Monarch Discussion | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Monarch Discussion

nikolasmia

Tiger Superstar
Sep 3, 2007
2,273
1,343
A Constitutional Monarchy may actually be one the best systems of government invented.

Certainly one of the most successful, enduring and stable

Those against it should provide an alternative that is superior

I am no monarchist by the way
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,730
A Constitutional Monarchy may actually be one the best systems of government invented.

Certainly one of the most successful, enduring and stable

Those against it should provide an alternative that is superior

I am no monarchist by the way
I certainly have heard that argument made. Scandinavian nations and the Netherlands (in addition to the UK) mentioned in those conversations.

So the argument goes. These countries have the benefit of gradual evolution, instead of the upheaval of a messy revolution. Obviously not the be all and end all of course.

I think this is why I can be convinced of the case for a Republic only if it can mirror closely elements of a constitutional monarchy, but essentially just removing hereditary succession.

It’s why I favour non direct election models for head of state, like that of Germany. In saying that, admittedly Ireland is one example of a Parliamentary system of government, with a directly elected head of state. But even then, the Irish seem to realise the pitfalls of this system. And the parties will at times put their heads together to put forward a single consensus nominee unopposed. Therefore no election is held. Or some may argue it the other way. The system allows flexibility for non-direct appointment if a consensus can be agreed. But if it can’t, the people decide.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

nikolasmia

Tiger Superstar
Sep 3, 2007
2,273
1,343
I certainly have heard that argument made. Scandinavian nations and the Netherlands (in addition to the UK) mentioned in those conversations.

So the argument goes. These countries have the benefit of gradual evolution, instead of the upheaval of a messy revolution. Obviously not the be all and end all of course.

I think this is why I can be convinced of the case for a Republic only if it can mirror closely elements of a constitutional monarchy, but essentially just removing hereditary succession.

It’s why I favour non direct election models for head of state, like that of Germany. In saying that, admittedly Ireland is one example of a Parliamentary system of government, with a directly elected head of state. But even then, the Irish seem to realise the pitfalls of this system. And the parties will at times put their heads together to put forward a single consensus nominee unopposed. Therefore no election is held. Or some may argue it the other way. The system allows flexibility for non-direct appointment if a consensus can be agreed. But if it can’t, the people decide.

The ancient Athenians invented democracy, yet understood the pitfalls, Plato favoured a system of government where philosophers were at the helm, but who chooses?

Not saying the monarchy isn't corrupt, but a popularity contest is dangerous and lends itself to very suboptimal outcomes, historically speaking

Trump for example, and there are many others.

No system is perfect, but being born to a job and being prepared for it, from birth does have its benefits. People like to complain, not sure, but the Queen may have been the most popular figurehead in the last 400 years, certainly the most enduring, long lasting, what did she see off, 13 PM's?

Flawed as it is, not sure there is a better system, especially in western world with its relative "freedoms"

The Queen had a job, not sure she could have done it much better, history will judge her in a positive light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

nikolasmia

Tiger Superstar
Sep 3, 2007
2,273
1,343
But that's not what I said at all Ian. I said that in the absence of religion, societies replace legacy religions with what amounts to a post god religion. It's like it's an innate human condition that we are unable to break the shackles of. That's my argument. I'm not talking of these regimes as worshiping atheism. Although atheism can be used as a tool for a period, to purge a society of religion, to then replace it with what I refer to as post god religions.

This is true,

Humans have to believe in something, the Queen is probably the most harmless and effective out of the alternative options
 

glantone

dog at the footy, punt rd end
Jun 5, 2007
1,386
433
On an individual basis in personal relationships, of course, no issue. But it does deeper than that. It steps over the line and becomes a problem if the institutions that we rely on to uphold our society actively subvert the central tenets of objective truth, logic and rational thought in order to accommodate such an ideology. And because much of what is espoused goes against objective reason, it ties itself in knots of contradictions trying to argue it's case. Hence, like religions of the middle ages, it ends up protecting itself by enshrining unquestionable dogma, which is enforced by uncompromising zealotry and the creep towards what amounts to secular heresy laws.

This is where Dawkins is very careful with his words and principals, so as to not be a hypocrite. He believes a society should be ruled by objective fact, reason, logic. Essentially (as you infer) pragmatism. Where he buts heads with the social justice movement (the so called 'woke' movement) is he sees them going down the same rabbit hole as religion by departing logic, reason and rational thought for forming a world view. And the fact that the so called 'progressive' or 'woke' establishment intertwines itself with atheism - which is a concept built on logic, rational thought and objective reason - opens it up to all sorts of knots of contradiction.
Nice post. Totally agree.
 

glantone

dog at the footy, punt rd end
Jun 5, 2007
1,386
433
Before we remove the union jack from our flag and puff out our republican chests we need a mutual defence treaty drawn up which commits England's military to defend us with all her might in the event of a Chinese attack. That, from my pov should be our priority.


