appointed Head of State, and that we would inevitably end up by spending a monstrous waste of money in electing somebody that has no opportunity to do anything.

I also think that a lot of people wouldn't understand the difference between a non-executive and an executive president, and would expect to see the new president doing something political...


S

Vash the Stampede

Since that would involve the abolition of the Prime Minister, we'd still be left with a single role. So no additional expense there; just the replacement of one guy with another.

We already have an appointed head of state, so I don't think Australians would care very much at all.

I think Australians already understand that difference. After all, we've had more than 100 years of the British monarchy doing sod all for our country, despite the fact that the British monarch is our head of state.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

So we have a President. Elected or appointed?. If elected then surely 'power' would begin to flow in the direction of the new role... otherwise it would be a pointless position. If its a pointless/powerless role then that's what's already in place.

king kong

is switzerland part of the western world ? i thought it was a bank

Centurion

Your correct. Thats what happened 10 years ago. Its not as simple as saying that back then people didnt want a republic, they did. However, the referendum question which was asked was something entirely different.

The question asked was whether Australia should become a republic with a head of state appointed by the government. Deliberately loaded many would argue by declared Royalist Johnny H. Were it a President appointed by the people that would be something else entirely I think.

Of course that said, I have a feeling that 10 years on quite a few more of the grey army will have shed this mortal coil and with a new generation of younger voters even that proposal might swing nowadays.

That and nobody wants a King Charles or his dodgy organic biscuits

ABCDiamond

Yep. That sounds like one reason why many people just aren't bothered.

MartinLuther

The Irish President is elected and she has less power than the GG. In theory the GG has the power to run Aus but by convention hands over that power to the elected government. This actually could be tidied up with a move to a president.

As Ireland made the transition from Monarchy to a Presidency through legal process then I can't see any reason why Aus can't do the same and end up with a president (elected or otherwise) whose only power is the reserve power to dissolve parliament and force elections in times of crisis.

Brav

"The Royal Navy is the second-largest navy of the NATO alliance, in terms of the combined displacement (approx. 400,000 tonnes) after the United States Navy.[3] There are currently 88 commissioned ships in the Royal Navy, including aircraft carriers, a helicopter carrier, landing platform docks, ballistic missile submarines, nuclear fleet submarines, guided missile destroyers, frigates, mine counter-measures and patrol vessels. Twenty-two vessels of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary also contribute to the Royal Navy's order-of-battle. The Royal Navy's ability to project power globally is considered second only to the U.S. Navy.[4][5] The Royal Navy maintains the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons."

ozzieeagle

Ever since the UK started to look to Europe rather than the Commonwealth, is the day that Australia had to fend for itself. Twas the UK that severed the alliance not the other way around.

Only politeness, a deference to history and old people keeping the fraying apron strings intact.

Australia is already in defacto republican mode....Just needs more belief that it really is the major player in the Southern Hemisphere.

As to when the paperwork goes through... doesnt really matter now as it's inevitable.

Just watch the ties with India and China get stronger and stronger.

king kong

i think indonesia may have something to say about being a major player ,plus a whole heap of other countrys south of the equater ,australia can bang its drum as loud as it likes at the moment becuase like britain its either 51st or 52nd state of america . Thats the realities if the proverbial hit the fan .
I have no doubt that the asian countries to the north look on australia as arrogant because of their perceived presumption that they know best for the southern hemisphere .

ozzieeagle

It's it Indonesia's own interest to keep Australia as it is... a close by political bridge to the slowly diminishing west. Meantime Australia will strengthen it's ties with the more powerful countries in Asia... China, Korea, and Japan, all of whom have a vested intereste in a stable and non moslim Australia.

Personally It's my theory, could be well wrong, that if Australia were really threated, the middle of Aus would open up like a thunderbird set... couresty of the good old USA. I could be well wrong on that one... but it wouldnt surprise me at all. The real test of the future of Aus, is it's ties with America... I can see it having to choose it's alliances very carefully in around 30-50 years.