Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, I am biased toward the crown being head of state of NZ.
Having said that it seems that limited monarchies are the best form of government as said here.
( The most politically stable and free nations are limited monarchies - Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others.)
It was also interesting to see the countries with the lowest corruption level were also limited monarchies, yes it did apply only to those with fairly small populations.
So what do you prefer for NZ or Australia, a republic with the president being picked by his political friends in parliament or the status quo ?
Yes, if it was an open election with some one of the standing of Sir Edmund Hillary in the race that would make me pause, but I cannot see politicians in either NZ or Australia allowing the mug voters that much choice.
And yes, I was bemused to see the Canadian GG allow parliament to close without a house vote to see if Harper had the confidence of the house last year.
First, I am biased toward the crown being head of state of NZ.
Having said that it seems that limited monarchies are the best form of government as said here.
( The most politically stable and free nations are limited monarchies - Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others.)
It was also interesting to see the countries with the lowest corruption level were also limited monarchies, yes it did apply only to those with fairly small populations.
So what do you prefer for NZ or Australia, a republic with the president being picked by his political friends in parliament or the status quo ?
Yes, if it was an open election with some one of the standing of Sir Edmund Hillary in the race that would make me pause, but I cannot see politicians in either NZ or Australia allowing the mug voters that much choice.
And yes, I was bemused to see the Canadian GG allow parliament to close without a house vote to see if Harper had the confidence of the house last year.
Your a lost cause mate. Maybe you should go back to the Uk where you can kiss some royal arse. That royal crap does not belong in Australia or NZ.
The only reason the last referendum in Australia did not pass on a Aust republic was the model offered whereby the parliament would choose the president this model was rejected by the Aus people. if it was a people elected president then it will most likely carry.
I will be among the millions cracking the champagne bottles when NZ and Australia finally get rid of its connection to the monarchy garbage from old oppressive class dominated Britain.
To me until they get rid of the monarchy, Australia and NZ are just children states.
Doesn't make a lick of sense to be politically owned by a country 12000 miles away and especially by a monarchy that thinks of Australians and Kiwis as uncouth animals.
To me until they get rid of the monarchy, Australia and NZ are just children states.
Doesn't make a lick of sense to be politically owned by a country 12000 miles away and especially by a monarchy that thinks of Australians and Kiwis as uncouth animals.
Yes I agree , the politicians are out of touch with the wishes of the aus people in quite a few ways. the same is propably true in NZ
when they do finally get rid of it there needs to be fivefold changes
1. no more ties to monarchy or britain other than as old friends
2. changed flag
3. new constitution
4.new insignia for police and military
5. amendments to foreign ownership laws re companies
Unless the whole 5 happen there will be no real gain and astute observers from other countries wont pay it much credence
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
In practice it wouldn't make much difference if we were to switch to a Republic, but it's a symbolic breaking away from our 'parent' so to speak. To think, America fought a war to be in the position it's in now. And many Aussies are kind of blaise about being independent. In light of where we are now, a Republic does indeed make more sense. Some people may have sentimentality for the Queen, but when the baton is handed over to Prince Charles or whoever the case may be, I'm sure support for the monarchy will drop precipitously. Right now, our links to the monarchy are out of a perceived sense of loyalty/gratefulness to the Crown, and sentimentality towards the Queen and the Royals. I think a Republican is the way to go.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,068,476 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby
First, I am biased toward the crown being head of state of NZ.
Having said that it seems that limited monarchies are the best form of government as said here.
( The most politically stable and free nations are limited monarchies - Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, among others.)
It was also interesting to see the countries with the lowest corruption level were also limited monarchies, yes it did apply only to those with fairly small populations.
So what do you prefer for NZ or Australia, a republic with the president being picked by his political friends in parliament or the status quo ?
Yes, if it was an open election with some one of the standing of Sir Edmund Hillary in the race that would make me pause, but I cannot see politicians in either NZ or Australia allowing the mug voters that much choice.
And yes, I was bemused to see the Canadian GG allow parliament to close without a house vote to see if Harper had the confidence of the house last year.
That old system they tested by the referendum in 1998 or 1999
Why would we have such a system anyway? It was tested in the previous referendum and the people clearly said they didn't want that type of republic (just the type staunch monarchist Johnny Howard wanted to present to the public). I'm sure we can come up with a much better system. We can learn from the mistakes of other countries.
I used to suport a republic but now I realise it won't change anything- we will have the same politicians in parliament regardless of the form of government.
And, at the moment, I prefer Liz to Quintin as our head-of-state.
It is a fact that in the Westminster system Prime Ministers do not like any other elected person stealing the limelight. So the chances of any Aussie or Kiwi PM being keen on an elected President are slim. Now, who do you trust among the present crop of politicians to be selected by them to be head of state. Yes, I have noticed that we ex military types tend to be keener on the Monarchy than others.
We are already "The Peoples Republic of Australia".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) elected PM