The fact that someone as ill equiped and unreliable as Trump can be president means you can stick a fork in the US. It's well & truly cooked as a reliable partner.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,117
18,926
Before we remove the union jack from our flag and puff out our republican chests we need a mutual defence treaty drawn up which commits England's military to defend us with all her might in the event of a Chinese attack. That, from my pov should be our priority.

The fall of Singapore says Hello
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users

larabee

Tiger Champion
Jun 11, 2010
3,694
5,435
Tigerland
The fact that someone as ill equiped and unreliable as Trump can be president means you can stick a fork in the US. It's well & truly cooked as a reliable partner.

At least Trump was able to be voted out after 3 years.
What happens when an ill equipped, unreliable offspring in the royal family comes along - then your stuck with them until they die.

I'd rather an Australian as Head of State, and preferably not for life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,730
Before we remove the union jack from our flag and puff out our republican chests we need a mutual defence treaty drawn up which commits England's military to defend us with all her might in the event of a Chinese attack. That, from my pov should be our priority.


The fact that someone as ill equiped and unreliable as Trump can be president means you can stick a fork in the US. It's well & truly cooked as a reliable partner.
Australian defence policy is inept and has been for decades.

On the right side you have ‘all the way with the USA’ types. Who’s defence vision involves effectively ceding a large portion of sovereignty over foreign policy to the US, as the price that must be paid to remain under the US security umbrella. Being dragged into a vast array of conflicts of dubious morals and importance as a result.

Not only that, they agree to spending on an ADF who’s purpose is essentially just a plug in of the US military. Spending billions on the wrong things, if Australia ever wanted to create an ADF that could defend ourselves and our interests independently.

Perhaps a good tactical policy in the 1950s and good for 50-60 years. But 50 years is but a blip in human history. So not a great long term policy unless you think the US will be willing, able and trustworthy into eternity. The Trump experience is a warning that it’s a big gamble to take. Mind you it is the reason we’ve managed to get away with only 3% of GDP (at the most) being spent on defence. So convenient fiscal politics.

On the left side you have a mix of head in the sand, denial types. To naive, roll over belly up pacifists. And even those who’s hatred of the established order is so great, they would welcome a new hegemony, as if their enemy’s enemy is their friend.

What this means is that across the entire political spectrum our leaders have convinced the nation of the feeble mindset that we either cannot defend ourselves, or don’t want to.

If done right over decades, Australia is blessed with such geography, that if used correctly, is ideal to employ a porcupine defence strategy of self assured, armed neutrality. People often mistake armed neutrality for pacifism. It is actually something very different indeed. But it’s not warmongering either and doesn’t come cheaply. Certainly it would be a very different looking ADF if this was our strategy, rather than the US plug-in we have created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,525
17,883
Melbourne
Wow, this thread certainly went off the deep end.

Ok, on religion, I think it is time for this graphic:

26bece18682a31a0d030bde0f46877a79172d83225315970fcfed1f1dfc53965.jpg


Ok, that's sorted.

I reckon most Australians don't think we should be ruled by a foreign monarch.

Now, some of you may say, what's the problem?

When I was a kid, and I remember this still, some drunkard rep of the monarch sacked an Australian PM. An Australian PM who was voted in for a 3 year term with over 50% of the primary vote less than 1 year earlier. Think about that, some unelected deadshit over-ruled the people. Well, get stuffed, I don't ever want to see that sort of crap again.

Representative democracy has its flaws, not least that it ain't very representative. But it sure beats one person being able to over-rule everyone else.

Simple question - why does the Head of State need to be separate to the Head of Government? There's a lot of talk about how the GG or the King/Queen have just a ceremonial role and just about everything they do is on the advice of parliament or the executive council. Yeah, if that's the case why bother? Cut out the middle human, just let the parliament and/or cabinet decide. The Prime Minister is "appointed" by the GG on the advice of the House of Reps, well why do we need the GG to appoint the PM? We don't. Parliament should be the only body which can appoint or sack the government, not some unelected drunkard living high off the hog on our taxes. Completely unnecessary.

If people feel the need to have a separate Head of State then we should choose who it is, no-one else. The people are sovereign, no-one else, the people should choose the head of state if we have to have one.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,730
Wow, this thread certainly went off the deep end.

