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.
I think the issue is someone using the royal platform to push political positions. One of the fundamentals of a constitutional monarchy is the monarch and the royals more generally avoid politics. Would Harry be speaking at the UN if he wasn't the King's son?
I agree with that assessment on principle, but climate change is such a big deal that it shouldn’t be politically charged in the first place.
I think the issue is someone using the royal platform to push political positions. One of the fundamentals of a constitutional monarchy is the monarch and the royals more generally avoid politics. Would Harry be speaking at the UN if he wasn't the King's son?
I'm open to correction on this, but I think the UN has a slot for a celeb speaker every year. I certainly recall Angelina Jolie speaking.
Harry's dad was campaigning on environmental and architectural issues for as long as I can remember. Harry may be perceived in some quarters as having pedigree on the issue.
"We need to find a different title and a way that people can accept about their selection or election."
"Anyone got an idea of what model would be accepted enough to succeed at referendum?"
'Mein Fuhrer' perhaps ?
Referendums ar particulary tricky things to 'get up' in this country, and the 'Head of State' and the method of selection, the Powers of the Office, indeed just a simple thing as the Title is going to be contentious amongst Australians.
Prime Ministers like being Prime Ministers and I doubt any one of them, past, present or future want to see a watering down of the position of PM, even symbolically.
The Westminster system of democratic government is not particularly good....except its better than all the other democratic governmental systems.....[/quote]
'Gonna disagree there. The US system, which prevents cabinet ministers from voting in the legislature on their own department's proposals, provides better accountability and separation of powers.
Referendums ar particulary tricky things to 'get up' in this country, and the 'Head of State' and the method of selection, the Powers of the Office, indeed just a simple thing as the Title is going to be contentious amongst Australians.
Prime Ministers like being Prime Ministers and I doubt any one of them, past, present or future want to see a watering down of the position of PM, even symbolically.
The Westminster system of democratic government is not particularly good....except its better than all the other democratic governmental systems.....
'Gonna disagree there. The US system, which prevents cabinet ministers from voting in the legislature on their own department's proposals, provides better accountability and separation of powers.[/quote]
The Westminster system is party based...the Party with the majority of seats in the Lower House of Parliament forms the Government. Cabinet Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister and may come from the Lower and Upper Houses ( ie either MP's or Senators )and are duly sworn in to serve as Cabinet Ministers.
All are elected by electorally enrolled voters, and then appointed as Cabinet Ministers by the governing party.
All Cabinet Ministers are voted into office by the people at a Federal Election.
There are no outside Cabinet positions under the Westminster System of Democratic Government, one has to be a duly elected member of the Party commanding the majority of seats on the floor of the House.
In AU Cabinet Ministers are duly elected members of the House of Parliament, not appointed by the Executive and / or President as in the US system.......
'Gonna disagree there. The US system, which prevents cabinet ministers from voting in the legislature on their own department's proposals, provides better accountability and separation of powers.
The Westminster system is party based...the Party with the majority of seats in the Lower House of Parliament forms the Government. Cabinet Ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister and may come from the Lower and Upper Houses ( ie either MP's or Senators )and are duly sworn in to serve as Cabinet Ministers.
All are elected by electorally enrolled voters, and then appointed as Cabinet Ministers by the governing party.
All Cabinet Ministers are voted into office by the people at a Federal Election.
There are no outside Cabinet positions under the Westminster System of Democratic Government, one has to be a duly elected member of the Party commanding the majority of seats on the floor of the House.
In AU Cabinet Ministers are duly elected members of the House of Parliament, not appointed by the Executive and / or President as in the US system.......[/quote]
I understand the workings of the UK parliament and don't disagree with anything you've said here. I think you're either missing or ignoring the point I was making.
In parliamentary systems, the prime minister and all cabinet ministers get a double job as both executive branch officials and legislators. They get to put their finger on the scale of legislative votes in which they have a vested interest.
Neither the elected president nor the appointed cabinet members get to vote in Congress. That allows for better oversight and accountability. US cabinet members typically testify to two congressional oversight committees per year, more if there's controversy.
Harry's dad was campaigning on environmental and architectural issues for as long as I can remember. Harry may be perceived in some quarters as having pedigree on the issue.
Harry is as dumb as a dodo even by the low standards of European royalty. No one is seeking out his opinion if he's not the King's son. He and his C grade acting wife understand that all their "celeb status" is derived from being royal.
I think Australia should have another referendum on the subject now that Charles is king. With every passing year, Australia distances itself more and more from the UK. I think eventually it will become a republic in a similar way Barbados did last year. I think this will be a positive step for the country.
I think Australia should have another referendum on the subject now that Charles is king. With every passing year, Australia distances itself more and more from the UK. I think eventually it will become a republic in a similar way Barbados did last year. I think this will be a positive step for the country.
The new government is committed to another referendum. But as laid out in the constitution the vote must get an overall majority as well as a majority of states, ie four of the six states. That is a tall order and most past referendums have failed. Keep in mind we have compulsory voting, though I am not sure what impact that will have. The model has to be one which will appeal to most people and it is likely the vote will not happen for at least another four years.
The new government is committed to another referendum. But as laid out in the constitution the vote must get an overall majority as well as a majority of states, ie four of the six states. That is a tall order and most past referendums have failed. Keep in mind we have compulsory voting, though I am not sure what impact that will have. The model has to be one which will appeal to most people and it is likely the vote will not happen for at least another four years.
Would it work if they just rebranded the Governal General as president or just another title? And have the rest of the parliamentary system in tact? The new Australian head of state would perform the same duties as the governor General but just not be the monarch's representative. I think this is essentially what they did in Barbados. Would there be a reason why Australians wouldn't like that idea? What other alternatives have been proposed? It would also be interesting to see if opinions greatly differed between different states on becoming a republic.
Would it work if they just rebranded the Governal General as president or just another title? And have the rest of the parliamentary system in tact? The new Australian head of state would perform the same duties as the governor General but just not be the monarch's representative. I think this is essentially what they did in Barbados. Would there be a reason why Australians wouldn't like that idea? What other alternatives have been proposed? It would also be interesting to see if opinions greatly differed between different states on becoming a republic.
I think that was much the idea but what people could accept was the proposed model of how the President would be chosen. What was put forward was that the President would be chosen by Parliament, with a two-thirds majority required. I think a lot of republican supporters wanted a direct election of a President but again the issue is how the candidates would be chosen.
As it is, the state Governors and the Governor-General are appointed by the governments (I think) and most of us would have a hard to even remembering the names of our current state Governor and the G-G
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.