Ok, on religion, I think it is time for this graphic:

26bece18682a31a0d030bde0f46877a79172d83225315970fcfed1f1dfc53965.jpg


Ok, that's sorted.

I reckon most Australians don't think we should be ruled by a foreign monarch.

Now, some of you may say, what's the problem?

When I was a kid, and I remember this still, some drunkard rep of the monarch sacked an Australian PM. An Australian PM who was voted in for a 3 year term with over 50% of the primary vote less than 1 year earlier. Think about that, some unelected deadshit over-ruled the people. Well, get stuffed, I don't ever want to see that sort of crap again.

Representative democracy has its flaws, not least that it ain't very representative. But it sure beats one person being able to over-rule everyone else.

Simple question - why does the Head of State need to be separate to the Head of Government? There's a lot of talk about how the GG or the King/Queen have just a ceremonial role and just about everything they do is on the advice of parliament or the executive council. Yeah, if that's the case why bother? Cut out the middle human, just let the parliament and/or cabinet decide. The Prime Minister is "appointed" by the GG on the advice of the House of Reps, well why do we need the GG to appoint the PM? We don't. Parliament should be the only body which can appoint or sack the government, not some unelected drunkard living high off the hog on our taxes. Completely unnecessary.

If people feel the need to have a separate Head of State then we should choose who it is, no-one else. The people are sovereign, no-one else, the people should choose the head of state if we have to have one.

DS
Your point about one person having the power to sack the government. My earlier idea of a collective head of state (a federal council) had that in the back of my mind when I suggested it. As a safe guard against one power hungry drunkard.

Regarding your latter points. If you do away with a separate head of state, your system ceases to be a true Parliamentary system of government and you are delving into the realms of Presidential, even if not in name. Despite not being perfect (and we winge about our system) I believe it is superior to a Presidential system and in broad general terms, provides more stability too.

A separate head of state, serves a very important piece and safeguard of the overall system. And if we look to Germany’s model for example, some very important, limited reserve powers, meaning that the German President is essentially guardian of the constitution. It’s another check and balance above the dirty party politicking.


The below gives a good summation as to why I feel there is a great deal of importance a to keeping them separate.

“The separation between the parts of government that wield power and those that play a symbolic role is referred to by Bagehot as the difference between the dignified and efficient parts of government. The purpose of the dignified part, whether the person heading it is a monarch or a president or something else altogether, is to separate the part of government that is symbolic and worthy of reverence from the taint of dirty political work or failure. This preserves the basic structure, or “soul” of the state from the ever-changing tides of politics. Even a dictatorial regime such as Mussolini’s or the military in imperial Japan could not completely overtake the state because of the existence of a revered, dignified part of the government.”


In this context, the key is then, how to elect to the position in order to get a person that is genuinely outside of politics and above all of that. It’s not that easy to achieve so it seems. There are examples of both indirect (Germany) and direct (Ireland) methods that are worth examining. Or you could of course go somewhere in the middle where it is semi-direct. But I feel I’ll only vote for a republic model if I’m confident that this (a method that will deliver a neutral apolitical figure) will be achieved.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,525
17,883
Melbourne
But a Westminster system does not have separation of powers. All the members of the executive government (cabinet, ie: ministers) are members of parliament. You want a separation of legislature and executive you end up with the US system.

In any case, why are there reserve powers given to any body other than the elected parliament?

To say that a system which has no president who can over-ride parliament is somehow a presidential system is nonsensical. It is a system which is based more in parliament and less in some outside person/organisation/monarch/whatever.

The parliament is the representative of the people, the people are sovereign. The parliament can sack a government and appoint a new government (Menzies lost power this way, late 30s, early 40s can't remember which). Why should any person, or group of people, especially unelected, have power over the elected representatives of the people?

DS
 

Panthera Tigris

Tiger Champion
Apr 27, 2010
3,705
1,730
But a Westminster system does not have separation of powers. All the members of the executive government (cabinet, ie: ministers) are members of parliament. You want a separation of legislature and executive you end up with the US system.

In any case, why are there reserve powers given to any body other than the elected parliament?

To say that a system which has no president who can over-ride parliament is somehow a presidential system is nonsensical. It is a system which is based more in parliament and less in some outside person/organisation/monarch/whatever.

The parliament is the representative of the people, the people are sovereign. The parliament can sack a government and appoint a new government (Menzies lost power this way, late 30s, early 40s can't remember which). Why should any person, or group of people, especially unelected, have power over the elected representatives of the people?

DS
You’re right, not actually Presidential (poorly articulated on my part, being just on a little phone screen, not keyboard). Actually a hybrid of Presidential and Parliamentary, possibly getting some of the worst aspects of each. It certainly would lead to the PM gaining even more power and makes it even more of a ‘Presidential’ position than it has already evolved into, even if not the intent.

I maintain that a separate head of state is a fundamental safeguard of the Parliamentary system, as I outlined above post. Particularly if you consider the role to be a guardian of the constitution as is done in Germany, with some important reserve powers.

As is our normal discourse on 80% of topics we could go tit for tat for days, but will still disagree. So I’ll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,017
14,794
I'm coming at it more from observations of people on the most 'progressive' fringes of politics who espouse their atheism. But actual fact don't actually understand what atheism is. For them it's more just a tool to usurp legacy institutions of western society. Hence their blind spots around Islam. And descent into insane quackery of their social justice (so called 'woke') zealotry.

 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,017
14,794
Before we remove the union jack from our flag and puff out our republican chests we need a mutual defence treaty drawn up which commits England's military to defend us with all her might in the event of a Chinese attack. That, from my pov should be our priority.

The UK hasn't been interested in Asia since they handed HK back to the Chinese.

If you are expecting them to come to our defence against China, you are sadly mistaken. Unfortunately we need to rely on the US for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,525
17,883
Melbourne
You’re right, not actually Presidential (poorly articulated on my part, being just on a little phone screen, not keyboard). Actually a hybrid of Presidential and Parliamentary, possibly getting some of the worst aspects of each. It certainly would lead to the PM gaining even more power and makes it even more of a ‘Presidential’ position than it has already evolved into, even if not the intent.

I maintain that a separate head of state is a fundamental safeguard of the Parliamentary system, as I outlined above post. Particularly if you consider the role to be a guardian of the constitution as is done in Germany, with some important reserve powers.

As is our normal discourse on 80% of topics we could go tit for tat for days, but will still disagree. So I’ll leave it at that.

Agree to disagree is fine, just one more point ;)

The constitution is a legal document so safeguarding the rules, which is what the constitution is, should be a role the High Court can do.

There are always going to be trade offs in any system, where they occur matters, but is also a matter of opinion.

DS
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,525
17,883
Melbourne
The UK hasn't been interested in Asia since they handed HK back to the Chinese.

If you are expecting them to come to our defence against China, you are sadly mistaken. Unfortunately we need to rely on the US for that.

What we would be relying on would be the US, and also the UK along with others, working in their own self interest which is to maintain US hegemony.

In any case, if China was about to attack Australia, that would mean they have already over-run Taiwan, either over-run or made a close ally of Indonesia, PNG, Timor etc. Can't see the UK or even the US being a lot of use if that has already happened.

Also worth remembering what the Dibb Report said back in the 1980s - Australia is close to undefendable given the land size, variety of terrain etc . . . but for precisely the same reasons it is also close to unattackable. Yes, you can knock out the main cities and you can basically remove the government from control over Australia, but occupying the whole continent is another matter. Not only very difficult but also not worth the expense.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
27,017
14,794
What we would be relying on would be the US, and also the UK along with others, working in their own self interest which is to maintain US hegemony.

In any case, if China was about to attack Australia, that would mean they have already over-run Taiwan, either over-run or made a close ally of Indonesia, PNG, Timor etc. Can't see the UK or even the US being a lot of use if that has already happened.

Also worth remembering what the Dibb Report said back in the 1980s - Australia is close to undefendable given the land size, variety of terrain etc . . . but for precisely the same reasons it is also close to unattackable. Yes, you can knock out the main cities and you can basically remove the government from control over Australia, but occupying the whole continent is another matter. Not only very difficult but also not worth the expense.

DS

Very true.

The idea that China would invade Australia is nonsensical for the reasons you state. In any case, China does not operate in this way. They've always maintained that their territorial hegemony extends to their definition of China - even though this is contested - Mainland/Taiwan/HK/Tibet and so on. The idea of China (or Indonesia for that matter) "invading" Australia is a hangover from the mindset of the "yellow peril" - that we will be overrun by Asian countries with much bigger populations.

The Chinese operate more subtly - investment, education, bribery in order to exert influence. Southeast Asian countries will not ally with China - they, like us, will take Chinese investment but remain unaligned or non-aligned. Southeast Asian countries are officially neutral towards China but look instead informally to India as a growing power that would act as a counterbalance to China.

The real danger is that we are drawn into a war over Taiwan with all the negative consequences that would have for trade and politics in the region.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user